There is no difference in the reasoning behind the Portis trade and the Cutler trade - The Orange Mane

baja · 04-05-2009, 04:22 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, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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.

spdirty · 04-05-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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, 04:29 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, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

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, 04:31 PM

Meh ...... the same

DBBBSBS · 04-05-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

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, 04:34 PM

I'll bet odds the same people that hated the Portis trade also hate the Cutler trade.

mwill07 · 04-05-2009, 04:46 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, 04:52 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, 04:53 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, 04:55 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, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

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, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

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, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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, 05:04 PM

Its not the same, Good QB are harder to find!

footstepsfrom#27 · 04-05-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChamp

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, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwill07

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, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChamp

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, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

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, 05:12 PM

we traded a sure thing for another sure thing..Champ bailey.

not the same

SportinOne · 04-05-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronx33

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, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthStndJunkie

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.

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, 05:20 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.

View Poll Results: What is the difference between the Portis trade and the Cutler trade?
Basically they're the same. They both traded a premier player in his prime to improve the team	22	26.19%
I hated the Portis trade and I hate this Cutler trade	3	3.57%
I hated the Portis trade but I love this Cutler trade.	4	4.76%
I liked the Portis trade and I like this Cutler trade	21	25.00%
I liked the Portis trade but I hate this Cutler trade.	34	40.48%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

04-05-2009, 04:22 PM	#1
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in a bunker Posts: 54,384 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas	There is no difference in the reasoning behind the Portis trade and the Cutler trade 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. Last edited by baja; 04-05-2009 at 04:33 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-05-2009, 04:29 PM	#4
Bronx33 lets go partner Rumpson Rocks Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lakewood,Colo Posts: 41,221 Adopt-a-Bronco: Woodyard	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.

04-05-2009, 04:31 PM	#6
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	Meh ...... the same

04-05-2009, 04:34 PM	#8
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in a bunker Posts: 54,384 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas	I'll bet odds the same people that hated the Portis trade also hate the Cutler trade.

04-05-2009, 04:46 PM	#9
mwill07 Ring of Famer Lurker Extraordinaire Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,213 Adopt-a-Bronco: VMFM	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.

04-05-2009, 04:52 PM	#10
footstepsfrom#27 helmet to helmet hitter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 16,126 Adopt-a-Bronco: Joe Mays	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.

04-05-2009, 04:53 PM	#11
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in a bunker Posts: 54,384 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas	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.

04-05-2009, 04:55 PM	#12
SportinOne Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,439	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.

04-05-2009, 05:04 PM	#16
AlienBronco Seasoned Veteran Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not far enough from the Hurricane Belt! Posts: 456	Its not the same, Good QB are harder to find!

04-05-2009, 05:12 PM	#22
OABB Master of Karate aaahaaaaaaaaah Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Los angeles Posts: 7,141 Adopt-a-Bronco: tgnsmyb****	we traded a sure thing for another sure thing..Champ bailey. not the same

04-05-2009, 05:20 PM	#25
extralife Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,987	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.