To me it's rather inconsequential why it happened. The Bears had three possible plays here. #1 Stick with Orton and he becomes "good enough" to win a title a la Dilfer. #2 Stick with Orton and he bombs out which means the Bears need a QB in 2010. #3 Make the trade they did. I'm sure there's a vocal minority that say #1 was possible. But I don't see it. You look at the teams who won with average QB's and you always see good defenses. Guess what else? You rarely see repeat titles. Look at the "best" teams in the NFL. The Pats have won three titles with Brady(Franchise QB). Pittsburgh has won six with Bradshaw and Roethlisberger(both Franchise guys). San Fran has won five with Montana and Young(both franchise guys). Dallas has won five with Aikman and Staubach(both Franchise guys). That's 19 of the 43 titles right there. And that's not talking about titles won by guys like Elway and Favre. I just don't think Orton is that guy. I don't see any logical argument that can prove otherwise. Orton may have gotten the Bears to the super bowl at some point in his career given enough talent around him. But when I see a guy like McNabb lose in multiple NFC championship games, I really wonder how Orton would fare. At no point thus far has Orton ever shown the ability to do better than McNabb. As such, I really feel that had the Bears stuck with Orton they would have ran into a road bump in the playoffs year after year being just one player away(in the near future). This point is obviously debatable. But, I really think that's the best case the Bears could have had with Orton. Maybe like McNabb he gets them to a Super Bowl. Maybe he even wins one. But I don't think you're talking about a guy who can win multiple titles in Orton. So, that takes care of best case. Worst case, Orton's 2008 was a mirage and he plays worse in 2009. Then the Bears are drafting a QB in 2010. Unless they totally tank or throw away most of their 2010 draft, Bradford is out. At that point you start talking about Sneed, Tebow or McCoy. In this situation, it would be kind of similiar to what happened to denver in 2006. They had a very average Jake Plummer. They picked 15th and had to trade their pick plus a third rounder(pick 68) to move up to 11 to grab Cutler. In 2010, the Bears could have done the same then they pray the guy pans out. Then there's option #3.They gave up picks 18 and 84 for Culter which is actually less than Denver gave up to draft him originally, plus the 2010 first round pick. In other words, the Bears chose to trade 18 and 84 for a proven player rather than drafting a guy with those same picks. Obviously there's a second #1 in there. But to me that's the only pick they "lost" in this deal because the other two would have likely been needed to position themselves for a draft pick. At that point the question becomes is a #1 pick worth knowing what you have in a proven NFL QB vs a rookie? Overall, it was a move that had to be made. Like it or not, last year probably was approaching Orton's top end in play. I mean, look at Cassel who had similar numbers. He was almost good enough to get the Pats into the playoffs. Almost. In fact, I see a lot of similarities between Cassel and Orton. The one big difference is Cassel had Welker and Moss. People can talk about how Cutler didn't get the Broncos into the playoffs. If you look at the score the defense gave up in those games it becomes clear why. Here are the number of points Denver's D gave up in their losses: 33, 24, 41, 26, 31, 30, 30, 52. To give a comparison, Manning was 0-3 when giving up 29+. Big Ben was 0-1. Kurt Warner was 0-4. Matt Ryan was 0-2. Joe Flacco was 0-2. Jake Delhomme was a surprising 2-3. Pennington was 1-3. The vikes were 0-2. Eli was 2-1. McNabb was 0-4. Rivers was 1-3. Collins was 0-1. In other words, playoff teams were 6-29(21%) when their team gave up 29+. Denver was 3-6(33.3%). The Bears were 1-3(25%). Cutler has the potential to win multiple super bowls and be the type of a QB like Manning who doesn't have to have a great defense, just a good one. The difference is simple to me. In most cases, Kyle kept the Bears from losing games by playing conservative. Always checking down to Forte (who was run into the ground with touches). Cutler has the ability to win a team a game. In my eyes, Denver has to land both of those 1st round picks in order for the trade to be good for them. What people fail to realize, especially the clowns at ESPN and all the haters out there(I know plenty of haters that have done nothing but LAUGH at this trade for the Bears), is this... If Josh McDaniels came in and he and Jay Cutler instantly became BFF, and the Bears said, "Hey Denver, we'll give you our 1st and 3rd this year, our 1st next year, and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler and your 5th this year. What do you say?" What would have happened? I know exactly what would have happened. It would have been the laugh heard 'round the world. Denver would have laughed in the Bears faces. All the haters would have laughed in their faces. It would have been a funny joke to the entire NFL. And why is that? Because Jay Cutler was the FUTURE in Denver. That's why. NO WAY IN HELL does Denver trade him. Yet, as soon as there are issues between Cutler and Denver, and the Bears make this trade, it's a terrible trade for the Bears. Uh huh.
Do you remember when Philly and Dallas rationalized away T.O.'s history when they picked him up? Talent is one thing, and character/leadership is another... Especially at the QB position. Chicago's window has passed and the defense is getting old, and Cutler is not the answer. The picks they gave up were too much for a baby like Cutler... Chicago is not one player away, they are many, many players away...and now they have surrendered high draft picks. Broncos got the best of Chicago by dumping their worst cry baby... ...and now who is he going to throw to? Devon "I can't catch the ball" Hester. Really too funny... Bears fans ain't too bright.
As a devout Packers fan I must disagree, it could be the best trade in NFL history. The bears have had some 22 starters in the last 15 years.. (my numbers may be slightly off, but not by much), this was an attempt by an inept organization to correct that dismal record of failure. Talk about a hail-mary... Can't blame em much though ... it's been "QB, QB, QB, QB, QB .. " forever in Chicago. Odds are Cutler is a huge bust in chi-town, the fans Will Be Merciless... Edit: Both teams lose on this one, ... the Denver coach strikes me as a scumbag, (apparently the dude lied to the guy's face) and chicago is chicago ...
No teammates have ever questioned Cutler's character/leadership...at least not publicly. Get your facts straight, brah. The window has passed? Doubtful when you have a QB who hasn't hit his prime. You now have a team to build around for the next ten years, with actual options on the offensive side. Keep crying away and let me know how Da Bears look next season. You ain't too bright. Getcha popcorn ready.
Yup, you got a few comments right. I would agree the organization has made some inept decisions. It would be tough to argue otherwise. Then again, our current regime has owned the cheese heads. Good luck with Rodgers, playing for third in our division this season.
Interesting analysis. You aren't the Bears' GM, are you? To me, the most interesting point was the last one. Would Denver have made this move if there were harmony between the coach and QB? I think it would have been a tough sell, because the fans would go nuts the first time Orton missed a receiver or threw an INT. Would it make the Broncos a better team? I would say probably. Their D sucks big time, and two extra number ones could go a long way to making it decent. As you noted, no one wins giving up points like they did last year. I see two flaws in your case for the trade. One, you are assuming Cutler will be a significant upgrade. I think he is an upgrade, but this not the NBA. A QB needs four things, in addition to talent, to thrive: a good line, a running game, good receivers and a good system. Cutler had them in Denver, at least to an extent. Most importantly he had factor four, a great offensive system run by a master coach. I don't see it in chicago. I see a mediocre line, average run game and limited receivers, plus a defensive coord for a coach who has struggled to put together an NFL-quality offense. No way he puts up comparable numbers to what he did in Denver. Two, I think you omitted the best way to get a QB, ie pick up a veteran, like the titans did with Collins and Arizona did with Warner. Jeff Garcia was available. The idea of building with Cutler sounds good, but he will be nearly 30 before you can put a number one draft pick on the field. Your next two drafts have been gutted. Plus, when does Cutler's contract come up? He will have the team over a huge barrel, considering what they gave up for him. So goodby, salary cap room. You made a compelling case for the need to have a franchise QB to build a dynasty. Interestingly however, none of those QBs came via a blockbuster trade.
Orton is a far worse talent than his starting record or stats prove. Hell Cleo Lemon was an AFC offensive player of the week for the 'Fins in late 2007 too. Did anyone say keep Lemon and forget about signing Pennington? Given their paramount importance QB's are under weighted in salary and draft prestige. A top tier QB is worth a decade of first round picks. "Game management" is something you settle for-you don't aspire toward it. Cassel is not in Cutler's league. Cutler gives the Bears 2 or 3 additional wins over Orton without a single other roster change. Between the Shanahan firing and then trading Cutler, Bowden has unwittingly followed in the Al Davis game plan on how to go from edge of greatness to also ran in a single off season.