On Friday, Dec. 5, one day after the Bears lost 41-28 to the Dallas Cowboys, head coach Marc Trestman channeled his inner-Lovie Smith and defiantly exclaimed:

“Jay is our quarterback.”

In these parts, that might as well be the kiss of death, much like it was when Smith backed Rex Grossman by saying, “Rex is our quarterback.”

What’s interesting, however, is that we now know that on that same day — Friday, Dec. 5 — Kromer came clean to Trestman and admitted that the night before, he said some unflattering things about Cutler to NFL Network reporter Ian Rapoport. Basically, Kromer told Rapoport that Cutler was struggling to execute the offense and was killing them by failing to check out of runs destined to fail against the fronts he was seeing at the line scrimmage.

Essentially, Kromer just admitted what anyone with a remote control and a television already knew.

Yet, for some still unknown reason, Kromer decided he needed to come clean to the entire offense and did so in what the Chicago Tribune reported was a tearful admission the following Monday.

That was Monday, Dec. 8 — the same day Trestman doubled-down on his support of Jay Cutler:

“As long as Jay is healthy, he’s going to be playing quarterback for us.”

That was just 10 days ago. So excuse Chicago for being absolutely floored Wednesday, when ESPN’s Adam Schefter first reported that Cutler will be benched Sunday against the Detroit Lions in favor of Jimmy Clausen.

The timing is bizarre. From a football standpoint, Cutler’s horrible play this season warranted a benching weeks ago, so why now, on a short week in which Clausen will only have two full practices to prepare for the NFL’s second-ranked defense?

Clearly, there’s more at play here.

And as cries for Cutler’s benching having grown louder over the weeks, I have wondered aloud many times whether or not Trestman even had the power to bench his starting quarterback. Bears general manager Phil Emery said on Monday’s WBBM pregame show that the team is “set up in a top-down, very much a military fashion,” but he didn’t specify which military. It could be the Russian military for all we know.

The point is, when your starting quarterback is the highest paid player in the league — making a ridiculous $22.5 million this season — the guy who gave him all that money probably doesn’t want to see him sitting on the bench. That’s not a good look.

And as for the idea that the Bears are finally holding Cutler accountable, I just find it hard to believe that in a season with almost zero accountability, Marc Trestman suddenly woke up Wednesday and decided to bench the highest paid player in the NFL.

No, something else is going on and it’s very likely it’s related to the Monday ownership meeting that was reported by 670 The Score’s Dan Bernstein, in which the McCaskeys reportedly decided that Trestman will be fired at season’s end. One source confirmed that meetings have been conducted — without Emery —  in which the main topic was the future of not only Trestman, but also Emery.

Did Trestman get wind of his fate and just decide that he’s going out on his own terms? Or did ownership bypass Emery and give Trestman clearance to bench Cutler? Or did ownership make the call here and demand Cutler be taken off the field?

The latter speculation might be hard to believe given the McCaskeys rarely get involved in football decisions, but $16 million might be enough for them to send down a mandate, especially if they’ve already made up their mind about Trestman and Emery.

You see, Cutler has $38 million absolutely guaranteed in his massive, seven-year, $126.7 million contract, but $54 million is guaranteed against injury, which means if Cutler suffered a significant injury in these final two games, the McCaskeys could be out another $16 million. As it is, $10 million of that $16 million will be fully guaranteed if Cutler is still on the Bears’ roster March 13.

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but the McCaskeys are looking at this in hindsight and they undoubtedly understand that not only has Cutler’s contract been an utter disaster, it will probably go down as the worst contract in Chicago sports history. Has a team ever been forced to cut ties with a guy just one year into a seven-year deal?

Here’s a fact that really has to sting them: Had Emery used the franchise tag on Cutler in 2014, not only would the McCaskeys not owe the quarterback anything in the future, but they would have saved $6.31 million this year.

So now the question becomes, what can the Bears do to get out from under the rest of this contract?

Releasing him before March 13 would mean the Bears would be on the hook for $15.5 million in 2015, but they wouldn’t have to pay the minimum $10 million in 2016. ESPN also reported that there is language in his contract that could reduce the $15.5 million depending on how much he he signs for with another team. Given Cutler’s raw talent and the amount of teams out there without a better option, there would likely be at least two teams bidding for Cutler’s services, which could save the Bears significant money. This seems like the Bears’ best option.

Of course, they will certainly dangle him on the trade market first. The problem there, however, is that a team trading for Cutler wouldn’t just inherit the $15.5 million in 2015, but they would also be taking on at least $10 million guaranteed for 2016. After the 2015 season, that team would have to make another similar decision on whether or not to eat the $10 million guaranteed for 2016 or pay him another $6 million to keep him on the team in 2016.

But before we start making conclusions about what is going to happen with Cutler, we first need to see who is running the team next month. And that’s exactly why I believe the decision to bench Cutler is related to upcoming massive changes in the organization. A longterm Cutler decision doesn’t need to be made until March 13 and this is set up in a way where the McCaskeys can pitch the GM/head coach jobs in way where the candidates have the freedom to do whatever they want with Cutler.

Because let’s be honest, if Cutler was guaranteed to be on the 2015 roster, many possible candidates would be scared off. We don’t need Aaron Kromer to tell us that.

Whoever the Bears hire may want to get rid of Cutler. Fine. Goodbye. But it’s also possible they look at the cap situation and the other options out there and decide that keeping Cutler around for another year makes more sense. In that case, competition would almost certainly be brought in.

Of course, the only problem with this particular scenario is that unlike most events that have taken place this season, it makes too much sense. Did the McCaskeys really hold an intervention to stop the bleeding and start to frame things in a way that could actually save the direction of the Bears’ organization?

Bears fans everywhere should hope so. Otherwise, benching Cutler is just another move that lacks logic.

Adam Hoge covers the Bears for 87.7 The Game and TheGameChicago.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamHoge.