FatiusJeebs

Ok Whodi...I see absolutely no mention of the O-Lines that protected these guys. (And I don't think I would ask Duece to sit down and google himself to death looking for the linemen for all these teams.) It is well documented that Cutler had ZERO Protection. It was so bad that the combine people have clearly documented that Cutler has a habit of throwing off of his back foot because of it. There is your small but effective counter-punch. Even the reference to Eli states that he at least had an effective lineman. Now since that bit of research is a monumental task we'll keep it as is... it is documented that Leinart had great talent and excellent pass coverage to make perfect passess all day. It is also well documented that Cutler had crap and was lookin like Archie Manning and David Carr most of the time and yet he still found a way to persevere in a crappy school.

BINGO!!

saintswhodi

If that was the best you got, you must still be punch drunk. The O-Lines? LMAO!!! Terrible.

FatiusJeebs

I don't see you replying though. ;0)

saintswhodi

Why would I reply to a stock answer? It's the same answer you give for Brooks. Here's that school of arguing: If a quarterback you like isn't as impressive as another, it's cause the other had a great line, and the QB you like didn't. If a QB whom the QB you support SHOULD play better than outperforms him, as MOST of those QBs Deuce listed did, make your QBs line seem even worse. If all else fails, say your QB had no line at all, but say he would be the greatest thing since sliced bread if he played where someone else played. Stock answer. No reply necessary.

FatiusJeebs

LOl...nice try. Avoiding the obvious is your specialty. A good QB is never as good if he has no protection. Truth is we do not know how well those other guys were protected. But WE DO KNOW THIS....Leinart had plenty...Cutler had none. Leinart performed up to expectations. He had the superb team in which he performed up to par with. Cutler not only met expectations...you could say he surpassed them. He had no running game.....average recievers and a crappy line and still made winners out of the hapless Commodores.

There is a reason why the city of New Orleans loves Archie Manning. Outside of being a Gulf Coast product, year in and year out he made the pathetic Saints the best they could be with the CRAP he had. If we were to use your logic then it is safe to say that you think guys like A. Manning are terrible because they could not produce right? Lets face it whodi...with your reasoning A. Manning should have won the Super Bowl every year with his squads and multitude of coaches. He should have produced right? He should have been above .500 every year right? Right whodi? ;0)

BINGO!!

BlackandBlue

With your reasoning, we should pick Cutler over Lienart, not based on talent, but the lack thereof, from his teammates?

TheDeuce

Ridiculous. You know you're really starting to sound like a guy whose posts I used to read......

Did you even read my post before? You're just being childish and annoying. You haven't addressed any of the points I made except the fact that now Cutler is God because he was decent with "no line." How do you know he had no line? For all you know, they could be one of the best lines in the SEC. You haven't given any facts, just random and irritating blurbs. You're arguments don't make sense. I talked about Cutler's poor completion percentage. You said it was because of his line. I talked about the rest of Cutler's stats, which were not very impressive. You said it was because he had a bad team with no wide receivers (even though he did have a NFL-caliber player in Erik Davis and Earl Bennet who was top 20 in the country in receiving yards) and played in a tough conference. I gave you a quote from perhaps the most respected NFL draft analyst in the country and you wrote it off because you don't think he knows what he's doing. Hell, you've even admitted that you're point is dumb and that all you could offer was a "small counter punch." Give it up, Cutler's overhyped. He's not that good. Good QBs make bad teams into good ones like Eli did, and even like Archie did. Vandy wasn't. What bowl game did they go to?

saintswhodi

Guess BNB and Deuce got me covered. Again, no reply necessary. 8)

And about Archie, he won a league MVP on a crappy team. What did Cutler win? Shows Archie was recognized for his greatness on a crappy team. Give it up. You have no argument, and like Deuce said, are just trying to be annoying now.

FatiusJeebs

Deuce...are you telling me that taking a school that usually wins like 1 or 2 games a year to an above .500 record, in the SEC might I add, not an improvement? Not a good thing? Are you also telling me that Archie was able to make winners out of the Saints? I'm definitely not knockin Archie but...they never broke .500 with him did they? Does that make him a bad QB? No becuz we all know that Archie had garbage and tons of it and yet...he made the Saints respectable on certain years. Cutler took a crappy football program and put them over .500 for the first time in lord knows how long.

You know what Deuce....you are absolutely right. Good QB's do make bad teams into good ones. Cutler just did that for Vandy. ;0) I'm glad we see eye to eye on this one.

gandhi1007

If, and only if, the Jets move up in the #1 spot & draft Leinart, I would not mind drafting Cutler. But not with the #2 pick. Saying he's as good as or better than Leinart is simply insane. However, he is a decent QB with a good arm. Saying his line sucks is going a little far with it. I watched the LSU game. LSU had one of the best defensive lines in the country & that Vanderbilt O-line gave him sufficient time in the pocket to make plays. That said, I would definately accept him as our QB over Vince Young or the moron we've had at the helm for the past 6 years, but no way over Leinart.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg

______________________________
KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!
-G.I. Joe