The Bears got their man, or did they? Mike Martz was the 7th man the Bears either interviewed or attempted to interview for their offensive coordinator vacancy. I suppose they'll say they saved the best for last. What else can they say?
What's ironic is that Dave McGinnis had Martz lined up to be the Bears offensive coordinator in 1999 when the Bears were on the verge of hiring McGinnis to succeed Dave Wannstedt as head coach. But it all fell apart when Michael McCaskey botched the hiring by calling a news conference to name McGinnis the head coach BEFORE he made him an offer. The offer was a low-ball deal for one year. When McGinnis told McCaskey he couldn't hire a staff with a one-year deal, McCaskey told him, "You don't have to tell them." McGinnis walked and Martz wound up as the offensive coordinator with the St.Louis Rams. A year later, he succeeded Dick Vermeil as head coach, so it proved to be a lucky turn of events for Martz.
16 Comments
Jon said:
"Cutler hasn't had a winning season since high school"
I have seen this tossed around a bit, and I just don't get it. I believe Vanderbilt has had about 3-4 winning seasons the past half decade. Can you really throw that on Cutler? He did though win SEC player of the year, which is indeed impressive. In Denver it was the defense that let that team down year after year. All I hear is that "Kyle Orton" wins games, yet the Broncos had the same record this past season despite a defense that improved ten fold.
Brad Palmer said:
Jay Cutler's record is what it is regardless of any extenuating circumstances. Kyle Orton doesn't have the arm Cutler has, but he has played smarter. Orton was 21-12 as a starter for the Bears. Cutler was 7-9 for a Bears team that most people (not me) thought were a cinch to make the playoffs and possibly get to the Super Bowl. I don't see the Bears having a winning record in 2010, either. They just aren't that good. Cutler hasn't proven to be a difference-maker. Now the Bears and their fans are hoping Mike Martz will be. I expect to see some improvement in the Bears offense, but not enough to make a difference.
FrankS said:
Harrumph. Won-loss records for quarterbacks is like using won-loss records to measure pitchers. It's a team stat, not an individual stat. A quarterback or a pitcher can have a great game and still lose because other parts of his team aren't good enough in that particular contest.
As someone pointed out, Orton played on a Denver team that had a much better defense than the teams that Cutler played with there, yet he only managed an 8-8 record (and that was after starting 6-0). So Orton, the guy with the better team and supposedly being the smarter QB couldn't manage a better record.
For all it matters, take a look at Rex Grossman's record as a Bears starter. He was 19-12 as a starter and nobody had any trouble chasing him out of town.
TEAMS win games, not individuals. Sometimes individual players can have a major impact toward winning or losing, but the end result is still on the team.
Brad Palmer said:
Face the facts, Frank, the Broncos offense performed better with Orton than Cutler, while the Bears offense performed worse with Cutler than Orton. Culter was supposed to make the Bears better, wasn't he? The Bears were touted to go deep in the playoffs. Denver was the subject of ridicule. Cutler was 7-9 as the Bears starter. Orton was 8-7 as the Broncos starter, and likely would have gone 9-6 had he not gotten hurt against Washington. The Broncos led 17-14 at the half when Chris Simms replaced an injured Orton. The Broncos got shutout in the second half and lost. The best measure of passing efficiency is yards/per pass play. It has nothing to do with how a team's defense is performing. Orton averaged 6.4 yards every time he dropped back to pass. Cutler averaged 5.9. The league average is 6.2. Orton's QB Rating was 86.9 (14th in the NFL); Cutler's was 76.8 (21st). He also threw 26 interceptions; Orton only 12. I believe the Bears would have done just as well, if not better, had they kept Orton. Regardless, Cutler sure wasn't worth the 1st and 3rd round draft picks the Bears gave up to get him. As for teams winning games and not individuals, that basically true. But where would the Colts be without Peyton Manning or the Saints without Drew Brees? Quarterback is the most important position on a team and the highest paid. The successful ones play smart, make good decisions, and lead. I haven't seen any of those attributes in Jay Cutler. Have you? Maybe Mike Martz can find a way to help Cutler realize his potential.
FrankS said:
You're comparing apples and oranges when you compare Orton's stats with Denver to Cutler's stats with Chicago. If Cutler had had Denver's receiving corps in Chicago, he might have put up a lot more yards and had a lot fewer picks.
You say that the Denver offense was better with Orton than it was with Cutler. With Orton, the Denver offense scored 326 points and gained 5463 yards. With Cutler, the Denver offense scored 370 points and gained 6333 yards. Those differences are fairly substantial. Orton had a better QB rating by 0.8, about 1 percent. Meanwhile, Cutler had a better N/YA at 7.1 with Denver compared to Orton's 6.4.
Would Orton have put up an 86.8 rating if he had been quarterbacking in Chicago? I doubt it. Was the trade worth it? Tough to say at this point. I do think it was stupid for the Bears to hang onto Lovie when they have such a large investment in Cutler. Having him constantly working with new coordinators isn't going to help.
And it doesn't help your quarterback when your receiving corps would be lucky to be second team on most NFL teams. Or that they would run wrong routes or quit on routes. How many of those 26 picks were the fault of poor receiver play?
Cutler had a bad year. There's no doubt about that. He still has far more potential as a quarterback than Kyle Orton. And did Jerry Angelo overpay for him? Without a doubt. I thought Jerry should have lost his job along with Lovie and Ted Philips at the end of last season. I think the only hope this franchise has to be successful is for the McCaskey clan to sell it.
Brad Palmer said:
Frank, the last paragraph of your comment is almost right on. Selling the team is the only long-term solution to the Bears problems, as the McCaskeys don't have it in them to give free rein to someone that can turn them into an efficient, competent organization. As I've stated many times with 100 percent assuredness, Ted Phillips is nothing more than a "front man", so don't blame him for the Bears woes. If it wasn't for him, the Soldier Field deal would never have gotten done. Phillips doesn't do anything without the Michael McCaskey's approval. Michael is STILL the man in charge and the only person his mother, Virginia, relies on. The media hasn't been able to find the source willing to confirm that, but I'm telling you that that is the way it is at Halas Hall. As for Cutler's 26 interceptions, Ron Jaworski reviewed every one of them at NFL Films. He concluded that 21 of them were Cutler's fault, 5 were the fault of the receivers, and none could be blamed on the offensive line. Take that and everything I said for whatever it's worth. I appreciate your interest and share your passion for the game.
FrankS said:
Is the Soldier Field deal really something we want to hang on Phillips? The new stadium has one of the smaller, if not smallest, seating capacities in the NFL. This deprives the Bears of a lot of revenue. It is also architecturally divisive. Maybe it is terrific on the inside, but the exterior is horrid. And let's not even talk about the abysmal playing surface.
I wouldn't doubt that Michael McCaskey still has a major say in what goes on with the Bears. If he didn't, then the Bears should have hired a real football man instead of Phillips to take his place.
I will acknowledge that Jaworski is more qualified than me to review Cutler's interceptions. I would like to know what methodology he used to make that break down. Did he consult with Turner, Cutler or the receivers to know whether the receivers ran the correct routes and that they made the correct adjustments? Sometimes errors of that sort aren't obvious on game film. And without a doubt most of the picks are on Cutler no matter how you slice it, but if he had had better receivers I'm fairly sure he'd had less interceptions.
I will also point out that if the Bears had run more plays that used his strengths, the results may have been better. I wasn't the only voice (both OB and Buffone were very vocal on this issue) screaming that Bears should have run more roll-outs and bootlegs for Cutler. Other than with Eric Kramer, Ron Turner never seemed able to get the best out of his quarterbacks.
And here is a case where scouting let the Bears down. Some QB's are great under pressure. Look at Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay. But Cutler isn't that kind of QB. He often becomes antsy in the pocket and that is another reason to move the pocket or roll him out. The Bears' brain trust should have been able to recognize Jay's pocket presence and planned for it.
I don't know that Martz can "fix" him because Martz's system doesn't play to Jay's strengths and it doesn't sound like Martz is flexible enough to adjust his system. It could get really ugly this year if Cutler doesn't adapt well.
As you probably know, Bobby DePaul was fired from the Bears. It was interesting to read in The Tribune how DePaul engineered the trade for Cutler. As if Jerry Angelo wasn't the one who said right after the 2008 season that the Bears needed to get better at quarterback and as if Angelo wasn't the one he signed off on every aspect of the Cutler trade. It is interesting to see how it is everybody else fault but the men in charge with the Bears.
What I see in Cutler is a very talented quarterback. What I see in the Bears organization is their inability to harness and harvest that talent. Despite the fact that they have pretty much committed to Jay Cutler at quarterback for 5 years, we'll probably never see them build an offense around him that develops and enhances his strengths at the quarterback position. The Bears' future was doomed once the McCaskey family decided to retain Angelo and Smith.
And if all the McCaskeys want the team to be is just good enough for the playoffs once in a while instead of being a dominant team that wins Super Bowls often, then maybe they should have kept Orton. Because Orton can be good, but Cutler can be great. You have to be willing to commit to building your offense around Cutler to get that greatness.
Thanks for the exchange of viewpoints.
Brad Palmer said:
Frank, you have failed to grasp the logistics regarding the rennovation of Soldier Field. The Bears had no place to go. Mayor Daley wouldn't allow Soldier Field to be torn down to make way for a bigger stadium since it was a war memorial. The McCaskeys didn't have the money to built their own stadium. The lions share of their wealth is in the equity of the club. They don't cash in until they sell. Their only alternative was to be part of a Soldier Field rennovation using municapal bonds or tax dollars. Mayor Daley broke off negotiations with Michael McCaskey, finding him too arrogant and unreasonable. It was about the time Virginia "fired" Michael for bothching the Davis McGinnis signing and turning the Bears into a laughingstock. So, Virginia killed two birds with one stone. She moved Michael behind the curtain and out of the publc spotlight and let Ted Phillips reach a deal with Daley. There was also state money involved. The Bears got Governor Ryan's support by agreeing to move their training camp into Ryan's "backyard" at Bourbannais. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can be so POSITIVE about Jay Cutler and yet so cynical about most everyone else, including Ron Jaworski's analysis. You have made just about every excuse immaginable, some valid. You also stated, "It is interesting to see how it is everybody else's fault but the men in charge with the Bears." Isn't that what you are saying in reference to Cutler? At what point do you hold him accountable? Does he have to replace Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Tom Brady? We agree that the Bears were and remain a BAD organization. I said just that to Rich King a number of years ago while sitting in the press box during a game. The man in front of us overhead the comment and turned around to give me the stink eye. It was Bobby DePaul.
FrankS said:
If Michael McCaskey was "arrogant" because he was against the "Spaceship on the Lake" concept, then that would be ONE time he was right. I really don't care what the logistics were. It is an ugly stadium with a small seating capacity. And I didn't blame Phillips for it. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't want to take credit for it on my own resume. In my opinion it's a boondoggle. I'm all for putting the blame on Daley if you like.
Brad, I conceded that Jaws is a better judge than I am, but if he doesn't know everything that was supposed to happen on those plays, then it is difficult to properly assess blame. I also conceded that Jay was to blame for most of his interceptions.
With that being said, had the Bears played to his strengths, I think Cutler would have had a much better season. Hey, Brett Favre is going to the Hall of Fame if he ever retires and he threw 29 picks in a season. Most quarterbacks have bad seasons. Peyton Manning had seasons of 28 and 23 picks. I'm sure they are readying his spot in Canton.
Here's why I'm positive regarding Jay Cutler. During his time in Denver in an offensive system that was tuned to his best abilities, he was an above average quarterback. He'll only be 27 years old this season so he is heading into his prime as an athlete. If the Bears put the right offensive system in place and put the right people into that system, he can be as good as any quarterback in the league. Most people don't feel that way about Orton. Maybe you don't feel that way about Cutler, but he has the physical tools that Orton doesn't have. Of course, my biggest fear is that a dysfunctional Bears organization will never put all the pieces in place.
Regarding DePaul, I had to drive somewhere this afternoon and turned on The Score. Terry Boers said several times that DePaul was about the only person with any intelligence in the Bears organization. So perhaps he took your comments personally.
Brad Palmer said:
Frank, I've enjoyed our dialogue and there's not much left to be said, so I'll end with this: there is more to quarterbacking than physical ability (Ryan Leaf is but one example). Up to now, Jay Cutler has wasted his physical attributes due to a lack of maturity, instincts, leadership, you name it. He earned a reputation at Denver as a first class jerk, both on and off the field. One veteran Broncos assistant called him "the biggest asshole he had encountered in all his years in coaching." Cutler was kicked out of an exclusive country club in Denver for openly defying the dress code. The manager refunded his $100,000 initiation fee while Jay was having lunch with some of his buddies, telling Cutler he was no longer welcome. His behavior on the Chicago bar scene and pickup lines has also had people shaking their heads. In short, Cutler needs to grow up. It could happen, but my experience is that most people are who they are and don't change. Feel free to have the last word on this subject and then let's move on.
FrankS said:
I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Cutler has wasted his talent. After all, he had a QB rating of 87+ for his time in Denver. I do concede he has yet to reach his full potential and it is entirely possible that he will not.
If all that you say is true about Cutler's behavior, then the Bears organization deserves even more disdain because part of scouting is to discern the character of your potential employees. But they have a history of miscalculating on character when you look at drafting Cedric Benson among others.
On the other hand, Jim McMahon is a boor and many Bear fans still think he is a god. So winning can make up for a multitude of sins.
I've never claimed that Cutler is perfect or that he wasn't to blame for most of his interceptions last year. But because of the contract he signed, the Bears are probably committed to him for several more years. And if I am going to have any hope at all with the Bears, I have to see Jay with a glass half-full attitude. Let's hope that Martz is the kind of father figure that makes Jay move forward in the maturation process.
Chicago Expatriate said:
The Martz system puts lots of pressure on the QB and downplays the TE. Do the Bears have an O Line to accomodate Martz? Is he going to be as stubborn about his game plan as Lovie is about his Cover 2? Please sign Bill Cowher for the 2011 season.
Brad Palmer said:
I expect the Bears offense to put up better numbers than they did until Ron Turner, but not enough to make for a winning season. His St.Louis Rams ranked at or near the top in the relevant stats in 1999-2001, but at Detroit and San Franciso, with less talent to work with, the numbers were average to mediocre. Neither team had a winning season with him as offensive coordinator, not that it was it was his fault. The Bears offensive line is definitely an issue. It is below average and not likely to improve any time soon.
Adam12 said:
Brad,
Are you going to post your thoughts on the free agents the bears just signed? And what about Olsen?
Brad Palmer said:
Adam, I see the Bears free agent signings as a positive move, but don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. The Bears couldn't very well stand pat. The Bears got some good years out of Adawale Ogunlaye. Let's hope the same is true with Julius Peppers and Chester Taylor. It's the Bears offensive line and defensive secondary that concerns me.
Adam12 said:
And what about Forte?
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: