The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Why bother with Jay Cutler? I am gonna start the Colt Brennan bandwagon. I think he can be a very good QB in this league.

Deadskins wrote:

JansenFan wrote:We'd be better to keep both. If JC isn't the answer after this season, then we can use the pick on one of the talented QB's that should be available next year.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

I second that.

Cooter wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Ummm... Kurt Warner???

Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and you could possibly throw McNabb in there too.

Yep, and those guys spent three years in the SAME system. Chris Mortensen was talking today about his conversations with GM's from around the league regarding the Cutler thing, and Mort reported that some GM's said Jay was just starting to get into a groove, and that these GM's said it's just about at 3 years in the same system when most QB's finally find their groove.

skinz74 wrote:Not ready to give up on JC yet...bolstered line and an improvement with the three broken amigos and we may make a qb out of him yet...

Agreed. Give him half this year and then go with Colt. If that doesn't work, go with a rookie

SkinsFreak wrote:

Cooter wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Ummm... Kurt Warner???

Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and you could possibly throw McNabb in there too.

Yep, and those guys spent three years in the SAME system. Chris Mortensen was talking today about his conversations with GM's from around the league regarding the Cutler thing, and Mort reported that some GM's said Jay was just starting to get into a groove, and that these GM's said it's just about at 3 years in the same system when most QB's finally find their groove.

Tell that to Ryan & Flacco.

RedskinjXd wrote:Its the offseason, so we can have some fun here. I wonder how many of you would make the trade.... Jason Campbell and, say, a 1st rounder next year.... for Cutler? Campbell is a free agent at the end of the year, and Cutler is a young QB, with a super strong arm, quick release, coming off his first pro bowl. i bet denver would consider this.... and both the skins and broncos feel pretty good about our last blockbuster trade with portis and bailey. what do you guys think?

I'd go for it in a heartbeat except for the inclusion of the 1st rounder. Anything lower, ok. Cutler's better than Jason now and has a stronger upside.

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

Cooter wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Ummm... Kurt Warner???

Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and you could possibly throw McNabb in there too.

Yep, and those guys spent three years in the SAME system. Chris Mortensen was talking today about his conversations with GM's from around the league regarding the Cutler thing, and Mort reported that some GM's said Jay was just starting to get into a groove, and that these GM's said it's just about at 3 years in the same system when most QB's finally find their groove.

Tell that to Ryan & Flacco.

Yes, because the exception always proves the rule. And of course the team components and external variables were virtually identical, right? I mean, what do those GM's know? <sigh>

2008 Passer Rating: Cutler: 86 - Campbell: 84.3

2008 TD to INT ratio: Cutler: 25 to 18, or roughly 1.4 TDs to each INT - Campbell: 13 to 6, or roughly 2.2 TDs to each INT

but the fact is last year they led their teams to 8-8 records.

Cutler didn't have nearly the run support that JC had and Denver's defense wasn't quite as good I don't think.

BTW, the difference in touchdowns is 84 EXTRA points. Those extra points, dispersed favorably, could have put us at ~14-2.

Yes, I know that's being VERY favorable but 84 points is a lot of points.

VetSkinsFan wrote:BTW, the difference in touchdowns is 84 EXTRA points. Those extra points, dispersed favorably, could have put us at ~14-2.

Yes, I know that's being VERY favorable but 84 points is a lot of points.

On the flip side you could also wonder how many points came off of Culter's 12 MORE INT's and 1 MORE Fumbles lost too.

Cooter wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:BTW, the difference in touchdowns is 84 EXTRA points. Those extra points, dispersed favorably, could have put us at ~14-2.

Yes, I know that's being VERY favorable but 84 points is a lot of points.

On the flip side you could also wonder how many points came off of Culter's 12 MORE INT's and 1 MORE Fumbles lost too.

Based on GUARANTEED points on offense (touchdowns) vs speculative points against (int), I think it's safe [yes, I'll go out on a limb on this] to assume it's still a net gain.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Based on GUARANTEED points on offense (touchdowns) vs speculative points against (int), I think it's safe [yes, I'll go out on a limb on this] to assume it's still a net gain.

But it may not be safe to assume that the net gain would've given up a 14-2 record though. I know your post was posted purely on numbers and these comparisons between Cutler and Campbell are crazy. Despite Denver's horrible defense last year they both led their teams to 8-8 records and only have a one win difference over their careers. If people want to get technical the Redskins defense was ranked 31st in 2006 and Campbell led the team to a 2-5 record, basically equalizing the bad defensive years. These numbers can be compared, analyzed, and scrutinized all day long, but what the situation basically boils down to is that neither have proven anything in the NFL and only time will tell their worth in this league.

Cutler had to deal with a non-existant running game and a pourous defense that forced him to have to throw a ton.

Stats don't tell the entire story, you gotta watch the cat play.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Cutler had to deal with a non-existant running game and a pourous defense that forced him to have to throw a ton.

Which obviously inflates a QB's stats.

I am not a Cutler fan and I am not advocating bringing him here.

I am not sure that Cutler will be a very good QB but I do know that from what I have seen he is a better QB than Campbell and I think he has more chance of being a very good QB than Campbell

Cooter wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Based on GUARANTEED points on offense (touchdowns) vs speculative points against (int), I think it's safe [yes, I'll go out on a limb on this] to assume it's still a net gain.

But it may not be safe to assume that the net gain would've given up a 14-2 record though. I know your post was posted purely on numbers and these comparisons between Cutler and Campbell are crazy. Despite Denver's horrible defense last year they both led their teams to 8-8 records and only have a one win difference over their careers. If people want to get technical the Redskins defense was ranked 31st in 2006 and Campbell led the team to a 2-5 record, basically equalizing the bad defensive years. These numbers can be compared, analyzed, and scrutinized all day long, but what the situation basically boils down to is that neither have proven anything in the NFL and only time will tell their worth in this league.

You left out my little (~)squiggly line, which means apprximate or about. All losing games totaled, we lost by 72 points. We had 3 double digit losses, none more than 17. I thought I admitted that the inflated assumption with directly related information was to prove a point, but I guess it was missed by some.

How's this. There is proof to conclude that given a swap in QBs(Cutler and Campbell), a reasonably better record could have been achieved. This improvement, based on the net gain of GUARANTEED POINTS for(touchdowns scored) vs ASSUMED POINTS against (int) would lead a net gain in points throughout the year. With some of the closer games (losing by 2, 3, 4, 7), these games could have arguably been won by the increased points in Cutler's numbers and possibly, with the much more favorable conidtions as previously alluded to, even more wins.

Additionally, I also realize that the additional INTS by Cutler, if stats cut and pasted could be applied, could result in our close wins ultimately becoming close losses based on ASSUMED POINTS from ints.

Disclaimer: I realize stats cannot be simply cut and pasted due to a large number of vaiable factors. I realize that my assumptions and guestimations are just as valid or invalid as the next arm chair GM.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Right back at ya

Turnovers are the number one predictor in the outcome of football games. No other stat comes close. So I would say Campbell won us more games by not turning the ball over, than Cutler won for Denver by throwing TD passes.

There's a pretty damning article about Cutler on CBSSportsline today.

From it...comes this lovely part:

Yeah, I know, it wasn't Cutler's fault. It might have helped if Denver had a running back who could stay in the lineup for three weeks or a defense that didn't leak like the Titanic. But all the Broncos had to do was win one freakin' game in three tries, and they couldn't pull it off. Blame the defense all you want, but look what Cutler did down the stretch: Nothing.

In his last three games he had two touchdown passes and four interceptions. Worse, he lost to Buffalo at home on the next to last weekend of the season. I don't want to hear how he threw for 359 yards or 316 the next weekend against San Diego. He didn't win. Period. End of story.

2 TDs and 4 INTs is not pressure production when you need to win a game. That's contributing to the problem, not solving it, as you'd want a franchise QB to do.

I still don't see why Denver would even consider us as a viable trade partner. There's been some talk in the NY area about a package of our farm team's #1 pick and Leon Washington for Cutler and a #3. Can't link to it, because it was a caller to the Boomer & Carton show on WFAN.
There's a tremendous amount of backlash over the very thought of that kind of deal, but still...they don't have a franchise QB there.

tcwest10 wrote:I still don't see why Denver would even consider us as a viable trade partner. There's been some talk in the NY area about a package of our farm team's #1 pick and Leon Washington for Cutler and a #3. Can't link to it, because it was a caller to the Boomer & Carton show on WFAN.
There's a tremendous amount of backlash over the very thought of that kind of deal, but still...they don't have a franchise QB there.

Maybe we should send JC down to the minors for that deal.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Gannon was a career backup and let go by 4 teams before going to the Pro Bowl 4 straight years, starting after his 12th season. Eli Manning - Before his 4th season fans were labeling him a bust, then he won the SB. Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? Hasselback? Fouts? Bradshaw? Steve Young? Kurt Warner? Romo? none of these guys had done squat in their first 3 years.

There are plenty i think it is actually a little more rare to see a QB pan out in the first 3 years to tell youof other examples. There aren't many Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's in NFL history. Lots more Steve Youngs, Dan Fouts and Terry Bradshaws that struggle for 3+ years before turning the corner.

fleetus wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Gannon was a career backup and let go by 4 teams before going to the Pro Bowl 4 straight years, starting after his 12th season. Eli Manning - Before his 4th season fans were labeling him a bust, then he won the SB. Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? Hasselback? Fouts? Bradshaw? Steve Young? Kurt Warner? Romo? none of these guys had done squat in their first 3 years.

There are plenty i think it is actually a little more rare to see a QB pan out in the first 3 years to tell youof other examples. There aren't many Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's in NFL history. Lots more Steve Youngs, Dan Fouts and Terry Bradshaws that struggle for 3+ years before turning the corner.

Romo still hasn't won a playoff game, even with all that talent they had. I wouldn't quite call Romo a success yet. the 1st 17 weeks are all irrelavent in sudden death, and he chokes like a prom date.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Gannon was a career backup and let go by 4 teams before going to the Pro Bowl 4 straight years, starting after his 12th season. Eli Manning - Before his 4th season fans were labeling him a bust, then he won the SB. Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? Hasselback? Fouts? Bradshaw? Steve Young? Kurt Warner? Romo? none of these guys had done squat in their first 3 years.

There are plenty i think it is actually a little more rare to see a QB pan out in the first 3 years to tell youof other examples. There aren't many Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's in NFL history. Lots more Steve Youngs, Dan Fouts and Terry Bradshaws that struggle for 3+ years before turning the corner.

Romo still hasn't won a playoff game, even with all that talent they had. I wouldn't quite call Romo a success yet. the 1st 17 weeks are all irrelavent in sudden death, and he chokes like a prom date.

Okay, we can nitpick over the definition of success, but it really doesn't change the point at all. No matter whether you consider success a Super Bowl win, a Pro Bowl or just consensus that he's a top tier QB, the point remains the same. Throughout NFL history, Qb's have taken years to develop more often than not. Campbell definitely has his best football ahead of him. To write him off now would be stupid. To assume he'll develop into Tom Brady would also be stupid.

fleetus wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Someone show me where in the NFL it has paid off to wait for more than 3 years for a player to develop?

Gannon was a career backup and let go by 4 teams before going to the Pro Bowl 4 straight years, starting after his 12th season. Eli Manning - Before his 4th season fans were labeling him a bust, then he won the SB. Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? Hasselback? Fouts? Bradshaw? Steve Young? Kurt Warner? Romo? none of these guys had done squat in their first 3 years.

There are plenty i think it is actually a little more rare to see a QB pan out in the first 3 years to tell youof other examples. There aren't many Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's in NFL history. Lots more Steve Youngs, Dan Fouts and Terry Bradshaws that struggle for 3+ years before turning the corner.

Romo still hasn't won a playoff game, even with all that talent they had. I wouldn't quite call Romo a success yet. the 1st 17 weeks are all irrelavent in sudden death, and he chokes like a prom date.

Okay, we can nitpick over the definition of success, but it really doesn't change the point at all. No matter whether you consider success a Super Bowl win, a Pro Bowl or just consensus that he's a top tier QB, the point remains the same. Throughout NFL history, Qb's have taken years to develop more often than not. Campbell definitely has his best football ahead of him. To write him off now would be stupid. To assume he'll develop into Tom Brady would also be stupid.

I had to take a potshot at Romo!!

I'm going to leave the JC subject alone. I think everything that could be said has been said. I'm not kicking this dead horse anymore.

Deadskins wrote:Turnovers are the number one predictor in the outcome of football games. No other stat comes close. So I would say Campbell won us more games by not turning the ball over, than Cutler won for Denver by throwing TD passes.

Nonsense. Cutler only had one more int than Drew Brees last year, who was an MVP candidate. Int's are part of the game and Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Peyton Manning, etc. all had double digit int's last year. JC's relatively low number of int's would have been impressive had he actually put up some points as qb. Only throwing 6 int's doesn't mean a damn thing when 20 other qb's accounted for more td's than JC in 2008. You can make meaningless arguments all you want but Cutler is a better qb than JC is and that is unlikely to change. He has better career stats than JC and led the #2 offense in the NFL last season.