Strong Sides: Should a team trade for Jay Cutler?
Strong Sides is a series in which NFL editors David P. Woods and Michael Amato debate topics from around the league.
After the way things have turned ugly for the Chicago Bears in 2014, it appears universally accepted that they made a mistake in giving Jay Cutler a contract extension. That said, is Cutler a lost cause at this point? Or is he still a significant talent that simply needs a change of scenery and a fresh start?
Should a team trade for Jay Cutler?
Amato: Trading for Cutler makes little sense. He's 31 and had plenty of chances to prove himself in good situations, but to no avail. Sure, if the Bears cut him and you can ink him to a short-term, risk-free deal it's worth a shot - but giving up assets and draft picks for him is foolhardy.
Woods: Quarterbacks with Cutler's natural talents are exceptionally rare. He's been a disaster in Chicago, but he's hardly the only problem on that team. If you give Cutler a fresh start on a team with strong leadership and a top defense, is it so crazy to suggest he has the chance to succeed? You wouldn't have to give up much to acquire him.
Amato: Cutler does have exceptional talent, but it's never translated into winning. Even as bad as things were this year, I can't imagine the Bears asking for anything than less than a first-round pick for him. That's far too much to part with given what Cutler has demonstrated lately. He's not worth it.
Woods: I think the Bears would be happy to give up Cutler for much, much less. Maybe a conditional third-rounder. There's talk that they may even cut him. Remember: there will probably be a new coach and perhaps general manager in Chicago next season. They may want to ditch Cutler and start fresh with their own guy. A team like the Buffalo Bills - which has a playoff-caliber roster but nothing resembling a starting quarterback and no first-round pick with which to acquire one - would be wise to poke around and see if Cutler can be had for cheap.
Amato: The Bills have a good defense, but what do they have to surround Cutler with on offense? He couldn't succeed in Chicago with arguably one of the best supporting casts in the league, including Matt Forte, Brandon Marshall, Alshon Jeffery and Martellus Bennett. Outside of Sammy Watkins, the Bills offense lacks playmakers. Cutler would be a train-wreck in Buffalo.
Woods: You're underrating the Bills offense. Watkins and Woods are a fine starting duo. The running back depth is solid. The offensive line is acceptable. Besides, it's not like Cutler's issues stem from a lack of talent around him. His problems are mental. With a new voice in his ear - and perhaps the realization of his career mortality that would come with getting dumped - a Cutler-led Bills offense could combine with a top-five defensive unit and produce a playoff team next season. The chemistry on the Bears doesn't work, but that doesn't mean the chemistry on every other team can't.
Amato: He's had plenty of good voices in his ear throughout his career, and he's failed. Mike Shanahan should have been a great mentor in Denver, but that didn't pan out. Marc Trestman was essentially hired just to help Cutler, given his experience working with quarterbacks, and it's been another disaster. How many chances and good opportunities does this guy need?
Woods: I'm not saying it's likely to work. But if you're the Bills, and you look at your current roster and see that it would be in the playoffs with even mediocre quarterback play, and then you remember you traded away your first-round pick and may be stuck with Orton/Manuel again next season, Cutler starts to look a little bit attractive.
Amato: That's the problem with Cutler. He always looks like a good option until you put him behind center on your team. He's going to disappoint whoever gives him a chance. It's inevitable.