Cutler traded to Bears (In Principle)

spudstr04 · Post by **spudstr04** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:19 pm

Well, at least Cutler and Orton won't have to change color schemes inside their houses. Both teams' colors are Navy and Orange. Kind of ironic.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:19 pm

spudstr04 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
SkinsSince96 wrote:The Bears traded there 1st rder this year, 3rd rder this year, 1st rder next year, and Kyle Orton for Cutler and a 5th rd pick.

If true. . . .ouch. And it makes me all the more glad that the Redskins weren't in on this—we would have to have topped what the Bears gave up.

the draft picks I posted are correct

ESPN is reporting otherwise.

As SkinsSince96 said:

To acquire Cutler, the Bears had to give up quarterback Kyle Orton and first-round picks in 2009 and 2010, along with a third-round pick in 2009.

To complete the trade, the Broncos had to give back a fifth-round pick in 2009.

Good lord. 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a starting QB for a 5th and Cutler.

BearSkins · Post by **BearSkins** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:34 pm

Steep price? perhaps, but the Bears are kinda up and down with draft anyway. Frankly I am delighted and I bet down in teh city they are going apey right now. I don't think anyone though Jerry Angelo had the you-know-whats for this. WOW. Just amazed.

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:42 pm

The post I had earlier from my friend who was watching NFL Network says - 2009 1st, 2009 3rd, 2010 1st, and Orton for Cutler and a 2009 5th.

ESPNEWS says - Cutler and a 3rd round pick go to the Bears for Kyle Orton and two 1st round picks

LOL

EDIT - NFL Network was right. ESPN has dumped Claytons report and are going with NFL Networks.

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:45 pm

Thank God this is over! I'm sick of this crybaby and the Redskins trying to trade for him!

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:39 pm

Certainly a stiff price, but the Bears have needed a stud QB for quite a long time, so I can understand why many Bears fans will be pleased with this trade, despite the hefty price tag.

In my opinion, I think the Broncos are the biggest losers in all of this. After their offense finished the season rated as the 2nd best in the league, the owner went and fired Shanahan, their offensive minded head coach, when it was the defense that lost the season for them, the 29th ranked defense to be exact. So what did the owner do? Hired another offensive minded coach, gave him full control, (the same complaint they had with Shanahan, btw) pissed off and alienated their Pro Bowl QB, subsequently traded away their Pro Bowl QB, and took Kyle Orton in return.

The Broncos have the 12th overall pick. Since Sanchez's stock has risen so sharply lately, especially since his impressive Pro Day work-out yesterday, if the Broncos want to target him in the draft, they'll now most likely have to trade up to get him, in effect, negating the benefit of the extra 1st rounder they got from Chicago for Cutler. And all this while doing nothing to fix their horrible defense, especially since they're switching to a 3-4 defense. They have no defensive line, or even a nose tackle to play in the 3-4.

The owner and the new rookie head coach in Denver have created an absolute mess. Some complain about the adversities created by the Skins front office at times, but this offseason in Denver takes the cake. Just imagine how much love, respect and trust McDaniel's has earned from the players since his arrival. Damn near none.

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:51 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:Certainly a stiff price, but the Bears have needed a stud QB for quite a long time, so I can understand why many Bears fans will be pleased with this trade, despite the hefty price tag.

In my opinion, I think the Broncos are the biggest losers in all of this.

I disagree. While I understand your viewpoints I have another angle about this. The Bears gave up a ton for a QB who has never won anything. They have no WRs and there defense is getting older. They just gave the Broncos a solid QB and 3 potenial impact players if Denver drafts smart.

The Broncos if Stafford or Sanchez arent there at 12 will take two defensive players for there new 3-4 defense. Next year they will trade both 1st round picks and draft there pick between Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, or Tim Tebow.

The Bears might win some games next year and even win the NFC North but they have a small window to win before the loss of these draft picks will comeback to bite them. The Broncos can build there 3-4 defense and find a new franchise QB in the best draft class since 1983 in the next two years thanks to the Bears.

The Broncos might not win alot of games this year but they now have a chance to build a dynasty with the draft picks they have the next 2 years.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:14 am

SkinsSince96 wrote:Bears just signed Orlando Pace. They are already trying to make Cutler happy. LOL

They signed Pace first.

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:44 am

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsSince96 wrote:Bears just signed Orlando Pace. They are already trying to make Cutler happy. LOL

They signed Pace first.

Ah. I was watching ESPNEWS and they were talking about Cutler and then they said there was more breaking news and it was Pace. I guess Pace signed but ESPN didnt get the news til a little later.

I was just joking anyways about making Cutler happy.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:36 am

SkinsSince96 wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:Certainly a stiff price, but the Bears have needed a stud QB for quite a long time, so I can understand why many Bears fans will be pleased with this trade, despite the hefty price tag.

In my opinion, I think the Broncos are the biggest losers in all of this.

I disagree. While I understand your viewpoints I have another angle about this. The Bears gave up a ton for a QB who has never won anything. They have no WRs and there defense is getting older. They just gave the Broncos a solid QB and 3 potenial impact players if Denver drafts smart.

The Broncos if Stafford or Sanchez arent there at 12 will take two defensive players for there new 3-4 defense. Next year they will trade both 1st round picks and draft there pick between Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, or Tim Tebow.

The Bears might win some games next year and even win the NFC North but they have a small window to win before the loss of these draft picks will comeback to bite them. The Broncos can build there 3-4 defense and find a new franchise QB in the best draft class since 1983 in the next two years thanks to the Bears.

The Broncos might not win alot of games this year but they now have a chance to build a dynasty with the draft picks they have the next 2 years.

I probably should have said that differently. I didn't necessarily mean the Broncos were the losers in the trade with the Bears, but just in general. They've set themselves back a few years, and most analysts agree with that. They had a franchise QB and a very good offensive minded head coach. All they needed to jump to that next level was a few extra upgrades on defense. Shanahan was building that team in the same fashion as Indy built their team. Get the franchise QB, build the offense around him, then get the pieces to build a strong defense.

They hired a rookie offensive minded head coach, did nothing to help their defense, and traded away their franchise QB. Two first round draft picks won't be enough to build a "dynasty". If they want to trade up for Sanchez this year, they'll need to use both their 12th and 18th overall picks. If both the Broncos and the Bears finish next season with average or worse records, they may not have enough to move up for one of the top QB's in next years draft.

Point is, they set themselves back, no matter how you look at it. McDaniel's has a lot of work to do, and it starts with trying somehow get the players to trust him, respect him and buy what he's selling. The Bronco players have just watched a circus and watched their new rookie head coach trade away their franchise QB. Brian Dawkins, for example, just signed with a team in which he thought had a franchise QB and was just a player or two away on defense from being an elite team. I'll bet he doesn't feel that way anymore.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:39 am

The Bears gave up a ton for a QB who has never won anything.

That is such a ridiculous statement. He's only been a starter for two season? You want him to have won two Super Bowls by now?

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:59 am

CanesSkins26 wrote:That sucks. I guess we're stuck with JC now.

CanesSkins, I'm curious: now that we see the price paid for acquiring Cutler, and given that we would have to have had at least an equal offer to bring him to Washington: do you favor Snyder's restraint, or do you think this was a mistake by the Skins?

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:55 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:I probably should have said that differently. I didn't necessarily mean the Broncos were the losers in the trade with the Bears, but just in general. They've set themselves back a few years, and most analysts agree with that. They had a franchise QB and a very good offensive minded head coach. All they needed to jump to that next level was a few extra upgrades on defense. Shanahan was building that team in the same fashion as Indy built their team. Get the franchise QB, build the offense around him, then get the pieces to build a strong defense.

They hired a rookie offensive minded head coach, did nothing to help their defense, and traded away their franchise QB. Two first round draft picks won't be enough to build a "dynasty". If they want to trade up for Sanchez this year, they'll need to use both their 12th and 18th overall picks. If both the Broncos and the Bears finish next season with average or worse records, they may not have enough to move up for one of the top QB's in next years draft.

Point is, they set themselves back, no matter how you look at it. McDaniel's has a lot of work to do, and it starts with trying somehow get the players to trust him, respect him and buy what he's selling. The Bronco players have just watched a circus and watched their new rookie head coach trade away their franchise QB. Brian Dawkins, for example, just signed with a team in which he thought had a franchise QB and was just a player or two away on defense from being an elite team. I'll bet he doesn't feel that way anymore.

I agree that I dont understand why they tried to trade Cutler to start with in the Cassel talks. It does set there team back. If I was the Broncos though and the Bears offered what they did I would of done the deal. Orton is a very solid QB and with that talent around him on offense should have a good season.

Id be shocked if they trade up for a QB this year. I do think they can trade up next year and get whichever of the threee QBs they want. If the two 1st rounders are low they can trade a little more to move up.

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:58 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The Bears gave up a ton for a QB who has never won anything.

That is such a ridiculous statement. He's only been a starter for two season? You want him to have won two Super Bowls by now?

Actually yeah to give up that much for a QB. Theres only a couple QBs id trade 4 players for. Cutler isnt one of them.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:42 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:That sucks. I guess we're stuck with JC now.

CanesSkins, I'm curious: now that we see the price paid for acquiring Cutler, and given that we would have to have had at least an equal offer to bring him to Washington: do you favor Snyder's restraint, or do you think this was a mistake by the Skins?

I'm torn. On the one hand, it is a LOT to give up for a player. One the other hand, we badly need a franchise qb and I don't think that either JC or Brennan fits the bill. If the price had been JC, a first, and a third for Cutler and the fifth I would have pulled the trigger. For the price that the Bears paid I probably would have passed. However, if I was the Skins I'd be doing everything in my power to get a better qb, including drafting Sanchez if he is available at #13.

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:48 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote: including drafting Sanchez if he is available at #13.

If Sanchez somehow does slip to 13 I hope we trade down get some extra picks and fill more pressing needs.

If Campbell tanks in 09, bench him put in Brennan. If that doesnt work id draft one of the big 3 QBs in next years draft. They are all better than Sanchez and Stafford.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:57 pm

If Campbell tanks in 09, bench him put in Brennan. If that doesnt work id draft one of the big 3 QBs in next years draft. They are all better than Sanchez and Stafford.

Brennan? Come on. The guy is a long-term project. Also, who are the "big 3" that you are referring to? I can think of Bradford and McCoy, but I seriously hope that you aren't referring to Tebow as a top NFL qb prospect because he certainly isn't that.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:05 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:Brennan? Come on. The guy is a long-term project.

Oh no...we'll go 1-7 instead of 2-6 with Colt at the helm. What's it going to hurt? Less points? Less TD's? Less wins?

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:22 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:Brennan? Come on. The guy is a long-term project.

Oh no...we'll go 1-7 instead of 2-6 with Colt at the helm. What's it going to hurt? Less points? Less TD's? Less wins?

I guess it couldn't hurt. I've just never liked Brennan as a qb. I watch a lot of college football so I saw quite a few of his games and the kid just never impressed me.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:59 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:Brennan? Come on. The guy is a long-term project.

Oh no...we'll go 1-7 instead of 2-6 with Colt at the helm. What's it going to hurt? Less points? Less TD's? Less wins?

I guess it couldn't hurt. I've just never liked Brennan as a qb. I watch a lot of college football so I saw quite a few of his games and the kid just never impressed me.

But he kicked butt in the 4th quarter of the 1st of 5 preseason games against a bunch of players who got immediately cut!!!!

SkinsSince96 · Post by **SkinsSince96** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:19 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
If Campbell tanks in 09, bench him put in Brennan. If that doesnt work id draft one of the big 3 QBs in next years draft. They are all better than Sanchez and Stafford.

Brennan? Come on. The guy is a long-term project. Also, who are the "big 3" that you are referring to? I can think of Bradford and McCoy, but I seriously hope that you aren't referring to Tebow as a top NFL qb prospect because he certainly isn't that.

Brennan is a guy Zorn drafted and likes. If Campbell tanks why not give Brennan a chance if the Skins are lets say 2-6 after 8 games with Campbell. Id rather start Brennan who at least has been in the league a year and knows the system instead of drating a QB like Sanchez.

As for Tebow he throws a better ball than Stafford or Sanchez. There both 1st round locks. Id expect Tebow to be a 1st round pick in 2010. I dont listen to dumb TV experts who see him as a TE in the NFL. Thats absurd.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:35 pm

PulpExposure wrote:But he kicked butt in the 4th quarter of the 1st of 5 preseason games against a bunch of players who got immediately cut!!!!

What is it going to hurt to have an open training camp?

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:45 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:That sucks. I guess we're stuck with JC now.

CanesSkins, I'm curious: now that we see the price paid for acquiring Cutler, and given that we would have to have had at least an equal offer to bring him to Washington: do you favor Snyder's restraint, or do you think this was a mistake by the Skins?

I'm torn. On the one hand, it is a LOT to give up for a player. One the other hand, we badly need a franchise qb and I don't think that either JC or Brennan fits the bill. If the price had been JC, a first, and a third for Cutler and the fifth I would have pulled the trigger. For the price that the Bears paid I probably would have passed. However, if I was the Skins I'd be doing everything in my power to get a better qb, including drafting Sanchez if he is available at #13.

That appears to be the direction that they are going. I wonder if they are going to consider trading up in the first round to get a high enough pick to take Sanchez.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:33 pm

As for Tebow he throws a better ball than Stafford or Sanchez. There both 1st round locks. Id expect Tebow to be a 1st round pick in 2010. I dont listen to dumb TV experts who see him as a TE in the NFL. Thats absurd.

That is an utter joke. Tebow throws a better ball than Sanchez? Now I'm starting to think that you have never seen any of these players actually play in real games. Tebow is at best a mediocre passer. His mechanics are terrible and he isn't very accurate. If you think otherwise I don't really know what to tell you. If you think that he is going to be a first round pick then you are sadly mistaken. Go back and watch some of the games in which UF has trailed and he has been forced to pass and see how he has done (the 2007 games against LSU, Auburn, and Georgia are a good place to start). In case you don't believe me, here is what some of the professionals think about Tebow...

Most NFL analysts do not believe Tebow will be a high pick in the draft, regardless of when he comes out, because he's not considered a prototypical NFL passer. ESPN's Todd McShay, director of college football scouting for Scouts Inc., said recently that he doesn't believe Tebow will be drafted in either the first or second round if he leaves Florida.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3777889

:
Tebow’s N.F.L. future is a bit murkier. The scout, who said he was not sold on Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford, an early entry for the draft, said that Tebow could be the second-best quarterback prospect but one with glaring deficiencies. Some have speculated that Tebow could end up as a fullback or a tight end because of his 6-foot-3, 240-pound frame. The scout sees Tebow as a quarterback, but one that has to be looked at skeptically because he is not a natural passer.

Mel Kiper's thoughts on Tebow...

On why he thinks Tebow should play a different position: "When you watch him play, he's strong as a runner and he's great with the ball. He can be that third quarterback in a wildcat formation. He could be an H back or a tight end, like a Frank Wycheck does in NFL. He gives you that third quarterback, that versatile all-around guy.”

On how Tebow's quarterback skills might not transfer well to the NFL: "With a Tim Tebow, there will be a big adjustment to the NFL. It takes smart accuracy, and accuracy in college isn’t the same thing as in the NFL. He's not a pure pocket passer like a Matt Stafford. Can he make all the throws? Can he make all the reads? Can he learn to release the ball quicker? That remains to be seen."

On embracing a different position: “If you fight it and say I’m just a quarterback, that’s a different ballgame. That’s why guys don’t go as high. I remember Eric Courch was fighting it for awhile. There was no way Crouch was an NFL quarterback. He was going to have to be a safety. Seemed to me like he was talking too much about being a quarterback."

On the benefits of Tebow returning for senior season: "He's one of the greatest college players of all time, top 3-5 of all time. After next year, he could go back to Florida, which I think he should. He’s not going to be a first-round pick. If you’re not, you shouldn't come out. The only reason to come out of college if not first round is if you just think it’s time to move on.”

On Tebow's final projection: "I’d say third or fourth round worst-case scenario, second round as a best case. Probably a third-rounder. That’s assuming his workouts are good."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2008/12/the-nfl-skinny.html

His projected NFL Draft level -- believed to be from the second round to the fourth -- had little impact.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/colleges/uf/story/848048.html

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:44 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:But he kicked butt in the 4th quarter of the 1st of 5 preseason games against a bunch of players who got immediately cut!!!!

What is it going to hurt to have an open training camp?

Oh, I'm well on record that the Skins should have an open training camp. I just don't get the love for Colt Brennan, and the unshakeable belief that he's going to be a star that some posters have, because it's based upon him ripping up a bunch of training camp fodder in the first preseason game of last year.