If we didn't make the Cutler trade

dingojazz · Post #1 » by **dingojazz** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:57 pm

I wanted to take a look at where the Bears would be if they didn't make the Cutler deal. Of course the steady Kyle Orton would still be QB. Other differences would include...

2009 First round pick. Possible choices would have been Jeremy Maclin, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks, Michael Oher, Kenny Britt. My guess is that the pick would have been Percy Harvin.

2009 2nd round pick. IF we didn't trade down we could have landed Phil Loadholt, who is a beast and happens to be the starting RT for the 7-1 Vikings.

2009 3rd round pick. Not sure who we would have taken here....I like Rashad Johnson the safety from Alabama who went to Arizona. Best available DB would be my choice. Still could have snagged Iglesias with the comp pick.

2009 4th round pick. Still DJ Moore or Knox here.

2009 5th round pick. Maybe would have gotten Knox with the late 5th pick, if not oh well we got Harvin.

So we would have Orton at QB, an extra weapon in Harvin or Nicks at WR, a future stud RT in Loadholt, Chris Williams at LT (probably no Pace), and more depth in the secondary. Oh and also we would still have our first round pick next year. As a bonus we could have prevented Minnesota from getting Harvin and Loadholt.

I was as excited as anyone when we got Cutler...but this just doesn't seem like the Bears. When the Bears win its with Defense, running game, special teams and taking care of the ball. Cutler is exciting and can make all the throws, but only Jake Delhomme has thrown more picks. He has the 20th best passer rating in the league, right around 80 which is where Orton was last year.

I know this is a lot of what if's, but it gives you something to think about.

Kyben36 · Post #2 » by **Kyben36** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 9:45 pm

Wighout cutler, we would not have goten Pace, probably drafted Oher, and our line would be pretty good,

Post #3 » by **Icness** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 9:48 pm

I'll help you with some of the draft stuff.

I know the Bears had no interest in Percy Harvin. They were one of many teams that were really turned off by his personality and his injuries. They did work out Hakeem Nicks as much as he could coming off his injury, and the Bears are one of those teams that doesn't bring guys in as smokescreens. I would suspect it would have been Nicks or Britt. I never got any impression they had a lot of interest in drafting OL high last year. They put their eggs in free agency on that well before the draft--they felt out Omiyale's agent the day after CAR got beat in the playoffs.

MIN was willing to do pretty much anything to secure Loadholt. They would have taken him with their 1st rounder had Harvin not been there, I know that for a fact. Again, Angelo & Co. were looking elsewhere. I know they worked out and liked Sean Smith, now starting at CB in Miami, so my best guess is he would have been the 2nd rounder.

dingojazz · Post #4 » by **dingojazz** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 10:28 pm

Icness wrote:I'll help you with some of the draft stuff.

Thanks for the inside info...so you can basically forget what I said above, substitute Hakeem Nicks and Sean Smith as the first and 2nd rounders. Still makes you think...

fisher · Post #5 » by **fisher** » Wed Nov 4, 2009 12:19 pm

dingojazz wrote:
Icness wrote:I'll help you with some of the draft stuff.

Thanks for the inside info...so you can basically forget what I said above, substitute Hakeem Nicks and Sean Smith as the first and 2nd rounders. Still makes you think...

I don't know, but the last time the Bears drafted a WR in the first round things didn't turn out well (if the Bears didn't make the Cutler trade, I would have been all for an OL/DT being selected with that pick, but apparently that wasn't what the Bears' front office was looking for). As always, it's the QB who makes the recievers, not the other way around.

Great recievers can certainly help a QB, but they're mostly irrelevant if your QB is unable or unwilling to utilize them (consider arguably the two best WRs since Jerry Rice: Randy Moss was mostly irrelevant out in Oakland; TO isn't doing all that much in Buffalo). Guys like Hester, Knox, and Bennett are looking good because of Cutler. Orton was solid at times last year, but he preferred to use his TEs and backs rather than the WRs (not that I could blame him too much last year given the rather awful WR corps we had). Still though, hard to imagine Orton trusting a rookie like Knox downfield like Cutler has.

As for safety, I thought the Bears made a big mistake when they didn't bother to go after Darren Sharper when he was a FA. The Bears should have known more than anyone other than the Vikings and Packers how good he is.

Cliff Levingston · Post #6 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Wed Nov 4, 2009 4:32 pm

Cliff Levingston would still take Cutler over all that. Our problem is not him; it's his protection which is also the main reason for such a bad running game to (not) support him.

Orton would've been sacked about 50 times by now if he was still here.

SLCceltic · Post #7 » by **SLCceltic** » Wed Nov 4, 2009 8:27 pm

^Amen.

CjayC · Post #8 » by **CjayC** » Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:53 pm

The biggest problem is that no matter what we'd still have Ron Turner as the offensive coordinator at the end of the day, with still possible questions at QB.

Still not sold on Kyle Orton, because the Ravens basically admitted that all they had to do was shutdown his short routes since they didn't respect his long ball.

Cutler has his share of problems(Self-inflicted, Offensive Line, and Ron Turner inflicted), but I think its easier to build for the future knowing that the most important part of the team is not in question. You give Cutler some good coaching, and a coach that isn't afraid to coach him up or call him out on his mechanics(*coughMIKESHANAHANorMIKEHOLMGRENcough*), and he can be even better than he is.

What he doesn't need is this "Yes Man" coaching staff jocking him, pretending he's the best thing since sliced bread, when he needs to be broken or coached up on some of his habits.
---

Given Angelo's track record in the 1st round, who says he wouldn't have traded down? The 09 draft was stacked at WR, but I think Angelo would have been ho-hum at drafting one.

We already have money invested in Chris Williams so I doubt Angelo would draft two tackles, two years in a row(Unless this tackle was just a can't miss prospect). With the talent left on the board; several Offensive Tackles, some WR's, and DE's I think there was a good chance for a trade down. Maybe he picks a Vontae Davis at CB, but given the fact that the Bears are "Always happy with what they have" who knows what they would have done since they were high on Zack Bowman.

I think there was a good chance we would have traded down and maybe got two 2nd rounders from the Patriots or maybe a package from another team.