rangercal Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 07:29 PM) You forgot to quote the "satire" part that is above the article on the website. didn't even see that. Must be my pessimism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Do not...I repeat...DO NOT give the Broncos anything more than the first round pick (and probably just a 2nd rounder) for Cutler. Of course, I want this guy, he's a better quarterback than we have seen in this town since WAAAAAAY before I was born. BUT, here's a couple reasons why you can't give the Broncos more than that: 1) Most important! The market has been set by the Matt Cassel trade. I know Cassel hasn't done anything near what Cutler has done, but Cassel was given the franchise tag and I believe the Chiefs got him AND Vrabel for a second rounder. 2) Cutler, while better than anything we've got, hasn't taken the Broncos anywhere. 3) If the Broncos want him out and he wants out, everyone knows this, so why would you offer the Broncos anything more than you absolutely have to. That being said, I hope to Jeebus that the Bears are on the phone discussing this whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I heard yesterday that the Lions are thinking of offering the Number 1 pick for him. Essentially Stafford for Cutler..... With the money that first round picks are guaranteed every year I would trade it every time unless there was a real need when my pick came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I would be completely shocked if the Bears actually landed Cutler.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) I heard yesterday that the Lions are thinking of offering the Number 1 pick for him. Essentially Stafford for Cutler..... With the money that first round picks are guaranteed every year I would trade it every time unless there was a real need when my pick came up. I would be shocked if the Broncos would want that due to, as you said, the $$$ involved. If I was the Broncos I wouldn't really want anything higher than a second half of the 1st pick and more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) Do not...I repeat...DO NOT give the Broncos anything more than the first round pick (and probably just a 2nd rounder) for Cutler. Of course, I want this guy, he's a better quarterback than we have seen in this town since WAAAAAAY before I was born. BUT, here's a couple reasons why you can't give the Broncos more than that: 1) Most important! The market has been set by the Matt Cassel trade. I know Cassel hasn't done anything near what Cutler has done, but Cassel was given the franchise tag and I believe the Chiefs got him AND Vrabel for a second rounder. 2) Cutler, while better than anything we've got, hasn't taken the Broncos anywhere. 3) If the Broncos want him out and he wants out, everyone knows this, so why would you offer the Broncos anything more than you absolutely have to. That being said, I hope to Jeebus that the Bears are on the phone discussing this whole thing. 1) -- the market for Cutler = what other teams will pay... if the Bears want Cutler, they will have to make Denver the best offer according to Denver's demands. 2) Rex took us to the Superbowl... is Rex Grossman better than Cutler? Cutler is worth the hassle because its not hard to see how he COULD take you to the promised land... he's very talented and can make every throw on the field. 3) The Broncos do not have to trade Cutler. By all accounts, trading him looks like the last thing they want to do now. Of course you dont want to pay a single penny more than you have to... but if the Bears actually want to bring in a franchise QB, your going to have to pay up. Furthermore, if Angelo acquires him (highly unlikely) he will have to tear up his old contract and sign him long term -- this is what teams who are actually willing to do whats necessary to win do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) I would be shocked if the Broncos would want that due to, as you said, the $$$ involved. If I was the Broncos I wouldn't really want anything higher than a second half of the 1st pick and more I agree... taking the 1st pick would be really risky for Denver. Your going to pay Stafford huge guaranteed dollars that you could have paid Cutler -- who is already established. The NFL really needs to do something about the way draft picks are paid... in a league of non-guaranteed contracts, its ridiculous that unproven players are given so much in guaranteed dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) 1) -- the market for Cutler = what other teams will pay... if the Bears want Cutler, they will have to make Denver the best offer according to Denver's demands. 2) Rex took us to the Superbowl... is Rex Grossman better than Cutler? Cutler is worth the hassle because its not hard to see how he COULD take you to the promised land... he's very talented and can make every throw on the field. 3) The Broncos do not have to trade Cutler. By all accounts, trading him looks like the last thing they want to do now. Of course you dont want to pay a single penny more than you have to... but if the Bears actually want to bring in a franchise QB, your going to have to pay up. Furthermore, if Angelo acquires him (highly unlikely) he will have to tear up his old contract and sign him long term -- this is what teams who are actually willing to do whats necessary to win do. I was just saying that if the Bears want Cutler, they shouldn't go in offering first round picks + picks next year + players. Go in with what the market has set with Cassel. Rex didn't "take" us to the SB. He had just as many horrible games where he was bailed out by the defense/return game. I don't think the Broncos are going to trade Cutler, either, but since you have to tear up his contract, which is right, that's another reason not to give up too much. And the Broncos know this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) I was just saying that if the Bears want Cutler, they shouldn't go in offering first round picks + picks next year + players. Go in with what the market has set with Cassel. Rex didn't "take" us to the SB. He had just as many horrible games where he was bailed out by the defense/return game. I don't think the Broncos are going to trade Cutler, either, but since you have to tear up his contract, which is right, that's another reason not to give up too much. And the Broncos know this... 1) I think there is an art to the bargaining process... but Angelo should be prepared to offer what it takes to get Cutler on his roster. If it only takes the 18th pick, great. if it takes more... so be it. 2) I agree with you (eventhough I love me some rexy) but i was just trying to show that "Jay Cutler hasnt taken the team anywhere" isn't necessarily a barometer of his talent. The Broncos' defense since he has been the starting QB has been abysmal... if you put him on the Steelers, they still win the SB. 3) Tearing up his contract is of no concern to the Broncos... thats between Cutler and his new team. If the Bears refuse to give the Broncos a 3rd round pick because they have to give him a new contract, I'm sure another team will pop-up and meet that demand. Typically, I'd say the Broncos were screwed because they've kind of back themselves into a corner... but there is a market for Cutler and there will be a bunch of teams offering up packages of picks etc... they should be able to find a nice package -- regardless of their bargaining position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I am a firm believer that 75% of a quarterback's success is determined by his situation. Here is the situation in Chicago: The Bears play a minimum of four games in horrendous conditions. The Bears currently have zero or very limited playmaking ability on offense. The Bears offensive line is not a strong point. Why would the Bears want a risk taking, win or lose you the game, gunslinging quarterback??? Let alone give up tons of picks for one??? Cutler is great... but not in the Bears current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 If your the Broncos and can get the first pick, you do it. You then can trade the first pick to other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) If your the Broncos and can get the first pick, you do it. You then can trade the first pick to other teams. Who else is crazy enough to want that cap hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) I am a firm believer that 75% of a quarterback's success is determined by his situation. Here is the situation in Chicago: The Bears play a minimum of four games in horrendous conditions. The Bears currently have zero or very limited playmaking ability on offense. The Bears offensive line is not a strong point. Why would the Bears want a risk taking, win or lose you the game, gunslinging quarterback??? Let alone give up tons of picks for one??? Cutler is great... but not in the Bears current situation. So no QB can ever be good in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Plenty of teams are willing to spend money to get the players that they want. The first pick guarantees that you get the player that you want, some teams are willing to pay for that luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 05:02 PM) So no QB can ever be good in Chicago? You must have missed the word "current". BUT to an extent you are correct (depends on what you consider "good").... Because of the elements in Chicago I not sure the Bears should go out of their way to try and acquire anyone that doesn't at least error towards being a game manager as opposed to a risk taker. Edited March 19, 2009 by GREEDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) So no QB can ever be good in Chicago? Green Bay was not cold for Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) Green Bay was not cold for Favre. And yet, New Jersey was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) And yet, New Jersey was. That's because he was old, and sucked. He did his last couple of years in Green Bay too actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yeah, that is ridiculous. A quarterback cant be good in chicago because of the weather?!?! I mean you are aware that Denver has a ton of snow too, and a good amount of NFL teams are in cold environments with bad weather similar to Chicago or worse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) Yeah, that is ridiculous. A quarterback cant be good in chicago because of the weather?!?! I mean you are aware that Denver has a ton of snow too, and a good amount of NFL teams are in cold environments with bad weather similar to Chicago or worse.... You are wrong. It is not the least bit ridiculous to say that you believe the Bears would be much better suited with a game manager, as opposed to a gunslinger, because of their current roster makeup and the tough conditions they play several games in per season. I am not saying that Cutler isn't a good quarterback, nor is it saying that I prefer Orton. I am saying that Cutler isn't "free for the hauling", and I wouldn't give up value to bring in any player that isn't a good fit for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Kyle Orton + the first round pick 1.) We draft in the first round like we are blind. Our first round pick is pretty much a well paid guy, who either is injured, incarcerated, or bad. 2.) Kyle Orton is a mediocre QB. This game manager crap is overstated. What this means, is that when he realizes that he has limited skills and throws 4 yard passes he is okay. If you need him to use his "skill" to win a game then we are f***ed. And please for the people who wish to use the first couple of games of this year as a gage for his skill, I see you Rex Grossman's couple of good games to start a season a few years back as well. They both suck. I know, Kyle will be all healthy and the Orton fanboys can wish and dream that Johnny Unitas is back. I could care less about Kyle, but my god some of the dumb ass calls that are coming into the radio stations, its like the Rowand fanboys and Crede fanboys ganged up together to create a super cult. Some dufus called up the score yesterday and was arguing we didn't need Jay Culter because Kyle did everything better than him. When pressed on what specific QB function Kyle did better, the moron said. He throws the deep ball better. They ripped him up and down the radio for that dumb comment. If you believe that Kyle throws a good deep ball, then you don't watch the games. Just do whatever you need to get a real QB here. And Caleb Hanie is not the answer either. Lets get Jay and build around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) Yeah, that is ridiculous. A quarterback cant be good in chicago because of the weather?!?! I mean you are aware that Denver has a ton of snow too, and a good amount of NFL teams are in cold environments with bad weather similar to Chicago or worse.... Yah... San Francisco is really windy, but that didn't stop them from producing two HoF Qb's back-to-back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) You are wrong. It is not the least bit ridiculous to say that you believe the Bears would be much better suited with a game manager, as opposed to a gunslinger, because of their current roster makeup and the tough conditions they play several games in per season. I am not saying that Cutler isn't a good quarterback, nor is it saying that I prefer Orton. I am saying that Cutler isn't "free for the hauling", and I wouldn't give up value to bring in any player that isn't a good fit for this team. If the Bears are MUCH better suited for a game manager... then we should resign ourselves to the fact that we will never make consistent runs at the superbowl. It's not a coincidence that teams with pro bowl level talent at QB are seemingly in the title games (Conf. Champ, SB) every year. In fact, the only time we've made it to a title game in the past 20+ years was with --- a "gunslinger." The "game manager" tag is another way of saying... you have an average or below average QB. Orton is around average right now. Find me a trend of teams winning the SB with avg QB play and we can talk. While this team isn't a SB contender with Cutler... we're a lot closer to having a legitimate chance to win the big game with him than without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I can't believe we have people who want a game manager. Treat yourself to steak and lobster every once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) Some dufus called up the score yesterday and was arguing we didn't need Jay Culter because Kyle did everything better than him. When pressed on what specific QB function Kyle did better, the moron said. He throws the deep ball better. They ripped him up and down the radio for that dumb comment. If you believe that Kyle throws a good deep ball, then you don't watch the games. That was priceless although he was bullied into saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts