PDA

View Full Version : Many of you are saying that McDaniels has admitted to lying: please provide the PROOF


BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 08:36 AM
OK, since the Peter King article came out, several of you have stated that McDaniels admitted to lying. I am as baffled as a virgin at the Bunny Ranch, because I have looked at the King article and prior statements and can't for the life of me find any inconsistencies. But maybe I have overlooked something. If you have the proof, please provide it here. For the purposes of this thread, I am not interested in your opinion on whether he lied, or on any speculation. Just confirmation of what has been tossed around as fact since the King article--that McDaniels confirmed that he lied. Put up or shut, folks. Let's see this "admission."

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 08:38 AM
Sadly, this will likely be the quietest thread on the OM. There IS NO PROOF. Of ANYTHING, unfortunately.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 08:46 AM
Sadly, this will likely be the quietest thread on the OM. There IS NO PROOF. Of ANYTHING, unfortunately.

As far as I can tell, what happened is that a few respected posters (SoCal, Taco, Blueflame for three) made a reaching interpretation of what McDaniels said in the King article, and spun that as an admission to lying (of course, what he said in the King article is not at all inconsistent with what he has been quoted as saying in the past). After that, the lemmings started repeating this as gospel. But I could be wrong. Maybe someone has the goods.

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 08:47 AM
One could just as easily start a thread demanding proof that he didn't lie. This is pointless unless the only people involved in the actual discussion started posting here.

The Mane is designed around speculation and drawing conclusions based off of what info is provided. With the exception of one poster here, we don't actually pretend to be Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels, Cook or Cutler.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 08:49 AM
One could just as easily start a thread demanding proof that he didn't lie. This is pointless unless the only people involved in the actual discussion started posting here.

The Mane is designed around speculation and drawing conclusions based off of what info is provided. With the exception of one poster here, we don't actually pretend to be Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels, Cook or Cutler.

Oooh! I could pretend to be Cook! Here's my impression:

http://thenrb.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/douche-bag.jpg

Dead on, right?

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 08:51 AM
One could just as easily start a thread demanding proof that he didn't lie. This is pointless unless the only people involved in the actual discussion started posting here.

I don't have to prove he didn't lie. One can't prove a negative. The onus is on the claimants to show the evidence that he lied.

The Mane is designed around speculation and drawing conclusions based off of what info is provided. With the exception of one poster here, we don't actually pretend to be Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels, Cook or Cutler.

I understand what you are saying, but some people have made the claim the McDaniels out right admitted to lying, which is not speculative claim. Speculation and varying interpretations are fine, of course, but I'm just asking for evidence to verify this particular claim.

scttgrd
03-18-2009, 08:51 AM
I don't think you needed to pretend on that one.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 08:52 AM
The onus of proof is clearly on those who are accusing McD of lying not on those defending. It's spit-in-face-stupid to suggest that proving a negative (that McD did NOT lie) is the same thing.

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 08:53 AM
I don't have to prove he didn't lie. One can't prove a negative. The onus is on the claimants to show the evidence that he lied.

The onus of proof is clearly on those who are accusing McD of lying not on those defending. It's spit-in-face-stupid to suggest that proving a negative (that McD did NOT lie) is the same thing.


Ummmm, but you CAN prove such a thing. Prove he told the truth. That is not "proving a negative."

Irish Stout
03-18-2009, 08:54 AM
I understand what you are saying, but some people have made the claim the McDaniels out right admitted to lying, which is not speculative claim. Speculation and varying interpretations are fine, of course, but I'm just asking for evidence to verify this particular claim.

McDaniels has never ADMITTED to lying. So there is no proof that he admitted to such. He has continued to maintain his position. That doesn't mean he did or did not actually lie, it just means he hasn't admitted to it.

You can't prove what never existed.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Ummmm, but you CAN prove such a thing. Prove he told the truth. That is not "proving a negative."The burden is on you to prove that what is suggested as the truth is in fact a lie.

So you just assume he lied since we can prove that McD is telling the truth? Dude that's pretty weak.

Recall for me how it works in the court of law? Which party must prove their case? Those making accusations or those defending them? You prove guilt. You don't prove innocence.

dbfan4life
03-18-2009, 08:57 AM
What does anyone consider evidence? Media reports? Some of you are masquerading around here like you have unlimited access to the organization and Jay Cutler. I want to know who has that access so I can iggy everyone else and just listen to that person. What's that you say? No one here has that kind of access. Oh, then I guess I'll just go along and continue listening to those who 'think' they know the truth.

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 09:00 AM
The burden is on you to prove that what is suggested as the truth is in fact a lie.

So you just assume he lied since we can prove that McD is telling the truth? Dude that's pretty weak.

Recall for me how it works in the court of law? Which party must prove their case? Those making accusations or those defending them? You prove guilt. You don't prove innocence.

I'll play along. You are talking criminal court. This isn't a criminal matter. It is civil. The burden of proof is on both parties equally. The preponderance of the evidence will prevail. Right now, one could argue that there is more evidence (circumstantial or not) that says he lied. Proof would be great to have, but it isn't needed.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:01 AM
McDaniels has never ADMITTED to lying. So there is no proof that he admitted to such. He has continued to maintain his position. That doesn't mean he did or did not actually lie, it just means he hasn't admitted to it.

You can't prove what never existed.

I agree with this 100%. But SoCal and a few others have used the phrasing that McDaniels "admitted" to lying. So, I am asking them for their proof of this.

vancejohnson82
03-18-2009, 09:01 AM
Ummmm, but you CAN prove such a thing. Prove he told the truth. That is not "proving a negative."

the fact that Cutler is still here is proof that "Jay Cutler will not be traded"

right?

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 09:02 AM
the fact that Cutler is still here is proof that "Jay Cutler will not be traded"

right?

No. It's proof that Jay Cutler HAS NOT BEEN TRADED YET.

My use of past tense when I said "lied" and not "is lying" is key.

baja
03-18-2009, 09:04 AM
So. Cal. quotes McD's line "We came late to the dance " as proof that McD lied which I don't get the connection

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:04 AM
I'll play along. You are talking criminal court. This isn't a criminal matter. It is civil. The burden of proof is on both parties equally. The preponderance of the evidence will prevail. Right now, one could argue that there is more evidence (circumstantial or not) that says he lied. Proof would be great to have, but it isn't needed.

I just don't get how you can suggest that someone is a liar until he's is proved not to be. That's scary police state thinking. And it's not worth continuing this further. As you've obviously no evidence htat McD actually lied or admitted to such.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:04 AM
What does anyone consider evidence? Media reports? Some of you are masquerading around here like you have unlimited access to the organization and Jay Cutler. I want to know who has that access so I can iggy everyone else and just listen to that person. What's that you say? No one here has that kind of access. Oh, then I guess I'll just go along and continue listening to those who 'think' they know the truth.

Listen, man, let me try and explain the purpose of this thread again. Several posters are saying that McDaniels "admitted" (their word) that McDaniels lied. I freely admit that my position is an interpretation based on the available evidence. Saying that McDaniels "admitted" he lied is not an interpretative stance. It's an assertion of fact. So, I'm asking the people making that assertion to show their evidence of this alleged "admission." Does that make the purpose of this thread clear now?

vancejohnson82
03-18-2009, 09:10 AM
Listen, man, let me try and explain the purpose of this thread again. Several posters are saying that McDaniels "admitted" (their word) that McDaniels lied. I freely admit that my position is an interpretation based on the available evidence. Saying that McDaniels "admitted" he lied is not an interpretative stance. It's an assertion of fact. So, I'm asking the people making that assertion to show their evidence of this alleged "admission." Does that make the purpose of this thread clear now?

they are using the "late to the dance" comment....

we went over this yesterday in the McJayGate thread...

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:10 AM
So. Cal. quotes McD's line "We came late to the dance " as proof that McD lied which I don't get the connection

Yeah, that's the only thing I've seen, too. I admit that statement is open to interpretation. I read it as such: no one made a proposal worth considering until day one of free agency. At that point, New England already had a deal in place with Kansas City, so the Broncos were too late (late to the dance) to get seriously involved in any trade discussions. Furthermore, McD stated that the team was busy working on six FA deals, which seems to strongly suggest that no decision had been made on whether or not to accept the proposal. I mean, if they had made a decision to move their starting QB, seems to me that would have been priority number one. But it wasn't. I think they wanted to wrap up those deals and then give the proposal more consideration, which would not be inconsistent with any prior statements. That's my interpretation, anyway, and I think the most plausible one. But, it is open to interpretation, though hardly proof of an "admission" to lying as has been claimed.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:10 AM
So. Cal. quotes McD's line "We came late to the dance " as proof that McD lied which I don't get the connection
I've addressed this before in another thread (no surprise it was ignored).

Given there were three teams involved it's quite easy to see how TB (or whoever) calls Denver to offer up Cassell (if they can nab him) for Cutler. Once Denver gets seriously involved NE trades Cassell to KC, thus "they are too late to the dance." (This might not be the case, but you simply can't dismiss it as a distinct possibility). It doesn't mean that McD initiating any trade or sought to actively deal Jay (which is where the crux of the matter lies).

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:13 AM
BroncoInferno... Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:14 AM
BroncoInferno... Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?I think that's fare criticism. And really, that's par for the course, don't you think.

I think the lies that are in question is that McD didn't initiate trade talks and that McD didn't seek to actively shop Jay. Not that there were trade talks.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:15 AM
BroncoInferno... Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?

I haven't seen any quote from him where he specifically said that. That doesn't mean he didn't say it, but no, sans a direct quote, I don't accept that report as anything more than "hearsay" evidence. But maybe I missed the quote...is there one?

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:16 AM
For my part, I don't think it matters who made the first offer, though I do agree with Sharpe when he says that it's foolish to think all these teams started contacting the Broncos out of the blue. It seems pretty clear that Jay was shopped at the combine. It's pretty clear that McDaniels changed his story several times throughout this whole ordeal. I don't think that he "admitted" lying, because I don't think he's been that honest about things yet. I wouldn't expect him to admit it.

baja
03-18-2009, 09:16 AM
I've addressed this before in another thread (no surprise it was ignored).

Given there were three teams involved it's quite easy to see how TB (or whoever) calls Denver to offer up Cassell (if they can nab him) for Cutler. Once Denver gets seriously involved NE trades Cassell to KC, thus "they are too late to the dance." (This might not be the case, but you simply can't dismiss it as a distinct possibility). It doesn't mean that McD initiating any trade or sought to actively deal Jay (which is where the crux of the matter lies).

My question is why has not Bowlen / McD come out with a clear definitive statement about what the hell happened rather than leave all this to speculation and individual interpretation ? It seems a no brainer to make a clear statement.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:17 AM
I haven't seen any quote from him where he specifically said that. That doesn't mean he didn't say it, but no, sans a direct quote, I don't accept that report as anything more than "hearsay" evidence. But maybe I missed the quote...is there one?

That's fine. I just don't choose to put my head in the sand over it.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:20 AM
For my part, I don't think it matters who made the first offer, though I do agree with Sharpe when he says that it's foolish to think all these teams started contacting the Broncos out of the blue. It seems pretty clear that Jay was shopped at the combine. It's pretty clear that McDaniels changed his story several times throughout this whole ordeal. I don't think that he "admitted" lying, because I don't think he's been that honest about things yet. I wouldn't expect him to admit it.

See, that's just your speculation. Which is fine, but it doesn't prove anything. Also, I don't see that it is "clear" at all that he's changed his story. His verifiable quotes are not inconsistent with one another.

Broncoman13
03-18-2009, 09:21 AM
How about the fact that McDaniels said that he only listened to trade offers for Cutler and that they "quickly" decided against trading him. Then later he says "we arrived late to the dance". In between that there was a "no comment".

Inferno, I don't expect you to understand b/c your perception is different than mine. My perception is that McD tried to trade Cutler and the deal fell through. He had no back up plan and now is squirming. Meanwhile, you have a d*ckhead punk QB that thinks (his perception now) he was wronged by the Broncos organization and can use that as an excuse to get an early payday.

The key here is not whether someone lied or not. That really doesn't make any difference. It's all a matter of perception which is most people's reality.

Do you think that Jay Cutler requested a trade prior to all of this coming out?

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:22 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm reading the same things you are; and it's not at all clear to me that Jay was being shopped early on.

Cutler's unhappiness with Shanny and Bates being fired and McD's relationship with Cassell and the type of offense he runs gives plenty of reason for every team in need of QB to call and keep calling Denver about Cutler, without any initiation from the Broncos.

Are you just dismissing the Bus Cook pushed for a trade early on meme? If Cooks out there spreading the word; the Broncos don't need intiate a damn thing.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:22 AM
That's fine. I just don't choose to put my head in the sand over it.

It's putting my head in the sand to not put stock in hearsay evidence? Whatever. What you really mean by "putting my head in the sand" is that I don't accept your speculative interpretation of events.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:23 AM
My question is why has not Bowlen / McD come out with a clear definitive statement about what the hell happened rather than leave all this to speculation and individual interpretation ? It seems a no brainer to make a clear statement.I'm sure they've explained this to Jay and Cook, if that's the case. But there's little reason the FO should so clearly show their hand (their asking price for Jay) to the public--it doesn't make much business sense even if it would appease a few fans.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:25 AM
How about the fact that McDaniels said that he only listened to trade offers for Cutler and that they "quickly" decided against trading him.

Did McDaniels say that? I'm not saying he didn't, but I don't recall ever seeing a quote or even an attribution to him saying that they quickly decided against trading Cutler.

Do you think that Jay Cutler requested a trade prior to all of this coming out?

I don't know. Jay denies it, and if I'm not mistaken, McD said it wasn't true as well. If both parties deny that rumor, then I'll take their word for until evidence comes to light that suggests differently.

Spider
03-18-2009, 09:26 AM
ok I have called the F.O. of the broncos 4 times in a row now , asking If McDaniel would take a polygraph concerning this situation , so far all I have got is , Sir we have caller ID , if you keep harassing us , we will have a restraining order issued against you .Good day and stop calling .............. So it is clear that McD does have something to hide

Broncoman13
03-18-2009, 09:26 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm reading the same things you are; and it's not at all clear to me that Jay was being shopped early on.

Cutler's unhappiness with Shanny and Bates being fired and McD's relationship with Cassell and the type of offense he runs gives plenty of reason for every team in need of QB to call and keep calling Denver about Cutler, without any initiation from the Broncos.

Are you just dismissing the Bus Cook pushed for a trade early on meme? If Cooks out there spreading the word; the Broncos don't need intiate a damn thing.

So let me get this straight, you assume the rumors about Cook pushing for a trade are true but not that McD would have actively pursued a trade of Cutler?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 09:27 AM
For my part, I don't think it matters who made the first offer, though I do agree with Sharpe when he says that it's foolish to think all these teams started contacting the Broncos out of the blue. It seems pretty clear that Jay was shopped at the combine. It's pretty clear that McDaniels changed his story several times throughout this whole ordeal. I don't think that he "admitted" lying, because I don't think he's been that honest about things yet. I wouldn't expect him to admit it.

I don't think it came out of the blue. I think Belichick has a hand in this. Really. Sincerely.

Tampa and Detroit, knowing Cassel is on the block, contact New England. New England, knowing they can get more for Cassel if there's a bidding war, tells both teams that Denver is in the mix and that "McDaniels wants Cassel BAD," (an actual quote from one of the thousands of unnamed sources in this situation).

Thinking that if Denver gets Cassel, Cutler will be on the block, both teams contact the Broncos FO to see what the story is.

McD answers that they'd have to wow him. By the time anyone does, Cassel is a Chief.

It also could have all been a distraction so BB could complete the deal with Pioli in KC.

It has always been interesting that the Boston Globe broke this story. Not the Tampa Tribune, not the Detroit Free Press, not the Denver Post. The Boston Globe. They're the ones with the "McDaniels wanted Cassel BAD" quote and all the rest.

I know, I know, foil hats and all the rest. But there are a lot of coincidences, and at least circumstantial evidence that Bill Belichick played this thing from the start.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:29 AM
So let me get this straight, you assume the rumors about Cook pushing for a trade are true but not that McD would have actively pursued a trade of Cutler?

:rofl:

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:31 AM
I don't think it came out of the blue. I think Belichick has a hand in this. Really. Sincerely.



Yes, I know... It's become very clear to me that a small group here wants to put responsibility for this whole thing on everybody except the guys in the Broncos front office with all the power.

outdoor_miner
03-18-2009, 09:31 AM
Cutler's unhappiness with Shanny and Bates being fired and McD's relationship with Cassell and the type of offense he runs gives plenty of reason for every team in need of QB to call and keep calling Denver about Cutler, without any initiation from the Broncos.

Exactly... I don't understand why it is so shocking that teams would call about Cutler, especially given McD's history with Cassel. I mean - at the very least, it is possible. So, given that, how can people be so adamant that the Broncos were "actively shopping" Cutler?

hambone13
03-18-2009, 09:32 AM
I'll play along. You are talking criminal court. This isn't a criminal matter. It is civil. The burden of proof is on both parties equally. The preponderance of the evidence will prevail. Right now, one could argue that there is more evidence (circumstantial or not) that says he lied. Proof would be great to have, but it isn't needed.

Excellent point....

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 09:34 AM
Yes, I know... It's become very clear to me that a small group here wants to put responsibility for this whole thing on everybody except the guys in the Broncos front office with all the power.

And there's a small group here who wants to put the responsibility on anyone BUT Jay Cutler and that **** for brain Bus Cook. And you, Taco John, you are their proud leader.

http://www.fbuch.com/images/korda_che.jpg

Rebel, rebel.

CEH
03-18-2009, 09:35 AM
From the ESPN article

McDaniels admitted that the team got involved in trade discussions for Cassel, who instead was dealt to the Kansas City Chiefs. However, he said any perception Cutler felt that the team could still trade him was misleading.

"That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," said McDaniels.

----------------------

You can go to a car dealership and look at sticker prices but to inguage in a deal requires two parties correct?

This is how I interrupt McD's comment

deal - to trade or do business (fol. by with or in): to deal with a firm; to deal in used cars.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:35 AM
Excellent point....

In this thread, my purpose is not to call people to task over their interpretation of events. Several posters are running around saying McD "admitted" (again, their word) to lying. That's not speculation, it's an assertion of facts. So, it's perfectly fair when someone asserts something as fact to ask for their proof. That's the purpose of this thread: let's see the proof that McD "admitted" to lying.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:36 AM
I think Jay Cutler is just as responsible for this as anyone else. So nice try.

vancejohnson82
03-18-2009, 09:37 AM
So TJ.....what should McDaniels have done???? I'm not talking about coming out and caressing jay's feelings...I'm talking about from a football standpoint, what shoudl be have done IF these teams contacted him (which i fully believe they did)

hanging up the phone without listening would have been a giant disservice to us the fans and a horrible way to go about running a football team

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:37 AM
From the ESPN article

McDaniels admitted that the team got involved in trade discussions for Cassel, who instead was dealt to the Kansas City Chiefs. However, he said any perception Cutler felt that the team could still trade him was misleading.

"That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," said McDaniels.

----------------------

You can go to a car dealership and look at sticker prices but to inguage in a deal requires two parties correct?

This is how I interrupt McD's comment

deal - to trade or do business (fol. by with or in): to deal with a firm; to deal in used cars.

Well, he said in effect that there was a deal on the table they were considering, sure. I don't see an inconsistency there with prior statements.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:39 AM
So let me get this straight, you assume the rumors about Cook pushing for a trade are true but not that McD would have actively pursued a trade of Cutler?Not necessarily. They are rumors--just that. (My point was that you can't pick and choose what rumors you accept and call that evidence, and declare that other rumors are simply false because they don't fit in with your take.). But my take--speculation--is there's much more for the Cutler/Cook camp to gain (a new contract) by amping up controversy and division than there is for the McD/FO camp.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:41 AM
Well, he said in effect that there was a deal on the table they were considering, sure. I don't see an inconsistency there with prior statements.I don't see it either. In fact, that quote seems to indicate there was far less a desire to deal Jay than is largely believed. But people are going to see what they want to, I guess.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:41 AM
So TJ.....what should McDaniels have done???? I'm not talking about coming out and caressing jay's feelings...I'm talking about from a football standpoint, what shoudl be have done IF these teams contacted him (which i fully believe they did)

hanging up the phone without listening would have been a giant disservice to us the fans and a horrible way to go about running a football team


I've already said what he should have done. See the thread "Understanding Jay Cutler's Position in Two Quotes" to get your answer.

Good management of this situation would have put the majority of the fans and analysts in the Broncos corner. Instead, they got busted covering up, deflecting, and generally coming off looking like a cat with a canary in his mouth. What they should have done was not shut down communications with Jay's camp when the rumors first started to fly. They panicked, and now they're paying for that panic.

They just flat didn't handle the situation right, and now the organization is paying for it.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:42 AM
I think Jay Cutler is just as responsible for this as anyone else. So nice try.

Yeah, we are all familiar with your game, Taco. Pretend to play both sides of the fence, while in the meantime arguing nearly exclusively in favor of one side.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 09:44 AM
What everyone seems to forget is that the trading of Jay Cutler was over. It was over until he demanded to be traded, to make up for his hurt and mistrust over having been discussed in trade talks. Absurd.

McD and Bowlen seem to understand that what matters is what happens NEXT, not what happened THEN. Honestly, the details of this entire episode are probably much less interesting and flame-worthy than we think. I highly doubt there was some concerted effort to move Jay Cutler elsewhere, and I don't think Cassel would have been coming to Denver for any less than a stellar deal for the Broncos. The fact that Cutler can't get over this, the fact that he and his dirtbag agent seem to be after a contract extension (with three years left on his current deal) is despicable.

Flame away. Lead the pack, Taco Juan.

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 09:47 AM
Well, he said in effect that there was a deal on the table they were considering, sure. I don't see an inconsistency there with prior statements.

"We don't want to trade Jay. We never did. He's our quarterback," McDaniels told the newspaper.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/18825213/detail.html

Taco John
03-18-2009, 09:48 AM
Yeah, we are all familiar with your game, Taco. Pretend to play both sides of the fence, while in the meantime arguing nearly exclusively in favor of one side.



That's because the buck has to stop somewhere.

I think Jay is acting like a petulant kid over this, but at the same time, I can't blame him considering how badly the FO botched this whole thing. I think the front office has the right to trade him, and don't blame them one bit if they even SHOPPED him around. But if they weren't going to manage the communications of this thing proactively, the least they could have done was come clean with the truth about it once they were busted. Instead, the front office panicked and simply refused to take calls from the Jay camp - shutting down communication. So then reporters start calling Jay, he's gotten no word from the Broncos about this, and his information is all coming from his agent. I think he made a mistake for talking to the media there - but I think the Broncos made the bigger mistake by not talking to Jay.

The buck stops with the front office. They're the ones who had the power and the opportunity to set this all right. They're the ones who fumbled it and turned this organization into a laughing stock in the process.

hambone13
03-18-2009, 09:48 AM
In this thread, my purpose is not to call people to task over their interpretation of events. Several posters are running around saying McD "admitted" (again, their word) to lying. That's not speculation, it's an assertion of facts. So, it's perfectly fair when someone asserts something as fact to ask for their proof. That's the purpose of this thread: let's see the proof that McD "admitted" to lying.

I understand that you've narrowed this point down to your requirement of what "proof" is and it's importance to you. I think that the fact your demanding that proof as though it were a criminal case is what I appreciated the point posted. I agree this situation would be of a civil nature.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 09:51 AM
"We don't want to trade Jay. We never did. He's our quarterback," McDaniels told the newspaper.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/18825213/detail.htmlThis is a good quote. But again, he's addressing his intent (he didn't want to trade Jay, he never did), but that doesn't mean he wouldn't trade Jay if the right deal came along. He's probably not lying about "not wanting to trade Jay" but he's probably being slightly disingenuous about the "never did" as likely there was a point where the deal was good enough to warrant wanting to deal Jay...or perhaps the deal was never good enough to 'want to trade Jay'...

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:52 AM
"We don't want to trade Jay. We never did. He's our quarterback," McDaniels told the newspaper.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/18825213/detail.html

Are "consideration" and "want" the same thing? Let's say someone makes an offer to buy your beloved BMW. It's a hell of an offer, above market value, so you give it some thought. Does that mean you "want" to sell your car? I don't think it does. You got a tempting offer and thought it over.

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2009, 09:56 AM
He was quoted as admitting that he "wanted" Cassel.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 09:57 AM
I understand that you've narrowed this point down to your requirement of what "proof" is and it's importance to you. I think that the fact your demanding that proof as though it were a criminal case is what I appreciated the point posted. I agree this situation would be of a civil nature.

Certainly, no one has to accpet my burden of proof. But courts demand evidence when accusations are made for the sake of fairness, and I think it's a pretty damned good way to treat situations in day to day life, rather than assuming people are guilty of things without proof.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 10:00 AM
He was quoted as admitting that he "wanted" Cassel.

I'd like to see that quote for verification and full context. I didn't see it in the article you linked.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 10:02 AM
I'd like to see that quote for verification and full context. I didn't see it in the article you linked.

There was yet another "anonymous source" that claimed "McDaniels wanted Cassel BAD" in the initial breaking of the story by the Boston Globe. It was NOT McDaniels saying he "wanted" Cassel.

baja
03-18-2009, 10:03 AM
I've already said what he should have done. See the thread "Understanding Jay Cutler's Position in Two Quotes" to get your answer.

Good management of this situation would have put the majority of the fans and analysts in the Broncos corner. <b>Instead, they got busted covering up,</b> deflecting, and generally coming off looking like a cat with a canary in his mouth. What they should have done was not shut down communications with Jay's camp when the rumors first started to fly. They panicked, and now they're paying for that panic.

They just flat didn't handle the situation right, and now the organization is paying for it.

Isn't that the point of the thread? Show me where they got busted covering up please.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 10:06 AM
Isn't that the point of the thread? Show me where they got busted covering up please.

I'll ask the same question that I did before:

Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 10:08 AM
I'll ask the same question that I did before:

Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?

Again, do you have proof that this is an accurate report? Got a quote from McD making this denial? If you don't, then you aren't meeting the burden I established for this thread in the OP.

Yeah, I know, I'm putting my head in the sand because I don't accept your speculative interpretation of events Uhh

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 10:09 AM
I'll ask the same question that I did before:

Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?
I accept it. But, that's typical for any GM/Coach to say about any rumored trade. It's what he said to Jay at this time is what matters.

Taco John
03-18-2009, 10:10 AM
Hey Baja, Where do you think Krieger got the idea?


Even if you have no problem with the merits of Cutler-for- Matt Cassel and I do McDaniels' first big boo-boo was not coming clean about it. As recently as Sunday night, he was still claiming "we were contacted multiple times about different scenarios," as if the Broncos were in a purely passive role, just answering the phone.

Earth to Josh: Almost no one believes that. Cutler has information that you approached the Bucs to gauge their interest in a potential three-way deal with the Patriots. The story doesn't make much sense any other way. Why would Tampa Bay approach Denver? What would make Bucs management think the Broncos' Pro Bowl quarterback was available? Why would New England call Tampa Bay to rustle up interest in a three-way deal when the Patriots were clearly happy with the deal they had in place with Kansas City, a deal they ultimately made?

This was the crux of the problem between McDaniels and Cutler. McDaniels was not truthful about his active pursuit of Cassel. By the time he finally admitted to Cutler on Saturday that he wanted Cassel, it was time to turn the page and assure Cutler they could go forward together. Unless, of course, McDaniels actually thinks he can improve upon Cutler with relative ease. If so, Bowlen needs to examine whether his own opinion of Cutler the quarterback has changed as dramatically as his organization's.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11936913

Taco John
03-18-2009, 10:11 AM
I accept it. But, that's typical for any GM/Coach to say about any rumored trade. It's what he said to Jay at this time is what matters.

They shut off communications with Jay's camp, and left Jay to deal with the media himself.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 10:14 AM
Cutler has information that you approached the Bucs to gauge their interest in a potential three-way deal with the Patriots. So someone in the FO is leaking Jay 'information'....
The story doesn't make much sense any other way. Why would Tampa Bay approach Denver? What would make Bucs management think the Broncos' Pro Bowl quarterback was available? Why would New England call Tampa Bay to rustle up interest in a three-way deal when the Patriots were clearly happy with the deal they had in place with Kansas City, a deal they ultimately made? There are lots of reasonable explanations to these questions. McD's like of Cassell was well known. Jay's displeasure about Shanny and Bates was well known. And Cook may--I repeat, may--have requested a trade, and put out his own feelers to other teams. Any team without a QB would inquire based on just the first two premises.

Pseudofool
03-18-2009, 10:14 AM
They shut off communications with Jay's camp, and left Jay to deal with the media himself.You can't possible know that for certain. But in any case, not talking doesn't constitute lying.

baja
03-18-2009, 10:16 AM
I'll ask the same question that I did before:

Do you accept or reject the report that stated McDaniels initially rejected that there were any trade talks going on?

My understanding was he said he considered an offer as he should have.

DrFate
03-18-2009, 10:17 AM
McDaniels has never ADMITTED to lying.

That isn't entirely confirmed. Maybe he's never stood in front of a podium and said 'I lied'. What was said behind closed doors - only 4 people know for sure - half this board doesn't trust 2 of them, and the other half doesn't trust the other 2. That isn't going to change.

Cutler feels there was an admission. A lot of reports/columnists/talking heads believe there was an admission (probably partly on Cutler's word, partly on their interpretations on what the Broncos have publicly said in the recent days). And a lot of reporters/talking heads believe the opposite.

This entire thing has become a religion. There is no 'proof' that is going to satisfy a true believer, on either side. McDaniels says something to the effect of 'we were late to the dance'. Some people take that to validate what McDaniels/Broncos have already said, some people feel it provides additional weight to what Cutler has said.

All that exists is evidence, and all of that is heresay. And based on that evidence, people draw conclusions. McDaniels has said stuff, Cutler has said stuff. Certain rumors hit the wires during the combine, and people drew conclusions. People continue to draw conclusions. None of it is healthy for the team, and I can't understand why the front office hasn't FIXED IT. (define that any way you wish)

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 10:19 AM
Hey Baja, Where do you think Krieger got the idea?


Even if you have no problem with the merits of Cutler-for- Matt Cassel and I do McDaniels' first big boo-boo was not coming clean about it. As recently as Sunday night, he was still claiming "we were contacted multiple times about different scenarios," as if the Broncos were in a purely passive role, just answering the phone.

Earth to Josh: Almost no one believes that. Cutler has information that you approached the Bucs to gauge their interest in a potential three-way deal with the Patriots. The story doesn't make much sense any other way. Why would Tampa Bay approach Denver? What would make Bucs management think the Broncos' Pro Bowl quarterback was available? Why would New England call Tampa Bay to rustle up interest in a three-way deal when the Patriots were clearly happy with the deal they had in place with Kansas City, a deal they ultimately made?

This was the crux of the problem between McDaniels and Cutler. McDaniels was not truthful about his active pursuit of Cassel. By the time he finally admitted to Cutler on Saturday that he wanted Cassel, it was time to turn the page and assure Cutler they could go forward together. Unless, of course, McDaniels actually thinks he can improve upon Cutler with relative ease. If so, Bowlen needs to examine whether his own opinion of Cutler the quarterback has changed as dramatically as his organization's.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11936913

Sounds to me like Kreiger is making a speculative interpretation of events, just as the rest of us are. I don't care what Kreiger believes as a journalist, I care about what he can prove.

fontaine
03-18-2009, 10:20 AM
So TJ.....what should McDaniels have done???? I'm not talking about coming out and caressing jay's feelings...I'm talking about from a football standpoint, what shoudl be have done IF these teams contacted him (which i fully believe they did)

hanging up the phone without listening would have been a giant disservice to us the fans and a horrible way to go about running a football team

What are you talking about?

McDaniels should have done EXACTLY what Tomlin, Coughlin, and other coaches with franchise QBs would have done if they had received a call inquiring about a trade for Roethlisburger, Manning, Brady, etc.

They would have laughed in their face and told them to **** off in not so many words.

Maybe, just maybe, you do ask on what terms and then tell them to piss off.

But YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T unzip your pants and stick your tackle out in the wind and engage in talks about the deal and pursue it like McDaniels did (We got the party late) because any coach with half a brain knows it's very likely to piss off the most important player in your team.

dbfan4life
03-18-2009, 10:24 AM
Listen, man, let me try and explain the purpose of this thread again. Several posters are saying that McDaniels "admitted" (their word) that McDaniels lied. I freely admit that my position is an interpretation based on the available evidence. Saying that McDaniels "admitted" he lied is not an interpretative stance. It's an assertion of fact. So, I'm asking the people making that assertion to show their evidence of this alleged "admission." Does that make the purpose of this thread clear now?

I don't know why you're so worked up over this. People have made assertions both ways. Bottom line is only a handful of people know exactly what happened in this situation and chances are we'll never know the full truth. Why come here and demand evidence when there just isn't anything to give -for either side in this hopelessly ongoing saga.

vancejohnson82
03-18-2009, 10:24 AM
What are you talking about?

McDaniels should have done EXACTLY what Tomlin, Coughlin, and other coaches with franchise QBs would have done if they had received a call inquiring about a trade for Roethlisburger, Manning, Brady, etc.

They would have laughed in their face and told them to **** off in not so many words.

Maybe, just maybe, you do ask on what terms and then tell them to piss off.

But YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T unzip your pants and stick your tackle out in the wind and engage in talks about the deal and pursue it like McDaniels did (We got the party late) because any coach with half a brain knows it's very likely to piss off the most important player in your team.


I disagree...if it improves the team, you listen to the deal...

I'm all about this team getting better...I could care less if it is with Cutler or without him....I'm sure McDaniels is the same way

baja
03-18-2009, 10:26 AM
This whole mess reminds me of Maine, in Jr. High!

fontaine
03-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Sounds to me like Kreiger is making a speculative interpretation of events, just as the rest of us are. I don't care what Kreiger believes as a journalist, I care about what he can prove.

I don't give a damn about what he can or cannot prove.

I do give a damn about the opinion of one of the best HC in the world when it comes to QBs and that's Mike Shanahan.

Shanahan thought the world of Cutler. Going so far as to say he's mature, intelligent and a student of the game. If Shanahan believed Cutler to be a franchise type QB then who the hell is McDaniels to try and change that in a few short weeks he's been here?

It no longer matters who started what. McDaniels did engage in trade talks by HIS OWN admission.

It's up to him to resolve this problem. He either makes good of his idea of finding a franchise QB through a trade or he gets Jay Cutler back.

Either way you look at it, our HC owes us a franchise QB that was gifted to him by Shanahan. It's up to McDaniels how he gets him and God help him if he doesn't because he'll have set back this franchise years otherwise.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 10:34 AM
I don't give a damn about what he can or cannot prove.

I do give a damn about the opinion of one of the best HC in the world when it comes to QBs and that's Mike Shanahan.

Shanahan thought the world of Cutler. Going so far as to say he's mature, intelligent and a student of the game. If Shanahan believed Cutler to be a franchise type QB then who the hell is McDaniels to try and change that in a few short weeks he's been here?

It no longer matters who started what. McDaniels did engage in trade talks by HIS OWN admission.

It's up to him to resolve this problem. He either makes good of his idea of finding a franchise QB through a trade or he gets Jay Cutler back.

Either way you look at it, our HC owes us a franchise QB that was gifted to him by Shanahan. It's up to McDaniels how he gets him and God help him if he doesn't because he'll have set back this franchise years otherwise.

Shanahan thought the world of Brian Griese too, remember?

Yeah... so how's that workin' out, anyway?

fontaine
03-18-2009, 10:36 AM
Shanahan thought the world of Brian Griese too, remember?

Yeah... so how's that workin' out, anyway?

And Griese was on his way before he messed up his already average shoulder.

Your point is what exactly?

vancejohnson82
03-18-2009, 10:38 AM
And Griese was on his way before he messed up his already average shoulder.

Your point is what exactly?


really?? Griese was on his way huh?? Interesting

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-18-2009, 10:40 AM
And Griese was on his way before he messed up his already average shoulder.

Your point is what exactly?

On his way... where? The waiver wire?

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't give a damn about what he can or cannot prove.

Then, per the OP, this thread isn't for you. This thread is about what can be proved, not your wildly speculative point of view.

fontaine
03-18-2009, 01:12 PM
Then, per the OP, this thread isn't for you. This thread is about what can be proved, not your wildly speculative point of view.

You're damn right about that.

As soon as both sides get over who said what/when the sooner they can get over it and start behaving like grown ups.

DeusExManning
03-18-2009, 01:53 PM
Cutler stated that Mcdaniels said that yes he wanted Cassel and Mcdaniels did not disagree with him. This has been confirmed by Lombardi, Mortensen, and Klis.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 01:55 PM
Cutler stated that Mcdaniels said that yes he wanted Cassel and Mcdaniels did not disagree with him. This has been confirmed by Lombardi, Mortensen, and Klis.

I want someone to show me where McD actually said this himself, not what Jay claims to reporters he said.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 01:56 PM
You're damn right about that.

As soon as both sides get over who said what/when the sooner they can get over it and start behaving like grown ups.

We agree here, though it seems to me Jay is the only one unwilling to move beyond the "who said what and when" factor.