Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:58 PM) 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. Bringing your guy in is a lot easier said than done. I bet the Jets offered a better package but they needed to get Cutler out of the AFC. Playing QB in Denver is not a walk in the park especially in December and January. 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 -> 08:59 PM) 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. I never said the Bears overpaid, and I also don't understand how you think the Broncos didn't get market value. They got more than what a franchise tag would cost. Two firsts, a third, and a QB who is more than capable of being decent for them especially in the New England system that made Matt Cassel look like a beast. Denver made out very well in this deal when you consider they didn't go from Cutler to nothing, they went from Cutler to Orton while also acquiring two first round picks and a third rounder. I thought they got excellent value for someone who wasn't their guy anyways. 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 -> 09:02 PM) Denver picks 12th and 18th, they wont have to trade up to get Sanchez. I hate to derail the thread, but with Sanchez's recent pro day workouts...he won't fall anywhere near 12th. If he somehow fell to #11 (he won't) every team behind Denver will try to trade up because Denver's current starting QB is neckbeard. Just because Denver knew this horrible day was inevitable due to being unable to reconcile with Jay...that doesn't mean it wasn't horrible. My uncle is a current Broncos Season Ticket Holder who is looking to unload them after this. People are jumping off of roofs in Denver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 My Packer fan "friend" is totally trying to undermine it. Even said that it is risky cuz he has diabetes. 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 -> 09:03 PM) 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. Well Denver didn't trade Cutler for a 5th round pick, so your example doesn't really translate to what happened. And you are out of your mind if you think any team would trade two firsts and two seconds for ANYONE in this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:07 PM) My Packer fan "friend" is totally trying to undermine it. Even said that it is risky cuz he has diabetes. I'm a Bear fan in the heart of Packer Country and all of my incoming text messages have read along the lines of, "F**k you" 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 -> 09:06 PM) I never said the Bears overpaid, and I also don't understand how you think the Broncos didn't get market value. They got more than what a franchise tag would cost. Two firsts, a third, and a QB who is more than capable of being decent for them especially in the New England system that made Matt Cassel look like a beast. Denver made out very well in this deal when you consider they didn't go from Cutler to nothing, they went from Cutler to Orton while also acquiring two first round picks and a third rounder. I thought they got excellent value for someone who wasn't their guy anyways. You just made a mistake by saying Denver easily won the trade... they went from being the favorites or contenders to win their division to a probable 4 or 5 win season next year. Denver didn't win anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (rockren @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) I'm a Bear fan in the heart of Packer Country and all of my incoming text messages have read along the lines of, "F**k you" lol my Vikings fan friend has told me to f*** off about 5 times. 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 -> 09:07 PM) I hate to derail the thread, but with Sanchez's recent pro day workouts...he won't fall anywhere near 12th. If he somehow fell to #11 (he won't) every team behind Denver will try to trade up because Denver's current starting QB is neckbeard. Well I disagree, considering there is a possibility that Detroit doesn't take Stafford at #1 and the teams in front of Denver, and the fact that Sanchez doesn't have a lot of college experience in terms of playing time I could easily see Sanchez lasting till 12 and maybe even 18 for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 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. So I guess the Sox made a great deal by trading Swisher for scraps because they didn't want him. Same thing with the Rangers trading A-Rod to the Yankees before the 2004 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This is incredible. This is realistically the most excited I’ve been to be a Bears fans since 15 seconds into the Super Bowl. Let’s go for broke: sign Holt, sign Harrison. Let’s do this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:10 PM) lol my Vikings fan friend has told me to f*** off about 5 times. HA! Being told to f*** off so many times has never felt so good. 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 -> 10:08 PM) Well Denver didn't trade Cutler for a 5th round pick, so your example doesn't really translate to what happened. And you are out of your mind if you think any team would trade two firsts and two seconds for ANYONE in this league. How many players in the NFL would be as valuable to the Bears as Jay Cutler...this may fill a hole that has been with this team for over 60 years. Also Angelo does not like 1st round picks I think they really had no problem making this trade. Some teams value fitrst round picks some do not. 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 -> 09:10 PM) You just made a mistake by saying Denver easily won the trade... they went from being the favorites or contenders to win their division to a probable 4 or 5 win season next year. Denver didn't win anything. They didn't even win their division last year, why are they now the favorites with the same team as is? They signed up a bunch of castoffs to help the defense, but haven't made anything major to improve their team. Denver wins because they have the assets to set their team up for a long time. Just because I think Denver won this trade, that doesn't mean im trying to say the Bears got hosed or something. The Bears now have a great QB, congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) So I guess the Sox made a great deal by trading Swisher for scraps because they didn't want him. Same thing with the Rangers trading A-Rod to the Yankees before the 2004 season. yeah because Denver clearly traded Cutler for scraps.. you guys really need better examples 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 -> 10:11 PM) Well I disagree, considering there is a possibility that Detroit doesn't take Stafford at #1 and the teams in front of Denver, and the fact that Sanchez doesn't have a lot of college experience in terms of playing time I could easily see Sanchez lasting till 12 and maybe even 18 for that matter. Sanchez was not that great of a college quarterback to be a sure thing and to be anyone's "guy". I do not trust USC quarterbacks as they have more weapons than any other college team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Also, Rick Morrissey's new story in the Tribune is a piece of work. What a s*** article. Is he trying to be the new Mariotti or something? All he does is write about negative stuff... I can't even believe I still read his bulls***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think teams would trade 2 firsts and 2 seconds for a young franchise qb who they feel could lead their team for 7+ years. If the Redskins had the bullets (more draft picks) its likely that they would have offered more than the Bears. Do you think Cutler today is worth more than Eli Manning was coming out of college? Because the Giants gave up a top 5 pick along with another 1st and a third, the top 5 pick on some draft value charts is worth 2x more than the Bears pick. 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 -> 10:14 PM) Denver wins because they have the assets to set their team up for a long time. In my mind they lost their two best assets this offseason and have an unproven coach that has already had one major f*** up under his belt. 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 -> 09:17 PM) Sanchez was not that great of a college quarterback to be a sure thing and to be anyone's "guy". I do not trust USC quarterbacks as they have more weapons than any other college team. Exactly, why I think he will be around mid draft. Doesn't mean that's who Denver wants, regardless, they can now get who they want with what they have set themselves up with. And they have Orton now, which is better than being stuck with nothing. Denver isn't going to be as bad as a lot of you think if they fill out that defense in this draft, especially with what you have seen New Englands offensive system do. 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 -> 09:14 PM) They didn't even win their division last year, why are they now the favorites with the same team as is? They lost their last 4 games of the year to lose by a game...they were close and a very young football team. Bringing back one of the best offenses in the game along with the natural maturation process of a young team, I'd think it's fair to say they would've at least contended for the AFC West in '09. Forget about that now. So as I said...Denver got the better of nothing. It isn't even because I'm a Bears fan or anything...trading Cutler was a very horrible thing for Denver. 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 -> 09:18 PM) I think teams would trade 2 firsts and 2 seconds for a young franchise qb who they feel could lead their team for 7+ years. If the Redskins had the bullets (more draft picks) its likely that they would have offered more than the Bears. Do you think Cutler today is worth more than Eli Manning was coming out of college? Because the Giants gave up a top 5 pick along with another 1st and a third, the top 5 pick on some draft value charts is worth 2x more than the Bears pick. Thats only because its what trading up in the draft dictates. If the Colts decided to trade Peyton Manning, teams wouldn't bust out their draft pick value charts to figure it out. The starting point is always going to be a first and a third. The Redskins were desperate as hell for a WR last season and they offered two first round picks for Chad Ocho Cinco, well how come they didn't just offer two firsts, a second, and a third? Because NO ONE is worth that. There isn't a single player in the NFL right now that is worth two firsts and two seconds. 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 -> 09:17 PM) Sanchez was not that great of a college quarterback to be a sure thing and to be anyone's "guy". I do not trust USC quarterbacks as they have more weapons than any other college team. Yeah I never said I liked Sanchez, either. I'd much rather see more than just 16 starts, which is all he's had. However QBs are always way overvalued in drafts and Sanchez has wowed people in workouts lately. I'll call the 49ers to grab him at 10 if he's there. 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 -> 10:20 PM) Exactly, why I think he will be around mid draft. Doesn't mean that's who Denver wants, regardless, they can now get who they want with what they have set themselves up with. And they have Orton now, which is better than being stuck with nothing. Denver isn't going to be as bad as a lot of you think if they fill out that defense in this draft, especially with what you have seen New Englands offensive system do. Isn't Sims on their roster? Hub Arkush said he would start over Orton. Denver's future is riding on Josh McDaniels...how are the Bellichick disciples doing.............I am not sold the brightness of the Denver future. They have set themselves up for failure just as easily as they have for success and have a more questionable future now than they did on the last day of the season. They could be great in three years......they could just as easily suck if the picks do not turn out. Who is the Denver G.M.? Is it McDaniels? If so, I think he is gone in two years. 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 -> 09:21 PM) So as I said...Denver got the better of nothing. It isn't even because I'm a Bears fan or anything...trading Cutler was a very horrible thing for Denver. Ide actually say keeping Cutler and dealing with the issues that would surely come from it would have been more horrible for Denver. The guy wouldn't even talk to anyone, so yes they lose a young talented QB. I don't think Josh McDaniels or Pat Bowlen are sweating losing Cutler, clearly McDaniels isn't since he already tried to get rid of him once anyways. 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.