PDA

View Full Version : Cutler and McMuffin Texting?



WARHORSE
03-25-2009, 07:14 AM
Not sure I actually wanted to revisit high school, but thanks to the Broncos, we don't have much choice.
And not just here. They're following our little melodrama all over the country now.

Did you hear? They were going to talk.
I heard they exchanged messages.
OMG! No!
I hear they're going to meet at the malt shop.
2G2BT!
4COL! (For crying out loud.)

From all outward appearances, the odds of these two young 'uns making up and shaking hands, if not doing the actual blood brother dance, have improved from a week ago, when a certain crazed momentum seemed to be carrying both of them over a cliff.

After listening to the Broncos' new coach finally speak publicly about this thing, I'm beginning to understand the failure to communicate. I don't know what the guy is trying to say.

His talking points Tuesday in a required news conference at the NFL owners meetings cleverly put the onus on Cutler, suggesting the issue is "if he wants to commit to us."

This is clever because it distracts from the question of whether McDaniels, having tried and failed to replace Cutler with Matt Cassel, really wants to commit to Cutler.

Cutler's unhappy interpretation of McDaniels' previous private assurances has been read from the outside as temperamental on Cutler's part. But now that I've listened to McDaniels' assurances, I'm not sure what he means, either.

The NFL Network noted his use of the present tense in the repeated assurance that "Jay Cutler is our quarterback" in its interview a day earlier. You don't have to be an English teacher to know this is a simple statement of fact that offers no assurances of any kind. When he was pressed to use the future tense — to say "Jay Cutler will be our quarterback" — McDaniels replied that he couldn't predict the future.

Why couldn't he say, "Unless Jay forces us to trade him by failing to show up for mandatory team activities, he will be our quarterback?"
By the way, those mandatory team activities are not as soon as you might think.

"Each club is permitted one mandatory mini-camp, which is a maximum of three days long," NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed the other day. "Also, teams with new head coaches may hold two additional voluntary minicamps."

Emphasis on the "voluntary." I'm told the Broncos have set aside dates for six mini-camps, including the first one, April 17-19, when it has been presumed Cutler would have to report. I'm also told their mandatory camp is June 12-14, the last one. That's customary because teams like to get their rosters together before training camp begins.

Cutler won't be violating any rule or contract provision if he reports for the first time on June 12. That might be why McDaniels said a failure to resolve the dispute by the NFL draft at the end of April would not necessarily mean a resolution was impossible.

It remains puzzling why the new coach is so careful in his assurances to Cutler. The most obvious explanation is that he still might trade him and he doesn't want to make any sound bites that could come back to bite him if he does.

Another is the theory that he's simply trying to go old school, lay down the law, show Cutler who's boss.
The problem is that McDaniels can't have it both ways. If football is purely a business and Cutler, like any player, could be gone anytime, then all this talk about commitment is a sham. Everybody's job is to look out for himself.

In short, McDaniels can't demand commitment without offering it. He claimed the Broncos are committed to Cutler, but also said anything could happen. That's not commitment. Try telling your current squeeze you're committed but it's always possible you'll find somebody better. See how that works for you.

Still, unless McDaniels is lying about the spirit of his intentions — about wanting Cutler to stay — a resolution of this adolescent feud seems closer than it has in three weeks.

Just between us, I heard they texted last night. OMG! BFF!

fcspikeit
03-25-2009, 07:37 AM
Not sure I actually wanted to revisit high school, but thanks to the Broncos, we don't have much choice.
And not just here. They're following our little melodrama all over the country now.
Did you hear? They were going to talk.
I heard they exchanged messages.
OMG! No!
I hear they're going to meet at the malt shop.
2G2BT!
4COL! (For crying out loud.)
From all outward appearances, the odds of these two young 'uns making up and shaking hands, if not doing the actual blood brother dance, have improved from a week ago, when a certain crazed momentum seemed to be carrying both of them over a cliff.
After listening to the Broncos' new coach finally speak publicly about this thing, I'm beginning to understand the failure to communicate. I don't know what the guy is trying to say.
His talking points Tuesday in a required news conference at the NFL owners meetings cleverly put the onus on Cutler, suggesting the issue is "if he wants to commit to us."
This is clever because it distracts from the question of whether McDaniels, having tried and failed to replace Cutler with Matt Cassel, really wants to commit to Cutler.
Cutler's unhappy interpretation of McDaniels' previous private assurances has been read from the outside as temperamental on Cutler's part. But now that I've listened to McDaniels' assurances, I'm not sure what he means, either.
The NFL Network noted his use of the present tense in the repeated assurance that "Jay Cutler is our quarterback" in its interview a day earlier. You don't have to be an English teacher to know this is a simple statement of fact that offers no assurances of any kind. When he was pressed to use the future tense — to say "Jay Cutler will be our quarterback" — McDaniels replied that he couldn't predict the future.
Why couldn't he say, "Unless Jay forces us to trade him by failing to show up for mandatory team activities, he will be our quarterback?"
By the way, those mandatory team activities are not as soon as you might think.
"Each club is permitted one mandatory mini-camp, which is a maximum of three days long," NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed the other day. "Also, teams with new head coaches may hold two additional voluntary minicamps."
Emphasis on the "voluntary." I'm told the Broncos have set aside dates for six mini-camps, including the first one, April 17-19, when it has been presumed Cutler would have to report. I'm also told their mandatory camp is June 12-14, the last one. That's customary because teams like to get their rosters together before training camp begins.
Cutler won't be violating any rule or contract provision if he reports for the first time on June 12. That might be why McDaniels said a failure to resolve the dispute by the NFL draft at the end of April would not necessarily mean a resolution was impossible.
It remains puzzling why the new coach is so careful in his assurances to Cutler. The most obvious explanation is that he still might trade him and he doesn't want to make any sound bites that could come back to bite him if he does.
Another is the theory that he's simply trying to go old school, lay down the law, show Cutler who's boss.
The problem is that McDaniels can't have it both ways. If football is purely a business and Cutler, like any player, could be gone anytime, then all this talk about commitment is a sham. Everybody's job is to look out for himself.
In short, McDaniels can't demand commitment without offering it. He claimed the Broncos are committed to Cutler, but also said anything could happen. That's not commitment. Try telling your current squeeze you're committed but it's always possible you'll find somebody better. See how that works for you.
Still, unless McDaniels is lying about the spirit of his intentions — about wanting Cutler to stay — a resolution of this adolescent feud seems closer than it has in three weeks.
Just between us, I heard they texted last night. OMG! BFF!

Where did this come from WAR?

It looks like a compilation of what a few of us have wrote again and again for the last couple weeks.. :D

broncofaninfla
03-25-2009, 07:42 AM
No way differences can be resolved by text messages. This is a half ass effort by both.....

Dirk
03-25-2009, 07:51 AM
Both should hop a plane and meet in Vegas for a "boys weekend" and hash it all out just the two of them. (But don't gamble away the chance of reconciliation!)


***edited because I can't spell ha!***

fcspikeit
03-25-2009, 08:02 AM
No way differences can be resolved by text messages. This is a half ass effort by both.....

They also supposedly talked on the phone last night... It's not the best but at least its going in the right direction..

One thing about this I find funny is this is the second or third article saying the 2 have been texting each other for the last couple of days.. So what happened to the supposed none returned text McDaniels was reported to have sent on Sunday? I think its safe now to chalk that on up as BS!

For all those who will be reading to much into that, I didn't say McDaniels was full of BS.. The none returned text was not reported to have came from McDaniels.. Some tried to say McKid said that but all I ever heard was that it had been reported without listing a source..

CoachChaz
03-25-2009, 08:04 AM
They also supposedly talked on the phone last night... It's not the best but at least its going in the right direction..

One thing about this I find funny is this is the second or third article saying the 2 have been texting each other for the last couple of days.. So what happened to the supposed none returned text McDaniels was reported to have sent on Sunday? I think its safe now to chalk that on up as BS!

For all those who will be reading to much into that, I didn't say McDaniels was full of BS.. The none returned text was not reported to have came from McDaniels.. Some tried to say McKid said that but all I ever heard was that it had been reported without listing a source..

I dont think anyone will say you are accusing McD of BS'ing, but you are taking something that was said and something that was reported and trying to make sense out of the two. I'll say it again. We simply know nothing

Dirk
03-25-2009, 08:51 AM
For all those who will be reading to much into that, I didn't say McDaniels was full of BS.. The none returned text was not reported to have came from McDaniels.. Some tried to say McKid said that but all I ever heard was that it had been reported without listing a source..

IIRC it was a "source" close to Cutler that said he didn't reply to the text messages.

Shazam!
03-25-2009, 10:36 AM
Not sure I actually wanted to revisit high school, but thanks to the Broncos, we don't have much choice. And not just here. They're following our little melodrama all over the country now.

Did you hear? They were going to talk.

I heard they exchanged messages.

OMG! No!

I hear they're going to meet at the malt shop.
2G2BT!

4COL!

(For crying out loud.)

From all outward appearances, the odds of these two young 'uns making up and shaking hands, if not doing the actual blood brother dance, have improved from a week ago, when a certain crazed momentum seemed to be carrying both of them over a cliff.

After listening to the Broncos' new coach finally speak publicly about this thing, I'm beginning to understand the failure to communicate. I don't know what the guy is trying to say.

His talking points Tuesday in a required news conference at the NFL owners meetings cleverly put the onus on Cutler, suggesting the issue is "if he wants to commit to us."

This is clever because it distracts from the question of whether McDaniels, having tried and failed to replace Cutler with Matt Cassel, really wants to commit to Cutler.

Cutler's unhappy interpretation of McDaniels' previous private assurances has been read from the outside as temperamental on Cutler's part. But now that I've listened to McDaniels' assurances, I'm not sure what he means, either.

The NFL Network noted his use of the present tense in the repeated assurance that "Jay Cutler is our quarterback" in its interview a day earlier. You don't have to be an English teacher to know this is a simple statement of fact that offers no assurances of any kind. When he was pressed to use the future tense — to say "Jay Cutler will be our quarterback" — McDaniels replied that he couldn't predict the future.

Why couldn't he say, "Unless Jay forces us to trade him by failing to show up for mandatory team activities, he will be our quarterback?"
By the way, those mandatory team activities are not as soon as you might think.

"Each club is permitted one mandatory mini-camp, which is a maximum of three days long," NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed the other day. "Also, teams with new head coaches may hold two additional voluntary minicamps."

Emphasis on the "voluntary." I'm told the Broncos have set aside dates for six mini-camps, including the first one, April 17-19, when it has been presumed Cutler would have to report. I'm also told their mandatory camp is June 12-14, the last one. That's customary because teams like to get their rosters together before training camp begins.

Cutler won't be violating any rule or contract provision if he reports for the first time on June 12. That might be why McDaniels said a failure to resolve the dispute by the NFL draft at the end of April would not necessarily mean a resolution was impossible.

It remains puzzling why the new coach is so careful in his assurances to Cutler. The most obvious explanation is that he still might trade him and he doesn't want to make any sound bites that could come back to bite him if he does.

Another is the theory that he's simply trying to go old school, lay down the law, show Cutler who's boss.

The problem is that McDaniels can't have it both ways. If football is purely a business and Cutler, like any player, could be gone anytime, then all this talk about commitment is a sham. Everybody's job is to look out for himself.
In short, McDaniels can't demand commitment without offering it. He claimed the Broncos are committed to Cutler, but also said anything could happen. That's not commitment. Try telling your current squeeze you're committed but it's always possible you'll find somebody better. See how that works for you.

Still, unless McDaniels is lying about the spirit of his intentions — about wanting Cutler to stay — a resolution of this adolescent feud seems closer than it has in three weeks.
Just between us, I heard they texted last night. OMG! BFF!

War, I think you intentionally make Threads difficult to read. This is easier... Also, we don't have a choce but to revisit High School, because too many people and the media are blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

jrelway
03-25-2009, 10:57 AM
is this a real article or some made up crap? awful read.

WARHORSE
03-25-2009, 11:10 AM
War, I think you intentionally make Threads difficult to read. This is easier... Also, we don't have a choce but to revisit High School, because too many people and the media are blowing this whole thing out of proportion.


Sorry........it was cut and pasted. I'll fix it for ya.

WARHORSE
03-25-2009, 11:11 AM
is this a real article or some made up crap? awful read.


Denver Post.

WARHORSE
03-25-2009, 11:14 AM
I dont trust the dude. Im happy that hes getting Cutler back in the fold, and thats what I care about.

But the more he opens his mouth, the more I dont trust him.

Hope hes a better coach.

Shazam!
03-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Sorry........it was cut and pasted. I'll fix it for ya.

Thanks. idk why but when I copy/paste from there the DP it never comes out right.

BroncoNut
03-25-2009, 11:21 AM
this is like a couple of teenage girls going at it.

Lonestar
03-25-2009, 11:25 AM
No way differences can be resolved by text messages. This is a half ass effort by both.....

Yet if phone calls are not taken or returned.. where do you start??..


atleast there appears to be some dialog... baby steps as impersonal as texting is..

TXBRONC
03-25-2009, 11:28 AM
No way differences can be resolved by text messages. This is a half ass effort by both.....

I don't think Krieger is saying that their differences are resolved with a couple of text messages but it does put things closer to resolution.

DenBronx
03-25-2009, 12:41 PM
Both should hop a plane and meet in Vegas for a "boys weekend" and hash it all out just the two of them. (But don't gamble away the chance of reconciliation!)


***edited because I can't spell ha!***



both need to go to the nudy bar.

DenBronx
03-25-2009, 12:47 PM
or just ask gem to send them nude pix through a text.

bcbronc
03-25-2009, 12:55 PM
at least I now understand why Bowlen wanted a younger coach that could relate to current players. for some reason I just can't see Shanny and Elway sending text messages to each other. :laugh:

DenBronx
03-25-2009, 12:59 PM
at least I now understand why Bowlen wanted a younger coach that could relate to current players. for some reason I just can't see Shanny and Elway sending text messages to each other. :laugh:


shanny and plummer texting.

OMG shanrat tht was a grt gm lst nght!!

U hnky mofo almst cst us the gm wit a pik 6!!!

EastCoastBronco
03-25-2009, 01:15 PM
McMuffin...That's the best one yet. I love it.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-25-2009, 02:26 PM
McMuffin, that is creative. Wow!

Shazam!
03-25-2009, 02:28 PM
Do not use McMuffins as an insult. McDonald's breakfast is friggin' awesome.

bcbronc
03-25-2009, 02:29 PM
Do not use McMuffins as an insult. McDonald's breakfast is friggin' awesome.

I prefer the sausage to the egg though. don't really like the egg on it. if I want egg, I go with the McBurrito.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-25-2009, 02:30 PM
Sausage, egg and cheese McMuffin's were 2 for 3 bucks last week. TASTY.

bcbronc
03-25-2009, 02:32 PM
nothing beats a hangover like breaky at Rottin' Ronnie's.

great as a laxative as well!

Shazam!
03-25-2009, 02:37 PM
McGriddles rock too.

WARHORSE
03-25-2009, 09:09 PM
McMuffin, that is creative. Wow!


Jealous.....:D