Chisoxfn Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (rockren @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) Franchise QBs don't grow on trees...there isn't a fan base more familiar with this saying than Chicago. When is the last time a team traded a 25 year-old Pro Bowl QB coming off of a 4500 yard season? McDaniels is pretty full of himself if he thinks he needs a QB more suitable to fit what he's trying to do...After Denver goes 4-12 this year, McDaniels may be looking for a new job. Never, there was absolutely no historical marker for such a situation. No player of this caliber at this point in his career has ever been on the market. The only other example I can think of is when Clinton Portis (a rb) was dealt in his prime from the Broncos and the RedSkins paid a very hefty price for him. Bottom line, the Bears got a guy that they can build around not just now, but for the next ten years and I'm f***ing stoked. Say we draft Sanchez, we got to give him money and use our 1st round pick (and probably have to deal up) and still have no idea, we are basically giving up another 1st for certainty and who the hell cares about the 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) Yeah you're right they don't, and like I said the Bears needed this.. but Denver could easily draft Mark Sanchez this year or wait till next year and if they do suck this year could get a Colt McCoy or Sam Bradford anyways. Either way, Denver isn't in a bad position at all. Denver has to trade him because they pissed him off and he clearly wasn't going to cooperate with them, its not like they just decided hey lets trade Jay Cutler without anything behind it, I still see what you are saying though. I don't think it was more that he wanted a QB to fit what hes doing aside from he just wanted his guy, that didn't happen and that's why Cutler was traded. I would hardly say Denver is in a bad position here regardless of how this season goes for them. If they want a QB, they can get one and have set themselves up pretty good for the future. And once again, not a bad deal for the Bears at all I just feel Denver wins it easily. Its a win win, with one of the wins being just a little more than the other. Anytime you get two firsts it isn't a bad move, plus, I think Orton is a good fit for McDaniels system. McDaniels is going to run a system similar to the run set for Cassel and I fully believe Orton has a similar skill set as Cassel. I don't think either are elite QB's, which Cutler might be and Cassel has obviously proved a bit more, but Orton could very well be the starting QB for the next 5 years in Denver with them building there team around defense and using those picks to upgrade the defense as well as continue to rebuild the oline and get in a RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:45 PM) Never, there was absolutely no market for a player of this caliber at this point in his career being on the market. The only other example I can think of is when Clinton Portis (a rb) was dealt in his prime from the Broncos and the RedSkins paid a very hefty price for him. Bottom line, the Bears got a guy that they can build around not just now, but for the next ten years and I'm f***ing stoked. Say we draft Sanchez, we got to give him money and use our 1st round pick (and probably have to deal up) and still have no idea, we are basically giving up another 1st for certainty and who the hell cares about the 3rd. Yeah and even then Denver traded him because they made any RB look like a stud with their system.. that wasn't a hard choice for them at all. I wouldn't say who cares about a third, the second and third rounds are excellent draft territory especially for those talents that have fallen. For what the Bears have done though, I would feel the same. You move that third if it gives you a young, pro bowl QB which was desperately needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 So this is what a Cubs message board looks like every spring training! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:45 PM) Yeah you're right they don't, and like I said the Bears needed this.. but Denver could easily draft Mark Sanchez this year or wait till next year and if they do suck this year could get a Colt McCoy or Sam Bradford anyways. Either way, Denver isn't in a bad position at all. Denver has to trade him because they pissed him off and he clearly wasn't going to cooperate with them, its not like they just decided hey lets trade Jay Cutler without anything behind it, I still see what you are saying though. I don't think it was more that he wanted a QB to fit what hes doing aside from he just wanted his guy, that didn't happen and that's why Cutler was traded. I would hardly say Denver is in a bad position here regardless of how this season goes for them. If they want a QB, they can get one and have set themselves up pretty good for the future. And once again, not a bad deal for the Bears at all I just feel Denver wins it easily. Its a win win, with one of the wins being just a little more than the other. Those QB's could all turn into Joey Harrington or Ryan Leaf as easily as they could turn into Jay Cutler. I'll take Jay Cutler over all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimpy2121 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Crappy quality, but still. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-2yd_EPqB8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) but Orton could very well be the starting QB for the next 5 years in Denver with them building there team around defense and using those picks to upgrade the defense as well as continue to rebuild the oline and get in a RB. I wouldn't go that far, clearly McDaniels still wants to get his guy in there. I doubt that its Orton. I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to flip one of those firsts to get Cassel. Not sure if that's something KC would entertain, but I bet they at least try it. Either way, Orton should work fine for them in the mean time while McDaniels gets the guy he wants to be his QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 07:48 PM) Yeah and even then Denver traded him because they made any RB look like a stud with their system.. that wasn't a hard choice for them at all. I wouldn't say who cares about a third, the second and third rounds are excellent draft territory especially for those talents that have fallen. For what the Bears have done though, I would feel the same. You move that third if it gives you a young, pro bowl QB which was desperately needed. A 3rd round pick can be a deal breaker when your acquiring a mediocre player, when you are getting a pro-bowler, potential franchise guy, you can't let a 3rd rounder be the deal breaker. That is more or less how I'm handling it. I think Denver will be just fine after making this move. I don't think they are really any better or worse long-term, mainly because there offense was a good RB away from being elite and they could have easily spent the next couple drafts addressing the defense without even worrying about the offense for the most part and probably would have had a couple year window as super bowl contenders (in all honesty). Without having an elite QB that could be a bit harder, but they have more draft picks to potentially land that elite QB or strengthen everything else up so when that QB shows up (if they can find it, big if) they'll be ready. From the Bears perspective, its a huge win. I'd say as a whole I give the win to the Bears given that it not only is a great move for the franchise for the next 10 years, but it also awoke a sleeping giant of a fan base and changed the entire face of the franchise and the way things are ran overnight. Ownership might be the same, but I look at the Bears completely different today than I did yesterday. I can't say that about the Broncos. Plus, a year from now, if the Bears struggle, one of the best coaches in NFL history will be a front-runner to take the position (Shanny). By the way, I know the Bears still have some major holes but overnight they've addressed a need that every team wishes they could address (role of a franchise QB that could go down as one of the best ever...obviously a big if, but no expert will tell you that Cutler doesn't have that ability). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 How can you say Denver "easily won this deal" when the Bears paid less for Cutler than the Giants did for a rookie Eli? They only got two firsts and a third. Compare how much the Cowboys received for Herschel Walker. 3 firsts, 3 seconds, 1 third. Denver should have gotten more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) So this is what a Cubs message board looks like every spring training! Funny that you are saying that on a Sox board though. This would be like the Sox signing CC this past off season. Jason would still be yelling at neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) Those QB's could all turn into Joey Harrington or Ryan Leaf as easily as they could turn into Jay Cutler. I'll take Jay Cutler over all of them. Obviously, you can say that for ANY player drafted. Calvin Johnson could have been Charles Rogers. Point is, Cutler wasn't the guy they wanted in Denver and now they can get the guy they want and then some if that's what they want to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 07:52 PM) I wouldn't go that far, clearly McDaniels still wants to get his guy in there. I doubt that its Orton. I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to flip one of those firsts to get Cassel. Not sure if that's something KC would entertain, but I bet they at least try it. Either way, Orton should work fine for them in the mean time while McDaniels gets the guy he wants to be his QB. I can't see KC dealing with there division rival. They have a lot of needs but they seem quite happy with having Cassel there. And I'm not saying Orton is the guy, but NFL Network was reporting that the Broncos actually liked Orton and I Think its because he can be a system type of QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) So this is what a Cubs message board looks like every spring training! Uhhh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:45 PM) Yeah you're right they don't, and like I said the Bears needed this.. but Denver could easily draft Mark Sanchez this year or wait till next year and if they do suck this year could get a Colt McCoy or Sam Bradford anyways. Either way, Denver isn't in a bad position at all. They'll have to trade up to get Sanchez...which they could do with all of their draft picks. Regardless...would you rather have Sanchez, McCoy or Bradford over Cutler? I believe we would be hard pressed to find an NFL Exec who would. Denver was in much MUCH better shape before they inquired to deal for Cassell. McDaniels tenure (which I believe will be short) will always be regarded as a salvaged one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Mark Schlereth is a f***ing dumbass. He said the Bears would be a worse team for acquiring Cutler b/c we have too many holes that can't be plugged now. He said we needed those picks to solidify the OL and WR positions. He also said something to the effect of having no offensive tackles and that we'd win 6 or 7 games next year. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. First of all, have you ever heard of Orlando Pace, Mark? Or how about 1st rounder Chris Williams? Or maybe multi-year starter Kevin Shaffer, who will now fulfill the swing-man role at OT. Don't forget Omiyale competing at OT too, even if he will probably be a OG with us. Our offensive line is undoubtedly better now than it was last year and it was pretty serviceable last year. We'll also be returning a stellar 2nd year RB, and the best TE duo in the league. Don't tell me the offense will be worse. Plus, now that Babich is done calling the plays on defense and we added Marinelli, the D almost has to be better than it was last year. That doesn't sound like a team that will get worse. We don't really have that many holes and we can absolutely find an immediate starter in the 2nd round if we go best player available, which we should if we sign, say, Torry Holt. Also, I can't wait to see Earl Bennett playing with Cutler again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:53 PM) I can't say that about the Broncos. Plus, a year from now, if the Bears struggle, one of the best coaches in NFL history will be a front-runner to take the position (Shanny). Lovie is on a really hot seat right now. The defense better be top 5 or your call is right on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 10:53 PM) How can you say Denver "easily won this deal" when the Bears paid less for Cutler than the Giants did for a rookie Eli? They only got two firsts and a third. Compare how much the Cowboys received for Herschel Walker. 3 firsts, 3 seconds, 1 third. Denver should have gotten more. Don't compare trades to the Herschel Walker trade unless you're talking about what an epic fail it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) How can you say Denver "easily won this deal" when the Bears paid less for Cutler than the Giants did for a rookie Eli? They only got two firsts and a third. Compare how much the Cowboys received for Herschel Walker. 3 firsts, 3 seconds, 1 third. Denver should have gotten more. because Denver Did not want Cutler. They are changing the defense to a 3-4 and McDaniels wants his own guy running the team. They have four first over the next two drafts and an extra third this year for a guy who they didn't want anyways. They are going to be able to set their team up for a real long time over the next two years, once again, all for a guy who they didn't even want. How can you say Denver should have gotten more? What more could they get? Another first? Change the third to a second? No one is going to pay that price. They had to move Cutler, there was no choice in the matter anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) So this is what a Cubs message board looks like every spring training! Had the Bucs traded for Cutler, you'd be doing cartwheels too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 The Broncos got less then market value. McDaniels youth and inexperience cost the Broncos when he tried to trade for Cassel and it fell through. He is a 31 year old coach, he has no NFL experience, as soon as he started a rift with Cutler there was no way that they could work together. McDaniels has nothing he can hang his hat on, and he may become the greatest NFL coach, but right now he cost his team. Its fine if you want to bring in your own guys, but you cant alienate arguably the best player on your team unless you are 100% sure they are gone. The Broncos may draft 3 Pro-Bowl players, but right now its hard to say how the Bears overpaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (dasox24 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:57 PM) Mark Schlereth is a f***ing dumbass. Do yourself a favor turn off ESPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:44 PM) The ego that is the Bell Belichick regime just handed the Bears Jay Cutler, thanks Bill. I wonder what Denver's response to Bill is right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (rockren @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:57 PM) They'll have to trade up to get Sanchez...which they could do with all of their draft picks. Regardless...would you rather have Sanchez, McCoy or Bradford over Cutler? I believe we would be hard pressed to find an NFL Exec who would. Denver was in much MUCH better shape before they inquired to deal for Cassell. McDaniels tenure (which I believe will be short) will always be regarded as a salvaged one. Denver picks 12th and 18th, they wont have to trade up to get Sanchez. And yes, there would be no reason to pick one of Sanchez, McCoy, or Bradford over Cutler... unless, Cutler isn't the guy you want, which is what happened in Denver. It doesn't matter if Orton is their man now or they go with the draft, Denver has set themselves up very nicely for the future with this deal. And while its a great deal for the Bears because you need that stud signal caller, I just think Denver is in a better position for their entire team for the future. The Bears defense is nothing like it use to be, they still need a WR, they still have issues with the offensive line.. and now they don't have a 1st/3rd this year and a 1st next year. Thats why I think Denver wins this, because the Bears still have a lot of holes to fill and lost some crucial draft picks. They needed to do this though, and hopefully in the long run its going to pay off because Cutler is a hell of a talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:00 PM) Do yourself a favor turn off ESPN. I did that a while ago...had to be the worst analytical piece I've ever seen on ESPN, which is really saying something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 because Denver Did not want Cutler. So if the Bears didnt want Forte and traded him for a 5th rounder the Bears "win the trade easily" just because they didnt want him? McDaniels screwed up, if he doesnt mess around there is no way Cutler is traded for anything less than 2 firsts and 2 seconds. The market for Qb's has been set, and its always been at least 2 first round picks (generally one is top 5) and at least another first day pick. The Bears gave up a mid first round pick an unknown first and a third. How is that not great value? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.