PDA

View Full Version : Cutler and McDaniels had plans to speak by telephone Tuesday night


montrose
03-25-2009, 02:18 AM
Reach out and touch QB
Cutler, Coach McDaniels had plans to speak by telephone Tuesday night
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post

DANA POINT, Calif. — If McJaygate were a football game, and not a soap opera, Josh McDaniels and Jay Cutler might be approaching the red zone.

In what could be a significant development toward placating their contentious relationship, McDaniels and Cutler were to speak by phone Tuesday night.

No agent Bus Cook. No owner Pat Bowlen. Just coach and quarterback.

"I'm looking forward to doing that," McDaniels said.

Can they reach a resolution?

As Tuesday night wore on, McDaniels, the 32-year-old former New England offensive coordinator, and Cutler, the Broncos' 25-year-old Pro Bowl quarterback, had exchanged messages but had yet to speak. Apparently, the drama that is McJaygate will reach at least Day 25 today. However, a resolution could be near. McDaniels made it clear Tuesday during the annual AFC coaches' breakfast he has no intentions of trading Cutler, although he stopped short of saying his quarterback is untouchable.

Cutler is receptive to talking personally with McDaniels.

"One thing I want to do and continually want to do is meet with the player," McDaniels said Tuesday morning. "I want to meet with the player by myself. I want to meet with the player one on one. I think that's the best way to fix any kind of issue."

It was brought up to McDaniels that he kept referring to Cutler as "the player" and not by name. The impersonal reference was believed to have been carried down from Bill Parcells to Bill Belichick to his assistants, including McDaniels.

"He's our quarterback," McDaniels said. "And I'm not calling him just the player. I'll call him Jay Cutler if you want me to."

There has been friction between the coach and the quarterback since McDaniels engaged in a three-team trade proposal in late February that would have sent Cutler to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and New England's Matt Cassel to Denver. Cassel was instead dealt to Kansas City, but Cutler felt misled and betrayed by McDaniels.

Since the discord became public, Cutler and McDaniels have had two conversations, the first time by conference call and, most recently, March 14 in person. Bowlen participated in the conference call. Cutler was accompanied by Cook, his agent, for each conversation. Their most recent meeting went so poorly, Cutler formally issued a trade request.

The Broncos have not acted upon that request, although many teams have inquired about Cutler's availability.

"People have left messages. I can say that," said McDaniels, adding he personally has not been contacted by any coaches or executives regarding Cutler at these league meetings, which end today.

Cutler skipped McDaniels' first team meeting last week and has yet to participate in the voluntary offseason conditioning program. The next quasi deadline in the dispute would be the team's first mini-camp, April 17-19. The Broncos clarified Tuesday their first mini-

camp remains voluntary to the players. Only one of a team's two mini-camps can be designated "mandatory" by rules of the collective bargaining agreement. The mini-camp the Broncos have labeled mandatory will be held June 12-14.

Still, the first mini-camp is the week before the NFL draft, when most football trades are made. If Cutler doesn't show up April 17, would the Broncos then consider trading him?

"No. Nope. He's under contract," McDaniels said. "He's our quarterback. I have confidence that he'll — I'm not exactly sure when that will be, but I have confidence that it'll take place."

Cutler has three more years remaining on a six-year contract he signed before his rookie season. One of the last remaining obstacles in McJaygate may involve McDaniels' repeated credo that any player can be traded if it would help the team. McDaniels doesn't believe it is good for the team if such "untouchable" proclamations are stamped on one player.

If Cutler is told he is untouchable, wouldn't Champ Bailey have the right to expect the same designation? Still, given the publicly charged situation with Cutler, McDaniels would have a strong chance of bringing closure to McJaygate if he delivered a no-trade exception to his quarterback.

"I think I would be contradicting myself if I said that," McDaniels said. "Like I said, he's our quarterback. We're committed to him, and we will always do what's in the best interest of our team. That's why we're talking about this right now, because there was a scenario that was presented that was considered. I'm not going to fall back from that."

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_11990145

ol number 7
03-25-2009, 07:05 AM
Reach out and touch QB
Cutler, Coach McDaniels had plans to speak by telephone Tuesday night
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post

DANA POINT, Calif. If McJaygate were a football game, and not a soap opera, Josh McDaniels and Jay Cutler might be approaching the red zone.

In what could be a significant development toward placating their contentious relationship, McDaniels and Cutler were to speak by phone Tuesday night.

No agent Bus Cook. No owner Pat Bowlen. Just coach and quarterback.

"I'm looking forward to doing that," McDaniels said.

Can they reach a resolution?

As Tuesday night wore on, McDaniels, the 32-year-old former New England offensive coordinator, and Cutler, the Broncos' 25-year-old Pro Bowl quarterback, had exchanged messages but had yet to speak. Apparently, the drama that is McJaygate will reach at least Day 25 today. However, a resolution could be near. McDaniels made it clear Tuesday during the annual AFC coaches' breakfast he has no intentions of trading Cutler, although he stopped short of saying his quarterback is untouchable.

Cutler is receptive to talking personally with McDaniels.

"One thing I want to do and continually want to do is meet with the player," McDaniels said Tuesday morning. "I want to meet with the player by myself. I want to meet with the player one on one. I think that's the best way to fix any kind of issue."

It was brought up to McDaniels that he kept referring to Cutler as "the player" and not by name. The impersonal reference was believed to have been carried down from Bill Parcells to Bill Belichick to his assistants, including McDaniels.

"He's our quarterback," McDaniels said. "And I'm not calling him just the player. I'll call him Jay Cutler if you want me to."

There has been friction between the coach and the quarterback since McDaniels engaged in a three-team trade proposal in late February that would have sent Cutler to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and New England's Matt Cassel to Denver. Cassel was instead dealt to Kansas City, but Cutler felt misled and betrayed by McDaniels.

Since the discord became public, Cutler and McDaniels have had two conversations, the first time by conference call and, most recently, March 14 in person. Bowlen participated in the conference call. Cutler was accompanied by Cook, his agent, for each conversation. Their most recent meeting went so poorly, Cutler formally issued a trade request.

The Broncos have not acted upon that request, although many teams have inquired about Cutler's availability.

"People have left messages. I can say that," said McDaniels, adding he personally has not been contacted by any coaches or executives regarding Cutler at these league meetings, which end today.

Cutler skipped McDaniels' first team meeting last week and has yet to participate in the voluntary offseason conditioning program. The next quasi deadline in the dispute would be the team's first mini-camp, April 17-19. The Broncos clarified Tuesday their first mini-

camp remains voluntary to the players. Only one of a team's two mini-camps can be designated "mandatory" by rules of the collective bargaining agreement. The mini-camp the Broncos have labeled mandatory will be held June 12-14.

Still, the first mini-camp is the week before the NFL draft, when most football trades are made. If Cutler doesn't show up April 17, would the Broncos then consider trading him?

"No. Nope. He's under contract," McDaniels said. "He's our quarterback. I have confidence that he'll I'm not exactly sure when that will be, but I have confidence that it'll take place."

Cutler has three more years remaining on a six-year contract he signed before his rookie season. One of the last remaining obstacles in McJaygate may involve McDaniels' repeated credo that any player can be traded if it would help the team. McDaniels doesn't believe it is good for the team if such "untouchable" proclamations are stamped on one player.

If Cutler is told he is untouchable, wouldn't Champ Bailey have the right to expect the same designation? Still, given the publicly charged situation with Cutler, McDaniels would have a strong chance of bringing closure to McJaygate if he delivered a no-trade exception to his quarterback.

"I think I would be contradicting myself if I said that," McDaniels said. "Like I said, he's our quarterback. We're committed to him, and we will always do what's in the best interest of our team. That's why we're talking about this right now, because there was a scenario that was presented that was considered. I'm not going to fall back from that."

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_11990145

After Jay eats his crow all will be said and done. By opening day people won't remember this ever happened. Need some catsup on that crow Jay??

El Guapo
03-25-2009, 07:06 AM
ok, it's wednesday morning. Whats the word?

Broncoman13
03-25-2009, 07:27 AM
Jay isn't going to eat crow here. He's going to have to calm down and quit getting exciting about everything, but he's not going to eat crow. Some players are above other players. It's funny that they are even trying to carry that tune that no one is above the team. Have Ryan Torain demand a trade right now and see what happens to him. Let him act like a baby and say a bunch of things publicly and see what happens. He'd be cut within the hour! Jay is OBVIOUSLY above most of the players on the team. What needs to happen here is McD has to acknowledge that. Then he has to tell him that he has to be able to coach him the same way he does everyone else. If the situation calls for harsh criticism, that is what Jay will get and in front of the team. Jay has to understand that he isn't above the team in that sense and I think that is the message that McD has failed to deliver thus far. Hopefully, when they sit down one on one he can deliver that message and Jay can understand that. I personally think they'll be able to get past this and McD will find that Jay is a very capable QB. I don't think there are concerns about his "smarts", but I do believer there are concerns about his commitment and the alcohol.

lostknight
03-25-2009, 08:28 AM
More bad habits McDaniels picked up from Darth Bellichick.

BMarsh615
03-25-2009, 08:34 AM
The next quasi deadline in the dispute would be the team's first mini-camp, April 17-19. The Broncos clarified Tuesday their first mini-

camp remains voluntary to the players. Only one of a team's two mini-camps can be designated "mandatory" by rules of the collective bargaining agreement. The mini-camp the Broncos have labeled mandatory will be held June 12-14.


The ball is in Jay's court. If he wants to stay in Denver he needs to be here April 17th.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 08:36 AM
More bad habits McDaniels picked up from Darth Bellichick.

Why is that a bad habit? Who cares if he says "the player?" I also love the insinuation that it's a bad thing for McDaniels to use some of Belichek's methods, as if they aren't proven to be a success.

jayman_37
03-25-2009, 08:51 AM
This is the same bellicheck that was fired in Cleveland also. Hopefully McDaniels doesn't follow that route.

colonelbeef
03-25-2009, 08:53 AM
After Jay eats his crow all will be said and done. By opening day people won't remember this ever happened. Need some catsup on that crow Jay??

I would argue that every time McDaniels has opened his mouth over the past 5 days crow has been shoveled into his gape.

ELEVATION
03-25-2009, 09:09 AM
The ball is in Jay's court. If he wants to stay in Denver he needs to be here April 17th.


actually he doesnt need to report untill june....the media is just using the draft and the april camp to spin a story. the FO is smart, Jay is under contract....come june if he hasnt shown yet he will or he starts losing big money. personally i say we do keep him and let him play his contract.

i love jay but i am tired of players finding ways out of there contracts. the NFL is a copycat league, there were good offers for Chad johnson and Anquan boldin last year and the cardinals and bengals declined. they made the players play or they could sit and lose money. the same will happen here, because its been proven it can be done......

but in the end i dont think it gets that far either....time heals all wounds.....

Dudeskey
03-25-2009, 09:13 AM
Jay isn't going to eat crow here. He's going to have to calm down and quit getting exciting about everything, but he's not going to eat crow. Some players are above other players. It's funny that they are even trying to carry that tune that no one is above the team. Have Ryan Torain demand a trade right now and see what happens to him. Let him act like a baby and say a bunch of things publicly and see what happens. He'd be cut within the hour! Jay is OBVIOUSLY above most of the players on the team. What needs to happen here is McD has to acknowledge that. Then he has to tell him that he has to be able to coach him the same way he does everyone else. If the situation calls for harsh criticism, that is what Jay will get and in front of the team. Jay has to understand that he isn't above the team in that sense and I think that is the message that McD has failed to deliver thus far. Hopefully, when they sit down one on one he can deliver that message and Jay can understand that. I personally think they'll be able to get past this and McD will find that Jay is a very capable QB. I don't think there are concerns about his "smarts", but I do believer there are concerns about his commitment and the alcohol.

Being a diabetic and all, its a very legit concern...

Cito Pelon
03-25-2009, 09:13 AM
Jay isn't going to eat crow here. He's going to have to calm down and quit getting exciting about everything, but he's not going to eat crow. Some players are above other players. It's funny that they are even trying to carry that tune that no one is above the team. Have Ryan Torain demand a trade right now and see what happens to him. Let him act like a baby and say a bunch of things publicly and see what happens. He'd be cut within the hour! Jay is OBVIOUSLY above most of the players on the team. What needs to happen here is McD has to acknowledge that. Then he has to tell him that he has to be able to coach him the same way he does everyone else. If the situation calls for harsh criticism, that is what Jay will get and in front of the team. Jay has to understand that he isn't above the team in that sense and I think that is the message that McD has failed to deliver thus far. Hopefully, when they sit down one on one he can deliver that message and Jay can understand that. I personally think they'll be able to get past this and McD will find that Jay is a very capable QB. I don't think there are concerns about his "smarts", but I do believer there are concerns about his commitment and the alcohol.

Nope.

"I think I would be contradicting myself if I said that," McDaniels said. "Like I said, he's our quarterback. We're committed to him, and we will always do what's in the best interest of our team. That's why we're talking about this right now, because there was a scenario that was presented that was considered. I'm not going to fall back from that."

Josh is handling the situation the right way. These are the Denver Broncos, not the Denver Cutlers. Jay wants his ass kissed, no way the FO should do that. It sends the wrong message to the team.

Mogulseeker
03-25-2009, 09:38 AM
ok, it's wednesday morning. Whats the word?

Mcdaniels *had* plans to speak on Tuesday, implying that they were dropped. If they spoke, the headline would read "McDaniels spoke to Cutler"

NYBronco
03-25-2009, 10:02 AM
Mcdaniels *had* plans to speak on Tuesday, implying that they were dropped. If they spoke, the headline would read "McDaniels spoke to Cutler"

My take is that the Broncos have made several attempts to have discussions with Jay and he (Jay) has ignored them. The recent McDaniels text message has been called childish but it is a clear attempt to communicate and right now appears to be a one way street until Jay decides to reply.

BMarsh615
03-25-2009, 10:03 AM
actually he doesnt need to report untill june....the media is just using the draft and the april camp to spin a story. the FO is smart, Jay is under contract....come june if he hasnt shown yet he will or he starts losing big money. personally i say we do keep him and let him play his contract.

i love jay but i am tired of players finding ways out of there contracts. the NFL is a copycat league, there were good offers for Chad johnson and Anquan boldin last year and the cardinals and bengals declined. they made the players play or they could sit and lose money. the same will happen here, because its been proven it can be done......

but in the end i dont think it gets that far either....time heals all wounds.....

I know he doesn't have to be here until June, but he needs to get into camp and start learning the new system. I might actually prefer he gets traded if he misses ANOTHER voluntary workout.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:08 AM
I would argue that every time McDaniels has opened his mouth over the past 5 days crow has been shoveled into his gape.

That's because you have a wildly biased perspective on the issue. Everything he's said in the last five days is consistent with what he's been saying from the beginning.

frerottenextelway
03-25-2009, 10:10 AM
My take is that the Broncos have made several attempts to have discussions with Jay and he (Jay) has ignored them. The recent McDaniels text message has been called childish but it is a clear attempt to communicate and right now appears to be a one way street until Jay decides to reply.

McDaniels, the 32-year-old former New England offensive coordinator, and Cutler, the Broncos' 25-year-old Pro Bowl quarterback, had exchanged messages but had yet to speak.

Sounds like texts were sent both ways. I'm sure they were priceless.

Also, the ''he didn't return Bowlens calls'' has been debunked. There seems to be a lot of false leaks that sure aren't coming from Cutler/Cook. Perhaps just bad reporting, perhaps not...

Rohirrim
03-25-2009, 10:10 AM
This whole thing has crossed the boundaries of silliness and now inhabits the land of ridiculous.

frerottenextelway
03-25-2009, 10:10 AM
That's because you have a wildly biased perspective on the issue. Everything he's said in the last five days is consistent with what he's been saying from the beginning.

Well, what he said in the beginning was ''no comment''.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 10:14 AM
That's because you have a wildly biased perspective on the issue. Everything he's said in the last five days is consistent with what he's been saying from the beginning.

Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never."

How is that consistent with what he said in the beginning, when he said that he was considering trading him and was supposedly "late to the dance"? Early on, he did not say, "I had no interest in attending the dance."

Mogulseeker
03-25-2009, 10:25 AM
My take is that the Broncos have made several attempts to have discussions with Jay and he (Jay) has ignored them. The recent McDaniels text message has been called childish but it is a clear attempt to communicate and right now appears to be a one way street until Jay decides to reply.

What McDaniels text message?

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:25 AM
Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never."

How is that consistent with what he said in the beginning, when he said that he was considering trading him and was supposedly "late to the dance"? Early on, he did not say, "I had no interest in attending the dance."

His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration. They got the only proposal they considered serious on day one of FA. They thought so much of the offer, that they put discussion of it on the back burner while completing six FA deals. Simply considering a proposal does not necessarily mean you are serious about the proposal.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 10:33 AM
His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration. They got the only proposal they considered serious on day one of FA. They thought so much of the offer, that they put discussion of it on the back burner while completing six FA deals. Simply considering a proposal does not necessarily mean you are serious about the proposal.

BUT HE HAD HIS DANCIN' SHOES ON! HE WANTED TO DANCE! HE'D PICKED OUT A CORSAGE! HE REQUESTED NOVEMBER RAIN FROM THE DJ BOOTH!

****, at least someone gets what's really going on here. Inferno, good post.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 10:39 AM
His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration. They got the only proposal they considered serious on day one of FA. They thought so much of the offer, that they put discussion of it on the back burner while completing six FA deals. Simply considering a proposal does not necessarily mean you are serious about the proposal.

But, by definition, it doesn't matter how serious the discussion is. If you are adamant that trading him IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TEAM, then give me one good reason why you would even pick up the phone and consider going to the dance for a microsecond?

You wouldn't. And there are other quotes to back this up if you and Mosse don't like the "dance" one. McDaniels admitted more than once that he had at least a little interest in bringing Cassel in. To do so, he would've had to trade Cutler. How does this not conflict with his recent statement?

TonyR
03-25-2009, 10:39 AM
Inferno, good post.

I second this. Where do people get that they ever seriously considered trading Cutler? All credible evidence suggests that trade talks never got serious. People keep clinging to the "late to the dance" comment without considering context and perception.

frerottenextelway
03-25-2009, 10:41 AM
His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration. They got the only proposal they considered serious on day one of FA. They thought so much of the offer, that they put discussion of it on the back burner while completing six FA deals. Simply considering a proposal does not necessarily mean you are serious about the proposal.

Denver would have given more, likely a first-round pick, but Patriots coach Bill Belichick had his deal done with the Chiefs. - that SI article you speak of

Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never." - the quote above

Obviously, those are ridicuously inconsistent with each other. Of course it needs to be said, only one is a direct quote.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 10:41 AM
I second this. Where do people get that they ever seriously considered trading Cutler? All credible evidence suggests that trade talks never got serious. People keep clinging to the "late to the dance" comment without considering context and perception.

See my post above.

Serious or not, it doesn't matter. He considered something that he himself said would never be in the best interest of the team. And he's said in numerous interviews that he will ONLY consider those things that are in the best interest of the team.

By definition, one of those statements has to be a lie.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:42 AM
But, by definition, it doesn't matter how serious the discussion is. If you are adamant that trading him IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TEAM, then give me one good reason why you would even pick up the phone and consider going to the dance for a microsecond?

You wouldn't. And there are other quotes to back this up if you and Mosse don't like the "dance" one. McDaniels admitted more than once that he had at least a little interest in bringing Cassel in. To do so, he would've had to trade Cutler. How does this not conflict with his recent statement?

BS. Let's say you live in a house that you love. You have no desire to live anywhere else. But someone makes you an offer for that house well over market value. You decide to at least have a discussion with your wife about it, maybe talk with a couple of real estate agents to see what your options are, do a little further research. Does that mean you WANT to sell you house, or think it is in your best interest to do so? Of course not. You are just doing your due diligence.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:43 AM
Of course it needs to be said, only one is a direct quote.

Exactly. The first was an unverified rumor. I am talking about things McD has actually stated.

TonyR
03-25-2009, 10:43 AM
If you are adamant that trading him IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TEAM...

I don't know that he's "adamant" about this. There are unlikely scenarios where trading him would be in the best interest of the team. But in efforts to end this drama and make Jay happy answering "never" is probably the way to go politically. I think the position now is that trading him is a worst case scenario resulting from an inability to end the feud. I'm not sure why some of you want to keep spinning everything McD does and says negatively.

Popps
03-25-2009, 10:44 AM
This whole thing has crossed the boundaries of silliness and now inhabits the land of ridiculous.

I think most off-seasons are going to seem very boring in comparison to this.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 10:45 AM
BS. Let's say you live in a house that you love. You have no desire to live anywhere else. But someone makes you an offer for that house well over market value. You decide to at least have a discussion with your wife about it. Does that mean you WANT to sell you house, or think it is in your best interest to do so? Of course not. You are just doing your due diligence.

Bad analogy.

Me loving my house and not wanting to live anywhere else is not going to get me to say "it will never be in my best interest to sell this house." Why? The reasons you cited above. Of course, it could be in my best interest to sell.

I didn't force McDaniels to say "never." He said it on his own....unequivocally. He made no qualifications at all. He said never. Do you disagree?

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 10:47 AM
I'm not sure why some of you want to keep spinning everything McD does and says negatively.

It's not spin. It's answering a challenge.

Earlier in the thread, a statement or two was made about how McDaniels has been consistent in this whole mess. Me and some others are pointing out the most glaring differences. People can read into his quotes however they want, but only a very challenged individual would claim his words are exactly the same today as they were 3 weeks or so ago.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 10:48 AM
Denver would have given more, likely a first-round pick, but Patriots coach Bill Belichick had his deal done with the Chiefs. - that SI article you speak of

Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never." - the quote above

Obviously, those are ridicuously inconsistent with each other. Of course it needs to be said, only one is a direct quote.

WHERE'S THE PROOF?

oh, right, there is none. It's pure speculation.

Why in hell wouldn't Belichick want to get a higher pick?? Does that make ANY sense to you?

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:49 AM
Bad analogy.

Me loving my house and not wanting to live anywhere else is not going to get me to say "it will never be in my best interest to sell this house." Why? The reasons you cited above. Of course, it could be in my best interest to sell.

I didn't force McDaniels to say "never." He said it on his own....unequivocally. He made no qualifications at all. He said never. Do you disagree?

Yes. Because McDaniels and company, after doing their due diligence, have decided that it is not in the clubs best interest to trade Jay.

TonyR
03-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Exactly. The first was an unverified rumor. I am talking about things McD has actually stated.

Yes, that part of Peter King's article is garbage. We've been over this multiple times in other threads. King took some facts and quotes and inserted some opinion/speculalation into the middle of it which makes it appear more valid than it is.

TonyR
03-25-2009, 10:52 AM
WHERE'S THE PROOF?


Not only is there no proof but information from various sources, including Belichick himself, directly refutes it. And then there's the simple logic that there is no possible way they were going to give up Cutler and a first round pick to get Cassel. That's just stupid.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 10:53 AM
Bad analogy.

Me loving my house and not wanting to live anywhere else is not going to get me to say "it will never be in my best interest to sell this house." Why? The reasons you cited above. Of course, it could be in my best interest to sell.

I didn't force McDaniels to say "never." He said it on his own....unequivocally. He made no qualifications at all. He said never. Do you disagree?

Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never."

One can certainly extrapolate from that question the fact that McDaniels was answering from the standpoint of going forward with this situation, not looking at the past.

AT WHAT POINT (in the current situation, Cutler's holdout, demanding to be traded) would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler? "Never."

It's really very, very simple if you open your eyes. Y'all should try it.

coachmastermind
03-25-2009, 10:57 AM
BS. Let's say you live in a house that you love. You have no desire to live anywhere else. But someone makes you an offer for that house well over market value. You decide to at least have a discussion with your wife about it, maybe talk with a couple of real estate agents to see what your options are, do a little further research. Does that mean you WANT to sell you house, or think it is in your best interest to do so? Of course not. You are just doing your due diligence.

But your using an inaninimate object (your house) to replace Cutler. Does your house think you don't want it anymore?

A better analogy is your girlfriend who you've been dating and are pretty serious with, she get's a call from another guy asking her out on a date. She tells him she'll think about it. And does "her due dilegence" takes time and considers it. You find out about it, and she says, "I didn't call him he called me." "I just was considering it". Are you upset about who did the calling or that she took the time to even consider it?

It's the perception of saying in interviews on the NFL Network before free agency how excited he was to work with Jay and stating that the qb- coach relationship is so important, and how close they need to become, then the first 2 days of free agency "considering" trading your qb away.

The perception to Jay is you'll always be looking for an upgrade rather than really investing in me. And that he can't trust Josh... just like you'd probably feel about your girlfriend.

And we all know that perception is reality.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never."

One can certainly extrapolate from that question the fact that McDaniels was answering from the standpoint of going forward with this situation, not looking at the past.

AT WHAT POINT (in Cutler's holdout, demanding to be traded) would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler? "Never."

It's really very, very simple if you open your eyes. Y'all should try it.

Precisely.

To go back to my house analogy. You get the above market offer, do your due diligence, consider it, then decide it isn't worth it to you. Three weeks AFTER THE FACT, a friend asks you, "At what point would it be in your best interest to sell your house." You respond, "Never." There's no inconsistency there. You received the best offer you expect you're likely to get, and now can say that you don't see any scenarios that would entice you to sell.

Likewise, McDaniels and company received an enticing offer for Cutler, and decided it wasn't worth it to them. So, now, weeks after the fact, a response of "Never" is not inconsistent.

no-pseudo-fan
03-25-2009, 11:00 AM
Denver would have given more, likely a first-round pick, but Patriots coach Bill Belichick had his deal done with the Chiefs. - that SI article you speak of

Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never." - the quote above

Obviously, those are ridicuously inconsistent with each other. Of course it needs to be said, only one is a direct quote.

I don't think McDaniels could see some coming up with a deal that would make us want to trade him. But if Indy says, we will give you Peyton + our 1st and 2nd round pick for Jay Cutler, I think you have to take it. Would that happen, no(at least not for about 4 or 5 years).

You say never because you just can't see someone coming up with the outragous price it would take to get you to so it.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 11:03 AM
Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never."

One can certainly extrapolate from that question the fact that McDaniels was answering from the standpoint of going forward with this situation, not looking at the past.

AT WHAT POINT (in the current situation, Cutler's holdout, demanding to be traded) would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler? "Never."

It's really very, very simple if you open your eyes. Y'all should try it.

You actually are helping me more than hurting me by going that way. Now, when Cutler is traded, you will have nothing to defend McDaniels with. At least before you said this, you could say....well, situations change, people change their mind, etc. And I would've agreed. Now you don't have that to fall back on.

To debate your point......no, it's not clear that he is only talking about "going forward and not looking back." Based on the phrasing of the question, it is a 50/50 proposition which way one could interpret it. You interpreted it one way, while others could certainly interpret it another.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 11:04 AM
But your using an inaninimate object (your house) to replace Cutler. Does your house think you don't want it anymore?

A better analogy is your girlfriend who you've been dating and are pretty serious with, she get's a call from another guy asking her out on a date. She tells him she'll think about it. And does "her due dilegence" takes time and considers it. You find out about it, and she says, "I didn't call him he called me." "I just was considering it". Are you upset about who did the calling or that she took the time to even consider it?

It's the perception of saying in interviews on the NFL Network before free agency how excited he was to work with Jay and stating that the qb- coach relationship is so important, and how close they need to become, then the first 2 days of free agency "considering" trading your qb away.

The perception to Jay is you'll always be looking for an upgrade rather than really investing in me. And that he can't trust Josh... just like you'd probably feel about your girlfriend.

And we all know that perception is reality.

Well, first off, the discussion at hand is about McDaniels consistency or lack thereof, not Cutler's feeling about those statements. So, the above does not address the consistency issue we are discussing.

Second, a romantic relationship does not include contracts--real or imagined--that give one party the right to trade in the other party for a (perceived) upgrade. NFL player/management relationships DO include contracts with such provisions. Both parties are aware of this arrangement from the beginning, and the management side is within there rights to pursue an upgrade. A better example would be someone who agrees to enter into an "open" relationship with another individual, then gets pissed off when that individual considers dating someone else.

Punisher
03-25-2009, 11:06 AM
It looks like McDickhole is becoming the bigger man here,I'm glad this "Mcjaygate or whatever" is coming to a end day by day....

frerottenextelway
03-25-2009, 11:06 AM
WHERE'S THE PROOF?

oh, right, there is none. It's pure speculation.

Why in hell wouldn't Belichick want to get a higher pick?? Does that make ANY sense to you?

His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration.

This is what a previous poster stated. I'm pointing out that the poster is wrong, the article contradicts McDaniels "never" statement.

Maybe King made it up out of thin air though, neither your or I can say for sure (and that wasn't even my point earlier). But given McD's other comments on record, I'm inclined to believe King.

I mean, here's another quote from that article:

"This was a non-issue until Thursday [Feb. 26]. There was obviously a scenario where teams figured we'd be interested in Matt Cassel, because I'd coached him in New England. When someone calls, I'm going to consider it, because that's my job.''

Maybe you support that statement. That's fine. But, that does not jive with ''never''. It just doesn't. Never does not mean sometimes!

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 11:06 AM
You actually are helping me more than hurting me by going that way. Now, when Cutler is traded, you will have nothing to defend McDaniels with. At least before you said this, you could say....well, situations change, people change their mind, etc. And I would've agreed. Now you don't have that to fall back on.

To debate your point......no, it's not clear that he is only talking about "going forward and not looking back." Based on the phrasing of the question, it is a 50/50 proposition which way one could interpret it. You interpreted it one way, while others could certainly interpret it another.

The interpretation is clear, as has been outlined. Even if Jay is eventually traded, it doesn't necessarily mean McD thinks it is in the clubs best interest...indeed, if he is traded it will likely only be due to Cutler refusing to mend fences.

BroncoInferno
03-25-2009, 11:08 AM
His late to the dance comment, when put in the proper perspective of the entire article, CLEARLY means too late to even give the idea serious consideration.

This is what a previous poster stated. I'm pointing out that the poster is wrong, the article contradicts McDaniels "never" statement.

Maybe King made it up out of thin air though, neither your or I can say for sure (and that wasn't even my point earlier). But given McD's other comments on record, I'm inclined to believe King.

I mean, here's another quote from that article:

"This was a non-issue until Thursday [Feb. 26]. There was obviously a scenario where teams figured we'd be interested in Matt Cassel, because I'd coached him in New England. When someone calls, I'm going to consider it, because that's my job.''

Maybe you support that statement. That's fine. But, that does not jive with ''never''. It just doesn't. Never does not mean sometimes!

No, I'm not wrong, because I am only talking about McDaniel's actual statements, not King's guesswork.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 11:10 AM
You actually are helping me more than hurting me by going that way. Now, when Cutler is traded, you will have nothing to defend McDaniels with. At least before you said this, you could say....well, situations change, people change their mind, etc. And I would've agreed. Now you don't have that to fall back on.

To debate your point......no, it's not clear that he is only talking about "going forward and not looking back." Based on the phrasing of the question, it is a 50/50 proposition which way one could interpret it. You interpreted it one way, while others could certainly interpret it another.

Yes, and IF Cutler is traded (i've said from the beginning that I didn't think it was going to happen) I'll eat my crow. But UNTIL that happens, I'm just as right as you are, and if he plays in Denver in 2009, my point will have been proven.

And to debate the (absurdly retarded) point at hand, yes, it can be interpreted a certain way if you want to show McDaniels as a liar. It can be showcased a completely different way, and with more bearing on the ACTUAL SITUATION, NOT PAST EVENTS, if you look at it my way. We already know which side of the fence each of us is on. You're on the side with anonymous sources and media one-upsmanship. I'm on the side with people who have real names and are not afraid to put their names on what they're saying.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 11:13 AM
To go back to my house analogy. You get the above market offer, do your due diligence, consider it, then decide it isn't worth it to you. Three weeks AFTER THE FACT, a friend asks you, "At what point would it be in your best interest to sell your house." You respond, "Never." There's no inconsistency there. You received the best offer you expect you're likely to get, and now can say that you don't see any scenarios that would entice you to sell.

Actually, I have two problems with that.

1. If you get an above-market offer for your house right now in THIS market, it's in your best interest to take it. Period. And since McDaniels is on record as saying that he will do whatever is in his "family's" best interest, he has to sell.

2. You are stating that "you received the best offer you expect you're likely to get." Why? Supposedly they listened to one offer and they didn't even really listen to it. They brushed it off and went about their business. They never got a true feel for what they might be able to get if they float him out there. THEY SAY THEY NEVER LISTED THEIR HOUSE OR TALKED TO ANY BROKERS, SO HOW DO THEY TRULY KNOW WHAT THE MARKET EVEN IS OR WHAT IS THE BEST POTENTIAL "ABOVE-MARKET" DEAL OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING.

According to McDaniels' supporters, THEY DIDN'T DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE IT NEVER GOT TO THAT LEVEL. Or did they do so when and only when it supports your argument? Interesting.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 11:13 AM
The interpretation is clear, as has been outlined. Even if Jay is eventually traded, it doesn't necessarily mean McD thinks it is in the clubs best interest...indeed, if he is traded it will likely only be due to Cutler refusing to mend fences.

Really well said. The ball is officially in Jay's court, and if he chooses not to show up, yes, Denver may be FORCED to trade him. Doesn't mean it's in Denver's best interests, and it's clear that McDaniels doesn't think it would be in Denver's best interests, and it's clear that McDaniels doesn't want to trade Cutler.

But sure. "HE LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED! HE LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED!" will be the prevailing sentiment, for the umpteenth day in a row. /rolleyes.

frerottenextelway
03-25-2009, 11:13 AM
No, I'm not wrong, because I am only talking about McDaniel's actual statements, not King's guesswork.

Good, show me those quotes in that article that back you up.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 11:15 AM
It can be showcased a completely different way, and with more bearing on the ACTUAL SITUATION, NOT PAST EVENTS, if you look at it my way.

Pretty tough to do when I'm challenged to find an inconsistency between current statements and past statements.

coachmastermind
03-25-2009, 11:19 AM
Well, first off, the discussion at hand is about McDaniels consistency or lack thereof, not Cutler's feeling about those statements. So, the above does not address the consistency issue we are discussing.

Second, a romantic relationship does not include contracts--real or imagined--that give one party the right to trade in the other party for a (perceived) upgrade. NFL player/management relationships DO include contracts with such provisions. Both parties are aware of this arrangement from the beginning, and the management side is within there rights to pursue an upgrade. A better example would be someone who agrees to enter into an "open" relationship with another individual, then gets pissed off when that individual considers dating someone else.

Your house analogy had nothing to do with the consistany issue you were discussing either. You were talking about "what's in the best interst".

A romantic relationship doesn't include contracts- real or imagined? Not paper or "real" contracts, but each person deifinitly has a percption of the realationship, where it's headed, where the boundries are. It's called commitment... which I think Josh McDaniels illuded to having for Jay, both in his opening press conference and in the interview at the combine.

I don't disagree with you that the Broncos have the right to look around or upgrade at any position. And that this is a business with contracts, and both parties know that going in...But when the coach is the one that talks about how feelings and relationship are important... it's a two way street. Jay has every reason to think he could be dumped at any time Josh found somthing better. How much commitment would you recipricate?

Like it or not buisiness and feelings do mix... Josh McDaniels says so. And if people at work are unhappy or don't feel security you're not going to get the best out of them.

ZONA
03-25-2009, 12:02 PM
I don't know that he's "adamant" about this. There are unlikely scenarios where trading him would be in the best interest of the team. But in efforts to end this drama and make Jay happy answering "never" is probably the way to go politically. I think the position now is that trading him is a worst case scenario resulting from an inability to end the feud. I'm not sure why some of you want to keep spinning everything McD does and says negatively.

Exactly !!!

He's basically saying he thinks keeping Jay at this point is in the best interest of the team. Well said.

SuperCharger17
03-25-2009, 12:11 PM
So then when does the new coach man up and get rid of the kid with the bad attitude who doesn't even own a 500 record as a starter?

That's the part that nobody else understands.

Paladin
03-25-2009, 12:55 PM
But, by definition, it doesn't matter how serious the discussion is. If you are adamant that trading him IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TEAM, then give me one good reason why you would even pick up the phone and consider going to the dance for a microsecond?

You wouldn't. And there are other quotes to back this up if you and Mosse don't like the "dance" one. McDaniels admitted more than once that he had at least a little interest in bringing Cassel in. To do so, he would've had to trade Cutler. How does this not conflict with his recent statement?

I call BS.

outdoor_miner
03-25-2009, 01:47 PM
I can't believe the level of semantics that are being analyzed in this thread, especially considering that the guy is sitting there answering questions on the Cutler situation for an hour straight in a high-stress situation where he is clearly trying to send a message to the media and fans that the Broncos want Cutler to be their quarterback. That was obviously his intent going into these interviews; to make it clear that McDaniels wants Cutler to be the qb. Could he have exaggerated slightly to make a point by saying "Never"? Absolutely. Does that make him a bald-faced liar? Absolutely not. People are not machines and don't always make the perfect answer every single time. Plus, having complete transcripts of questions and answers can often help, as questions are often phrased in certain ways that shed light into the nuance of the answer.

Furthermore: People are trying to take a "Never" and apply it in a thousand different ways. I mean, if the Broncos rectify the situation with Cutler, and then he plays for Denver for 10 years, and then towards the end of his career, the Broncos trade Cutler, does that make McDaniels a liar? Again, no. It means that at the time of the question, McDaniels is trying to make it clear that they have no intent of trading Cutler. That's it. Right now, he doesn't see a scenario where it makes any sense to trade Cutler. Of course, he's saying that under the belief that he can get Jay in and mend fences. If Jay continues to hold out and demand a trade and makes it absolutely clear that he refuses to take another snap for the Denver Broncos, would McDaniels trade Jay? Of course. Again, that doesn't make him a liar. Things change. Things also changed between February 26 (where he entertained the thought of a Cutler trade for Matt Cassel who is now off the market) and today.

I personally think that if you look at what he's been saying all along since this whole near-trade occurred, it's pretty clear that the Broncos/McDaniels position and messaging has been consistent. They have stated repeatedly that they were approached with offers for Cutler (based upon McDaniels relationship with Cassel), that they considered those offers, and that nothing ever materialized to the point where Pat Bowlen was approached to make a final decision. They have even said that one of the offers was sweet enough that they had to seriously considered it. They have said that it is their job to evaluate all offers, and that they will consider offers that better the team.

I guess other people don't see it that way, and clearly some intelligent people see it differently than me. I think I just need to stop worrying about it. :) I really, really hope Jay remains a Bronco, this is worked out, and McDaniels turns out to be a great coach. Go Broncos!

bronclvr
03-25-2009, 01:55 PM
Excellent Post and explanation outdoor miner-I am 100% with you! I think the off season is just a little too long , and some people just need something to chew on-

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 01:56 PM
Furthermore: People are trying to take a "Never" and apply it in a thousand different ways.

Actually, we're not. There is only one true way to apply never. It's not a gray area here. "Never" is a black or white word.

I mean, if the Broncos rectify the situation with Cutler, and then he plays for Denver for 10 years, and then towards the end of his career, the Broncos trade Cutler, does that make McDaniels a liar? Again, no.

Actually, yes it does (if McDaniels is still coaching then). Never means never. Sorry, but time is not a factor. Again, never means never.

It means that at the time of the question, McDaniels is trying to make it clear that they have no intent of trading Cutler. That's it. Right now, he doesn't see a scenario where it makes any sense to trade Cutler.

You need a dictionary.

Though that is probably what he truly means deep down, that's not what he said. "Never" does not take into account when a question is asked. If you mean "right now" then you have to say "right now". "Never" by it's very definition, simply isn't the correct word to use.

Of course, he's saying that under the belief that he can get Jay in and mend fences. If Jay continues to hold out and demand a trade and makes it absolutely clear that he refuses to take another snap for the Denver Broncos, would McDaniels trade Jay? Of course. Again, that doesn't make him a liar. Things change. Things also changed between February 26 (where he entertained the thought of a Cutler trade for Matt Cassel who is now off the market) and today.

Wrong again. "Never" means never.

"Never" means that you won't trade him even if all things that can go wrong do go wrong. "Never" means you won't trade him even if he doesn't ever show up to work. "Never" means you won't trade him even if you are offered Matt Cassel plus 4 entire drafts from the Chiefs. "Never" means never.

I guess other people don't see it that way, and clearly some intelligent people see it differently than me. I think I just need to stop worrying about it. :) I really, really hope Jay remains a Bronco, this is worked out, and McDaniels turns out to be a great coach. Go Broncos!

Seconded.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 01:59 PM
Actually, yes it does (if McDaniels is still coaching then). Never means never. Sorry, but time is not a factor. Again, never means never.


You need to read the question again.

"When asked when it might be in the Broncos' best interest to trade Cutler, McDaniels responded "Never.""

Once again, Beantown, Cutler may be traded, but McDaniels feels that it will never be in the BRONCOS' best interest to do so. If Cutler is traded, it hurts the team, and it implies that he won't be trading Cutler.

Yes, "Never" is a black and white word, but the context around it is not.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:04 PM
You need to read the question again.

"When asked when it might be in the Broncos' best interest to trade Cutler, McDaniels responded "Never.""

Once again, Beantown, Cutler may be traded, but McDaniels feels that it will never be in the BRONCOS' best interest to do so. If Cutler is traded, it hurts the team, and it implies that he won't be trading Cutler.

Yes, "Never" is a black and white word, but the context around it is not.

What I'm referring to is this "never" combined with his earlier "never":

That he would "never" do anything not in the best interest of the team.

It's like the 3 Laws of Robotics in I, Robot. Law no. 1 must be obeyed. And Laws nos 2 and 3 must be obeyed except to the extent they conflict with the prior Law.

McDaniels is not allowed to trade Cutler if it is not in the best interest of the team to do so. By doing so, he breaks his word.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:06 PM
What I'm referring to is this "never" combined with his earlier "never":

That he would "never" do anything not in the best interest of the team.

It's like the 3 Laws of Robotics in I, Robot. Law no. 1 must be obeyed. And Laws nos 2 and 3 must be obeyed except to the extent they conflict with the prior Law.

McDaniels is not allowed to trade Cutler if it is not in the best interest of the team to do so. By doing so, he breaks his word.

Never seen that movie. Looked like ass.

Your circular logic is boggling. Truly.

And he's not giving his word that he won't trade Cutler. He's stating, rather emphatically, that he does not want to, as it wouldn't be in the best interest of the team. And his job is to do what's in the best interest of the team. But he made it very clear that it's a two way street, and that he'll show Cutler the same loyalty that Cutler shows the Broncos.

rugbythug
03-25-2009, 02:08 PM
What I'm referring to is this "never" combined with his earlier "never":

That he would "never" do anything not in the best interest of the team.

It's like the 3 Laws of Robotics in I, Robot. Law no. 1 must be obeyed. And Laws nos 2 and 3 must be obeyed except to the extent they conflict with the prior Law.

McDaniels is not allowed to trade Cutler if it is not in the best interest of the team to do so. By doing so, he breaks his word.

You know your argument is weak when you use "I, Robot" as evidence.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:12 PM
Never seen that movie. Looked like ass.

Your circular logic is boggling. Truly.

And he's not giving his word that he won't trade Cutler. He's stating, rather emphatically, that he does not want to, as it wouldn't be in the best interest of the team. And his job is to do what's in the best interest of the team. But he made it very clear that it's a two way street, and that he'll show Cutler the same loyalty that Cutler shows the Broncos.

It's an incredible book. The movie only took one small aspect of it and went in a completely different direction....not everyone's cup of tea, but it was good for what it was....popcorn.

I really don't think it's circular logic.

Fact No. 1 - McDaniels says he will only do what's in the best interest of the team.
Fact No 2 - McDaniels says there will never be a time when it's in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler.

Binding Conclusion: McDaniels will not trade Cutler.

The only way he can trade Cutler is by breaking one of the facts.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:13 PM
You know your argument is weak when you use "I, Robot" as evidence.

You've obviously never read the book.

Mountain Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:14 PM
BS. Let's say you live in a house that you love. You have no desire to live anywhere else. But someone makes you an offer for that house well over market value. You decide to at least have a discussion with your wife about it, maybe talk with a couple of real estate agents to see what your options are, do a little further research. Does that mean you WANT to sell you house, or think it is in your best interest to do so? Of course not. You are just doing your due diligence.

Bingo, you can't know if it is the team's best interest unless you do your do diligence.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:15 PM
It's an incredible book. The movie only took one small aspect of it and went in a completely different direction....not everyone's cup of tea, but it was good for what it was....popcorn.

I really don't think it's circular logic.

Fact No. 1 - McDaniels says he will only do what's in the best interest of the team.
Fact No 2 - McDaniels says there will never be a time when it's in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler.

Binding Conclusion: McDaniels will not trade Cutler.

The only way he can trade Cutler is by breaking one of the facts.

I didn't say he would Never trade Cutler. AGAIN, he said it would "Never" be in the best interest of the team. His job is to try and do what's in the best interest of the team, which means at this point he is TRYING to get Jay Cutler to grow the **** up and come to work. If he CANNOT, EVEN IF the trade would not be in the Broncos best interests, he may BE FORCED TO trade Cutler because of CUTLER'S ACTIONS.

Everything else you write is pure conjecture and, for the most part, total bull****.

And if Cutler stays and retires a Bronco? What will you say then, Beantown? Will you be able to admit you were wrong?

Didn't think so.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:16 PM
Bingo, you can't know if it is the team's best interest unless you do your do diligence.

That's the key. The team is claiming they never have done any due diligence. All they will admit to is entertaining an idea for a couple of minutes and then moving on to "6 other FA signings."

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:20 PM
I didn't say he would Never trade Cutler.

You're right. You didn't. McDaniels did by saying what he said.


And if Cutler stays and retires a Bronco? What will you say then, Beantown? Will you be able to admit you were wrong?

Didn't think so.

Wrong about what? That is precisely the binding conclusion I just posted. It HAS to end that way unless McDaniels wants to be proven a liar.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:24 PM
You're right. You didn't. McDaniels did by saying what he said.




Wrong about what? That is precisely the binding conclusion I just posted. It HAS to end that way unless McDaniels wants to be proven a liar.

McDaniels did NOT say he would "Never" trade Jay Cutler. He said it was "Never" in the best interest of the Broncos to trade Jay Cutler. AGAIN: There is a HUGE difference in doing something because you're forced to (like, when Cutler forces a trade by sitting out) and doing something because it's in the best interests of the franchise.

I know you see it. I know that you do. You seem smart. You're not a dullard. So where's the disconnect here?

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:28 PM
McDaniels did NOT say he would "Never" trade Jay Cutler. He said it was "Never" in the best interest of the Broncos to trade Jay Cutler. AGAIN: There is a HUGE difference in doing something because you're forced to (like, when Cutler forces a trade by sitting out) and doing something because it's in the best interests of the franchise.

I know you see it. I know that you do. You seem smart. You're not a dullard. So where's the disconnect here?

It's a logic progression.

Coach says "All boys wear red hats"
Coach says "Rick is a boy"

Did the coach technically say "Rick is wearing a red hat"?
No.
But can one come to only one conclusion based off what he said? Yes.

That is why I worded it the way I did above. Look at my words above again.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:34 PM
It's a logic progression.

Coach says "All boys wear red hats"
Coach says "Rick is a boy"

Did the coach technically say "Rick is wearing a red hat"?
No.
But can one come to only one conclusion based off what he said? Yes.

That is why I worded it the way I did above. Look at my words above again.

I'm thinking about buying a new car. It's not in my best interests to buy a new car right now. I love my car. I never want to get a new car, because I love my car and think that it's been a wonderful, proven commodity for the last three years, and as I mentioned, I don't think it's in my best interests to get a new car. Unfortunately, my car has a major engine problem, and at this point I'm likely to be forced (by the situation, which is outside of my control) to buy a new car.

If I go and buy a new car, am I a liar? Or am I doing what the situation mandates?

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:40 PM
I'm thinking about buying a new car. It's not in my best interests to buy a new car right now. I love my car. I never want to get a new car, because I love my car and think that it's been a wonderful, proven commodity for the last three years, and as I mentioned, I don't think it's in my best interests to get a new car. Unfortunately, my car has a major engine problem, and at this point I'm likely to be forced (by the situation, which is outside of my control) to buy a new car.

If I go and buy a new car, am I a liar? Or am I doing what the situation mandates?

Bad analogy.

You are saying that you never want to get a new car.

Nowhere in the quotes we've been throwing around is McDaniels mentioning the word "want". He is not leaving himself the possibility of doing something he doesn't want to do, even though the reporters specifically gave him a chance to say that very thing.

He has clearly stated two things: (1) he will only do what is in his family's best interest and (2) it will never be in their best interest to trade the car in for another.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:48 PM
Bad analogy.

You are saying that you never want to get a new car.

Nowhere in the quotes we've been throwing around is McDaniels mentioning the word "want". He is not leaving himself the possibility of doing something he doesn't want to do, even though the reporters specifically gave him a chance to say that very thing.

He has clearly stated two things: (1) he will only do what is in his family's best interest and (2) it will never be in their best interest to trade the car in for another.

Actually, it's a great analogy. McDaniels now has to say the word "want" in order to show that he doesn't want to trade Jay Cutler? Saying over and over again that "he's our quarterback" isn't good enough??

And, in truth, if you read his quotes again, he says "want" numerous times. "One thing I want to do and continually want to do is meet with the player," McDaniels said Tuesday morning. "I want to meet with the player by myself. I want to meet with the player one on one. I think that's the best way to fix any kind of issue." WOW! FOUR wants in five sentences! AND a hope to "fix" the issue. But that's not enough for you to see that Josh McDaniels "wants" to be coaching Jay Cutler this year.

Amazing.

You take every inference from something as innocuous as "we were too late to the dance" and "the player," but when it comes to a guy flat out saying that he isn't trading Jay Cutler, you completely ignore it.

Enjoy your ignorance. I'm done talking in circles with you.

outdoor_miner
03-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Actually, yes it does (if McDaniels is still coaching then). Never means never. Sorry, but time is not a factor. Again, never means never.

Wow. You are hardcore. Essentially, you believe that Josh McDaniels just made an offhand comment in an interview that commits him to Jay Cutler for all eternity or else he is brandished a liar. That's powerful stuff. Are you absolutely postive that you have never ever ever uttered something that someone could interpret one way and you interpret another?

"I'm going to Chili's for dinner tonight."
"Really? The guys and I are going to Bennigan's. Wanna come?"
"Sure."
"Liar!!!"

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:51 PM
I said specifically "nowhere in the quotes we were throwing around."

Needless to say, those weren't the quotes we were throwing around.


I'm not talking about his "want" for Cutler to be his QB.

I'm talking about "want" in terms of what he will do. The coach's words in the two specific quotes I keep referencing are that he "will do this or that, regardless of what the player does....period" not "I will do this or that, even though I don't want to."

garandman
03-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Wow. You are hardcore. Essentially, you believe that Josh McDaniels just made an offhand comment in an interview that commits him to Jay Cutler for all eternity or else he is brandished a liar. That's powerful stuff. Are you absolutely postive that you have never ever ever uttered something that someone could interpret one way and you interpret another?

"I'm going to Chili's for dinner tonight."
"Really? The guys and I are going to Bennigan's. Wanna come?"
"Sure."
"Liar!!!"

Lol,
Hey Beantown is an idiot, what do you expect...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Lol,
Hey Beantown is an idiot, what do you expect...

That's just it: he's NOT an idiot. That's what makes this whole thing so absurd.

Tell us all, beantown, what can McDaniels possibly say that would make you happy and not second-guess ever breath he takes? Give us the script.

You've boiled down every single one of his quotes into a few choice soundbites for your arguments. Tell us what would but things right in YOUR eyes.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Wow. You are hardcore. Essentially, you believe that Josh McDaniels just made an offhand comment in an interview that commits him to Jay Cutler for all eternity or else he is brandished a liar.

This was hardly an offhand comment. He made this a specific point of emphasis.

Liar, no. Inconsistent, yes. And if you look back, that was the original point of the whole debate, before it got sidetracked with discussion of real estate and good books made into popcorn flix.

This post in particular:

Everything he's said in the last five days is consistent with what he's been saying from the beginning.

outdoor_miner
03-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Lol,
Hey Beantown is an idiot, what do you expect...

Well, I don't think he's an idiot. I've enjoyed his posts for along time (I'm a serious lurker :clown: ).

However, I can't relate at all to his current position. It seems so extreme based upon a single comment. Oh well.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:57 PM
That's just it: he's NOT an idiot. That's what makes this whole thing so absurd.

Tell us all, beantown, what can McDaniels possibly say that would make you happy and not second-guess ever breath he takes? Give us the script.

You've boiled down every single one of his quotes into a few choice soundbites for your arguments. Tell us what would but things right in YOUR eyes.

For me, I just found the "never" comment to be over the top.

He should've just stuck with this, and never said the "never" comment, and I would've been fine.

"He's our quarterback, we're committed to him and we will always do what's in the best interest of our football team," McDaniels said of Cutler during a breakfast at the league's annual meeting. "But we are committed to him and I'm looking forward to him being back. And as long as that's the case and we're both committed to each other, he absolutely will be our quarterback."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/broncos/2009-03-24-cutler-update_N.htm

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:59 PM
Well, I don't think he's an idiot. I've enjoyed his posts for along time (I'm a serious lurker :clown: ).

However, I can't relate at all to his current position. It seems so extreme based upon a single comment. Oh well.

You're right. It is......to a fault.

McDaniels just really bugged me with this one, because it just jumped out to me as something you should simply not say.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 03:00 PM
Lol,
Hey Beantown is an idiot, what do you expect...

Basing this off of anything else other than your stance in the McDaniels/Cutler debate?

c_lazy_r
03-25-2009, 03:06 PM
See my post above.

Serious or not, it doesn't matter. He considered something that he himself said would never be in the best interest of the team. And he's said in numerous interviews that he will ONLY consider those things that are in the best interest of the team.

By definition, one of those statements has to be a lie.

Imagine this...

So you swear to be faithful to your wife for life...some super hot chick offers to blow you with no strings attached and noone will ever know...what do you do?

Do you consider the consequences? Does it make you a cheater because you thought about it?

He was presented with an offer, he declined. IMO, that doesn't make him a liar.

Beantown Bronco
03-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Damn. Enough with the analogies....especially the girlfriend/wife ones that have already been thrown around.

my head hurts.

c_lazy_r
03-25-2009, 03:12 PM
Damn. Enough with the analogies....especially the girlfriend/wife ones that have already been thrown around.

my head hurts.

Got something to hide beantown??

huh, huh?
huh?
huh?

;D

jk, dude. I actually posted my brilliant analogy before I saw all the others.

BroncoMan4ever
03-25-2009, 03:39 PM
After Jay eats his crow all will be said and done. By opening day people won't remember this ever happened. Need some catsup on that crow Jay??

and if he plays it right he doesn't even need to admit to any wrong doing of his own. he can show up and when asked about it, say he is here for his teammates.