bubba9497 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/03/22/owners/index.html Click link for entire article News Item: I don't see Jay Cutler getting traded. That's my feeling after talking to the involved parties for a (insert shameless plug here) Sports Illustrated story this week. Now, I can't say with conviction that Cutler's going to be the Broncos' opening day starter, but I do think coach Josh McDaniels will exhaust every avenue to try to get Cutler to stay, and I do think nothing's going to happen here. Funny thing is, around the lobby and meeting rooms, I couldn't find any coach who thought the Broncos should even think of trading Cutler. "Say you're the Broncos, and Tampa Bay offers you two ones [two first-round picks] plus [second-year quarterback] Josh Johnson for Cutler,'' one NFC coach told me. "Denver makes the deal and picks a quarterback with one of the ones. You've traded the best young quarterback in football for two guys who might have a chance, but might be washouts too. Denver's problem is they could never get fair value for him.'' I called Charlie Weis, the Notre Dame coach and mentor of McDaniels, and asked what I considered the biggest question McDaniels must ask himself as he figures how far he'll go to keep Cutler: If I have to kiss this kid's feet and kowtow to him to make him feel comfortable enough to stay, is that any way to form a coach-player relationship with the most important player on the team? "It's a rhetorical question, but it's one I definitely would ask,'' said Weis, who left the Patriots' for Notre Dame in 2005, ceding the offensive coordinator's role to McDaniels. "That thought would go through my mind. You've got to be able to coach a quarterback, and coach him hard. You don't want to start your relationship that way. "Look, I'm not taking sides here. I know Josh very well, and I don't know Jay. But the one question I would ask is: Why wouldn't anyone faced with such a big decision not go have a one-on-one meeting with the coach? It's common sense. Even if you end up telling the guy to go to hell, don't you have to actually talk face to face, alone, before making such a huge career decision?'' Last week, the venom from the Cutler camp was so toxic I said I thought he'd have to be traded. But it was interesting here, listening to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speak to the body of league people (including McDaniels) and media here Sunday night. She talked at one point about how "history has a long arc,'' and how you have to take a long view of things. If you're always chasing the day's headlines, she said, you'll eventually become so reactionary that you'll ignore long-term good for short-term satisfaction, and you'll fail. I was thinking of McDaniels and Denver management. I think, like Rice used to do in the Middle East, the Broncos will exhaust all diplomatic means. And with agent Bus Cook on record as saying Cutler will report to mandatory mini-camps and training camp, why trade the guy, there's certainly no reason to do anything fast ... even if that means you don't have a definitive answer on Cutler by draft day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Last week, the venom from the Cutler camp was so toxic I said I thought he'd have to be traded. But it was interesting here, listening to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speak to the body of league people (including McDaniels) and media here Sunday night. She talked at one point about how "history has a long arc,'' and how you have to take a long view of things. If you're always chasing the day's headlines, she said, you'll eventually become so reactionary that you'll ignore long-term good for short-term satisfaction, and you'll fail. I think thats bang on. I posted most of what I say below is another thread earlier today but i thinks its relevant here in the context of the serach for instant gratification and lack of paitence from both fans and NFL front offices. Steve Young comes to mind. His first 4 years in the league he never broke a 53% completion percentage and had more INTs that TD passes. Two of those 4 years were with SF where he split time with Joe Montana due to injuries to Joe so its not all down to a bad Tampa team. I guess most posters on ES and most front offices today would have cut him ......just before in year 5 he jumped to a 69% completion percentage and the rest, as they say is history. Hall of Fame multiple Super Bowl wining history Just one example. OK how about Jim Plunkett. His first 5 years at New England he was horrible. Only broke 50% once while starting a ton of games. Then two very ordinary years at SF. No doubt most would have had him stacking shelves at this point if not earlier. In 79 he went to Oakland sat for a year, took over from Kenny Stabler in 1980 and won two Super Bowls - one aginst us in '83 :doh: I could go on - and according to my wife I do. Point is JC or (insert name of young QB here) may or may not develop into a good NFL QB. At this point we - and this includes everybody on ES I'm afraid on both sides of this argument - just don't know. Fans and teams have forgotten - or never knew in the first place - that it can take years for a QB to develop and we just don't have the paitence to wait to find out. A couple of years - instant (often flawed) judgement - Next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mac Patty Wack Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Fans and teams have forgotten - or never knew in the first place - that it can take years for a QB to develop and we just don't have the paitence to wait to find out. A couple of years - instant (often flawed) judgement - Next! But by the time he develops, the current team may be on disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskns n 05 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 But by the time he develops, the current team may be on disability. lol......... I hope he gets going, but that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 People have been pointing out that the problem with trading Cutler is getting a replacement who will be as good. Honestly, even with the issues he's shown in this offseason, you are more likely to do worse than better, especially if you do think he's all that. There is also the institutional knowledge the organization has on him, which is three years worth. Granted, that isn't as much as it would be for most organizations considering that they have a new coaching staff, but they still know more about him than any other QB right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I think thats bang on. I posted most of what I say below is another thread earlier today but i thinks its relevant here in the context of the serach for instant gratification and lack of paitence from both fans and NFL front offices.Steve Young comes to mind. His first 4 years in the league he never broke a 53% completion percentage and had more INTs that TD passes. Two of those 4 years were with SF where he split time with Joe Montana due to injuries to Joe so its not all down to a bad Tampa team. I guess most posters on ES and most front offices today would have cut him ......just before in year 5 he jumped to a 69% completion percentage and the rest, as they say is history. Hall of Fame multiple Super Bowl wining history Just one example. OK how about Jim Plunkett. His first 5 years at New England he was horrible. Only broke 50% once while starting a ton of games. Then two very ordinary years at SF. No doubt most would have had him stacking shelves at this point if not earlier. In 79 he went to Oakland sat for a year, took over from Kenny Stabler in 1980 and won two Super Bowls - one aginst us in '83 :doh: I could go on - and according to my wife I do. Point is JC or (insert name of young QB here) may or may not develop into a good NFL QB. At this point we - and this includes everybody on ES I'm afraid on both sides of this argument - just don't know. Fans and teams have forgotten - or never knew in the first place - that it can take years for a QB to develop and we just don't have the paitence to wait to find out. A couple of years - instant (often flawed) judgement - Next! Young only won 1 Super bowl last time I checked, but in it he had one of the best seasons/Super Bowls a QB has had in the big game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Young only won 1 Super bowl last time I checked, but in it he had one of the best seasons/Super Bowls a QB has had in the big game. Your right my mistake. Mind you he threw 6 TD passes as I recall so it should really count as two wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spear Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Last week, the venom from the Cutler camp was so toxic I said I thought he'd have to be traded. But it was interesting here, listening to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speak to the body of league people (including McDaniels) and media here Sunday night. She talked at one point about how "history has a long arc,'' and how you have to take a long view of things. If you're always chasing the day's headlines, she said, you'll eventually become so reactionary that you'll ignore long-term good for short-term satisfaction, and you'll fail. I was thinking of McDaniels and Denver management. I think, like Rice used to do in the Middle East, the Broncos will exhaust all diplomatic means. And with agent Bus Cook on record as saying Cutler will report to mandatory mini-camps and training camp, why trade the guy, there's certainly no reason to do anything fast ... even if that means you don't have a definitive answer on Cutler by draft day.Amusing highlight. Your attempt to completely reverse the context of that quote is pretty audacious.King was trying to make the point that Denver's long-term best interest is in keeping Cutler and letting the short-term drama blow over. But with your use of board mark-up and your transparent position on the matter of acquiring Jay Cutler, you are absurdly trying to flip the quote into cautioning AGAINST. Nice try. But clearly, the article was an endorsement of Cutler's value to a team and does not support your "quick fix" sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega4ce Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Amusing highlight. Your attempt to completely reverse the context of that quote is pretty audacious.King was trying to make the point that Denver's long-term best interest is in keeping Cutler and letting the short-term drama blow over. But with your use of board mark-up and your transparent position on the matter of acquiring Jay Cutler, you are absurdly trying to flip the quote into cautioning AGAINST. Nice try. But clearly, the article was an endorsement of Cutler's value to a team and does not support your "quick fix" sentiment. QFT I was about to post something similar when i saw your reply. It's great how all Pro-Campbell's jumped on the opportunity though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Amusing highlight. Your attempt to completely reverse the context of that quote is pretty audacious.King was trying to make the point that Denver's long-term best interest is in keeping Cutler and letting the short-term drama blow over. But with your use of board mark-up and your transparent position on the matter of acquiring Jay Cutler, you are absurdly trying to flip the quote into cautioning AGAINST. Nice try. But clearly, the article was an endorsement of Cutler's value to a team and does not support your "quick fix" sentiment. Ah, so it's impossible for the quote to apply in BOTH situations, then? lol...Because it most certainly does. And I think it applies more aptly towards Skins fans who are in CONSTANT reactionary, "Headlines"-chasing mode around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 Ah, so it's impossible for the quote to apply in BOTH situations, then? lol...Because it most certainly does. And I think it applies more aptly towards Skins fans who are in CONSTANT reactionary, "Headlines"-chasing mode around here. :shhh: don't point out logic, confuses many on here The quote was said about football in general, just because King used it for the Denver situation, it is obvious it can be applied in many ways and for different areas other than football. I choose to highlight, because it certainly applies to the Redskins FO, and fan base. I didn't change anything or "flip the meaning". the mere fact you knew why I highlighted, proves that the quote does apply to Campbell and the Redskins :hysterical: arguing "King used it for Denver", doesn't change the wisdom of the quote... no matter where else it applies... you can use it to describe the Cowboys, or the Yankees... or in business, or politics not even good spin, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 :shhh: don't point out logic, confuses many on here Oh if I could give Bubba a thousand and one kudos for such a simple succinct explanation for the irrational behavior on this board at times. Let's use our heads, not our hearts, or our fanaticsm! Let's make the best choice for the Team, not for one particular position! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.