PDA

View Full Version : There is no difference in the reasoning behind the Portis trade and the Cutler trade


baja
04-05-2009, 05:22 PM
Portis a disgruntled RB Shanahan traded to Washington for a player and a pick and got an all world corner and a decent RB.

Cutler a disgruntled QB Bowlen/McDaniels traded to Chicago for boat load of picks and a decent QB.

The Portis trade made us a better team and Shanny was praised around the league and in here for a great trade.

Now we got a new coach that gets high marks around the league as a great football mind (not unlike Shanny when he was hired here) yet many of you are saying the franchise is set back for years at best.

Tell me what is the difference between the Portis trade and the Cutler trade.

DenverBrit
04-05-2009, 05:24 PM
Portis a disgruntled RB Shanahan traded to Washington for a player and a pick we filled in at the position and got an all world corner and a decent RB.

Cutler a disgruntled QB Bowlen/McDaniels traded to Chicago for boat load of picks and a decent QB.

The Portis trade made us a better team and Shanny was praised around the league and in here for a great trade.

Now we got a new coach that gets high marks around the league as a great football mind (not unlike Shanny when he was hired here) yet many of you are saying the franchise is set back for years at best.

Tell me what is the difference between the Portis trade and the Cutler trade.

Oh, this should be interesting. Ha!

spdirty
04-05-2009, 05:27 PM
Tell me what is the difference between the Portis trade and the Cutler trade.

Productive running backs are not nearly as hard to find as productive quarterbacks. Thread over.

Bronx33
04-05-2009, 05:29 PM
I will go on record and say the word franchise will be used alot like it actually means something when you put QB after it.

Dagmar
04-05-2009, 05:30 PM
Productive running backs are not nearly as hard to find as productive quarterbacks. Thread over.

You need to move on buddy.

Spider
04-05-2009, 05:31 PM
Meh ...... the same

DBBBSBS
04-05-2009, 05:32 PM
Productive running backs are not nearly as hard to find as productive quarterbacks. Thread over.

You just got F Grade. Try Again !!!

baja
04-05-2009, 05:34 PM
I'll bet odds the same people that hated the Portis trade also hate the Cutler trade.

mwill07
04-05-2009, 05:46 PM
Portis trade was to improve the team by re-allocating strengths from a position of historic strength to a position of historic weakness. Broncos were a better team afterwards.

Cutler trade was to remove a team cancer - a trade that was forced to be made. This trade in no way improved the Broncos in a position of historic weakness. This team will not be better without Cutler, but they avoided the team imploding around lack of respect for the HC and therefore prevented the team from getting weaker.

I guess I loved the portis trade, and hate that we had to make the Cutler trade - not sure how else to put it.

footstepsfrom#27
04-05-2009, 05:52 PM
Yeah...they're exactly the same, except that Portis played RB, which meant that unlike trading a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK who you hardly ever get a shot to draft, we could plug and play almost anyone in there and get production in our system, and the fact that Bailey was the BEST CB IN THE GAME...Kyle Orton...not so much, and the fact that Bailey played a position Shanahan couldn't fill in the draft, and the fact that we got a 2nd rounder to go with Champ that became another 1000 yard rusher, and the fact that our draft picks will be chosen by people who have zero experience making the picks.

Yeah...exactly alike.

baja
04-05-2009, 05:53 PM
I think it is more a case of two players that no longer wanted to play for Pat Bowlen and the Broncos so they were shown the door while maximizing their values.

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 05:55 PM
Portis trade was great, and it was obvious from the get go. This trade will take some time to see if we did the right thing.

The trades are similar in that, with the Portis trade, Shanahan just decided that in his system we didn't need that luxury of having a superstar running back and that the drop-off in the running game would be more than made up for by the improvements on defense.

Same thing with Cutler leaving. McDaniels thinks his system doesn't require a "franchise" qb but his defense could use some beef. It might help us 2 years down the road, but we aren't going to be better next season for it.

Both coaches may have overlooked the fact that it might have been just as easy to wait a year and draft well and you have the best of both worlds. As good as Champ is, we are now seeing that, without a d-line, he's almost worthless.

So yes, i see the parallel. Although, I would argue that running backs are much more expendable in the Shanahan system than a quarterback is in the McDaniels system.

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 05:57 PM
Yeah...they're exactly the same, except that Portis played RB, which meant that unlike trading a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK who you hardly ever get a shot to draft, we could plug and play almost anyone in there and get production in our system, and the fact that Bailey was the BEST CB IN THE GAME...Kyle Orton...not so much, and the fact that Bailey played a position Shanahan couldn't fill in the draft, and the fact that we got a 2nd rounder to go with Champ that became another 1000 yard rusher, and the fact that our draft picks will be chosen by people who have zero experience making the picks.

Yeah...exactly alike.

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of your argument, however, we don't have any experience making picks either and we sure do like to toss our opinions around.

At this point, all we can do is just wait and see. It will be a while before we find out whether the picks were worth it.

baja
04-05-2009, 06:01 PM
Yeah...they're exactly the same, except that Portis played RB, which meant that unlike trading a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK who you hardly ever get a shot to draft, we could plug and play almost anyone in there and get production in our system, and the fact that Bailey was the BEST CB IN THE GAME...Kyle Orton...not so much, and the fact that Bailey played a position Shanahan couldn't fill in the draft, and the fact that we got a 2nd rounder to go with Champ that became another 1000 yard rusher, and the fact that our draft picks will be chosen by people who have zero experience making the picks.

Yeah...exactly alike.

See this is what I thought, your major wig out is about an assumption that the players are going to be poor choices. You are freaking out about something that has not happened yet and further more all the intel we have says McDaniels strong suit is spotting talent.

footstepsfrom#27
04-05-2009, 06:03 PM
See this is what I thought, your major wig out is about an assumption that the players are going to be poor choices. You are freaking out about something that has not happened yet and further more all the intel we have says McDaniels strong suit is spotting talent.
About 1/5 of my argument has to do with Opie & Co. having never run a draft before.

AlienBronco
04-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Its not the same, Good QB are harder to find!

footstepsfrom#27
04-05-2009, 06:04 PM
I'm not disagreeing with the gist of your argument, however, we don't have any experience making picks either and we sure do like to toss our opinions around.

At this point, all we can do is just wait and see. It will be a while before we find out whether the picks were worth it.
We don't get paid to pick players...not quite the same. Besides...the thread is about whether the trades are the same or not, not whether the picks are worth it.

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Cutler trade was to remove a team cancer

Well, we sure are getting pretty liberal with the use of the word "team cancer" nowadays aren't we? Was he a cancer before Bates was fired and McDaniels considered trading him for Cassell? Just asking. Also, was he a cancer when he put a whooping on the Raiders and brought us back against San Diego the following week and you, most likely, jumped up off of your couch with both fists raised in the air? Again, just asking.

SouthStndJunkie
04-05-2009, 06:08 PM
I'll bet odds the same people that hated the Portis trade also hate the Cutler trade.

I was ok with the Portis trade, but am not a fan of the Cutler trade.

I think I remember having reservations as soon as it happened, but then I warmed up to it quickly.

Bronx33
04-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Well, we sure are getting pretty liberal with the use of the word "team cancer" nowadays aren't we? Was he a cancer before Bates was fired and McDaniels considered trading him for Cassell? Just asking. Also, was he a cancer when he put a whooping on the Raiders and brought us back against San Diego the following week and you, most likely, jumped up off of your couch with both fists raised in the air? Again, just asking.


Hes had character issues before and they manifested bigtime after the shanahan firing and went overboard after the bates firing and was pretty exposed as a potential cancer.

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 06:10 PM
We don't get paid to pick players...not quite the same. Besides...the thread is about whether the trades are the same or not, not whether the picks are worth it.

Then yes, the trades are very similar in terms of the philosophy behind them.

Also, when considering the similarities, you have to consider the overall value of each trade to the franchise. This is where draft pick value comes in. But if you are satisfied mucking around in something that has already been confirmed (that yes, they are very similar in terms of philosophy) countless times within the first hour that the thread was opened be my guest.

OABB
04-05-2009, 06:12 PM
we traded a sure thing for another sure thing..Champ bailey.

not the same

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 06:14 PM
Hes had character issues before and they manifested bigtime after the shanahan firing and went overboard after the bates firing and was pretty exposed as a potential cancer.

So now he is a "potential cancer?"

So what were the character issues that you speak of?

Was it the spat that he had with Philip Rivers? And if so, please provide proof that you backed Rivers on this at the time if you really thought it was Cutler's fault.

Was it that he said his arm was stronger than Elway's?

I'm dying to know what tipped you off, oh great Nostradamus!

Or are you just toeing your "party's" line with after-the-fact assumptions?

baja
04-05-2009, 06:20 PM
I was ok with the Portis trade, but am not a fan of the Cutler trade.

I think I remember having reservations as soon as it happened, but then I warmed up to it quickly.

Good thing we didn't bet. ;D

I do think the majority of the posters that hated the Portis trade will hate the Cutler trade, you are the exception.

extralife
04-05-2009, 06:20 PM
The two trades were nothing alike. As has already been pointed out by the people that aren't idiots, there are two major differences here:

1. Running backs are both easier to find and less important than QBs. Two years after moving Portis we led the league in rushing and went to the AFC title game.

2. In return for Portis, we got a player of greater talent. It was a move that immediately improved one area of our team. The Cutler trade has not given us anything proven in return.

Bronx33
04-05-2009, 06:25 PM
TheChamp;2371567]So now he is a "potential cancer?"

Putting himself above the team.

Threw a tantrum when shanhan and bates got fired not very grown up if you ask me

So what were the character issues that you speak of?

Mopey jay you remember him right

Was it the spat that he had with Philip Rivers? And if so, please provide proof that you backed Rivers on this at the time if you really thought it was Cutler's fault.

They both did the same thing i really didn't care

Was it that he said his arm was stronger than Elway's?

Really didn't care ( but i know the truth) ;D

I'm dying to know what tipped you off, oh great Nostradamus!

The double talk about wanting to stay and wanting to be traded Leaving his playbook in denver is what really sealed the deal the deal

Or are you just toeing your "party's" line with after-the-fact assumptions

I watched jay last season ( did you?)


Also let's get one thing straight iam not happy jay left i didn't want him to leave but he didn't want to be here he threw a hissy fit when he didn't get what he wanted ( so **** him)

Cam07
04-05-2009, 06:25 PM
Yeah...they're exactly the same, except that Portis played RB, which meant that unlike trading a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK who you hardly ever get a shot to draft, we could plug and play almost anyone in there and get production in our system, and the fact that Bailey was the BEST CB IN THE GAME...Kyle Orton...not so much, and the fact that Bailey played a position Shanahan couldn't fill in the draft, and the fact that we got a 2nd rounder to go with Champ that became another 1000 yard rusher, and the fact that our draft picks will be chosen by people who have zero experience making the picks.

Yeah...exactly alike.

It's not that I disagree with you that it's easier to find a "franchise" RB (yes I used franchise when talking about a RB) than it is a "franchise" QB but Portis was an absolute stud when he was with us. He could take it to the house at any time and we haven't had anything like him since. I would imagine an opposing DC would be just as scared of Portis as they would Cutler. Right now if I could take Cutler back or Portis (in his prime) and Orton I would go for Portis and Orton.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the two trades aren't that far apart when you talk about what we gave up IMO. What we get in return remains to be seen.

SouthStndJunkie
04-05-2009, 06:28 PM
Good thing we didn't bet. ;D

I do think the majority of the posters that hated the Portis trade will hate the Cutler trade, you are the exception.

I hate the Cutler trade....but also realize at the end the Broncos were really left with little choice as the situation was already FUBAR.

baja
04-05-2009, 06:31 PM
The two trades were nothing alike. As has already been pointed out by the people that aren't idiots, there are two major differences here:

1. Running backs are both easier to find and less important than QBs. Two years after moving Portis we led the league in rushing and went to the AFC title game.

2. In return for Portis, we got a player of greater talent. It was a move that immediately improved one area of our team. The Cutler trade has not given us anything proven in return.

A little off topic here but I've noticed the angry people calling others idiots are in fact the ones being idiots. ;D

footstepsfrom#27
04-05-2009, 06:32 PM
A little off topic here but I've noticed the angry people calling others idiots are in fact the ones being idiots. ;D
You're assuming you have to be angry to recognize an idiot.

baja
04-05-2009, 06:41 PM
reread the thread

Spider
04-05-2009, 06:46 PM
Yeah...they're exactly the same, except that Portis played RB, which meant that unlike trading a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK

Are you sure Portis was a running back ? .........good grief

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 07:41 PM
TheChamp;2371567]So now he is a "potential cancer?"

Putting himself above the team.

Threw a tantrum when shanhan and bates got fired not very grown up if you ask me

So what were the character issues that you speak of?

Mopey jay you remember him right

Was it the spat that he had with Philip Rivers? And if so, please provide proof that you backed Rivers on this at the time if you really thought it was Cutler's fault.

They both did the same thing i really didn't care

Was it that he said his arm was stronger than Elway's?

Really didn't care ( but i know the truth) ;D

I'm dying to know what tipped you off, oh great Nostradamus!

The double talk about wanting to stay and wanting to be traded Leaving his playbook in denver is what really sealed the deal the deal

Or are you just toeing your "party's" line with after-the-fact assumptions

I watched jay last season ( did you?)

Also let's get one thing straight iam not happy jay left i didn't want him to leave but he didn't want to be here he threw a hissy fit when he didn't get what he wanted ( so **** him)

You said that Cutler was a cancer. But your proof for this all comes from stuff that happened AFTER the first trade rumors popped up. I'm not debating whether he handled the situation poorly or not after that point. I'm simply asking what he did before that point that led you to believe he was a cancer. Everyone who has watched ESPN at all over the last couple weeks could say that he's a cancer, truthfully or not. But you made it seem like you saw all of this coming even before McDaniels got here.

colonelbeef
04-05-2009, 08:16 PM
Productive running backs are not nearly as hard to find as productive quarterbacks. Thread over.

this.

mwill07
04-05-2009, 08:23 PM
Well, we sure are getting pretty liberal with the use of the word "team cancer" nowadays aren't we? Was he a cancer before Bates was fired and McDaniels considered trading him for Cassell? Just asking. Also, was he a cancer when he put a whooping on the Raiders and brought us back against San Diego the following week and you, most likely, jumped up off of your couch with both fists raised in the air? Again, just asking.

nope. Cutler became a cancer when he asked to be traded. Prior to that he was a malcontent, and before that a stud QB who was probably a douchebag. But make no mistake - as of 4/2/09, Jay Cutler was a team cancer.

Pony Boy
04-05-2009, 10:02 PM
we traded a sure thing for another sure thing..Champ bailey.

not the same

You nailed it, we won't know the value of this trade for years down the road. Are the draft pick going to be busts or all pro players? Only time will tell.

lifeafter elway
04-05-2009, 10:08 PM
Personally, I liked the Portis trade, but not this one.

Biggest thing, was at the time - I trusted Shanny.

Don't trust McDaniels yet. Thats not to say I never will, but the decisions he has made so far confuse and frustrate me. I still pray that he will show me the light.

baja
04-05-2009, 10:23 PM
You nailed it, we won't know the value of this trade for years down the road. Are the draft pick going to be busts or all pro players? Only time will tell.

That's exactly the point. About half the people here have pre judged this trade and condemned McDaniels before we even know the names of the players we are to get for Cutler. I think that's what you call a lynch mob...

listopencil
04-05-2009, 10:32 PM
Well...we had a guy that wasn't going to play for us under contract and we traded him, to get someone who was willing to play and decent draft compensation.

Or you could say decent draft compensation and someone who was willing to play for us.

See? That's the big difference. Amazing isn't it?

listopencil
04-05-2009, 10:34 PM
Although I will say that I don't think Cutler is in his prime. If that's true then we raped the Bears. Bent over the handlebars with a rusty trombone.

DHallblows
04-05-2009, 10:50 PM
I'm just glad there are only 5 people who didn't like the Portis trade. I'd assume more fools roamed the Mane

baja
04-05-2009, 11:02 PM
I'm just glad there are only 5 people who didn't like the Portis trade. I'd assume more fools roamed the Mane

At the time there were more, funny how that works.

DHallblows
04-05-2009, 11:08 PM
At the time there were more, funny how that works.

I'm sure this trade will be the same...

Atwater His Ass
04-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Productive running backs are not nearly as hard to find as productive quarterbacks. Thread over.

This.

Los Broncos
04-05-2009, 11:52 PM
The Portis trade didn't hurt nearly as much as the Cutler trade.

Cito Pelon
04-06-2009, 01:38 PM
I hated the Portis trade because he was clicking with the OL and the play-action passing game. Dude had the best stats of any RB in his first two years of any RB in NFL history. Dude had 31 TD's in 29 games started, had 5.5 YPC avg, had 35 receptions per year for a 10 yd avg per reception, was loved by his teammates. Cutler wasn't loved by his teammates.

OABB
04-06-2009, 01:43 PM
also it should be noted that we have(had?) an rb friendly scheme, so the value of losing a 'franhcise' running back in the zone blocking system is not the same as losing a 'franchise' qb that makes or breaks a system. Portis was replaceable in this system, and Champ is the goat at his position, a position that Shanny had missed on more than once. this was trade that had the broncos getting back better value than they gave up.

What should also be noted, is that under Mcd this can be reversed, as he has a qb friendly system where a qb is 'replaceable" and a team in deep need of depth and quality.

If MCD is as good as advertised this is as good of a trade as the portis one, if he is another bellicheat disciple who 'fails' this is way way worse than the portis trade.

baja
04-06-2009, 01:51 PM
The Portis trade didn't hurt nearly as much as the Cutler trade.

Do you mean to you personally or to the team? Because if you mean hurt the team we don't know that yet.

Pick Six
04-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Portis wanted more money. Who knows what Cutler wanted. Maybe he wanted more money, or maybe it was just a personality clash between him and McDaniels.

baja
04-06-2009, 01:54 PM
So far 57% like the Cutler trade without seeing who we draft

colonelbeef
04-06-2009, 01:55 PM
also it should be noted that we have(had?) an rb friendly scheme, so the value of losing a 'franhcise' running back in the zone blocking system is not the same as losing a 'franchise' qb that makes or breaks a system. Portis was replaceable in this system, and Champ is the goat at his position, a position that Shanny had missed on more than once. this was trade that had the broncos getting back better value than they gave up.

What should also be noted, is that under Mcd this can be reversed, as he has a qb friendly system where a qb is 'replaceable" and a team in deep need of depth and quality.

If MCD is as good as advertised this is as good of a trade as the portis one, if he is another bellicheat disciple who 'fails' this is way way worse than the portis trade.

Good post, addresses all of the major points well in an unbiased manner. Although I am more pessimistic about the eventual outcome, yours is the view I take on optimistic days.