PDA

View Full Version : Separating Fact from Ideas - damn another Cutler thread


mr007
03-17-2009, 12:29 PM
Yeah I felt the need to add another thread on the topic since it seems to be the thing to do. This is a summary of the situation in my eyes and I feel each side is justified in the way they are acting, but there are many things on a business level that would have prevented things from escalating the way they did.

FACT: McDaniels came on board and had "good" initial discussions with Cutler and the excitement about what he'd bring to the offense. Both sides indicated these discussions went well and both sides indicated they couldn't wait to start working together on this new offense. McDaniels and Cutler both indicate the importance of trust between the two and this looks like a good beginning to the relationship.

FACT: In the opening press conference, McDaniels indicated he would be running the offense and personnel decisions would be going up to the Goodman's. He indicated he would be working with the Goodman's on future draft choices, but final decision making would be up to them.

FACT: With no apparent reasoning, the Goodman's are relieved of duty, approximately 1-2 weeks after the initial press conference in which McDaniels stated he would be working closely with them on personnel decisions.

FACT: With no publicly known reason, McDaniels brings in long snapper Lonnie Paxton and makes him the 2nd highest paid long snapper in the NFL.

Opinion: There was no obvious reason to replace Mike Leach. Making such a move undermines value of locker room cohesiveness and places unnecessary thoughts about open competition between players and good ole boy replacements.

FACT: There is some sort of attempt to trade Cutler for Matt Cassel.

Opinion: The lack of communication between the FO and Jay/Bus regarding the public leak of this trade is disheartening at best. Regardless of what your true intention is in a situation like this, it is best to do everything to control the potential ramifications ASAP. The FO should have done everything it could to make sure Jay was as comfortable as possible regardless of their true intentions. It's simple business... keep those who are still working for you happy if they are doing a good job and keep your true intentions on the back end and as under wraps as possible to prevent potential backlash.

FACT: Communication between both sides continues to cause the situation to deteriorate.

McDaniels stated that he did attempt to make a trade for Matt, he wasn't sorry about it, and he could still entertain the idea of trading Jay for the betterment of the team.

Bowlen was not present for this meeting, to which Cutler states if he wanted to talk to him, why wasn't he present.

Attempts to reach Jay 1on1 for the previous 2 weeks were unsuccessful, as Jay would only speak through his agent.

Cutler re-iterates McDaniels request for trust between the two and questions how he can trust him again.

Cutler puts his extra house on the market.

Opinion: To me, the issues here are pretty obvious, and the situation could have been resolved relatively painlessly if EITHER side acted with a bit more maturity and intelligence. Jay is obviously butthurt. He lost a coach and OC he got along with very well. Early indications with McD were promising only to be back stabbed (in his perspective) multiple times. Once with the trade offer itself, and secondly because his ego isn't being stroked by the FO with a resounding commitment to him as the leader of the team and no trade being considered. McD has his own issues, either in the way of maturity, or his own ego as well. The fact is he could have smoothed the situation over with simple words regardless of the intention of the FO. He could have stroked Jay's ego, renewed his commitment to the QB, laughed things off, etc even if there was still an opening for a potential trade. Again, it's simple business... you don't want all your cards out on the table especially when it can unnecessarily alienate your star QB, cause discord in the locker room, all for something that may or may not materialize.

Jay is 25 years old. Yes, he should man up and realize the business part of the situation, know that he could be traded, shrug it off, and show up and prove McD and whoever else wrong. He is also young and apparently emotionally volatile. I'm not sure I was much different at 25, typically maturity is something you gain with age, as I hope Jay does.

McD and the FO should know better. They are being brutally honest with Jay when it's completely unnecessary. What harm is there in stroking someone's ego (even if you have other intentions) in case nothing materilizes from the intentions? The answer: Nothing. McD and the rest of the FO should be smart enough to realize this and I find it personally unsettling that they quite apparently don't.

Again, you can take sides all you want, the truth is, both sides are at fault and subtle differences in the handling of the situation could have completely averted what is presently happening. I place a little more on the FO simply because they should have the maturity and experience necessary to avoid exactly what's goin on.

garandman
03-17-2009, 12:35 PM
Bravo, Sir. Very well written and I could not agree more..




FACT: In the opening press conference, McDaniels indicated he would be running the offense and personnel decisions would be going up to the Goodman's. He indicated he would be working with the Goodman's on future draft choices, but final decision making would be up to them.

FACT: With no apparent reasoning, the Goodman's are relieved of duty, approximately 1-2 weeks after the initial press conference in which McDaniels stated he would be working closely with them on personnel decisions.

That is when I knew something was wrong here, How did McDaniels become quasi GM/Coach overnight???

barryr
03-17-2009, 12:43 PM
I agree both sides are at fault, but Cutler hasn't shown to me he's really that interested in being a Bronco since Cook has gotten into his ear.

You are actually upset about the long snapper position? Too much time on your hands. Were you the president of the Mike Leach fan club or something? Paxton has been considered, whether true or not, one of the best at that spot for awhile now, so Leach wasn't replaced by some no name stiff who happened to be a Patriot.

Of this were the case, we'd see a lot of former Pats on the team, so has that happened?

Besides, most coaches being in their own players that they know, especially to a team that hasn't been winning lately.

mr007
03-17-2009, 12:50 PM
You are actually upset about the long snapper position? Too much time on your hands. Were you the president of the Mike Leach fan club or something? Paxton has been considered, whether true or not, one of the best at that spot for awhile now, so Leach wasn't replaced by some no name stiff who happened to be a Patriot.

Of this were the case, we'd see a lot of former Pats on the team, so has that happened?

Besides, most coaches being in their own players that they know, especially to a team that hasn't been winning lately.

I'm not upset about the LS position, I was just pointing it out as it pertains to this topic. Mike Leach was well liked in the locker room and I believe the concerns stated are valid.

McD has brought in others of his own, but that's not the point of this post so I'll leave that alone.

OABB
03-17-2009, 12:52 PM
not a bad thread imo...

I just want to say one thing, I have backed off this situation so far, but why does everyone say that Jay should "shut up and realize this is a business?"

what "business" decision comes into play when you try and trade your franchise qb who is still on a rookie contract and has no injury history, for a career backup?

If that is business, than maybe mcd should go work for aig.

The truth is: It IS personal. Jay has every right to view it this way. there is nothing more personal than bringing in a friend to take "your" job.

I am sick of people saying things are just business and not personal....Was what Madoff did personal or business?

Business would be trading Jay for a better qb. Or releaseing him if his cap number was off the charts!

Why does everyone miss this point. This has NOTHING to do with business! IS Cutler 40 years old? is he injured? is he a cap casualty?

N. O.

but, trying to bring in your butt buddy cause he makes your vag tingle, that my friends is as personal as it gets.

I have not taken a side on this issue, but I am leaning towards siding with Jay because, my god he does have a point.

He tells the truth regardless of the personal accusations he may incur, and he takes this situation personal, as any red blooded MAN would and SHOULD.

DrFate
03-17-2009, 01:06 PM
Is a nice take. My problem remains I have no faith in a head coach (or a front office) who wants to replace Cutler with a lifetime backup. Sure Cassel had a nice season last year - but it is a significant downgrade at a position of some importance.

WolfpackGuy
03-17-2009, 01:09 PM
Is a nice take. My problem remains I have no faith in a head coach (or a front office) who wants to replace Cutler with a lifetime backup. Sure Cassel had a nice season last year - but it is a significant downgrade at a position of some importance.

Amen, Brother Noopsie!

barryr
03-17-2009, 01:11 PM
I'm not upset about the LS position, I was just pointing it out as it pertains to this topic. Mike Leach was well liked in the locker room and I believe the concerns stated are valid.

McD has brought in others of his own, but that's not the point of this post so I'll leave that alone.

Again, name a coach who comes to a team that isn't winning and decided to keep the roster basically intact? Some try with Tomlin with the Steelers, but they were losing when he came on board? Didn't they just win the Super Bowl the year before? I could see people upset a coach would dismantle such a team, but .500 type teams in a weak division no less?

garandman
03-17-2009, 01:13 PM
Again, name a coach who comes to a team that isn't winning and decided to keep the roster basically intact? Some try with Tomlin with the Steelers, but they were losing when he came on board? Didn't they just win the Super Bowl the year before? I could see people upset a coach would dismantle such a team, but .500 type teams in a weak division no less?

Name a coach that comes to a team that is not winning and runs there best player at the most important position out of town within two months of being hired and BTW has never coached a game in his life....

mr007
03-17-2009, 01:15 PM
Again, name a coach who comes to a team that isn't winning and decided to keep the roster basically intact? Some try with Tomlin with the Steelers, but they were losing when he came on board? Didn't they just win the Super Bowl the year before? I could see people upset a coach would dismantle such a team, but .500 type teams in a weak division no less?

Again, this is off topic and not relevant to the conversation, I didn't argue with you there. Read my previous statement, I only pointed it out as it was valid to the conversation.

barryr
03-17-2009, 01:18 PM
Name a coach that comes to a team that is not winning and runs there best player at the most important position out of town within two months of being hired and BTW has never coached a game in his life....

McDaniels hasn't run anyone out of town. Cutler has decided this for himself.

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 01:22 PM
Such a compelling argument given all the quotes and citations throughout.

You can't paraphrase or summarize a "Fact."

Popps
03-17-2009, 01:27 PM
To me, it's pretty simple. Jay doesn't want to be here without a massive contract guarantee, and even then... I'm not sure.

He and his agent are just using whatever method they can to ensure that's the case.

mr007
03-17-2009, 01:29 PM
Such a compelling argument given all the quotes and citations throughout.

You can't paraphrase or summarize a "Fact."

Is that an attempt at sarcasm?

DrFate
03-17-2009, 01:31 PM
McDaniels hasn't run anyone out of town. Cutler has decided this for himself.

I simply don't agree with that. The Three Stooges (McDaniels/Xanders/Bowlen) tried to send him out of town for freakin' Cassel. That failed.

Cutler feels lied to and wants some assurance that he's in the future plans.

Is he taking advantage looking for a new deal? Sure. Is that low-down? Make your own decisions.

But this entire fiasco started when McSparky wanted to replace Cutler with Cassel after initially telling Cutler 'you are the guy'.

barryr
03-17-2009, 01:34 PM
I simply don't agree with that. The Three Stooges (McDaniels/Xanders/Bowlen) tried to send him out of town for freakin' Cassel. That failed.

Cutler feels lied to and wants some assurance that he's in the future plans.

Is he taking advantage looking for a new deal? Sure. Is that low-down? Make your own decisions.

But this entire fiasco started when McSparky wanted to replace Cutler with Cassel after initially telling Cutler 'you are the guy'.

Oh bull****! If they really wanted Cassell that badly as people think, he'd be a Bronco. Not like the Chiefs' offer would have been hard to top.

DrFate
03-17-2009, 01:39 PM
Oh bull****! If they really wanted Cassell that badly as people think, he'd be a Bronco.

*Shrugs*

Conclude what you wish. The McDaniels apologists ignore all the reports. After the fallout from this past weekend, I' put money on it.

barryr
03-17-2009, 01:51 PM
*Shrugs*

Conclude what you wish. The McDaniels apologists ignore all the reports. After the fallout from this past weekend, I' put money on it.

And the Cutler kissasses ignore the reports they don't want to believe and instead, believe any and everything coming out of Cutler and his agents' mouth.

"Even though I wasn't going to report to a mandatory meeting and wouldn't talk to the coach or the owner for 2 weeks, I was ready to put things behind us, but the coach antagonized me." Boo hoo. Either this guy is a liar or a limp-wristed bitch. People supporting such a player's actions shows why players do this typs of stuff knowing they will buy it. You think Cutler gives a crap of your support? Please. As long as public sentiment helps get him what he wants, that's what's at play here.

DrFate
03-17-2009, 01:58 PM
And the Cutler kissasses ignore the reports they don't want to believe and instead, believe any and everything coming out of Cutler and his agents' mouth.

I'm supporting the team, not Cutler. This first time HC has fouled up royally and isn't man enough to admit it. Try reading some of the nfl.com articles by Solomon Wilcots and others.

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Is that an attempt at sarcasm?
No. Your argument is specious. It wouldn't convince anyone who isn't already with you.

mr007
03-17-2009, 02:14 PM
No. Your argument is specious. It wouldn't convince anyone who isn't already with you.

It's specious? How do you figure? Feel free to argue anything I've marked as FACT, here are the supporting links. Thanks for the neg rep, douche.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805 (conversation between McD and Cutler, admittance of trade attempt, lack of Bowlen presence, communication deterioration, factual)

http://www.rotowire.com/football/player.htm?ID=4114 (Lonnie Paxton LS to Broncos, factual)

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18926235/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18926235/detail.html)(Cutler puts his house on sale, factual)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/12/bowlen-has-no-intention-hiring-new-gm/ (Jim will have final say in personnel differences, factual)

http://www.denverpost.com/sportsheadlines/ci_11691214 (Goodmans fired, factual)

Broncos4tw
03-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Are you actually McDaniels barryr? Why do you have so much faith and trust in a completely unproven 'head coach' that hasn't done ONE THING for this team, other than cause disarray, and poorly mismanage personnel affairs so far? He hasn't won a single game for the Broncos. Cutler HAS.

I'm sorry that you are utterly blind to the fact that he is trying to get into a comfort zone. He is trying to turn the Denver Broncos INTO the NE Patriots. I don't want the damned patriots, I want my team, the Broncos.

There was NO reason to get rid of our snapper. You say "who cares, he is just a snapper," completely oblivious to the fact that in the locker room, cohesiveness and chemistry and TRUST is very important. How secure are you going to feel on a team knowing that your level of play means NOTHING at all. You can be an all pro, but it won't matter, because the head coach and apparently dictator of the team now, may get a hardon for one of his old players.

Getting rid of Cutler was STUPID! OP is completely correct in saying that if the front office REALLY wanted Cutler, they could have gotten him back. Even if you do have to sign a new contract. I mean hell, our probowl QB is making less than our BACKUP at this point. They should pony up, smooth it over, and get Cutler back into the team.

Because without him, we are going to be CRAP for years. It's bad enough when a team is basically rebuilt. It's going to be much worse when we have some random scrub for a QB.

You can continue to be delusional, and assume that it's Cutler's fault, nor out pathetic, anemic defense, for our woes the last few years. Even though he set records and threw for over 4k yards, and ended up in the Pro Bowl, because his peers understand how good he is. No.. it's gotta be him, not a defense that had a WHOPPING 6 interceptions lat year.

Guess when you force plays? When you are in a hole. How often were we in a hole last year? All the damned time. Opponents starting near midfield, our D unable to ever get the ball, we were constantly playing from behind, playing catchup, and Jay had to try to make something happen. I hightly doubt people like you have even watched every damn game, when you come up with such ridiculous theories about our QB.

OABB
03-17-2009, 02:19 PM
No. Your argument is specious. It wouldn't convince anyone who isn't already with you.


Specious means making an argument attractive in a deceptive way.

He is not doing this at all.

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 02:33 PM
Specious means making an argument attractive in a deceptive way.

He is not doing this at all.I was going more with "has the ring of truth, but false" definition." Paraphrasing facts rather than using quotes certainly changes the presentation of his argument, no?

OABB
03-17-2009, 02:46 PM
I was going more with "has the ring of truth, but false" definition." Paraphrasing facts rather than using quotes certainly changes the presentation of his argument, no?

no.

a specious argument has no truth whatsoever.

but lets not argue over semantics, that makes me feel like an english major dork.

it is a good thread for a fan forum site that is currently filled "let's trade cutler for 10 1sts and peyton manning" type crap and credit card hippies salivating over crappy music...

so let's enjoy it, no?

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 02:47 PM
Tell you what, mr007. I'll bold for you, all the parts of your facts that isn't necessarily factual. Yeah I felt the need to add another thread on the topic since it seems to be the thing to do. This is a summary of the situation in my eyes and I feel each side is justified in the way they are acting, but there are many things on a business level that would have prevented things from escalating the way they did.

FACT: McDaniels came on board and had "good" initial discussions with Cutler and the excitement about what he'd bring to the offense. Both sides indicated these discussions went well and both sides indicated they couldn't wait to start working together on this new offense. McDaniels and Cutler both indicate the importance of trust between the two and this looks like a good beginning to the relationship.

FACT: In the opening press conference, McDaniels indicated he would be running the offense and personnel decisions would be going up to the Goodman's. He indicated he would be working with the Goodman's on future draft choices, but final decision making would be up to them.

FACT: With no apparent reasoning, the Goodman's are relieved of duty, approximately 1-2 weeks after the initial press conference in which McDaniels stated he would be working closely with them on personnel decisions. (Note here how you've changed the wording from leaving the personnel decisions to the Goodmans to know simply "working closely with them")

FACT: With no publicly known reason, McDaniels brings in long snapper Lonnie Paxton and makes him the 2nd highest paid long snapper in the NFL. (Just because there aren't publicly stated reasons doesn't mean there aren't good ones, and that's your implication here.)

FACT: There is some sort of attempt to trade Cutler for Matt Cassel. (This fact is so comically vague it could be used to draw any conclusion you'd like)

FACT: Communication between both sides continues to cause the situation to deteriorate. This isn't a fact either; it's a widely-accepted opinion, on the other hand.

McDaniels stated that he did attempt to make a trade for Matt, he wasn't sorry about it, and he could still entertain the idea of trading Jay for the betterment of the team. (This is where I need to see the quotes. Because tone and word choice matter a great deal here)

Bowlen was not present for this meeting, to which Cutler states if he wanted to talk to him, why wasn't he present. (This is also comically titled toward your argument. Vise versa, the similarly thin argument could be offered: If Jay wanted to talk to Bowlen why didn't he pick up his phone. As an employee isn't the onus on Jay?)

Attempts to reach Jay 1on1 for the previous 2 weeks were unsuccessful, as Jay would only speak through his agent.

Cutler re-iterates McDaniels request for trust between the two and questions how he can trust him again. (This fact sure puts Jay in the most positive light possible.)

Cutler puts his extra house on the market.(This is a coincidence, the sale of us house was in the work for weeks, unless you are referring to his parent's house (which might also be one).)
Though I don't agree with your take on the situation, that's not where my problem lies. It's the mythical premise of the post that rubs me the wrong way--they you are separting facts from ideas--which you aren't. You clearly are hedging your facts to benefit the argument you are about to make; there few vague attempts at objectivity or to merit the opposing side's argument.

It's just a poor argument that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

(BTW: Thanks for the links, but I need to see more clearly how the quotes in the given articles support your specific assertions--you don't need to do this, of course--but that's what would take to be persuasive, IMO.)

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 02:57 PM
no.

a specious argument has no truth whatsoever.

but lets not argue over semantics, that makes me feel like an english major dork.

it is a good thread for a fan forum site that is currently filled "let's trade cutler for 10 1sts and peyton manning" type crap and credit card hippies salivating over crappy music...

so let's enjoy it, no?Having the ring of truth of course doesn't indicate any actual truth.
spe·cious (sp?sh?s) adjective
1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
2. Deceptively attractive.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Hulamau
03-17-2009, 03:05 PM
FACT: There is some sort of attempt to trade Cutler for Matt Cassel.

Not at all established as a Fact, so far and on the record McD said only that they listened to and considered a couple of scenarios presented by other teams but insists that it never got to the point where they were ready to actually pull the trigger, nor had they decided to trade Jay.

In fact McD said it NEVER got to the point that they would have proposed the deal to Bowlen and do think in any way shape or form a first time rookie coach would even consider trading Cutler without at least passing it by his boss???? Fat chance, all of which adds credence to his assurance that a decision to trade Jay was never reached!!

And if true, as he and the rest of the Broncos FO continue to insist, the FACT IS THEN THAT McD NEVER LIED to Jay and everyone from Shannon Sharpe to everyone else spouting this as FACT are just jerking off on conjecture and innuendo as if it were FACT, and very LIKELY may owe McD a big apology when this is all said and done.

Opinion: The lack of communication between the FO and Jay/Bus regarding the public leak of this trade is disheartening at best. Regardless of what your true intention is in a situation like this, it is best to do everything to control the potential ramifications ASAP. The FO should have done everything it could to make sure Jay was as comfortable as possible regardless of their true intentions. It's simple business... keep those who are still working for you happy if they are doing a good job and keep your true intentions on the back end and as under wraps as possible to prevent potential backlash.

This part I agree could have been handled better just to let Jay know every detail right away. No question that was a mistake, but from everything Jay has done since then it IS CLEAR this wasn't the real issue and Jay/Cook jumped on this scenario like White On Rice to EXPLOIT the situation for the larger issued of getting Jay a fat new contract and a security blanket .. either here or elsewhere.

FACT: Communication between both sides continues to cause the situation to deteriorate.

McDaniels stated that he did attempt to make a trade for Matt, he wasn't sorry about it, and he could still entertain the idea of trading Jay for the betterment of the team.

NO THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ESTABLISHED TRUTH AT ALL!, McD NEVER said that!!! Thus at the very MOST this is still only conjecture and may likely be just more manipulative lying and creative SPIN by Jay/Cook and their press lacky's with little to no investigative skills.

Opinion: To me, the issues here are pretty obvious, and the situation could have been resolved relatively painlessly if EITHER side acted with a bit more maturity and intelligence. Jay is obviously butthurt. He lost a coach and OC he got along with very well. Early indications with McD were promising only to be back stabbed (in his perspective) multiple times. Once with the trade offer itself, and secondly because his ego isn't being stroked by the FO with a resounding commitment to him as the leader of the team and no trade being considered. McD has his own issues, either in the way of maturity, or his own ego as well. The fact is he could have smoothed the situation over with simple words regardless of the intention of the FO. He could have stroked Jay's ego, renewed his commitment to the QB, laughed things off, etc even if there was still an opening for a potential trade. Again, it's simple business... you don't want all your cards out on the table especially when it can unnecessarily alienate your star QB, cause discord in the locker room, all for something that may or may not materialize.

Jay is 25 years old. Yes, he should man up and realize the business part of the situation, know that he could be traded, shrug it off, and show up and prove McD and whoever else wrong. He is also young and apparently emotionally volatile. I'm not sure I was much different at 25, typically maturity is something you gain with age, as I hope Jay does.

McD and the FO should know better. They are being brutally honest with Jay when it's completely unnecessary. What harm is there in stroking someone's ego (even if you have other intentions) in case nothing materilizes from the intentions? The answer: Nothing. McD and the rest of the FO should be smart enough to realize this and I find it personally unsettling that they quite apparently don't.

Again, you can take sides all you want, the truth is, both sides are at fault and subtle differences in the handling of the situation could have completely averted what is presently happening. I place a little more on the FO simply because they should have the maturity and experience necessary to avoid exactly what's goin on.[/QUOTE]

You have presented a few actual time-line facts above, but also much of these opinions themselves are based on accepting, for the most part, the rumors and Spin put out via Jay/Cook and their Press contacts.

Since the Broncos FO has NOT wanted to trade nor lose Jay they have had their hands tied up until now not wanting to inflame an already obviously unstable and over sensitive Cry Baby QB. Instead of coming out with their side of the story more fully they have held back and hoped to work this out between the actual parties and NOT via the press. But most folks here have gotten their Titties in a twister by flying off the handle on the press reports and SPIN as if they were fact.

Go look at the same type of Spin that Bus Cook orchestrated in Green Bay and you will see how the fans and GB FO didn't know which side was up for awhile until it became obvious something was very wrong there as well with what Cook/Favre was doing!

mr007
03-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Tell you what, mr007. I'll bold for you, all the parts of your facts that isn't necessarily factual. Though I don't agree with your take on the situation, that's not where my problem lies. It's the mythical premise of the post that rubs me the wrong way--they you are separting facts from ideas--which you aren't. You clearly are hedging your facts to benefit the argument you are about to make; there few vague attempts at objectivity or to merit the opposing side's argument.

It's just a poor argument that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

(BTW: Thanks for the links, but I need to see more clearly how the quotes in the given articles support your specific assertions--you don't need to do this, of course--but that's what would take to be persuasive, IMO.)

Wow, really? Here's your bolded stuff:

(Note here how you've changed the wording from leaving the personnel decisions to the Goodmans to know simply "working closely with them") Both were stated, I simply added this. That doesn't change anything.

(Just because there aren't publicly stated reasons doesn't mean there aren't good ones, and that's your implication here.)I'm not arguing that, but there is no documentation on this, which means it must be left out of fact. You are assuming to know what I'm implying, and you know what they say about assumptions....

(This fact is so comically vague it could be used to draw any conclusion you'd like) The only conclusion that needs to be drawn here is the attempt of a trade. There is nothing else publicly verified about the situation, so that's it...

This isn't a fact either; it's a widely-accepted opinion, on the other hand.Deterioration, from Latin deteriorare "to make worse", can refer to any sort of worsening: Unless you speak a different language and have some sort of other definition for the word deteriorate, you are wrong.

(This is where I need to see the quotes. Because tone and word choice matter a great deal here) Read the article of the McD/Cutler discussion.

(This is also comically titled toward your argument. Vise versa, the similarly thin argument could be offered: If Jay wanted to talk to Bowlen why didn't he pick up his phone. As an employee isn't the onus on Jay?)You are inserting opinion and vague idea of the situation into fact. This does not change the fact and what we KNOW happened.

(This fact sure puts Jay in the most positive light possible.)Again, you're assuming I'm trying to put Jay in a positive light. Maybe you should view what I'm writing objectively instead of forming an opinion that I'm all pro Jay and think he's not in the wrong.

This is a coincidence, the sale of us house was in the work for weeks, unless you are referring to his parent's house (which might also be one).) Umm, no ****? It's relevant to the conversation and showing a possible maturity issue on Jay's part.

Basically, you attacked this post because you're a major supporter of the front office. That is an opinion and assumption on my part (I'm sure you understand that) based on your response and neg repping. I am not trying to persuade you of something, I am taking pretty much all of the facts and putting them together, both positive and negative of each side. If I've missed something, feel free to add it.

Pseudofool
03-17-2009, 03:21 PM
I'm in blueWow, really? Here's your bolded stuff:

[Quote] (Note here how you've changed the wording from leaving the personnel decisions to the Goodmans to know simply "working closely with them") Both were stated, I simply added this. That doesn't change anything. Look, there's a great deal of difference if McD says "Goodmens have the final say in personnell" and "We're working closely together" And since you haven't provided the quotes, I'm not sure what McD actually said about the Goodmans--but this is a trivial point I think, regardless

(Just because there aren't publicly stated reasons doesn't mean there aren't good ones, and that's your implication here.)I'm not arguing that, but there is no documentation on this, which means it must be left out of fact. You are assuming to know what I'm implying, and you know what they say about assumptions....Given the lack of evidence, we shouldn't be quick to draw conclusions either way right? It might be a fact that there's no public reason, but that hardly is fact that lends itself to any kind of credible argument.

(This fact is so comically vague it could be used to draw any conclusion you'd like) The only conclusion that needs to be drawn here is the attempt of a trade. There is nothing else publicly verified about the situation, so that's it...What the trade was (how much tehy were getting for Jay) and who initiated it matter a great deal. The details matter here.

This isn't a fact either; it's a widely-accepted opinion, on the other hand.Deterioration, from Latin deteriorare "to make worse", can refer to any sort of worsening: Unless you speak a different language and have some sort of other definition for the word deteriorate, you are wrong.I don't have a problem with deterioration; my problem is the conclusion that it's simply a problem of communication that leaves their relationship wanning--given the departure of Shanahan and the talk of Jay wanting a new contract, I'm not convinced that Bus isn't trying to force the Broncos hand to get Jay more money or get him out of town from the very beginning

(This is where I need to see the quotes. Because tone and word choice matter a great deal here) Read the article of the McD/Cutler discussion.I've read it. Obviously we are taking the same quotes and drawing different conclusions. Can you see why it's important to know waht evidence you are referring to?

(This is also comically titled toward your argument. Vise versa, the similarly thin argument could be offered: If Jay wanted to talk to Bowlen why didn't he pick up his phone. As an employee isn't the onus on Jay?)You are inserting opinion and vague idea of the situation into fact. This does not change the fact and what we KNOW happened.It's also a fact that Bowlen called Jay and didn't have his calls returned. That you left that fact out and included this one is the very definition of disingenuous

(This fact sure puts Jay in the most positive light possible.)Again, you're assuming I'm trying to put Jay in a positive light. Maybe you should view what I'm writing objectively instead of forming an opinion that I'm all pro Jay and think he's not in the wrong.If you're not trying to put Jay in a positive light--it's a cosmic coincidence that each fact and paraphrase tilts in his favor

This is a coincidence, the sale of us house was in the work for weeks, unless you are referring to his parent's house (which might also be one).) Umm, no ****? It's relevant to the conversation and showing a possible maturity issue on Jay's part.If Jay put his house for sale in November it means nothing now.

I am taking pretty much all of the facts and putting them together, both positive and negative of each side. If I've missed something, feel free to add it.It's a noble effort. But you need leave your facts unadulterated as possible, and that's not happening given the lack of specific quotes (in context, of course).

mr007
03-17-2009, 04:13 PM
I'm in blue[QUOTE=mr007;2339128]Wow, really? Here's your bolded stuff:


It's a noble effort. But you need leave your facts unadulterated as possible, and that's not happening given the lack of specific quotes (in context, of course).

So without going back through the quoting thing let me summarize. I made multiple statements that are negative on Cutler - lack of return calls for 2 weeks (this includes Bowlen but I suppose I could highlight that, communication causing a deterioration (both sides), house up for sale (which I was indicating was lame on Jay's part), ego/maturity issues, etc.

I haven't been trying to make things seem one-sided, everything I have in the opinion section is based on all the material we actually know about the situation. I'm not convinced of anything either and until there's further evidence, everything is speculation.

I do have a problem with people who make it seem like everything is Jay's fault or that everything is McD's fault. The point of my post was that I think the severity of the situation could have been avoided had the FO handled it in a proper business context and maybe give those that are so hard headed one way or another to be a bit more open to what's at hand.

Ultimately, I don't want to lose Cutler as a QB. Does he need to grow up and put big boy pants on?? Undoubtedly. I'd like to see that happen in Denver rather than somewhere else.

Broncos4tw
03-17-2009, 04:14 PM
It's pretty simple....

They entertained trading a pro bowl QB for a downgrade, when all our serious issues are on defense and special teams.

Yea.. brilliant new head coach.