There has been a lot of talk about Cutler's decision making ability on the field and the "risk" of having a QB with his aggressive mentality (when it comes to making passes). Well here is a quick look:
Brady: his first 3 years in the NFL:
2000: only 1 game
2001: 264 of 413 for 64%, 2843 yards, 18TD to 12INT (3% int/attempt ratio)
2002: 373 of 601 for 62%, 3764 yards, 28TD to 14INT (2.3% int/attempt ratio)
Culter: first 3 years
2006: five games
2007:297 of 467 for 63.6%, 3497 yards. 20TD to 14INT (3% int/attempt)
2008: 384 of 616 for 62.3%, 4526 yards. 25TD to 18INT (3% int/attempt)
Not as different as you might imagine in terms of risk taking; and Jay's overall numbers are better. Really, given a more reliable running game or a little better defense to keep the games close, Cutler wouldn't have been forced to take as many chances as he did.
Pats had an amazing defense, and their wining was as much a product of their D as it was Brady's game. Big Ben didn't win any Super Bowls on his own either.
Winning is a team thing, and Cutler isn't the "gunslinger" people like to label him as. He tried to carry the team on his back, and he paid with some INTs. Would it have been better to punt and loose? I think the fixation on "performance" in any given category is wrong. It depends on your objective. Playing it safe wouldn't have won us any more games. We just would have lost in a different fashion.
I take no sides when there is an argument in the team. I just get annoyed when we repeat media catch words like risk taker or decision making ...