Bucs coach on Jay Cutler: “He’s Joe Namath to us”

Getty Images

Dolphins quarterback Jay Cutler reminds Buccaneers coach Dirk Koetter of a great quarterback of the Jets’ past.

And that’s true even though the last time the Bucs saw Cutler, he looked more like one the Jets’ current quarterbacks.

“He’s a strong-armed, quick-release guy, stand in the pocket [passer],” Koetter said, via Greg Auman of the Tampa Bay Times. “He’s been a little streaky in his career, and when he’s hot, he’s red-hot. I’ve seen him light teams up. This week, he’s Joe Namath to us. He’s the greatest quarterback, whoever your greatest quarterback is, because he’s the one we’re playing this week.”

Maybe so, but last year when he was with the Bears, it was more Christian Hackenberg than Broadway Joe.

Cutler threw a pick-six and lost a fumble for a safety, and the Bucs blew out the Bears. But Koetter’s seen the other side too, including strafing the Falcons (when Koetter and Bucs defensive coordinator Mike Smith were coaching there) for 381 yards in 2014.

So whenever or wherever they end up playing (with Hurricane Irma bearing down, anything’s possible), the Bucs know that Cutler’s capable of putting up big numbers.

26 responses to “Bucs coach on Jay Cutler: “He’s Joe Namath to us”

  1. theright0pinion says:
    September 5, 2017 at 9:29 am
    Joe Namath wasn’t that good of a QB.
    **********************************************************
    Young people only have stats to look at and are truly ignorant to the truth. The fact is that Namath was a very good QB and a great leader.

    A 50% completion percentage was actually good back then because offenses were constantly throwing the ball downfield, this is why INT’s were higher then too.

  2. “A 50% completion percentage was actually good back then because offenses were constantly throwing the ball downfield, this is why INT’s were higher then too.”

    And defenders could hammer receivers into the ground with hits that would draw 15 yards for hitting a defenseless receiver penalty these days. All the younger fans have very little idea of how the game used to be played. There were no such things as defenseless receivers. There were no such things as helmet to helmet hits. There regularly used to be defensive battles where the score ended 6 – 3 or 9 -7 etc.

    They played a different and much tougher brand of football when Namath was playing.

  3. I can’t wait to hear the rumblings when Cutler takes the field and starts playing like Cutler. Why are so many people expecting something different to show up?

  4. Jets fans are psycho about Namath, but he wasn’t much once you get past that one amazing upset. Even there it was mostly the defense and the running game. He did little. If they lost he’d just be some old timer who played in the AFL.

  5. For all of you talking about how different the era was, well, that part is true. But was Joe great during that era? Debatable. What is undeniable is how good Joe was up until his mid-20s. But many QBs put up good numbers. There were 17 QBs to play in the 1965 to 1974 span of Joe’s career. 11 had more TDs than INTs. And only 4 who didn’t had a differential greater than 10. Namath was the second worst in that era (differential of -20), behind Norm Snead (-33). And only John Hadl threw for more total interceptions. Only 2 QBs had a worse completion percentage – Daryl Lamonica and Jim Hart.

    What Joe did well was throw for a ton of yards. He was third highest during that time. And he rarely took a sack. Only 122 over a ten year period.

    So, no. It wasn’t normal to throw for more ints and to have as low a passing completion percentage as Namath did. Not at all. However, it wasn’t also normal to throw for as many yards as he did (26,000 and change).

    If you want to make an argument for him, make the right argument (4 Pro Bowls before 26, first to try 500 pass attempts and have 10 or less sacks, etc). But don’t make this all about how different the era was. It was different but many of Joe’s numbers were still pedestrian.

  6. Broadway Joe was a better QB, more successful QB, and more likeable QB than Pouty Cutler – and Joe’s legs look great in tights.

  7. harrisonhits2 says:
    September 5, 2017 at 10:21 am

    “A 50% completion percentage was actually good back then because offenses were constantly throwing the ball downfield, this is why INT’s were higher then too.”

    And defenders could hammer receivers into the ground with hits that would draw 15 yards for hitting a defenseless receiver penalty these days. All the younger fans have very little idea of how the game used to be played. There were no such things as defenseless receivers. There were no such things as helmet to helmet hits. There regularly used to be defensive battles where the score ended 6 – 3 or 9 -7 etc.

    They played a different and much tougher brand of football when Namath was playing.

    ——————————–

    You “back in the day” people are hilarious.

    Must have been tough walking to school, bare foot, in the snow, uphill (both ways) lmao.

    Back in the day… when NFL linemen were 245lbs and 5’11”
    Back in the day… before trainers and nutritionists

    Today’s NFL players are by far physically more superior, bigger and stronger, than those players Back in the day.

    The players today in the NFL would literally kill “back in the day” players on the field.

  8. “Back in the day… when NFL linemen were 245lbs and 5’11”
    Back in the day… before trainers and nutritionists”

    Back in the day…before rampant designer PED use
    Back in the day…Before qbs begged for flags every time they got hit.

    There, fixed it for you

  9. @ dirtdawg,
    great post!
    Comparing a player to other players in his own era is the best way to have some semblance of an accurate read on how good a player was.

  10. You can spin and lie all you want but I remember when a 50% completion was good and the reason was everyone was throwing downfield.

  11. Always hilarious to read the piffle that denigrates yesteryear’s players/stats, when those who would diminish them offer nothing better than ‘because I say so’ as proof that today’s players are better.

    They’re not.

    Put today’s players ‘then’ or yesteryear’s ‘now’, subject the same drawbacks/benefits each era, and the best players would still be best – any era. Bigger stronger faster? There has always been bigger, stronger, faster players… bigger, stronger and faster then than even exist today. Have followed the game since the 1950’s, know from observation & conversation that given heights, weights and speed of players are often inaccurate – including today.

    That bigger, stronger, faster ‘teams’ LOST the first three Superbowl’s, GB trouncing KC & OAK and NYJ doing same to BALT, makes non sequitur ‘bigger, stronger & faster players are better’ nonsense. That no one has been bigger, stronger and faster variously than players from the 1960’s such as DT Ernie Ladd (6’9 350, give or take depending size of breakfast), WR Bob Hayes, ‘The World’s Fastest Human’, or OG Bob Young who ‘post football’ his middle / late 30’s was finishing near the top vs the best ‘World’s Strongest Man’ competitions.

    Teams too were superior/still are: Packers ‘5 World Championships in just 7 year’s untied, matched or broken by any the modern day ‘pretenders’ (here’s looking at you Patriots). In the NHL Canadians, NBA Celtics and MLB Yankees, dynasties that blow away every other team since up to and including today, despite all the ‘bigger, stronger, faster’ types. No, as demonstrated, yesteryear and it’s players/teams RULE, then and still today.

    Records: if today’s players are better, in fact so much better, they ought to not only top but obliterate all the records.

    They don’t/haven’t.

    Examples being MLB’s Ted Williams unmatched .400 + batting season & Joe DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak, NBA’s Wilt Chamberlain still unmatched multiple records, NFL’s Dick ‘Night Train’ Lane’s 14 ints in only 12 games 1952 and Ernie Nevers 40 points scored individually in a game (40, in 1932), untied, matched or broken. All these records/players among others still stand alone at the top, despite no steroid/PED use and other cheating variously, and no nutrition, training or equipment advantages modern day, among other claimed progress.

    The prosecution rests: the modern day pretenders are ‘guilty’, as charged.

  12. theright0pinion says:
    September 5, 2017 at 11:08 am

    You “back in the day” people are hilarious.
    Back in the day… when NFL linemen were 245lbs and 5’11”
    Back in the day… before trainers and nutritionists

    Today’s NFL players are by far physically more superior, bigger and stronger, than those players Back in the day.

    The players today in the NFL would literally kill “back in the day” players on the field.
    ===================================================

    You do realize that people haven’t changed in the last 40 years DNA-wise, right? If you took players from the 60s and put them here today, they’d have the same access to nutrition and weight training and would be the same size. And if you took today’s players and put them in the 60s, they’d be “smaller” because the science based approach to training wasn’t prevalent back then.

  13. Namath narrative is wrong. His 49.2 comp % was actually 3% BETTER than league average the year the Jets won the Super Bowl. His passer rating of 72.1 was 10% better. Comparatively Andrew Luck last year was 2% better and 10% better respectively according to PFR Advanced Passing. So Namath was alot better than the stats show, and he somehow won a superbowl for the Jets.

  14. What matters is who will be the better QB on the field during the game which surely will be Cutler…

    They will both miss their targets badly and both will throw 1 or 2 ints…
    The Dolphins have better coaches and better offense to make up for their mistakes…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!