Let's really talk about Jay Cutler

The rumblings just won't go away...

Now, I have stated several times (and sported a sig pic for a while confirming) that I do not want the Rams to take Jay Cutler. I thought the very idea of it was preposterous, to be honest, when I first heard the suggestion.

But, upon calm and careful review, I recognize that the reason I dislike the idea so much is not that taking Cutler would be without a rational explanation, but rather that it would represent a philosophy to which I simply do not wish to subscribe.

So what would the rational explanation for taking Cutler be? The answer - contrary to what some have suggested - is most cetainly not "to provide the Rams with a strong backup in case Bulger gets hurt again." No, that job (which we all hope will not need to be filled) falls, at least for this coming season, on the shoulders of Gus Frerotte. Clearly, no rookie is going to beat out a veteran like Frerotte who, in addition to years of NFL experience, already has a season in Linehan's offense under his belt.

The rational explanation, instead, is 2008. That's the year when Marc Bulger's contract will end, and that's when the value of a Jay Cutler would come into play. At that point, Cutler would hopefully be ready to be a starter, which would give the Rams several options - resign Bulger/trade Cutler; let Bulger walk/start Cutler; franchise Bulger and trade him/start Cutler).

All that sounds okay, except for one thing... what about 2006 (or even 2007)?

That's where my real objection to taking Cutler comes into play. Stated simply, taking Jay Cutler would be a tacit acknowledgement by the Rams Front Office that the team is not close enough to being a contender to build for TODAY, so we might as well just build for tomorrow.

I cannot... and will not... subscribe to that mindset. I truly believe that - particularly in this league where rags and riches are next door neighbors - the Rams have enough talent on their roster to contend if a few more key pieces are added.

Does that make me an optimist... or merely someone who can still remember 1999?

Either way, I say we take a player that is likely to help the team in 2006, and that player isn't Jay Cutler.

Well, riddle me this then....It's 2008, Bulger bolts for bigger money elsewhere. Ferotte retires and Fitzpatrick takes his Harvard degree and makes more money outside of the NFL.

Who then?

There are good QBs available every year (this year alone, Duante Culpepper and Drew Brees were available).

Why worry about that now unless... again... you think that the team simply can't win now.

If we are drafting for 2008 we do it next year

that's legitimate....heck I don't know.....come se come sa....

If we take Cutler, so be it!:)

I still have a problem with drafting Cutler. I know that we might be in need of a QB in a few years. However, our defense is a much more pressing need at this time. In the past few years we've seen teams do very well with marginal QBs. That is, as long as they have a strong defense. The same can not be said about the opposite. There are only a couple of things that would make taking Cutler ok:

1) Bulger's injury is significantly worse than what is being reported, and he might not be able to return

2) There is some sort of trade available to us using Cutler as bait.

3) Bulger can't figure out Linehan's system well enough to be effective (very unlikely).

Of course, this might all be part of the deception game that goes on around this time. I guess we'll find out soon.

Its a bluff guys. We arent going to take him.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

You guys got it all wrong. Look at the Steelers. They had a QB who was playing well in Maddox a couple of years ago, but they took Rothlisberger because he was the best player available. Now he's their starter and they've won a Super Bowl. You gotta go with the franchise QB if you can get him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilXenu

You guys got it all wrong. Look at the Steelers. They had a QB who was playing well in Maddox a couple of years ago, but they took Rothlisberger because he was the best player available. Now he's their starter and they've won a Super Bowl. You gotta go with the franchise QB if you can get him.

---

In two years as the primary guy in Pittsburgh, Maddox was decent but hardly great and surely not the answer. The Steelers needed their QB of the future; they didn't just take Big Ben because he was the BPA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilXenu

You guys got it all wrong. Look at the Steelers. They had a QB who was playing well in Maddox a couple of years ago, but they took Rothlisberger because he was the best player available. Now he's their starter and they've won a Super Bowl. You gotta go with the franchise QB if you can get him.

---

Maddox was 30something who had one career year. Bulger is younger, and has had success over a longer period of time.

Not exactly apples to apples.

I see - it's a STRATEGY!

You don't waste picks on Offensive lineman, you just Go 5 or 6 Deep at QB.
The Defensive Lineman are bound to get tired after awhile too. We'll test their endurance!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Steelers are another animal entirely. They had very few holes and they had the luxury of taking a QB and developing him (and they were fortunate). Notice the Steelers didn't trade up to get Rothlisberger either.
Maddox had like one good year, he cannot be compared to Marc Bulger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilXenu

You guys got it all wrong. Look at the Steelers. They had a QB who was playing well in Maddox a couple of years ago, but they took Rothlisberger because he was the best player available. Now he's their starter and they've won a Super Bowl. You gotta go with the franchise QB if you can get him.

---

The Steelers also already had a decent defense in place.