Bears sign Jay Cutler to a 7-year deal.

[amfootball]

That's cuz he's SMOKIN:

 

 

 

That is probably it. lol. I love how he doesn't care. He always seems slightly angry and I am not sure why I like it about him but I do. You just know he was a bad boyfriend to tons of women but still ...

[LordHelpOurColts]

Not to get too off topic but I find Jay Culter attractive in kind of a subtle way. He kind of reminds me of Tim Robbins in Shawshank Redemption. He has a quiet confidence and seems to stroll instead of walk. I will wait for James to weigh in.

 

 

seriously lol'd

 

hopefully noting erroneous is happening to Jay in the shower room.

 

"I can be a friend to you" --Boggs

[Dustin]

[CR91]

if jay is worth 18 million a year im scared to think what luck will be worth in a couple of years

[Blackhawk4]

Sadly, Cutler will now be the Joe Johnson of the NFL. 

[dgambill]

if jay is worth 18 million a year im scared to think what luck will be worth in a couple of years

Indeed...I kept trying to tell people this before in threads where people kept insisting "Oh, Andrew is smart he won't handicap the team, he won't ask for some 20 million dollars"....HA HA HA...even if he just gets AVG qb money he is getting 20 mill!!!

[dgambill]

Sadly, Cutler will now be the Joe Johnson of the NFL. 

Joe Johnson has played on horrible teams. Yes over-paid but in some markets you have to over-pay to keep the talent. The Orlando's, Atlanta's, and Indiana's of the world all have to over-pay just to keep or attract players...Superstars gravitate to big markets and thus stars gravittate with them...and then solid role players do to because they can maximize their talent there....thus to keep or attract a star in the NBA you have to over-pay....ask Detroit with Josh Smith...Johnson isn't a guy that can take over games but he is incredibly talented..and yet over-paid. I think Chicago is getting a little more for Jay...I think people give him too much flack because he has that I don't care what you think of me attitude...not the aww shucks AL/PM type...or the flashy LT smile.

[Blackhawk4]

Joe Johnson has played on horrible teams. Yes over-paid but in some markets you have to over-pay to keep the talent. The Orlando's, Atlanta's, and Indiana's of the world all have to over-pay just to keep or attract players...Superstars gravitate to big markets and thus stars gravittate with them...and then solid role players do to because they can maximize their talent there....thus to keep or attract a star in the NBA you have to over-pay....ask Detroit with Josh Smith...Johnson isn't a guy that can take over games but he is incredibly talented..and yet over-paid. I think Chicago is getting a little more for Jay...I think people give him too much flack because he has that I don't care what you think of me attitude...not the aww shucks AL/PM type...or the flashy LT smile.

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make (I didn't do a good job of making it though). People are going to harp on his contract and not enjoy the fact that he's actually a good player. He's most likely not going to live up to the contract and people are going to ride on that when judging him as a player. They won't take the time to enjoy his play, because when they view him they view the contract. 

[supremecoltsfan300]

Horrible move by the bears. Cutler is an average qb. You dont overpay for him. This is just like the flacco mistake (but at least joe usually gets his team into the playoffs). Cutler is nowhere near a top 12 qb, and only those type of guys should get that type of money. It doesnt matter if you are scared of who your qb would be otherwise. You shouldnt settle for mediocrity or average. Draft someone who you think has "it" and spend cutler's money elsewhere.

[Le Neon]

Cutler had the sixth highest passer rating according to pff, and the 10th highest grade overall. That's very difficult to replace at the QB position.

They can worry about what's broke on the roster rather then endlessly hunting for a qb.

[Superman]

Horrible move by the bears. Cutler is an average qb. You dont overpay for him. This is just like the flacco mistake (but at least joe usually gets his team into the playoffs). Cutler is nowhere near a top 12 qb, and only those type of guys should get that type of money. It doesnt matter if you are scared of who your qb would be otherwise. You shouldnt settle for mediocrity or average. Draft someone who you think has "it" and spend cutler's money elsewhere.

 

By what logic does Flacco get the Ravens into the playoffs?

[BOTT]

[The Old Crow]

As I told you guys with Flacco, if you have a decent quarterback , you're going to have to pay. We've also seen it with Romo and now Cutler. Luck will be up soon , and the Colts will be in a similar dilemma . A good quarterback forces you to be smarter cap wise elsewhere. That being said, without a decent quarterback in this league , you have absolutely no chance.

[supremecoltsfan300]

By what logic does Flacco get the Ravens into the playoffs?

By playing all 16 games every year, leading his teams to 10+ wins almost every season, and not turning the ball over. Flacco gets the job done for his team, cutler rarely does. I dont see the point in paying a guy who isnt close to being a top 12 qb.

[oldunclemark]

Cutler had the sixth highest passer rating according to pff, and the 10th highest grade overall. That's very difficult to replace at the QB position.

They can worry about what's broke on the roster rather then endlessly hunting for a qb.

Passer rating is meaning less...Its based on the wrong things.

 

Cutler's pass rating last week was higher than Aaron Rodgers...who was the superior performer

 

Jay has spent 4 years on 2 teams....what in any of the 8 years indicates he's an 8-figure max cash championship QB.?

 

The Bears motto going forward:      Were the 8-8 Bears and this is the best we can do.!!

[amfootball]

By what logic does Flacco get the Ravens into the playoffs?

I don't have any stats for this but Flacco seems much better situationally then Cutler especially in big games. Maybe Dustin can help with the numbers on this but I think the two QBs are fascinating to compare as both have had the stout run game and D for many years.

[amfootball]

As I told you guys with Flacco, if you have a decent quarterback , you're going to have to pay. We've also seen it with Romo and now Cutler. Luck will be up soon , and the Colts will be in a similar dilemma . A good quarterback forces you to be smarter cap wise elsewhere. That being said, without a decent quarterback in this league , you have absolutely no chance.

You are right but what is tough to bank on is the Herculean post-season performance you got from Joe last year ever happening again with him, Cutler or Romo. But like you said, you have to fill that position and there are not Brady's and Manning's everywhere so you do the best you can with what you have and try to build around but these QBs salaries I think make it difficult to do that. If you pay an average QB, elite money then he can't cover up as much as the elite QB can therefore you need an even better team around him then the elite QB. A conundrum for sure.

[King Colt]

Steve Young likes this deal so then do I. Cutler in the Bears new "system" is a fit and so the deal for 50,000,000 guaranteed and 18,000,000 / yr. SY said he will shine in this system and don't forget the Bears now for the first time since the Wright brothers are noted for being an offensive threat. While I am shocked it is for seven years McMahon was the last decent QB the Bears had and before him it was Bill Wade so let it roll. 

[The Old Crow]

You are right but what is tough to bank on is the Herculean post-season performance you got from Joe last year ever happening again with him, Cutler or Romo. But like you said, you have to fill that position and there are not Brady's and Manning's everywhere so you do the best you can with what you have and try to build around but these QBs salaries I think make it difficult to do that. If you pay an average QB, elite money then he can't cover up as much as the elite QB can therefore you need an even better team around him then the elite QB. A conundrum for sure.

 

You are right. Not every team gets lucky like the Colts and has their worst years before a Manning and Luck were available. The Ravens had a #10 pick and used it on Kyle Boller ! So when you get a Flacco that has had some success, you have to sign the guy. Look, I'm not down on Joe. He has a great six year track record with the team, and I'm thankful for that. Heck, we were in it until the 4th quarter of the last game of the season, despite blowing up the team. 8-8 isn't the end of the world under those circumstances. 

[TAPLOOK]

Dumb move IMO.

[Superman]

By playing all 16 games every year, leading his teams to 10+ wins almost every season, and not turning the ball over. Flacco gets the job done for his team, cutler rarely does. I dont see the point in paying a guy who isnt close to being a top 12 qb.

 

Flacco has been a role player for his team most of his career. A slightly above average player that the Ravens haven't asked to do much. He has a few big games on his resume, most of them in the playoffs, so I'm not trying to sell him short, but he's not "leading his team" or getting his team into the playoffs. He's a cog in the machine. Guys like Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Ryan get their teams to the playoffs (or are asked to). On the cusp are guys like Luck, Wilson, Newton, Kaepernick, Foles. 

 

As for whether Cutler is top 12, I think he definitely is. It depends on how you rank some of the young guys, but he's definitely right there. I have him easily ahead of Flacco.

[Superman]

Some of the terms are coming out: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/jay-cutler/

 

Looks like heavy base salaries toward the front, with guarantees, and roster bonuses toward the back. Makes it a flexible structure and framework as time goes on, though it's pretty costly in the first three years. It's being reported with salary guarantees in 2016 that only trigger as time goes on, so the reported $54m guaranteed is murky, as always. With limited information, it looks a lot more like the Aaron Rodgers and Tony Romo contracts than the Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan contracts. And it's more balanced out than the Stafford contract.

[dgambill]

Horrible move by the bears. Cutler is an average qb. You dont overpay for him. This is just like the flacco mistake (but at least joe usually gets his team into the playoffs). Cutler is nowhere near a top 12 qb, and only those type of guys should get that type of money. It doesnt matter if you are scared of who your qb would be otherwise. You shouldnt settle for mediocrity or average. Draft someone who you think has "it" and spend cutler's money elsewhere.

Who pretell has "it" at the point where the Bears will be drafting?? Some teams don't have the good fortune to fall into the first pick of the draft in a year that was loaded with qb talent. Last year I was unimpressed with ANY of those guys being first rd talent...and yes we have seen a couple guys come around but really Jay Cutler is better than a majority of the qbs taken in recent years. Chicago isn't overpaying either...its the going rate for a starting playoff caliber qb basically...and Cutler is certainly good enough to put his team there....you can pay a whole team that money and still end up with Jacksonville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Jets and so many other QBless teams....sorry...I pay the kid....there isn't anything out there better.

[supremecoltsfan300]

Who pretell has "it" at the point where the Bears will be drafting?? Some teams don't have the good fortune to fall into the first pick of the draft in a year that was loaded with qb talent. Last year I was unimpressed with ANY of those guys being first rd talent...and yes we have seen a couple guys come around but really Jay Cutler is better than a majority of the qbs taken in recent years. Chicago isn't overpaying either...its the going rate for a starting playoff caliber qb basically...and Cutler is certainly good enough to put his team there....you can pay a whole team that money and still end up with Jacksonville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Jets and so many other QBless teams....sorry...I pay the kid....there isn't anything out there better.

The Jets sort of make my point. They have geno smith who i think is horrible but at the end of the year the jets are in the same position as the bears. Around 8-8 and missing the playoffs. To me a qb that deserves 15+ million is a guy who gets his team into the playoffs. Cutler has done that only once and consistently comes up short when it comes to any type of big game. I could live with that if he was putting up romo type numbers and just missing the playoffs but his stats arent that good. I do understand that his price tag fits the market though. Just personally, i think the market is flat out wrong. If i were a gm I would only pay that type of money for a guy who can carry my team to the playoffs.

[supremecoltsfan300]

Who pretell has "it" at the point where the Bears will be drafting?? Some teams don't have the good fortune to fall into the first pick of the draft in a year that was loaded with qb talent. Last year I was unimpressed with ANY of those guys being first rd talent...and yes we have seen a couple guys come around but really Jay Cutler is better than a majority of the qbs taken in recent years. Chicago isn't overpaying either...its the going rate for a starting playoff caliber qb basically...and Cutler is certainly good enough to put his team there....you can pay a whole team that money and still end up with Jacksonville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Jets and so many other QBless teams....sorry...I pay the kid....there isn't anything out there better.

And i agree about last year and this years qb class. Not impressed. I just feel that with a rookie or with cutler, you are in the same position: watching the playoffs on tv at home.

[GwinnettColt]

Part of the contract is that he is permitted to get injured every December. 

[Andy]

The worst thing about this deal, on top of the fact that he has done less than nothing to deserve this (at least Flacco won a SB), is the fact that this will inflate QB contracts (to a whole new level) and it will make contracts crazier and crazier. 

 

"If Cutler got this, I want that"

[Superman]

The worst thing about this deal, on top of the fact that he has done less than nothing to deserve this (at least Flacco won a SB), is the fact that this will inflate QB contracts (to a whole new level) and it will make contracts crazier and crazier. 

 

"If Cutler got this, I want that"

 

I think there's a ceiling on QB contracts for the time being. With Rodgers, Romo and Ryan coming in below the $20m/year mark, it kind of suppresses the rapid increases we had been seeing. There isn't anyone else this offseason who will influence that ceiling. There's no one to say "if Cutler got this..." 

 

Dalton and Kaepernick will be free agents after 2014, and Newton will be after 2015, assuming the Panthers exercise the fifth year option on him. The Colts and Redskins (presumably) will use their fifth year options on Luck and Griffin, but Wilson will be a free agent after 2015. Then in 2016, it's time to do something with Luck. That's a long time from now, but I doubt the top paid numbers go up any higher than the $18-20m/year range that they're in right now.

[Qwiz]

Good for Cutler. I can see him leading the Bears to the Super Bowl eventually, but he has to stay healthy and that defense obviously needs to at least get back to a semblance of it's old form.

[dgambill]

And i agree about last year and this years qb class. Not impressed. I just feel that with a rookie or with cutler, you are in the same position: watching the playoffs on tv at home.

I disagree...he led them to the NFCCG a couple years ago...with a TERRIBLE OL and no WRs. This year was the first year he had weapons and a coach that understood OFFENSE and an OL that was decent...and he looked good. He certainly played well enough in week 17 to win that "big" game....but his defense kinda reminded me of the 2012 Divisional Broncos....yes that defense is terrible and that money would go a long way in rebuilding it but I think Superman has already said they have 40 some million in cap space to use....they can rebuild even with that contract...honestly I think next year he will have a Phillip Rivers kinda season...bounce back...but it will depend on that defense.

[dgambill]

I think there's a ceiling on QB contracts for the time being. With Rodgers, Romo and Ryan coming in below the $20m/year mark, it kind of suppresses the rapid increases we had been seeing. There isn't anyone else this offseason who will influence that ceiling. There's no one to say "if Cutler got this..." 

 

Dalton and Kaepernick will be free agents after 2014, and Newton will be after 2015, assuming the Panthers exercise the fifth year option on him. The Colts and Redskins (presumably) will use their fifth year options on Luck and Griffin, but Wilson will be a free agent after 2015. Then in 2016, it's time to do something with Luck. That's a long time from now, but I doubt the top paid numbers go up any higher than the $18-20m/year range that they're in right now.

And that's good because I DON'T think the NFL revenue is going to increase the way they keep projecting.....I could be wrong but I think that TV money is going to take a hit....with the way the internet is exploding for online tv...the model we have now will soon be extinct.

[Superman]

And that's good because I DON'T think the NFL revenue is going to increase the way they keep projecting.....I could be wrong but I think that TV money is going to take a hit....with the way the internet is exploding for online tv...the model we have now will soon be extinct.

 

I think the model has to change, for many reasons, including Internet and home viewing. Right now, the NFL has Internet viewing very restricted with exclusive content agreements. That will change. I'm not sure that it will reduce overall revenue, but TV revenue will be affected.

 

But for the next several years at least, the TV revenue is locked in. What happens after the current TV deals expire is a different story. I'm mostly concerned with what happens with Luck once he hits free agency, and changes to the NFL's revenue model won't be in place by then. If anything, they'll diversify and increase revenue in the short term. IMO.

[dgambill]

I think the model has to change, for many reasons, including Internet and home viewing. Right now, the NFL has Internet viewing very restricted with exclusive content agreements. That will change. I'm not sure that it will reduce overall revenue, but TV revenue will be affected.

 

But for the next several years at least, the TV revenue is locked in. What happens after the current TV deals expire is a different story. I'm mostly concerned with what happens with Luck once he hits free agency, and changes to the NFL's revenue model won't be in place by then. If anything, they'll diversify and increase revenue in the short term. IMO.

Very possible...I just seeing traditional tv going extinct. They won't have the advertising dollars to continue to pay the league these outrageous contracts when their money dries up from all the other areas and tv shows. The NFL may be just fine I have no clue how they plan to move forward...but traditional tv won't be the same in the next 10 years imo....nobody gets their news from it...no one tunes in to watch the shows....anything on it can be found on netflix or hulu etc...its all going to change and it will be interesting who adapts and who doesn't....the nfl is very strict with its policies and viewership...just saying they may make some bad decisions and run a bunch of people off...and they definately can't keep attendance up...we already see that.

[Superman]

Very possible...I just seeing traditional tv going extinct. They won't have the advertising dollars to continue to pay the league these outrageous contracts when their money dries up from all the other areas and tv shows. The NFL may be just fine I have no clue how they plan to move forward...but traditional tv won't be the same in the next 10 years imo....nobody gets their news from it...no one tunes in to watch the shows....anything on it can be found on netflix or hulu etc...its all going to change and it will be interesting who adapts and who doesn't....the nfl is very strict with its policies and viewership...just saying they may make some bad decisions and run a bunch of people off...and they definately can't keep attendance up...we already see that.

 

That's not quite true, yet. Still a lot of shows that get good ratings on television. And by force, a lot of shows that aren't available on either Netflix or Hulu (that's the networks holding back content to keep people watching over the air). And sports is still the biggest draw, because no matter how convenient it might be to watch a game or live event on your computer or mobile device, there's nothing like watching the game on your 50" in the living room. And that's where the advertisers come in. The NFL and other sporting leagues have content locked up. If you want to watch it on your TV live, in good quality, you can't stream it. And even if you do watch on a mobile device, advertisers still pay for air time (and that model might be more lucrative, because they can target their viewers more effectively online than over the air).

 

Also, I've started to appreciate the short length of commercial breaks during games. If you only watch sports, you don't notice, but the breaks during live events are much shorter than breaks for shows. Generally speaking. 

 

I do agree things are going to change, by necessity. I just don't think TV is completely going away, particularly for sports.

[dgambill]

That's not quite true, yet. Still a lot of shows that get good ratings on television. And by force, a lot of shows that aren't available on either Netflix or Hulu (that's the networks holding back content to keep people watching over the air). And sports is still the biggest draw, because no matter how convenient it might be to watch a game or live event on your computer or mobile device, there's nothing like watching the game on your 50" in the living room. And that's where the advertisers come in. The NFL and other sporting leagues have content locked up. If you want to watch it on your TV live, in good quality, you can't stream it. And even if you do watch on a mobile device, advertisers still pay for air time (and that model might be more lucrative, because they can target their viewers more effectively online than over the air).

 

Also, I've started to appreciate the short length of commercial breaks during games. If you only watch sports, you don't notice, but the breaks during live events are much shorter than breaks for shows. Generally speaking. 

 

I do agree things are going to change, by necessity. I just don't think TV is completely going away, particularly for sports.

Oh I know what you mean...it isn't happening over night...but its happening...just like the newspaper...tv will change too...certainly the big corperate companies will keep their rights..especially to big events...but as cable and internet erode away...eventually it will change too....but yes I agree they still have the power in the sports but regular programming...its going fast...as my parents generation dies off (baby boomers) we are seeing a whole new generation that never turns a tv on unless its streaming content...and yes some is content purchased from the big studios but more and more its content from smaller organizations. You are right...probably won't effect too much in the coming years...but I think if companies and the NFL alike are slow to act...they will lose money.

[Superman]

Oh I know what you mean...it isn't happening over night...but its happening...just like the newspaper...tv will change too...certainly the big corperate companies will keep their rights..especially to big events...but as cable and internet erode away...eventually it will change too....but yes I agree they still have the power in the sports but regular programming...its going fast...as my parents generation dies off (baby boomers) we are seeing a whole new generation that never turns a tv on unless its streaming content...and yes some is content purchased from the big studios but more and more its content from smaller organizations. You are right...probably won't effect too much in the coming years...but I think if companies and the NFL alike are slow to act...they will lose money.

 

I don't see how that hurts advertising revenue, though. Especially for live events. Let's say streaming completely overtakes OTA broadcasts for sporting events (won't happen until they give more control of the broadcast to the viewer, by the way, specifically to record, rewind, fast forward, etc.) There are still timeouts and play stoppages, and there will still be commercial breaks. And I personally think that makes for a more effective advertising opportunity, because you can target your audience and choose which ads to air to specific viewers (the way Hulu does; they even let you tell them that you're not interested in a particular ad campaign, which is very beneficial to the advertiser). So if the model changes, it's not necessarily for the worse, specifically for sports.

 

Am I missing something?

[dgambill]

I don't see how that hurts advertising revenue, though. Especially for live events. Let's say streaming completely overtakes OTA broadcasts for sporting events (won't happen until they give more control of the broadcast to the viewer, by the way, specifically to record, rewind, fast forward, etc.) There are still timeouts and play stoppages, and there will still be commercial breaks. And I personally think that makes for a more effective advertising opportunity, because you can target your audience and choose which ads to air to specific viewers (the way Hulu does; they even let you tell them that you're not interested in a particular ad campaign, which is very beneficial to the advertiser). So if the model changes, it's not necessarily for the worse, specifically for sports.

 

Am I missing something?

Not exactly...just if the NFL tries to force their own model down the consumers throat...as long as they mold to the way consumers want to experience the game...should be ok.

[Bluefire4]

Jay Cutler - QB - Bears

The Bears can cut Jay Cutler three seasons into his new seven-year deal with no cap hit.

Everyone that freaked out over the length of Cutler's deal can breathe now. He got no signing bonus, only guaranteed base salaries of $22.5M in 2014, $15.5M in 2015 and $16M in 2016 for a total of $54 million guaranteed. It's only a three-year, $54 million commitment. If the Bears want to move on in 2017 when Cutler turns 34, they'll be able to do so with no strings attached.

 

Makes more sense now.

[Poster X]

Hence guaranteeing a Super Bowl-less seven years for the Chicago Bears.

Rex Grossman version 2.0.

[Superman]

Interesting structure on Cutler's deal. Staggered guarantees, but for all intents and purposes, the first three years will be paid. No signing bonus, just guaranteed base salaries in the first three years, totaling $54m. This is similar to the original structure of Manning's contract with the Broncos (except his contract was only guaranteed for one year, not three). So in three years, if Cutler isn't working out, the Bears can cut him with no cap penalties. And future bonuses are roster bonuses, so they don't affect the Bears ability to release Cutler in still future years. 

 

Very team friendly structure, long term. If Cutler bombs in the next two or three years, the Bears are stuck, but come 2017, they can wash their hands with no trouble. The only question is whether Cutler should be getting $18.1m/year.