Cutler vs. Orton - Why does there have to be a loser?

     The title of this post is the title of a blog linked through the Chicago Sun-Times.  Here's the link:

Cutler vs. Orton -- Why does there have to be a loser?

This article was posted on Aug 1, 2009, and has some rather interesting points.  More after the jump.

Why do either of these guys have to be regarded as fantasy (or real world) busts for 2009 just because they are switching teams?

Why must one, or both, be seen as a failure while the other receives adulation as a winner?

Even though both of these players have a hate-wagon following them to every city they go to, I beg of you to relax, sit back, and read an unbiased approach to both of their new situations.

Great advice -- sit back, relax, take an unbiased approach to both.

Well, still, both of these guys are talented enough to make things happen in their first year in new colors, and I have evidence as to why I believe so.

The article has this to say about Cutler (there's more, but I didn't want to include all of it):

You don’t pass for 25 touchdowns and over 4,500 yards on a whim. The guy is talented.

He’s got a Brett Favre-moxie that you can’t teach, a rocket arm, and excellent mobility.

The point is, Cutler may not be quite as “great” as his Denver weapons and numbers made him out to be, but he also isn’t anywhere close to the wimpy, cry baby, drama king that the trade to Chicago made him out to be either.

He still knows how to play football, and he’s talented enough to make things happen with the few weapons that Chicago does have.

It speaks of Orton this way:

Orton is entering into a system that gave Matt Cassel the quickest quarterback makeover we’ve ever seen.

Orton tossed over 2,900 yards and 18 touchdowns with those average weapons everyone keeps talking about. But he is now walking into Cutler territory, where he has the luxury of having Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler at his disposal.

Now admittedly this was written pre-Marshall issues, but the point is still the same, Orton has a wealth of receiving talent that he did not have in Chicago.

Orton proved—on a bum ankle for the final four weeks—that he can manage games and is talented enough to put up solid numbers, despite not having polished weapons around him.

With a new cast of friends sharing the load on offense, Orton’s numbers could get halfway to where Cutler was last year.

The article summarizes them with this:

If we’re being realistic, it’s as simple as this:

Orton is good enough to help make the Denver offense go, but their offensive line is still aging, and their entire defense is, well, incomplete.

They are probably still a .500 team, but Orton is too smart and safe to have them lose more than nine games.

Cutler, on the other hand, has a good defense and special teams. And while some of his weapons aren’t necessarily elite or proven yet, the Bears have the athleticism and explosiveness needed to make that jump.

With Cutler’s arm guiding the way, the Bears could enter into the top 10 in the league offensively.

While I would suggest that the jury may still be out on the wins prediction by the author, I think there is a valuable point here, both teams have the potential to finish better this year with their new quarterbacks than they finished last year with their old ones.

Finally, I'd like to share one quote from the middle of the article that I find rather compelling:

Did those talented receivers make Cutler, or did Orton’s lack of talent make him? Or is it both?

I say neither.

Perhaps we've been looking at this all wrong.

Perhaps the question should not be "Are we better with Orton or Cutler?"

But rather, maybe we should be asking "In what areas do we believe we will see improvement with Orton at QB?"

So far in this preseason, I've seen areas that bring me hope (such as Orton's performance improving each week), and areas that raise concerns (such as the special teams giving up a huge return).

Just might be worth considering.