Might Get Screwed By Bears? [Archive]

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 09:37 PM

Why wouldn't we want the best pick possible? Why wouldn't we want Bears to go 0-16 to get 1st pick?

Because it is expensive? Way to think one-dimensional.

Ever thought of the fact that we can EASILY move that pick for MORE picks?

:coffee:

Really?? EASILY??? Because the Lions have wanted to trade away their 1st overall pick ALLLLL year long... .. they haven't had ONE taker yet. Know why?? The COST of paying the 1st over-all pick. You can say I'm thinking "one dimensional" all you want... but if you don't think it matters, then you are being COMPLETELY blind!

Haynesworth signed a HUGE deal this year...after playing years in the NFL and proving himself to be one of the most dominant DTs in the league. He got a 40 milllion dollar signing bonus (the only guaranteed money a player gets)... guess how much the 1st overall pick gets as a signing bonus, a guy that hasn't played a single snap in the NFL? Nearly that much. You don't think paying a guy that hasn't played a single down nearly as much as a veteran player is a deciding factor? Really???? :confused:

Sorry.. but most really don't want a top 10 pick BECAUSE of the money spent. Guess why we didn't move into the top 10 to get Cutler? Because the cost to move INTO the top ten is too much. Moving OUT of the top ten is JUST as expensive because teams don't want to give enough to move there... thus you end up having to use the pick, and spending HUGE bucks for an un-proven player.

TXBRONC

04-11-2009, 09:40 PM

Why wouldn't we want the best pick possible? Why wouldn't we want Bears to go 0-16 to get 1st pick?

Because it is expensive? Way to think one-dimensional.

Ever thought of the fact that we can EASILY move that pick for MORE picks?

:coffee:

No trading down is harder to do than trading up because of the expense. For the overall number one pick in the draft most teams wont do it because it's way to costly.

Lonestar

04-11-2009, 10:17 PM

I don't think we want a top 10 pic.... they are too expensive and you have to get a REALLY REALLY good player simply to justify the money that you give them in the signing bonus.

But no.. doesn't concern me. Every year they put out the 'strength of schedule'... and they never match up. Teams that weren't in the playoffs this year are playoff contenders next. Teams that were in the playoffs last year, will fall off the map. So going by last year's records really doesn't, normally, play out in reality.

Not sure what will happen in a an uncapped season to signing bonuses it it comes to that..

If anyone know about this it could be a good debate..

as for SOS it is a Bovine Excrement stat but has some validly just as those bumps on the highway alert you of going off the road.. merely info to use or not use..

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:19 PM

Not sure what will happen in a an uncapped season to signing bonuses it it comes to that..

If anyone know about this it could be a good debate..

as for SOS it is a Bovine Excrement stat but has some validly just as those bumps on the highway alert you of going off the road.. merely info to use or not use..

Thats a good point. I still don't have my head wrapped around the 2010 season yet, and forget about the uncapped. I'm curious as to what will happen with that.

But I think the players want to get this taken care of. They listed the things the players don't get with the collective bargaining agreement, and its not as 'friendly' to the players as it may sound initially.

Still....I would think that the players taken in the 2010 draft, when things get worked out.. would still get a hefty bonus.... :shrugs:

Peerless

04-11-2009, 10:27 PM

getlynched47

04-11-2009, 10:29 PM

Lonestar

04-11-2009, 10:29 PM

Thats a good point. I still don't have my head wrapped around the 2010 season yet, and forget about the uncapped. I'm curious as to what will happen with that.

But I think the players want to get this taken care of. They listed the things the players don't get with the collective bargaining agreement, and its not as 'friendly' to the players as it may sound initially.

Still....I would think that the players taken in the 2010 draft, when things get worked out.. would still get a hefty bonus.... :shrugs:

I only heard a part of those screwed and tattooed things in the agreement and Unless the players give back some of the franchise money I think it is 60% of the revenue now I think it is gonna be ugly..

I hope the veterans will screw the rookies this time instead of the other way around when they agreed to signing bonuses several years back...

I have always been in favor of capping the guaranteed money for rookies and bumping the wages up a bit and giving them lots of incentives give them a mil or 3 for signing and moving expenses and buy him and his mother a home, set up a deal with John Elway Caddy for 5-10 tricked out Escalades with Broncos rookie painted on it, but past that Nada.. let them work for a living and allow some of the money to go to the vets that earned it..

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:31 PM

They need to re-work how they do salaries for rookies.

Signing a guy for 30 million up front is just the biggest waste of money (especially in this economic crisis) due to the fact that he could be an EXTREME bust....

They need to do something like the NBA does it with their rookies.

Several things.

One.. the owners really aren't worried about it. Theoretically, giving less money to the rookies would be for the purpose of giving mORE money to the veterans. But as we've seen over the last two years (since they were discussing this just last year)... teams have a TON of cap space, a ton of money to spend, but the veterans aren't getting MORE money.

So the owners are ok with it. THey would MOST Certainly be ok with less money going to the rookies, because since the money isn't being given to veterans, that means more money goes to the owner's pockets.

Peerless

04-11-2009, 10:35 PM

Several things.

One.. the owners really aren't worried about it. Theoretically, giving less money to the rookies would be for the purpose of giving mORE money to the veterans. But as we've seen over the last two years (since they were discussing this just last year)... teams have a TON of cap space, a ton of money to spend, but the veterans aren't getting MORE money.

So the owners are ok with it. THey would MOST Certainly be ok with less money going to the rookies, because since the money isn't being given to veterans, that means more money goes to the owner's pockets.

True. But if owners aren't worried about it, why is it that most of top 5 picks (well most of the top five owners of those picks) are trying to trade out of that spot, for the sake of saving a huge chunk of moolah?

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:35 PM

let them work for a living and allow some of the money to go to the vets that earned it..

But as we've seen..... even when teams have a TON of space and a TON of money to spend (as MANY MANY teams do this year and last year)... the money isn't going to veteran players. They listed a lot of veterans that were available, the money that owners have, and its not like the teams are just OFFERING up bigger contracts to vets.

So what would happen...is the owners get to keep more money. So the owners would LOVE a rookie cap. But as of right now, they just aren't concerned about it.

Right now, those big time dollar draft picks are putting butts in the seats and selling merchandise. It hasn't been a big enough of an issue that the owners have been worried about it.

Lonestar

04-11-2009, 10:38 PM

But as we've seen..... even when teams have a TON of space and a TON of money to spend (as MANY MANY teams do this year and last year)... the money isn't going to veteran players. They listed a lot of veterans that were available, the money that owners have, and its not like the teams are just OFFERING up bigger contracts to vets.

So what would happen...is the owners get to keep more money. So the owners would LOVE a rookie cap. But as of right now, they just aren't concerned about it.

Right now, those big time dollar draft picks are putting butts in the seats and selling merchandise. It hasn't been a big enough of an issue that the owners have been worried about it.

Some of the owners are doing that but they would any way..

Lots of owners are not in it for the profit but winning and retiring DEBT..

We are rarely far under the cap each year and in the past had to cut players with ridiculous contracts to get under the cap..

I think everyone has to agree that no players is worth 10-15 million or more a year..

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:39 PM

True. But if owners aren't worried about it, why is it that most of top 5 picks (well most of the top five owners of those picks) are trying to trade out of that spot, for the sake of saving a huge chunk of moolah?

Because the owners would like more money in their pocket? I mean, no business owner wants to spend more money on a guy than what he's worth.... but its not a BIG enough issue for them to try and make changes.

If they are in the top five, most likely they need more than just one player anyways. Also... for public propaganda reasons, THIS year inparticular teams are going to talk about wanting to 'save money' to relate to the common fan..... as they raise their ticket prices. :D

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:42 PM

Some of the owners are doing that but they would any way..

Lots of owners are not in it for the profit but winning and retiring DEBT..

We are rarely far under the cap each year and in the past had to cut players with ridiculous contracts to get under the cap..

I think everyone has to agree that no players is worth 10-15 million or more a year..

Depends on how much that player brings IN.. right? How can I say a player isn't worth 10 million a year if he brings in 15?

An actor gets paid 25 million dollars for one movie..why? He only worked a couple months? Because he brings in 100 million at the box office.

How can we say these players aren't "worth" the money they are getting paid if THEY are the ones that are bringing in the HUGE money?? No one is going to earn 100 million off me and simply pay me 100k a year because thats "all I'm worth." ITs all relevant to the income being made off that person.

slim

04-11-2009, 10:42 PM

Because the owners would like more money in their pocket? I mean, no business owner wants to spend more money on a guy than what he's worth.... but its not a BIG enough issue for them to try and make changes.

If they are in the top five, most likely they need more than just one player anyways. Also... for public propaganda reasons, THIS year inparticular teams are going to talk about wanting to 'save money' to relate to the common fan..... as they raise their ticket prices. :D

I think you are WAY off base. It is a HUGE issue for the owners. The only reason it hasn't been addressed is because there is an agreement in place. I would bet dollars to donuts that a rookie salary scale will be one of the main components of the new CBA.

slim

04-11-2009, 10:44 PM

Ravage!!!

04-11-2009, 10:45 PM

True. But if owners aren't worried about it, why is it that most of top 5 picks (well most of the top five owners of those picks) are trying to trade out of that spot, for the sake of saving a huge chunk of moolah?

PLUS... lets say you have the top overall pick in the draft.. but you already have your QB. Now there are only so many positions that can 'truly' justify that first pick. People just don't buy tickets and jersey's, hats, jackets, and foam fingers of some OT. He may be a GREAT player.... but if you are looking to 'have' to take a OT in the draft with the first overall pick, you want to trade that away to a team that MIGHT need a QB.. because the QB will bring BACK the money you spend. A WR or a DE....would bring back the money. So if its not that kind of position that YOUR team needs, then you try to trade down.

OrangeHoof

04-11-2009, 10:52 PM

Might Get Screwed By Bears?

I've heard of this happening in the woods if the bear is rather horny. They say the best thing to do is to lie still and pretend you are dead.

Lonestar

04-11-2009, 10:53 PM

Depends on how much that player brings IN.. right? How can I say a player isn't worth 10 million a year if he brings in 15?

An actor gets paid 25 million dollars for one movie..why? He only worked a couple months? Because he brings in 100 million at the box office.

How can we say these players aren't "worth" the money they are getting paid if THEY are the ones that are bringing in the HUGE money?? No one is going to earn 100 million off me and simply pay me 100k a year because thats "all I'm worth." ITs all relevant to the income being made off that person.

to some degree your correct but trying to quantify just how much revenue one player brings in is tough at best .. the only thing I can see is named things like jerseys and helmet sales..

After that it is tough to say how much revenue Champ for example brings to seat sales..

that is why they are guaranteed 60% IIRC of the revenue.. to be spread into contracts.. But the owner still has to pay all the other expenses out of his 40%.. including paying off the debt he incurred in buying the team/stadium/ex wife:mad:..

getlynched47

04-11-2009, 10:55 PM

I think you are WAY off base. It is a HUGE issue for the owners. The only reason it hasn't been addressed is because there is an agreement in place. I would bet dollars to donuts that a rookie salary scale will be one of the main components of the new CBA.

I really hope so. Slotting rookie salaries would all but eliminate the fear of having a top 5 pick in the NFL draft.

slim

04-11-2009, 11:01 PM

I really hope so. Slotting rookie salaries would all but eliminate the fear of having a top 5 pick in the NFL draft.

It will be addressed, even it takes a lock out to get it done. But it will get done.

roomemp

04-11-2009, 11:07 PM

Lonestar

04-11-2009, 11:10 PM

Do you see the success the Lions are having with moving the #1 overall pick this year........No one wants that pick anymore

hey I'd like a top 10 pick between 6-9 if possible.. as those are prime time to trade or pick up a some great talent..

but wish in one hand a excrete in the other and see which one fills up first..

Poet

04-12-2009, 12:13 AM

How much do you think Jake Long brought in last year? I doubt it was more than he was paid.

It would depend on a lot of things. Do you give him credit for any marketing with his name or picture on it? Do you give him credit for jersey sales or other merchandise with him?

Do you give him credit for helping the team's record which then helps the Dolphins put butts in seats?

I agree with Ravage on this one, but it can go either way.

There are a lot of players who make more money for a team than their contract. You take guys like Peyton Manning or Brett Farve or Ray Lewis. Hell, I would bet (and I don't have much proof on this, I admit it is my speculation but it makes for good discussion) that even guys like Asante Samuels or TJ Houshmanzadeh would make the owner more money because they are a big name signing.

I do agree with you that offensive lineman and their jerseys are not really a hot commodity with fans.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:38 AM

^Having an avy with marquan manuel in it hurts your credibility ;)

Oh and having a sig with Josh Barrett makes you much more credible? :D

No but honestly, I would update my avi week by week but stopped at the Saints game at these forums.

dogfish

04-12-2009, 12:38 AM

Might Get Screwed By Bears?

I've heard of this happening in the woods if the bear is rather horny. They say the best thing to do is to lie still and pretend you are dead.

what if it's a beefy bear?

:shocked:

Poet

04-12-2009, 12:42 AM

what if it's a beefy bear?

:shocked:

Then you take what you get and ******* like it.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:43 AM

I didn't say we don't want the best pick possible. But we do not want the first overall pick. If it's so EASY to move the #1, hell even the #2 overall pick......I wonder why the Lions or Rams haven't been able to do it :rolleyes:

Nice try though :coffee:

You've got to be one of the dumbest people following football if you believe any organization does not want the best pick possible with another team's future draft pick.

No one said it's easy to move #1. The value in this years draft is tough and Lions are in a much different situation than the Denver Broncos. They can't afford to take less for #1 than it is worth on paper.

And to answer your dumb question, do you think the Lions/Rams organization could have moved Cutler for what we got? You think their front office has any credibility?

I'm shorting your credibility as a football fan.

To sit here and actually believe having a Bears #1 pick along with our other 1st round pick would be a BAD thing. :lol:

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:45 AM

False. The Lions tried like hell to give us that #1 pick for Cutler. It's not as easy as it seems.

I do, however, think it will be easier to move next year because Same Bradford will be sitting up there and a bunch of teams that need QB's will be needing that pick.

I didn't say trading the #1 pick would be easy, but you'd easily be able to get multiple picks for the #1 pick. What picks it would be is the problem. Never talked about trading the #1 pick for another player.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:50 AM

I think the fact that he wants us to be stuck with the #1 overall pick hurts his credibility :laugh:

I think your credibility as a person hurts when your signature shows that you believe Josh McDaniels has ran this organization into hell. Josh McDaniels has not coached a game yet. And Bowlen should be taken into consideration of whose at fault, he called the shots at the end of the day.

If we make it to the playoffs this year, it will be a success. It's called improvement upon last season.

Especially with that nice schedule of ours.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:53 AM

No trading down is harder to do than trading up because of the expense. For overall number one pick in the draft most teams wont do it because it way to costly.

True, because you can trade for value while trading up a lot of the time. Again, it depends on the situation and who is in the draft at which position. So many variables come into play.

You might be able to move the #1 pick, but possibly not as much as it is "truly" worth according to whatever system you want.

Poet

04-12-2009, 12:55 AM

You've got to be one of the dumbest people following football if you believe any organization does not want the best pick possible with another team's future draft pick.

The Broncos didn't want it or take it. Seriously, the number one pick is not a great spot to be in. You HAVE to sign a player to one of the biggest contracts that year. You are taking the biggest risk in the entire league and to top it off a lot of teams are fine going below that. You really think that a team is going to cry if they have to take someone like Aaron Curry and not whoever it is the Lions take if they don't take him. Or, if they took Curry and then the second team had to take someone like Jason Smith.

Most of the teams that are picking THAT low have a ton of key needs. The number one pick is not a good thing.

No one said it's easy to move #1. The value in this years draft is tough and Lions are in a much different situation than the Denver Broncos. They can't afford to take less for #1 than it is worth on paper.

It is never easy to move the #1 pick. A lot of teams try to move back because of how similar the talent level players get once you move past the "first tier" of the round one picks. And with so many great prospects and different needs it's hard to even want to trade up very high, let alone that high.

And to answer you dumb question, do you think the Lions/Rams organization could have moved Cutler for what we got? You think their front office has any credibility?
I think that any team that was in your situation would have ended up taking the Chicago trade or something very similar.

I'm shorting your credibility as a football fan.
I hate to break this to you, but a fan is a fan. You don't have to take a test to be a fan. You don't have to fulfill any requirements or write a lengthy essay to become a fan. You can short someone credibility as a fan if you want, but you're shorting yourself credibility as someone who is worth listening to.

To sit here and actually believe having a Bears #1 pick along with our other 1st round pick would be a BAD thing. :lol:
I would say it would be. What if the Broncos improve on defense, and could sign a few guys to really tighten up the roster and give themselves more options in the draft?

Now, what if that happens but they can't do that because they have to save a lot of money for the draft picks?

How many winning teams have more than one or two blockbuster contracts?

How many more winning teams have those blockbuster contracts with rookies?

Mr D

04-12-2009, 12:56 AM

Do you see the success the Lions are having with moving the #1 overall pick this year........No one wants that pick anymore

Lions front office sucks to begin with. They have gotten offers but nothing they liked.

Having 2 first round picks including the 1st pick gives versatility. It's not a hard concept.

Enough with the Lions examples...don't compare their front office with anyone else in the league...

Poet

04-12-2009, 01:01 AM

Lions front office sucks to begin with. They have gotten offers but nothing they liked.

Having 2 first round picks including the 1st pick gives versatility. It's not a hard concept.

Enough with the Lions examples...don't compare their front office with anyone else in the league...

The Lions recently fired their GM and have moved on. I would be willing to wait a little bit before I say they suck, although my expecations are pretty damn low.

Having the number one pick can give you versatilty, but it could also blow up in your face. Maybe you can trade it and get some quality. Maybe you can't. But that high of a pick is usually delegated to a team that is in restart mode and they will usually be taking a QB or an offensive lineman or RB there.

With McDaniels' offense I doubt a RB will be a pressing need. I also don't think you guys will need to shore up the offensive line, and if you guys do need a QB then have fun praying that your man isn't a bust. Because if he is then you just set your franchise back a long long way.

That's why the first pick overall blows. You are really kind of damned if you do use it.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 01:16 AM

The Broncos didn't want it or take it. Seriously, the number one pick is not a great spot to be in. You HAVE to sign a player to one of the biggest contracts that year. You are taking the biggest risk in the entire league and to top it off a lot of teams are fine going below that. You really think that a team is going to cry if they have to take someone like Aaron Curry and not whoever it is the Lions take if they don't take him. Or, if they took Curry and then the second team had to take someone like Jason Smith.

Most of the teams that are picking THAT low have a ton of key needs. The number one pick is not a good thing.

I'm not denying the fact that the Broncos wanted it or not. I'm confident that they didn't want it, but you have to take into consideration that possibly the Lions didn't have a QB that we could use in return (in addition to 2 first round picks). We don't know the scenario, maybe Lions didn't want to deal 2 first rounders (I'm not sure if they offered 2 first rounders).

We do not know what is coming in next years draft. With this years draft, there's a lot of teams that don't want to be #1.

There have been many good #1 picks, most being QBs (John Elway), but we do not know the conditions of the draft for next year to be sitting here and saying, we don't want the #1 pick.

I'm not arguing to have the #1 pick to DRAFT at, I'm talking about it to to possibly move or trade. You don't know what offers Lions have received to sit here and determine they can't move it.

It is never easy to move the #1 pick. A lot of teams try to move back because of how similar the talent level players get once you move past the "first tier" of the round one picks. And with so many great prospects and different needs it's hard to even want to trade up very high, let alone that high.

I'm sure they do. Again there are so many variables. Maybe the Lions don't want to move back to #15 for example or #25. It is not easy to move the #1 pick but it would be great for the Broncos regardless.

I think that any team that was in your situation would have ended up taking the Chicago trade or something very similar.

Who said the Chicago trade was handed on a silver platter? How do you know we weren't close to taking Campbell before Chicago threw in the 3rd?

And you don't think the fact that the Broncos said specifically they wanted 2 first rounders has nothing to do with it? What makes you think any organization would do the same?

I hate to break this to you, but a fan is a fan. You don't have to take a test to be a fan. You don't have to fulfill any requirements or write a lengthy essay to become a fan. You can short someone credibility as a fan if you want, but you're shorting yourself credibility as someone who is worth listening to.

Sure, the fact that you've responded to my multiple posts shows me something.

I may not be worth listening to by a lot of people because people like to sit in their bubble and read and think with people with similar ideas to theirs. I don't disagree with everything, in fact I agree with a lot, but a lot of the things fans on forums in general say are pretty ******* stupid.

I would say it would be. What if the Broncos improve on defense, and could sign a few guys to really tighten up the roster and give themselves more options in the draft?

Now, what if that happens but they can't do that because they have to save a lot of money for the draft picks?

How many winning teams have more than one or two blockbuster contracts?

How many more winning teams have those blockbuster contracts with rookies?

Why is it that the #1 pick comes with the idea of drafting with that pick? I've said many times in my posts that my idea of having the #1 pick is necessarily to draft someone with it, but to be able to trade it. We could move that #1 pick for something less it is actually worth. Maybe a 15th pick and a 3rd rounder, who KNOWS. But we would definitely be able to expand with our picks.

The #1 pick could be a situation we don't want to be in, say if we want to be at 5-10 being there is someone we really want or need, we don't KNOW. There are so many variables, that these arguments really don't work because everyone here is predicting the future while I'm telling you something that applies every single year - trading for more picks!

Your questions are flawed because most winning teams aren't in the draft position to draft someone worthy of a blockbuster contract.

But to answer your 2nd question - Atlanta Falcons.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 01:22 AM

The Lions recently fired their GM and have moved on. I would be willing to wait a little bit before I say they suck, although my expecations are pretty damn low.

Having the number one pick can give you versatilty, but it could also blow up in your face. Maybe you can trade it and get some quality. Maybe you can't. But that high of a pick is usually delegated to a team that is in restart mode and they will usually be taking a QB or an offensive lineman or RB there.

With McDaniels' offense I doubt a RB will be a pressing need. I also don't think you guys will need to shore up the offensive line, and if you guys do need a QB then have fun praying that your man isn't a bust. Because if he is then you just set your franchise back a long long way.

That's why the first pick overall blows. You are really kind of damned if you do use it.

It really depends. It does blow if your team earned it and you have to trade down for lesser value. But the fact that we have 2 picks in the first round, we can most likely afford to trade that first pick for something less than it is "worth."

Do you understand my concept of trading the pick for something less than it is "worth"?

Poet

04-12-2009, 01:35 AM

I'm not denying the fact that the Broncos wanted it or not. I'm confident that they didn't want it, but you have to take into consideration that possibly the Lions didn't have a QB that we could use in return (in addition to 2 first round picks). We don't know the scenario, maybe Lions didn't want to deal 2 first rounders (I'm not sure if they offered 2 first rounders).

That's fair, but if that pick is so great then surely it would have been really hard for the Broncos to take it right? And the Broncos could have taken than deal and made a push to sign Garcia or even trade for Quinn or Derek Anderson. It isn't like they were not other options on the table as well

We do not know what is coming in next years draft. With this years draft, there's a lot of teams that don't want to be #1.

I don't think anyone wants to be the #1. How many times do you see teams trade up for that pick? Hell, you RARELY hear speculation about teams trying to move up to that spot.

There have been many good #1 picks, most being QBs (John Elway), but we do not know the conditions of the draft for next year to be sitting here and saying, we don't want the #1 pick.
There are more number one overall busts than there are good picks. That's the nature of the draft, at the end of the day it's a crap shoot before you step onto the field. And no, we don't know for sure that you wouldn't want it. That is 100% true. However, I doubt that the Broncos do so poorly, or are in such an awful shape that they would want to take that gamble. If it was a QB it takes years for them to develop, by that time in the biggest 'what have you done for me now' league in sports McDaniels' time will probably be up.

I'm not arguing to have the #1 pick to DRAFT at, I'm talking about it to to possibly move or trade. You don't know what offers Lions have received to sit here and determine they can't move it.

I don't need to know what the Lions have been offered. I know that very rarely do teams make that trade, and you do not hear much speculation about it either. No one wants that pick. If you are in a position to have that pick you have a ton of needs. If you are not in that position to have that pick you aren't that bad. If you aren't that bad you don't have THAT many holes to fix. That's the point. The reason why teams dont want that pick is because if they are just a few slots down there will be a ton of top talents that fit their needs. If you AREN'T one of those teams then you would be moving up and giving up picks for a specific player and giving that one guy a ton of money and taking a huge gamble. It's simply a huge risk that is not attractive. Especially in a sport that could end the career of that player even IF he pans out.

I'm sure they do. Again there are so many variables. Maybe the Lions don't want to move back to #15 for example or #25. It is not easy to move the #1 pick but it would be great for the Broncos regardless.
I doubt that it will be great for the Broncos. For the reasons above it would probably be something that they would not want. If they tried to trade the pick and couldn't they would be in a very hard space.

Who said the Chicago trade was handed on a silver platter? How do you know we weren't close to taking Campbell before Chicago threw in the 3rd?

And you don't think the fact that the Broncos said specifically they wanted 2 first rounders has nothing to do with it? What makes you think any organization would do the same?
Well it couldn't have been that rocky off a start because Cutler was gone pretty damn quick and rumors had it that he was going to be a Redskin. If I had to guess I would say that the Bears kind of swept in at the last minute or so and did something that the Broncos liked.

But I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Cutler was gone really really fast, so the trade talks had to have been moving at a fast rate.

Sure, the fact that you've responded to my multiple posts shows me something.

I hope it shows that I am bored, can't sleep, and will discuss damn near anything with anybody when I'm...bored and can't sleep. ;)

I may not be worth listening to by a lot of people because people like to sit in their bubble and read and think with people with similar ideas to theirs. I don't disagree with everything, in fact I agree with a lot, but a lot of the things fans on forums in general say are pretty ******* stupid.

I said "You can short someone credibility as a fan if you want, but you're shorting yourself credibility as someone who is worth listening to,". That means that you are on the path of making yourself someone that is not worth listening to.

You didn't get there until you started calling out people's credibility as a fan. Like I said, you don't have to do anything to be a fan other than root for a team. There's not much credibility to it.

Why is it that the #1 pick comes with the idea of drafting with that pick? I've said many times in my posts that my idea of having the #1 pick is necessarily to draft someone with it, but to be able to trade it. We could move that #1 pick for something less it is actually worth. Maybe a 15th pick and a 3rd rounder, who KNOWS. But we would definitely be able to expand with our picks.

The #1 pick could be a situation we don't want to be in, say if we want to be at 5-10 being there is someone we really want or need, we don't KNOW. There are so many variables, that these arguments really don't work because everyone here is predicting the future why I'm telling you something that applies every single year - trading for more picks!

Your questions are flawed because most winning teams aren't in the draft position to draft someone worthy of a blockbuster contract.

But to answer your 2nd question - Atlanta Falcons.

I am saying that one of the reasons why having the number one sucks is BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO TRADE. And if you have a pick that you want to trade and you can't it sucks. If you want to trade that pick and you have to take someone who you have to give mega-bucks to it sucks more.

Oh, and the fact that most winning teams aren't in the draft position to draft someone worthy of a blockbuster contract sort of proves tells you something.

And the fact that you could only come up with one legit answer to my 2nd question should tell you something else as well.

Poet

04-12-2009, 01:37 AM

It really depends. It does blow if your team earned it and you have to trade down for lesser value. But the fact that we have 2 picks in the first round, we can most likely afford to trade that first pick for something less than it is "worth."

Do you understand my concept of trading the pick for something less than it is "worth"?

Yeah, I understand it just fine. I just don't think you are going to get a lot for that pick.

Look, I think anything you can get out of this trade is almost house money because you had to move Cutler at the end. He forced the trade, but I also know that a lot of teams stay ahead in the league by always getting the right value in deals. Whether those deals are contracts, trades, or drafting players.

Getting lose than what it's worth is never really good. I mean, it would appear to be viable in this case because this case is so strange, but it feels wrong.

Northman

04-12-2009, 01:39 AM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 02:18 AM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

but we can hope can't we..

Mr D

04-12-2009, 02:47 AM

That's fair, but if that pick is so great then surely it would have been really hard for the Broncos to take it right? And the Broncos could have taken than deal and made a push to sign Garcia or even trade for Quinn or Derek Anderson. It isn't like they were not other options on the table as well

Again, this is just pure speculation. Quinn or DA may have no been something McDaniels was looking for. Again, we know whose coming out this year, we know the draft class, we know how college players performed, etc... - therefore the Broncos probably didn't want the pick this year. Do you think if there was a Peyton Manning-esque player we wouldn't want to take that pick? That draft pick is not great this year, and I agree.

You're reaching when you're saying the Broncos could have signed GARCIA? Garcia is worst than Orton now.

I don't think anyone wants to be the #1. How many times do you see teams trade up for that pick? Hell, you RARELY hear speculation about teams trying to move up to that spot.

I'm not sure. We don't run the FO of any team so it doesn't matter. But if there was a great QB at #1 I think we would want it. And like I said, in combination with the other first that the Broncos have, we can trade it for LESSER value than it is worth with a combination of picks.

There are more number one overall busts than there are good picks. That's the nature of the draft, at the end of the day it's a crap shoot before you step onto the field. And no, we don't know for sure that you wouldn't want it. That is 100% true. However, I doubt that the Broncos do so poorly, or are in such an awful shape that they would want to take that gamble. If it was a QB it takes years for them to develop, by that time in the biggest 'what have you done for me now' league in sports McDaniels' time will probably be up.

Takes a couple years? Depends, 2 or 3 for some which isn't bad. And we're already assuming McDaniels is a failure? WTF?

I don't need to know what the Lions have been offered. I know that very rarely do teams make that trade, and you do not hear much speculation about it either. No one wants that pick. If you are in a position to have that pick you have a ton of needs. If you are not in that position to have that pick you aren't that bad. If you aren't that bad you don't have THAT many holes to fix. That's the point. The reason why teams dont want that pick is because if they are just a few slots down there will be a ton of top talents that fit their needs. If you AREN'T one of those teams then you would be moving up and giving up picks for a specific player and giving that one guy a ton of money and taking a huge gamble. It's simply a huge risk that is not attractive. Especially in a sport that could end the career of that player even IF he pans out.

How many teams do you know that have had the 1st pick and another 1st round pick? You don't know the value of the players coming out next year, so sitting here saying teams don't want the 1st pick is a load of BS.

Teams with the 1st pick might not be able to move that pick for a top 10 pick + another pick, and they could possibly believe that having the 1st pick is better than drafting someone at 10+.

You're reasoning of being in a sport that could end his career applies to ANY player getting a huge contract, not just a rookie, so it's really irrelevant.

I doubt that it will be great for the Broncos. For the reasons above it would probably be something that they would not want. If they tried to trade the pick and couldn't they would be in a very hard space.

You're saying they wouldn't be able to trade the pick? They would be able to trade the pick, but they would probably get less value than it is worth. They'd probably still end up with another first and a pick in another round.

Having 2 first round picks, INCLUDING the 1st pick in the draft is not something a team says NO to. That's my point. I'm not saying that if it were the only draft pick, then it'd be a good thing. The fact that Broncos have 2 first round picks makes it a completely different scenario.

Well it couldn't have been that rocky off a start because Cutler was gone pretty damn quick and rumors had it that he was going to be a Redskin. If I had to guess I would say that the Bears kind of swept in at the last minute or so and did something that the Broncos liked.

But I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Cutler was gone really really fast, so the trade talks had to have been moving at a fast rate.

Bowlen said that they were trying to trade Cutler for 10 days prior to the announcement of "officially" putting him on the trading block.

Again, this speculation means shit because there are so many variables and we just simply do not know.

I hope it shows that I am bored, can't sleep, and will discuss damn near anything with anybody when I'm...bored and can't sleep. ;)

Go get laid - it'll put you to sleep quick.

:beer:

I said "You can short someone credibility as a fan if you want, but you're shorting yourself credibility as someone who is worth listening to,". That means that you are on the path of making yourself someone that is not worth listening to.

You didn't get there until you started calling out people's credibility as a fan. Like I said, you don't have to do anything to be a fan other than root for a team. There's not much credibility to it.

You're right, you don't have to do much to be a fan but to root for the team, that's why there are so many dumb fans. :beer:

I am saying that one of the reasons why having the number one sucks is BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO TRADE. And if you have a pick that you want to trade and you can't it sucks. If you want to trade that pick and you have to take someone who you have to give mega-bucks to it sucks more.

Oh, and the fact that most winning teams aren't in the draft position to draft someone worthy of a blockbuster contract sort of proves tells you something.

And the fact that you could only come up with one legit answer to my 2nd question should tell you something else as well.

Yes, it is hard to trade. I'm not disagreeing. However, the fact that the Broncos would have another first round pick would mean that they are in a completely different situation than the Lions or whomever has had the 1st pick. They don't need to milk teams for value for the 1st pick. Maybe the Lions or whomever has had the first pick have only gotten offers from teams with picks 20+ and they simply don't want that. Who knows!

It's a hard pick to trade YES, but I can guarantee you no one will be mad if Broncos have 2 first picks including the 1st overall.

Mr D

04-12-2009, 02:48 AM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

Yeah, they probably won't lose enough games to be in the #1 overall... probably not. :lol:

Traveler

04-12-2009, 07:34 AM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

Reverse mojo. I like it.:cool:

Seriously, this thread reminds me of other threads when we received Washington's 1st rounder in 2006. My point being that while we now have two first round choices again, there is no guarantee we'll keep both of them, no mateer how badly our record or that of the Bears might be.

broncophan

04-12-2009, 09:47 AM

Just a thought. All of us here want the Bears to do really bad next season so we can get a high 1st round draft pick next season (:werd:). There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is, we gave them a Quarterback that gives their offense another dimension AND their strength of schedule is one of the easiest according to this: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80fbaa5d&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true.

I understand that the strength of schedule doesn't mean much, because you have to consider those suprise teams that go from a losing record to a winning record AND those teams that falter that go from winning record to a losing record.

Is this concerning to you? Or is it just me? :lol:

Let's hope the Bears go < 4-12 next season so we can get a top 10 draft pick :rockon:.

No worries here.....with Cutler as the bears qb.........the broncos will be ok as far as getting the bears first round draft pick.........unless they get him alot of help at WR.............and i dont see that happening.

Forte will be the key to how successful the bears are......not Cutler imo.

slim

04-12-2009, 09:55 AM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

I rejinx your unjinx.

SmilinAssasSin27

04-12-2009, 11:21 AM

I think the Bears will be an average team. I doubt they win their division and I actually think they'll finish third. Add Philly, Wash, NYG, Dallas, Carolina, NO, Atlanta, Tampa and Zona as the other realistic playoff contenders and they have some serious competition. If they miss the playoffs, the draft spot won't be worse than 20. I'm fine w/ that. I already have my hopes set on Eric Berry w/ either our pick or theirs. I know we're over a year away, but...

Denver27og

04-12-2009, 11:38 AM

might get screwed?? i think we have already been screwed by the bears

muse

04-12-2009, 11:48 AM

Black Bear Attacks, Rapes, Zookeeper

Grin and bear it! Barry, an 850 lb. black bear, got a little frisky
with zookeeper Josh McDaniels. The anal rape is believed to be the first
inter-special coupling in Metro Zoo history.

Here's a little dog-bites-man tale we couldn't resist! Except
replace "dog" with "850-pound black bear"! And "bites" with "anally
violate"!

Yes, last Saturday a zookeeper at the Metropolitan Zoo had
"claws" for alarm when he was attacked and raped by the same black
bear he had raised from a cub! Geez, talk about gratitude!

"It was horrible, just horrible," sobbed an eyewitness. Guess
she sure got an eyeful!

The bear, named "Barry," attacked zookeeper Josh McDaniels as McDaniels
entered the cage to give him dinner. Barry lunged at his throat,
goring him with his huge claws and razor-sharp teeth. Some of the claw
marks were three-quarters of an inch deep. Ouch!

Then, astonished onlookers could "bearly" believe what happened
next--Barry began to brutally rape zookeeper McDaniels!

Frantic zookeepers rushed for rifles as others tried to divert
the bear. But there was no stopping Barry! This bear kept "bearing
down," and McDaniels just had to grin and "bear" it! Maybe Barry was
mistaking him for his "honey"!

McDaniels was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. A full quart
of bear semen was extracted from his ruptured chest cavity. And that's
no small Boo-Boo!

Barry's 27-inch phallus, armed with guard hairs as sharp as
red-hot needles, shot through McDaniels' rectum, shattered his lower spine
and skewered his colon, causing his entire lower torso to "cave" in!
Yikes! Bet that wasn't the type of "cave" you had in mind when you
took up zookeeping, Mr. McDaniels!

And can you imagine McDaniels' surprise when Barry's putrid ursine
semen flooded his ruptured chest cavity? (By the way, Mr. McDaniels,
whatever cologne you've been wearing, where can the public get some?)

Finally, zookeeper Brian Xanders shot Barry with a tranquilizer
gun and pulled McDaniels from the cage. The unconscious bear was later
destro. Hey, this "Yogi" made a major "Boo-Boo"!

"I have worked with dangerous animals before," zoo director Pat Bowlen said. "But never have I seen any animal sexually assault a
human being." "Barry"? Try "Scary"!

Meanwhile, McDaniels was pronounced dead at an area hospital--but at
least he died grinning and bearing it! No doubt, this episode gives
new meaning to the term, "Do not feed the bears!"

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 12:46 PM

That is just so wrong in so many ways

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 01:02 PM

I think you are WAY off base. It is a HUGE issue for the owners. The only reason it hasn't been addressed is because there is an agreement in place. I would bet dollars to donuts that a rookie salary scale will be one of the main components of the new CBA.

As I said... the owners would love there to be a cap on the rookies. Not because they ar worried about it, but because it means more money in their pockets.

Over the last many years, we have seen teams have a TON of cap space and a ton of available veteran players... some of them on the team already, that are NOT getting that 'extra' cash put in their pockets.

So yeah... I'm absolutely positive that the owners would love to see a cap put on the rookie contracts since it means less money going out. But as John Clayton has said "it just doesn't seem to be a big deal with the owners, and I don't think the PA will allow the owners to cap that. But I'm sure the owners would be all for it."

SmilinAssasSin27

04-12-2009, 01:06 PM

As I said... the owners would love there to be a cap on the rookies. Not because they ar worried about it, but because it means more money in their pockets.

Over the last many years, we have seen teams have a TON of cap space and a ton of available veteran players... some of them on the team already, that are NOT getting that 'extra' cash put in their pockets.

So yeah... I'm absolutely positive that the owners would love to see a cap put on the rookie contracts since it means less money going out. But as John Clayton has said "it just doesn't seem to be a big deal with the owners, and I don't think the PA will allow the owners to cap that. But I'm sure the owners would be all for it."

The owners are definitely worried about what the rooks are getting paid. MOST owners won't keep money if the rooks get less. They'll just have more to spend on PROVEN Free Agents contract extensions so the folks who deserve the $$ aren't forced out because the rooks are getting all the bank. Look at a team like Detroit. Always in the top 5. That shit gets expensive.

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 01:33 PM

The owners are definitely worried about what the rooks are getting paid. MOST owners won't keep money if the rooks get less. They'll just have more to spend on PROVEN Free Agents contract extensions so the folks who deserve the $$ aren't forced out because the rooks are getting all the bank. Look at a team like Detroit. Always in the top 5. That shit gets expensive.

Absolutely its expensive. Its easy to say that the owners are "worried" about the money being spent and I do admit, since I'm not a friend of the owners, that the only sources I have are people LIKE John Clayton who has more inside information than I do.

He has stated, MANy times, (and true, all were heard before this economic downfall) that although the money being spent on rookies is high, it wasn't a big concern with the owners. He then rattled on MANY examples as to why. But the basic common denominator of his examples all came down to the fact that veterans weren't getting the money that teams had. The owners/GMs aren't just giving MORE money to the vets simply because they have the money to give. Over the last number of years, teams have had (in general, not all teams) a LOT of cap room and money to spend, but you do NOT see them simply giving MORE money to the veterans.

So yeah. I'm sure the owners would love to cap the rookie contracts. That would mean more money in their pockets. Clayton (as well as the rest of the roundtable that was sitting with him on this discussion) weren't just naming off teams like the Lions and Browns. They were using examples of teams all over the NFL that weren't putting MORE money into veteran's pockets.

The IDEA of putting more money to the proved players sounds great. It sounds politically correct and it sounds all warm and fuzzy. But the truth is, its not happening.

SmilinAssasSin27

04-12-2009, 01:36 PM

But the owners also have to spend a certain % of the cap so that it can be available in future seasons. They will spend the $. They always do.

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 01:44 PM

But the owners also have to spend a certain % of the cap so that it can be available in future seasons. They will spend the $. They always do.

IIRC about 60% of their revenue is allocated to players salaries.. that is mandated in the NFLPA contract.. whether it goes to unproven talent or veterans is is spent money..

I think logic here prevails and says they would rather give it to a veteran if they have to spend it.. the only reason the rookies get it is competitive reasons.. and past precedent.. IF they can get caps placed on these bonuses the veterans will se some of it..

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 01:55 PM

But the owners also have to spend a certain % of the cap so that it can be available in future seasons. They will spend the $. They always do.

True.... so they continue spending the minimum that they can... just as they do now I suppose.

But either way... it honestly doesn't matter to me.

I would be interested to see how they do it. I would like to read some ideas, because there are many questions that arise in capping/or slotting a drafted players salary.

Are people talking about contract money caps/slotting, or just the initial signing bonus caps??

I've heard that the contracts are just too much for rookies, so if you cap/slot rookie contracts...there are a few questions:

1) The amount...obviously..but how long does that rookie salary stay for?

2) If the rookie salary is good for one year, what do you do after that year? Do you increase the players salary based on playing time or contribution? If so, why wouldn't it be common practice to sit your rookies as much as possible in order to keep their salary down?

3) If they don't match/reach those stipulations, what happens to the player? Does he stay property of the team that drafted him, does he go RFA? Does he have to sign a new contract for the same amount as his rookie season? Does he have to sign at all, especially if there is reason to believe the team manipulated his playing time in order to fall under the "contracted terms for raise?"

4) If you extend the rookie salary for more than one year, how long? What kind of stipulations do you put into a contract that warrants them getting a contract extension or/and raise?

5) If you make the initial rookie contract longer than one year.... do the players then get money added to their "post-rookie" contract that makes up for the money they didn't get their rookie season?

I could probably come up with 10 more issues that would be a concern with slotting/capping rookie contracts... ALL of which would have to be agreed upon by the PA, which I don't think will happen.

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 05:26 PM

You've got to be one of the dumbest people following football if you believe any organization does not want the best pick possible with another team's future draft pick.

No one said it's easy to move #1. The value in this years draft is tough and Lions are in a much different situation than the Denver Broncos. They can't afford to take less for #1 than it is worth on paper.

And to answer your dumb question, do you think the Lions/Rams organization could have moved Cutler for what we got? You think their front office has any credibility?

I'm shorting your credibility as a football fan.

To sit here and actually believe having a Bears #1 pick along with our other 1st round pick would be a BAD thing. :lol:

Wow. Good job. You just succeeded in making yourself look dumb. You are talking about the #1 overall pick in the NFL Draft. It's not easy to move that pick...like you suggested in the first page of this thread.

I didn't say that it is bad to have the Bears first round pick, I said that I hope the Bears get us a pick in between 5 and like 20 :rolleyes:

:pointandlaugh:

I think your credibility as a person hurts when your signature shows that you believe Josh McDaniels has ran this organization into hell. Josh McDaniels has not coached a game yet. And Bowlen should be taken into consideration of whose at fault, he called the shots at the end of the day.

If we make it to the playoffs this year, it will be a success. It's called improvement upon last season.

Especially with that nice schedule of ours.

I don't think I ever said I don't want us to make the playoffs :coffee:

I don't want the Bears to make the playoffs, so we can get a high draft pick.

:pointandlaugh:

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 05:28 PM

I dont think the Bears will have a crappy record.

Let's hope they don't make the playoffs so we can get another 1st round pick in between like 5-20 from the Cutler trade.

shank

04-12-2009, 05:31 PM

No one said it's easy to move #1. The value in this years draft is tough and Lions are in a much different situation than the Denver Broncos. They can't afford to take less for #1 than it is worth on paper.

Why wouldn't we want the best pick possible? Why wouldn't we want Bears to go 0-16 to get 1st pick?

Because it is expensive? Way to think one-dimensional.

Ever thought of the fact that we can EASILY move that pick for MORE picks?

:coffee:

way to go

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 05:32 PM

way to go

This is the same guy that has Marquand Manuel in his avitar. You were right :salute:

Mr D

04-12-2009, 07:51 PM

way to go

You caught me tied up with my words. Great, instead of inputting your own thoughts, you try to debunk mine.

I'll clarify -

Having the 1st pick would be great.

We could trade that pick for more picks, this CAN be done. This is what I meant by "EASILY."

However, it COULD take work...the demand MIGHT not be high, we do not know in this point of time. But no one is saying that the demand will be high or low (this is my chain of thought when I said it wouldn't be "easy.")

I used easy in contradicting context. But that is my explanation...

Mr D

04-12-2009, 07:55 PM

Wow. Good job. You just succeeded in making yourself look dumb. You are talking about the #1 overall pick in the NFL Draft. It's not easy to move that pick...like you suggested in the first page of this thread.

I didn't say that it is bad to have the Bears first round pick, I said that I hope the Bears get us a pick in between 5 and like 20 :rolleyes:

:pointandlaugh:

I meant to say a Bears #1 pick meaning the 1st overall...I obviously wasn't clear...I know you didn't say it's bad to have the Bears first round.

I don't think I ever said I don't want us to make the playoffs :coffee:

I don't want the Bears to make the playoffs, so we can get a high draft pick.

:pointandlaugh:

I was making a statement about your signature. I never said you said something about making the playoffs or not. :lol:

:pointandlaugh:?

Yeah, you're cool. :lol:

Mr D

04-12-2009, 07:57 PM

This is the same guy that has Marquand Manuel in his avitar. You were right :salute:

I'm not sure what the big deal about the avAtar is, but I would think you'd understand DJ Williams is the focus of the avatar. Manual happened to be in the picture... and it is a rare picture... to find a picture with Manuel near the ball. :lol:

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 08:24 PM

I meant to say a Bears #1 pick meaning the 1st overall...I obviously wasn't clear...I know you didn't say it's bad to have the Bears first round.

I was making a statement about your signature dumbass. I never said you said something about making the playoffs or not. :lol:

:pointandlaugh:?

Yeah, you're cool. :lol:

I have a right to dislike Josh McDaniels simply because he traded my favorite player. Now run along please, because you clearly are the only one here that wants the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft...which is not happening.

It's not "EASY" to trade away the #1 overall pick, or the #2 overall pick, and probably not the #3 overall pick.

Teams want no part of the guaranteed money that goes to those guys.

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 08:24 PM

I'm not sure what the big deal about the avAtar is, but I would think you'd understand DJ Williams is the focus of the avatar. Manual happened to be in the picture... and it is a rare picture... to find a picture with Manuel near the ball. :lol:

No big deal, we're just giving you a hard time. :salute:

Cugel

04-12-2009, 08:42 PM

Really?? EASILY??? Because the Lions have wanted to trade away their 1st overall pick ALLLLL year long... .. they haven't had ONE taker yet. Know why?? The COST of paying the 1st over-all pick. You can say I'm thinking "one dimensional" all you want... but if you don't think it matters, then you are being COMPLETELY blind!

Haynesworth signed a HUGE deal this year...after playing years in the NFL and proving himself to be one of the most dominant DTs in the league. He got a 40 milllion dollar signing bonus (the only guaranteed money a player gets)... guess how much the 1st overall pick gets as a signing bonus, a guy that hasn't played a single snap in the NFL? Nearly that much. You don't think paying a guy that hasn't played a single down nearly as much as a veteran player is a deciding factor? Really???? :confused:

Sorry.. but most really don't want a top 10 pick BECAUSE of the money spent. Guess why we didn't move into the top 10 to get Cutler? Because the cost to move INTO the top ten is too much. Moving OUT of the top ten is JUST as expensive because teams don't want to give enough to move there... thus you end up having to use the pick, and spending HUGE bucks for an un-proven player.

This is a nice little fantasy and lots of fans have talked themselves into believing it. But, it's pure B.S.!

Mike Shanahan stated publicly several years in a row that he TRIED to trade up into the top ten -- and NOT ONE TEAM WOULD TRADE WITH HIM!

None of them would even consider it. :coffee:

Teams WOULD like to move down a BIT from the first 3 picks -- but ONLY within the top ten and often only with the top 5 or 6 so they can be sure of getting "their guy." Well, if you can only trade with 4 or 5 teams that makes a trade rather unlikely.

In 2006 after he drafted Cutler, he stated that he called every team in the top 10 (presumably not including the Raiders although he didn't say so), and he couldn't get anyone even to negotiate with him!

Teams fall in love with those top 10 players just like fans do. They get excited about getting "their guy" and won't take any offers.

Shanahan stated specifically that the Rams at #11 were the FIRST team that was willing to consider a trade down (to #15). He was blind lucky that Cutler was still on the boards at #11!

Needless to say, Shanahan wasn't sure that Cutler would still be there at #11 so he tried to move up higher than that. He just couldn't do it.

The Broncos were supposedly also considering drafting TE Vernon Davis, who went to the 49ers at #8. Shanahan in explaining why the 49ers wouldn't discuss a trade with him said: "I couldn't very well say trade us your pick so we can grab your guy."

He never did explain whether he meant only if Cutler were off the boards at #8 or whether he considered taking Davis with that slot in preference to Cutler, or whether the rumors that the Broncos were interested in Davis -- who is now considered something of a disappointment -- might have been a cover screen to prevent teams from guessing they were interested in Cutler.

In 2007 the Broncos thought they had a deal with Detroit to move up to Detroit's #2 pick to grab WR Calvin Johnson. Denver was offering their #1 pick in 2007 (#21) - (they traded up to #17 to grab Jarvis Moss by giving up a 3rd round pick) and their #1 pick in 2008 (which turned out to be #12, the pick they used for Ryan Clady). I think there might have been a 2nd or 3rd round pick involved as well.

The LIONS (not the Broncos) backed out of that deal when they decided that Calvin Johnson was too good a prospect to lose. This turned out to be not a great career move for Matt Millen, but then that's why he's playing golf right now -- he's Matt Millen!

You can go back and read the stories on this yourselves. :coffee:

Now that trade would have been bad for the Broncos of course. On the one hand, they wouldn't have gotten Jarvis Moss (a big plus), but on the other they would have also given up the chance to get Ryan Clady (a huge minus).

In the long-run, Ryan Clady is likely to prove to be a much more valuable player than Calvin Johnson. A perennial pro-bowl LT (which is what Clady already looks like) is more difficult to find and more important than a #1 WR. So, the Lions saved the Broncos from a serious mistake, even as the Patriots nearly saved the Broncos from an even worse mistake in trading Cutler for Matt Cassel (although McDaniels then managed to totally screw it up anyway and wound up with Kyle Orton).

But, while teams aren't eager to take on that top 10 salary, teams IN the top 10 aren't eager to trade down either. So much so that none of them were willing to trade down with Mike Shanahan several years in a row -- according to his own words!

It wasn't that those teams couldn't reach a deal with the Broncos -- it's that they wouldn't consider one!

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 09:00 PM

But, while teams aren't eager to take on that top 10 salary, teams IN the top 10 aren't eager to trade down either. So much so that none of them were willing to trade down with Mike Shanahan several years in a row -- according to his own words!

It wasn't that those teams couldn't reach a deal with the Broncos -- it's that they wouldn't consider one!

Wouldn't consider one, or didn't get the value for one?

Although the Lions chose to take the player over the picks (which is understood).. teams in the top ten also feel they have to get quality value for that top 10 selection. They aren't GIVING the picks away simply to move down.

GMs are putting their neck on the line (as well as coaches) when moving OUT of the top ten. Coaches have to win NOW. Moving down and not taking that top ten pick is a dangerous move if you don't get good value... OR.. the draft in itself doesn't lend itself to moving down.

But there is NO disputing, that MANY GMs have publicly stated that they would prefer NOT to pay top ten money, and moving into the top ten MUST be for a player you feel is an absolute GIVEN... and moving into the top 5 MUST be for a player you feel is a perennial pro-bowler.

Either way.... the idea that moving DOWN from the top pick is EASILY done... (which was the point) simply isn't true.

Simple Jaded

04-12-2009, 09:10 PM

I don't think we want a top 10 pic.... they are too expensive and you have to get a REALLY REALLY good player simply to justify the money that you give them in the signing bonus.

But no.. doesn't concern me. Every year they put out the 'strength of schedule'... and they never match up. Teams that weren't in the playoffs this year are playoff contenders next. Teams that were in the playoffs last year, will fall off the map. So going by last year's records really doesn't, normally, play out in reality.

Getting a Top10 pick from another team is a Win/Win situation, as long as they don't end up with the No1 pick, I would think the Broncos would rather see the Bears stink it up this year.

Money should have nothing to do with it, if Bowlen can't afford a Top10 pick, he shouldn't have pushed this trade in the first place, even if the Broncos end up with two Top10 picks in 2010, Bowlen has no one to blame but himself.......

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:14 PM

Getting a Top10 pick from another team is a Win/Win situation, as long as they don't end up with the No1 pick, I would think the Broncos would rather see the Bears stink it up this year.

Money should have nothing to do with it, if Bowlen can't afford a Top10 pick, he shouldn't have pushed this trade in the first place, even if the Broncos end up with two Top10 picks in 2010, Bowlen has no one to blame but himself.......

Not that Bowlen can't afford it, but if we will have enough cap room to sign two first round picks this year and two first round picks next year. We're currently sitting around $16 million of cap space left. We also need to extend Brandon Marshall's contract.

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:23 PM

Simple Jaded

04-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Not that Bowlen can't afford it, but if we will have enough cap room to sign two first round picks this year and two first round picks next year. We're currently sitting around $16 million of cap space left. We also need to extend Brandon Marshall's contract.

First of all, F Brandon Marshall, he's a restricted free agent in 2010, he's not going anywhere and he's not getting Top Dollar unless there is a new CBA, especially not from this group of asshats. If he's going to see a huge payday from any other team before 2012, he needs to get his act together and hope there is a new CBA sometime soon.

Second of all, Jay Cutler signed a rookie contract with no signing bonus, Pat Bowlen is off the hook for at least 16 million dollars in guaranteed money, it's no longer a huge issue to get 1st rounders signed. I would think the Bronocs could do the same with their two No1's in 09 and 2010.

Third of all, like I said, the Broncos off the hook for at least 16 million dollars in guaranteed money owed to Jay Cutler, their cap situation is far better today than it was a month ago.

Besides, at the moment, 2010 is scheduled to be an uncapped year, also, the owners are rumored to be dead-set on some kind of rookie salary structure.......having two Top10 picks at a time like that is a wet-freaking-dream for any team that didn't have to lose a Franchise QB to get them.......

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:26 PM

well next year as it stand has no cap.. so that should help..

Unless they get the new CBA in place. I expect it to get done prior to free agency and the draft next season.

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:27 PM

First of all, F Brandon Marshall, he's a restricted free agent in 2010, he's not going anywhere and he's not getting Top Dollar, especially not from this group of asshats. If he's going to see a huge payday from any other team before 2012, he needs to get his act together and hope there is a new CBA sometime soon.

Second of all, Jay Cutler signed a rookie contract with no signing bonus, Pat Bowlen is off the hook for at least 16 million dollars in guaranteed money, it's no longer a huge issue to get 1st rounders signed.

Third of all, like I said, the Broncos off the hook for at least 16 million dollars in guaranteed money owed to Jay Cutler, their cap situation is far better today than it was a month ago.

Besides, at the moment, 2010 is scheduled to be an uncapped year, also, the owners are rumored to be dead-set on some kind of rookie salary structure.......having two Top10 picks at a time like that is a wet-freaking-dream for any team that didn't have to lose a Franchise QB to get them.......

Jay Cutler only counted for a little over $1 million against our cap this season.

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:29 PM

Unless they get the new CBA in place. I expect it to get done prior to free agency and the draft next season.

and as Link stated they are looking and capping the rookie salary structure.. which most veterans would vote for in a heart beat..

Give me 2 top five picks next year.. and let me laugh all the way to the super bowl in 2011-15..

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:30 PM

Jay Cutler only counted for a little over $1 million against our cap this season.

but over the next 3 seasons it was 20+ million..

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:31 PM

and as Link stated they are looking and capping the rookie salary structure.. which most veterans would vote for in a heart beat..

Give me 2 top five picks next year.. and let me laugh all the way to the super bowl in 2011-15..

wait 2 top five picks? You're basically asking the Broncos to win less than 4 games this season...

Simple Jaded

04-12-2009, 09:33 PM

Jay Cutler only counted for a little over $1 million against our cap this season.
He had a very cap friendly contract, according to PFT, that's been increasingly popular for teams getting to get their 1st rounders signed.......

Simple Jaded

04-12-2009, 09:34 PM

but over the next 3 seasons it was 20+ million..

Which may be another reason Pat Monfort was so eager to see him leave.......

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:34 PM

wait 2 top five picks? You're basically asking the Broncos to win less than 4 games this season...

good chance considering our schedule..

I know you were thinking Superbowl winner but this defense is gonna take more than one draft to fix..

and you do not win superbowls or get past the first rounds of playoffs with lousy defenses.. 2005 playoffs proved that..

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:35 PM

Which may be another reason Pat Monfort was so eager to see him leave.......:confused:

MOtorboat

04-12-2009, 09:35 PM

He had a very cap friendly contract, according to PFT, that's been increasingly popular for teams getting to get their 1st rounders signed.......

No wonder he orchestrated the trade out of Denver...now, the fact that his agent is asking for more money makes even more sense...:tsk:

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:36 PM

good chance considering our schedule..

I know you were thinking Superbowl winner but this defense is gonna take more than one draft to fix..

and you do not win superbowls or get past the first rounds of playoffs with lousy defenses.. 2005 playoffs proved that..

Me thinking Super Bowl?

In reality I don't think we'll win many games.........but I get flamed for saying that. People start to question my fan hood because I'm not a total homer.

This defense still sucks. 2nd tier free agents and no attention paid to the D-line isn't going to fix the problem.

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 09:37 PM

No wonder he orchestrated the trade out of Denver...now, the fact that his agent is asking for more money makes even more sense...:tsk:

Find me a RECENT article where it confirms that he wants a new contract.......i didn't think so :coffee:

turftoad

04-12-2009, 09:38 PM

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:43 PM

No wonder he orchestrated the trade out of Denver...now, the fact that his agent is asking for more money makes even more sense...:tsk:

MB I been saying from day one follow the money.. there was never a doubt in my mind.. when Simms was signed for 3 times his contract for this year that was the straw that broke his back..

He was scheduled to make $1.035 this year plus incentives he made almost 7 mil last year with wide open offense..

Mikey goes away and Josh wants a controlled passing game that means the incentives most likely go away and he is playing for his $5 mil in other NOW achievable incentive.. Max's out at under $2 mil..

If you remember they were hot to have the broncos profess their love with a a long term contract.. when that did not happen and were told he was their QB on contract cook had no other options but to force the trade..

FOLLOW the MONEY..

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 09:47 PM

Oh, and here I thought it was all Cutlers fault. :tsk:

I am talking about 2005 when jaysus was just wet dream for mikey and then 2009 and the schedule we face..

I have always said that

Offense wins games,

but Defense wins Championships! .

Ravage!!!

04-12-2009, 10:29 PM

MB I been saying from day one follow the money.. there was never a doubt in my mind.. when Simms was signed for 3 times his contract for this year that was the straw that broke his back..

He was scheduled to make $1.035 this year plus incentives he made almost 7 mil last year with wide open offense..

Mikey goes away and Josh wants a controlled passing game that means the incentives most likely go away and he is playing for his $5 mil in other NOW achievable incentive.. Max's out at under $2 mil..

If you remember they were hot to have the broncos profess their love with a a long term contract.. when that did not happen and were told he was their QB on contract cook had no other options but to force the trade..

FOLLOW the MONEY..

Do you know what the incentives are in the contract??? I ask, because I haven't seen them

But why would anyone assume that McDaniels offense wouldn't be good for incentives when you look at how they broke record after record in offense just in 2007?

Lonestar

04-12-2009, 10:45 PM

Do you know what the incentives are in the contract??? I ask, because I haven't seen them

But why would anyone assume that McDaniels offense wouldn't be good for incentives when you look at how they broke record after record in offense just in 2007?

As I understood it there were lists of incentives in 2007 a million for the pro bowl, another million for X passer rating, half a mil here and there for % of snaps taken, after every thing was said and done he made a tad over 7 mil last year it was reported before all this snafu started and they were hinting that he would only make max under 2 mil this year.

Part of the reasoning for signing such a back loaded contract was his agent told him he could get it redone after year 3..

I guess he did not realize that mikey would not do that.. But then getting to the pro bowl and all the passing yards maybe had he not been fired who knows..

Yo have to admit that the NE offense is much more controlled with shorter passing and lots of RB check offs than what jay got to do last year.. which was wing it deep alot..

NE moves the chains and scores more.. not just winging it between the 20's..

sneakers

04-12-2009, 11:42 PM

When I saw this thread I instantly thought of this Onion article that came out about 15 years ago:

Black Bear Attacks, Rapes Zookeeper

Yes, last Saturday a zookeeper at the Metropolitan Zoo had "claws" for alarm when he was attacked and raped by the same black bear he had raised from a cub! Geez, talk about gratitude!

"It was horrible, just horrible," sobbed an eyewitness. Guess she sure got an eyeful!

The bear, named "Barry," attacked zookeeper Chris Byrne as Byrne entered the cage to give him dinner. Barry lunged at his throat, goring him with his huge claws and razor-sharp teeth. Some of the claw marks were three-quarters of an inch deep. Ouch!

Then, astonished onlookers could "bearly" believe what happened next--Barry began to brutally rape zookeeper Byrne!

Frantic zookeepers rushed for rifles as others tried to divert the bear. But there was no stopping Barry! This bear kept "bearing down," and Byrne just had to grin and "bear" it! Maybe Barry was mistaking him for his "honey"!

Byrne was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. A full quart of bear semen was extracted from his ruptured chest cavity. And that's no small Boo-Boo!
Barry's 27-inch phallus, armed with guard hairs as sharp as red-hot needles, shot through Byrne' rectum, shattered his lower spine and skewered his colon, causing his entire lower torso to "cave" in! Yikes! Bet that wasn't the type of "cave" you had in mind when you took up zookeeping, Mr. Byrne!

And can you imagine Byrne' surprise when Barry's putrid ursine semen flooded his ruptured chest cavity? (By the way, Mr. Byrne, whatever cologne you've been wearing, where can the public get some?)

Finally, zookeeper Eric Pulliam shot Barry with a tranquilizer gun and pulled Byrne from the cage. The unconscious bear was later destroyed. Hey, this "Yogi" made a major "Boo-Boo"!

"I have worked with dangerous animals before," zoo director Kate Donegal said. "But never have I seen any animal sexually assault a human being." "Barry"? Try "Scary"!

Meanwhile, Byrne was pronounced dead at an area hospital--but at least he died grinning and bearing it! No doubt, this episode gives new meaning to the term, "Do not feed the bears!"

getlynched47

04-12-2009, 11:44 PM

When I saw this thread I instantly thought of this Onion article that came out about 15 years ago:

I was going to put "Might Get R***d" by Bears".........would've been funnier :lol:

Simple Jaded

04-13-2009, 12:44 AM

No wonder he orchestrated the trade out of Denver...now, the fact that his agent is asking for more money makes even more sense...:tsk:

If Cutler orchestrated this entire whirlpool of BS, then the Broncos and their fans are in for a world of hurt.......because if an "immature 25 year old QB" can play Doogie like that, what do you think NFL Head Coaches/GM's will do?

If this is truly what you choose to believe, be careful what you wish for.......

Ravage!!!

04-13-2009, 12:49 AM

As I understood it there were lists of incentives in 2007 a million for the pro bowl, another million for X passer rating, half a mil here and there for % of snaps taken, after every thing was said and done he made a tad over 7 mil last year it was reported before all this snafu started and they were hinting that he would only make max under 2 mil this year.

Part of the reasoning for signing such a back loaded contract was his agent told him he could get it redone after year 3..

I guess he did not realize that mikey would not do that.. But then getting to the pro bowl and all the passing yards maybe had he not been fired who knows..

Yo have to admit that the NE offense is much more controlled with shorter passing and lots of RB check offs than what jay got to do last year.. which was wing it deep alot..

NE moves the chains and scores more.. not just winging it between the 20's..

But doesn't do any of that more than Shanahan's normal offense. We moved to a passing attack due to the lack of runners in the backfield. We were running the ball into the endzone pretty damned well early in the season.

I would think that "scoring more" has more to do with a mature offense than simply the offensive scheme. Having no rushing attack and moving down the chart to your water boy, absolutely makes it easier on the defense to keep you from getting in the endzone.

I'm pretty impressed with the numbers that were put up with all the obstacles our offense went through. I don't think its something to complain about, but rather brag about.

Simple Jaded

04-13-2009, 01:03 AM

Maybe the discrepancy between the #2 ranking in yards and the #16 ranking in points scored had something to do with the offense not having more than 3 starters with more than 3 years of NFL starting experience.

I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet there was not a younger/more inexperienced starting offense in the league last season.......

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 02:40 PM

You are so enamored by Jay Cutler.

Funny thing....I didn't mention his name once in this entire thread.

Congrats on making this another "Jay Cutler" thread :coffee:

Ummmmm.....wasn't he the REASON for the extra pick? :rolleyes:

we gave them a Quarterback

I think it just goes without saying....... :coffee:

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 02:51 PM

But as we've seen..... even when teams have a TON of space and a TON of money to spend (as MANY MANY teams do this year and last year)... the money isn't going to veteran players. They listed a lot of veterans that were available, the money that owners have, and its not like the teams are just OFFERING up bigger contracts to vets.

So what would happen...is the owners get to keep more money. So the owners would LOVE a rookie cap. But as of right now, they just aren't concerned about it.

Right now, those big time dollar draft picks are putting butts in the seats and selling merchandise. It hasn't been a big enough of an issue that the owners have been worried about it.

There are quite a few teams out there that are barely above the CAP floor. Sad, really.
One of the big parts of the 'uncapped' season, would be that since there is no ceiling, there would also be NO FLOOR! So some owners might see it as a chance to take a LARGE DUMP, and clean out their rosters of older/overpaid players, without getting hit with dead money.

It's funny listening to players interviewed on Sirius NFL Radio. Most of them have no freaking idea about what is entailed in the no-cap season. They think they'll all be going to the highest bidder.

Either they're all maroons, or their agents are filling their heads with BS!

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 02:53 PM

Might Get Screwed By Bears?

I've heard of this happening in the woods if the bear is rather horny. They say the best thing to do is to lie still and pretend you are dead.

But cover your 'essentials'.....

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 03:14 PM

I'm sure they do. Again there are so many variables. Maybe the Lions don't want to move back to #15 for example or #25. It is not easy to move the #1 pick but it would be great for the Broncos regardless.

Who said the Chicago trade was handed on a silver platter? How do you know we weren't close to taking Campbell before Chicago threw in the 3rd? It's been reported that there were FEW teams that contacted the Broncos, after Bowlen went public. And that once Chicage came in, it was a done deal. NOBODY gave what they were willing to give, and that Orton had always been liked by McD. I don't suppose his contract was a deterrent either.

I may not be worth listening to by a lot of people because people like to sit in their bubble and read and think with people with similar ideas to theirs. I don't disagree with everything, in fact I agree with a lot, but a lot of the things fans on forums in general say are pretty ******* stupid.
Wow...somebody sure has a high degree of narcissism. You remind me of some other posters that usually get banned because they can't communicate on a personable level.

Why is it that the #1 pick comes with the idea of drafting with that pick? I've said many times in my posts that my idea of having the #1 pick is necessarily to draft someone with it, but to be able to trade it. We could move that #1 pick for something less it is actually worth. Maybe a 15th pick and a 3rd rounder, who KNOWS. But we would definitely be able to expand with our picks.

The #1 pick could be a situation we don't want to be in, say if we want to be at 5-10 being there is someone we really want or need, we don't KNOW. There are so many variables, that these arguments really don't work because everyone here is predicting the future while I'm telling you something that applies every single year - trading for more picks!
So what part of "nobody wants the #1 pick" do you not understand? Do you see ANYBODY this year that is clamoring for Det's #1? I sure don't. Nor do I see anybody knocking on STL's #2!
Until the pay scale for the top 5 is brought back to reality, or a CAN'T MISS FRANCHISE-CHANGING PLAYER is involved, NO team will be willing to give up multiple picks just to get buried by the contract/bust potential.

But hey...that's just My dumb fan opine.

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 03:33 PM

This is a nice little fantasy and lots of fans have talked themselves into believing it. But, it's pure B.S.!

Mike Shanahan stated publicly several years in a row that he TRIED to trade up into the top ten -- and NOT ONE TEAM WOULD TRADE WITH HIM!

None of them would even consider it. :coffee:

Teams WOULD like to move down a BIT from the first 3 picks -- but ONLY within the top ten and often only with the top 5 or 6 so they can be sure of getting "their guy." Well, if you can only trade with 4 or 5 teams that makes a trade rather unlikely.

In 2006 after he drafted Cutler, he stated that he called every team in the top 10 (presumably not including the Raiders although he didn't say so), and he couldn't get anyone even to negotiate with him!

Teams fall in love with those top 10 players just like fans do. They get excited about getting "their guy" and won't take any offers.

Shanahan stated specifically that the Rams at #11 were the FIRST team that was willing to consider a trade down (to #15). He was blind lucky that Cutler was still on the boards at #11!

Needless to say, Shanahan wasn't sure that Cutler would still be there at #11 so he tried to move up higher than that. He just couldn't do it.

The Broncos were supposedly also considering drafting TE Vernon Davis, who went to the 49ers at #8. Shanahan in explaining why the 49ers wouldn't discuss a trade with him said: "I couldn't very well say trade us your pick so we can grab your guy."

He never did explain whether he meant only if Cutler were off the boards at #8 or whether he considered taking Davis with that slot in preference to Cutler, or whether the rumors that the Broncos were interested in Davis -- who is now considered something of a disappointment -- might have been a cover screen to prevent teams from guessing they were interested in Cutler.

In 2007 the Broncos thought they had a deal with Detroit to move up to Detroit's #2 pick to grab WR Calvin Johnson. Denver was offering their #1 pick in 2007 (#21) - (they traded up to #17 to grab Jarvis Moss by giving up a 3rd round pick) and their #1 pick in 2008 (which turned out to be #12, the pick they used for Ryan Clady). I think there might have been a 2nd or 3rd round pick involved as well.

The LIONS (not the Broncos) backed out of that deal when they decided that Calvin Johnson was too good a prospect to lose. This turned out to be not a great career move for Matt Millen, but then that's why he's playing golf right now -- he's Matt Millen!

You can go back and read the stories on this yourselves. :coffee:

Now that trade would have been bad for the Broncos of course. On the one hand, they wouldn't have gotten Jarvis Moss (a big plus), but on the other they would have also given up the chance to get Ryan Clady (a huge minus).

In the long-run, Ryan Clady is likely to prove to be a much more valuable player than Calvin Johnson. A perennial pro-bowl LT (which is what Clady already looks like) is more difficult to find and more important than a #1 WR. So, the Lions saved the Broncos from a serious mistake, even as the Patriots nearly saved the Broncos from an even worse mistake in trading Cutler for Matt Cassel (although McDaniels then managed to totally screw it up anyway and wound up with Kyle Orton).

But, while teams aren't eager to take on that top 10 salary, teams IN the top 10 aren't eager to trade down either. So much so that none of them were willing to trade down with Mike Shanahan several years in a row -- according to his own words!

It wasn't that those teams couldn't reach a deal with the Broncos -- it's that they wouldn't consider one!

I've heard and read that part of the reasoning nobody traded with Shanny is because he usually got the better end of the deal, and teams didn't want to be added to his list of "gotcha's". But that's strictly conjecture without names......

I think alot is determined by WHO has the picks, and WHAT the state of their team is in. If they just happened to have a crappy year because of injuries, then they'd be more likely to trade out of their pick, to save money. But if they're a perennial loser, ie Det, and a "can't miss" QB is the #1, then they'd prolly stick with it.

Every year is different than the other.....it all depends on the players/teams/circumstances.

Requiem / The Dagda

04-13-2009, 03:37 PM

Yeah, it all depends on the talent pool available in the draft. When there are good prospects in the draft in the top ten, teams will be hesitant to trade down. When the top end of the talent class is relatively luke-warm, as it is this year, teams are actually looking to trade down. In fact, there was a resurfaced story from PFT regarding a new draft value trade chart to reflect more realism in trades. I suspect now, and in the future -- if a team is wanting to move up, they will be able to do it for a lot less than before; and if a team is looking to move down; they'll probably get less than what they would have gotten in the past. All relative though.

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 03:44 PM

But doesn't do any of that more than Shanahan's normal offense. We moved to a passing attack due to the lack of runners in the backfield. We were running the ball into the endzone pretty damned well early in the season.

I would think that "scoring more" has more to do with a mature offense than simply the offensive scheme. Having no rushing attack and moving down the chart to your water boy, absolutely makes it easier on the defense to keep you from getting in the endzone.

I'm pretty impressed with the numbers that were put up with all the obstacles our offense went through. I don't think its something to complain about, but rather brag about.

Well, I'm more impressed by TD's, rav....and LESS int's! Any team can move the chains between the 20's, and alot of the D's will allow it, if they know they can keep the other team out of the endzone, attempting FG's, yes?

That's been the montra of Shanny's offense the last few years. Great yardage getters, but piss-poor scorers.

For as many attempts/yards as cut-n-run'er had, his TD total SUCKED!

Which is why I've called him a great QB to have for a Fantasy team....

...but that's it.

rcsodak

04-13-2009, 10:36 PM

Rav, getting back to the old "it" thing, from our BM days....

....cut-n-run'er didn't have "it".

I would certainly hope you'd agree. :rolleyes:

Ravage!!!

04-13-2009, 10:41 PM

Rav, getting back to the old "it" thing, from our BM days....

....cut-n-run'er didn't have "it".

I would certainly hope you'd agree. :rolleyes:

Because thats your opinion? SOrry.. i don't agree. I don't think our team is better simply because he's now gone. I KNOW our team is NOT better by getting rid of our elite offensive player.

I know NO team is 'better' when getting rid if their 25yr old pro-bowl QB. No matter WHAT you would like to try and point out as his 'faults'.... because there isn't a single QB alive that hasn't had faults. CERTAINLY none that have had as many wins as Jay had when a defense gives up that many points in his first two season as a starter... and thats fact.

So... you would certainly hope.. but you would CERTAINLY be wrong. I don't agree because I absolutely think he had a lot of 'it'.. but we don't know because we didn't have him long enough to know if he would REALLY have 'it' or not. I'm betting he has a lot more 'it' than Orton has... and he had a lot more 'it' than any QB we've had in the last 10 years.

Shazam!

04-14-2009, 12:53 AM

I know NO team is 'better' when getting rid if their 25yr old pro-bowl QB. No matter WHAT you would like to try and point out as his 'faults'.... because there isn't a single QB alive that hasn't had faults. CERTAINLY none that have had as many wins as Jay had when a defense gives up that many points in his first two season as a starter... and thats fact...

Wrong. When your QB is no longer committed to the Franchise it is time for him to go. Period. I don't give a **** who the player is. If he doesn't want to be a part of the Denver Broncos, good riddance.

McDaniels messed up on this, sure. But Cutler did everything within his power to see to it that he was gone going back weeks ago. All that crap with Cook being involved was just ridiculous. He couldn't stand the mere thought of being traded and couldn't take the business side of the NFL, yet on his end, Cutler did it all business. Ironic and selfish.

Also, hindsight being 20/20, Denver would've been better off with Cassel. If there was a crystal ball and they'd known Cutler would've been gone in two months anyway, they would've aggressively pursued Cassel. I've seen him play a lot and while I don't think he's the second coming, he definitely has talent. Everyone dumping on him should be careful, because he can be a Broncokiller for years to come.

The Broncos organization wasn't a pile of dust either before Cutler's arrival. They'll be ok.