This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't think Detroit is a bad place for him to end up. The organization can't go anywhere but up so the expectations are easier to be met. Detroit played several games close last year, and that was with revolving QB's, a bad OL and a bad D. Detroit has loyal fans, and it would be rewarding to be able to turn that club around. Plus you have one of the best WR's in the NFL to throw to.
It's one thing when a CEO lies to the masses he leads. It's another when the manager knowingly lies to his most important employee when he has to work with that employee on a daily basis.Generally speaking, lying to anyone you have to work with closely is a BAD Suicidal managerial move.Not if you don't do it effectively. I think I was pretty clear about that.If McDaniels thinks that Player X is an upgrade over Cutler, and also knows that Cutler is going to throw a tantrum if he finds this fact out, what is McDaniels supposed to do? Not pursue that player to (in his opinion) the detriment of the team?You really believe that lying to your starting QB and ostensibly one of your best players is an effective management strategy? Especially when history has shown that the kind of lie we are talking about almost always come out eventually?I've been defending McDaniels for the most part, but I certainly don't think he's handled this well, I just think it's for different reasons than most.
Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with lying to Cutler about trying to trade him.There are sound reasons why you might not want Cutler finding out that he was being shopped, and I honestly don't think players have some kind of "right" to be privy to every trade option that the front office explores. Just how I feel about it.
No - try to get the player, and really make sure you get the deal done. If you fail at that, lie about it like there's no tomorrow. McDaniels screwed up both of these things, and that's what I blame him for.
I don't think this is fair value at all, Culter's value > Peppers by a long shot IMO.- JW
Again, let's assume McD WAS successful and traded Cutler away (after telling him he wasn't going to do that, and wasn't even pursuing it). Cutler is gone, but anyone who has talked to Cutler (i.e. the whole team) now KNOWS the head coach will lie to their faces.Just to be clear, you think that is totally OK from a leadership perspective, is actually a solid strategy and doesn't hinder his ability to lead the team? Am I reading you right?Not if you don't do it effectively. I think I was pretty clear about that.If McDaniels thinks that Player X is an upgrade over Cutler, and also knows that Cutler is going to throw a tantrum if he finds this fact out, what is McDaniels supposed to do? Not pursue that player to (in his opinion) the detriment of the team? No - try to get the player, and really make sure you get the deal done. If you fail at that, lie about it like there's no tomorrow. McDaniels screwed up both of these things, and that's what I blame him for.You really believe that lying to your starting QB and ostensibly one of your best players is an effective management strategy? Especially when history has shown that the kind of lie we are talking about almost always come out eventually?I've been defending McDaniels for the most part, but I certainly don't think he's handled this well, I just think it's for different reasons than most.Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with lying to Cutler about trying to trade him.
I don't think it lowers his value as much as some think.And its not like Peppers has not wanted out of Carolina either is it?
agree. i havent followed the panthers off season but havent they been shopping peppers for a few months now? no takers. meanwhile teams are lining up to make offers for cutler apparently.if cutler goes to detroit get ya popcorn readyi would love to see him and calvin on the same offense
Why not laugh at the first deal though? Peppers is not that valuable either.really mole? come on cutler is valuable but not that valuable
Is that what Rivers would do?
This doesn't make any sense. If McDaniels was successful on trading Cutler, this discussion never would have taken place. It only happened after he failed to trade Cutler.Generally speaking though, I think you're being naive if you don't think that all the players know that they're all assets, and that management will trade any one of them if they decide it'll improve the team. All except Jay Cutler anyway.Again, let's assume McD WAS successful and traded Cutler away (after telling him he wasn't going to do that, and wasn't even pursuing it). Cutler is gone, but anyone who has talked to Cutler (i.e. the whole team) now KNOWS the head coach will lie to their faces.Just to be clear, you think that is totally OK from a leadership perspective, is actually a solid strategy and doesn't hinder his ability to lead the team? Am I reading you right?Not if you don't do it effectively. I think I was pretty clear about that.If McDaniels thinks that Player X is an upgrade over Cutler, and also knows that Cutler is going to throw a tantrum if he finds this fact out, what is McDaniels supposed to do? Not pursue that player to (in his opinion) the detriment of the team? No - try to get the player, and really make sure you get the deal done. If you fail at that, lie about it like there's no tomorrow. McDaniels screwed up both of these things, and that's what I blame him for.You really believe that lying to your starting QB and ostensibly one of your best players is an effective management strategy? Especially when history has shown that the kind of lie we are talking about almost always come out eventually?I've been defending McDaniels for the most part, but I certainly don't think he's handled this well, I just think it's for different reasons than most.Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with lying to Cutler about trying to trade him.
No...it makes perfect sense. If the trade happened...he still lied. The other players on the team still find out he lied. He still loses ground from a team respect standpoint. A head coach must have the respect and trust of his players to be successful. And nobodies being naive. We all understand everybodies tradable. You're trying to over-simplify. I believe you may be the one displaying naivete.This doesn't make any sense. If McDaniels was successful on trading Cutler, this discussion never would have taken place. It only happened after he failed to trade Cutler.Generally speaking though, I think you're being naive if you don't think that all the players know that they're all assets, and that management will trade any one of them if they decide it'll improve the team. All except Jay Cutler anyway.Again, let's assume McD WAS successful and traded Cutler away (after telling him he wasn't going to do that, and wasn't even pursuing it). Cutler is gone, but anyone who has talked to Cutler (i.e. the whole team) now KNOWS the head coach will lie to their faces.Just to be clear, you think that is totally OK from a leadership perspective, is actually a solid strategy and doesn't hinder his ability to lead the team? Am I reading you right?Not if you don't do it effectively. I think I was pretty clear about that.If McDaniels thinks that Player X is an upgrade over Cutler, and also knows that Cutler is going to throw a tantrum if he finds this fact out, what is McDaniels supposed to do? Not pursue that player to (in his opinion) the detriment of the team?You really believe that lying to your starting QB and ostensibly one of your best players is an effective management strategy? Especially when history has shown that the kind of lie we are talking about almost always come out eventually?I've been defending McDaniels for the most part, but I certainly don't think he's handled this well, I just think it's for different reasons than most.
Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with lying to Cutler about trying to trade him.There are sound reasons why you might not want Cutler finding out that he was being shopped, and I honestly don't think players have some kind of "right" to be privy to every trade option that the front office explores. Just how I feel about it.
No - try to get the player, and really make sure you get the deal done. If you fail at that, lie about it like there's no tomorrow. McDaniels screwed up both of these things, and that's what I blame him for.
gootta love how you put this another way.he's a kid??
Particularly in the Mortensen article linked elsewhere (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805), I think the blame for this fiasco lies squarely on management.
IIRC, Peppers will be demanding a trade soon too. With his franchise tag contract, his trade value isn't exactly at it's peak either. Peppers trade value should not be any higher than Jared Allen's was last year. At that time , he was coming off of a year where he led the league in sacks, was named All-Pro, and was 25 years old. He was worth a first and two thirds.really mole? come on cutler is valuable but not that valuable
having a little common sense in my head I'd understand that this is pretty much how things always work, my time at this place might be coming to an end, and I'd go out of my way to kick as much ### as possible this coming year to make my value as high as possible on my way out the door so I can clean up on that next contract for my next employer.not being a complete manipulative whining #####, what I WOULD NOT do is throw a giant tantrum about it in the media like a little #####.for all you know he's just using this bs to try to deflect criticism away from himself and in seeking the trade he's wanted all along after his buddies on the coaching staff were let go, not to mention leverage this into a huge new deal.two words:buscook
Moreso than actual age, he earns the Adult qualifier when he ceases childlike behavior. Some people demonstrate more maturity at 17 than Jay Cutler at 25, so there you have it. I certainly wouldn't call Cutler or Henry responsible adults.
what I herd on detroit radio, (mind you this is talking heads here)was detroit gives #1 and #20 for Cutler and #12IIRC, Peppers will be demanding a trade soon too. With his franchise tag contract, his trade value isn't exactly at it's peak either. Peppers trade value should not be any higher than Jared Allen's was last year. At that time , he was coming off of a year where he led the league in sacks, was named All-Pro, and was 25 years old. He was worth a first and two thirds.
Let's assume Peppers = a first and two thirds. From a draft pick value chart, 1.17, 3.10 and 3.19 are worth 1345 points, or approx. 1.9. That's what Minnesota and KC thought was a good deal.
It's been rumored that an offer for cutler from Detroit was for their two firsts, straight up. Let's go conservative, ad Detroit gives up just the 1.1 for Cutler - that's 3000. for Carolina to come up to that, they need to pony up at least an additional 1500 points - at least a first and a second.
What do you think would be fair compensation for Cutler?
This part is mostly true. Denver's OL was pretty darn good last year, IMO their OL, Marshall, Scheffler and Royal far exceed Detroit's team right now and it isn't close. I have to echo a question asked before, is the 1.20 the right price for Cutler if it's a picks Denver wants? Obviously they'd still need a QB.
it's funny that we didn't hear anything about him wanted to be traded before the new HC came in and actually tried to trade him...follow Occham's razor...the simplest answer is the best...
I agree with your point, but lets not confuse having kids with being an adult.
McDaniels does not having personnel authority, it's the GM.
I'm aware of that news report. I just doubt it ever amounts to anything, due to the perception the team did something wrong obtaining Rosenfels only to immediately supplant him. The main problem, IMHO, would be the mess it creates with existing QBs given touchy-feely assurances they've been provided to get them to accept a chance to compete. I'm sure you recall the quotes from Rosenfels that he was promised a chance to start, which no doubt was a consideration in his agreeing to a 3-year extension and being ecstatic of getting out from under Schaub. Let me remind you of Rosenfels' quotes the day he was introduced:
Is that assurance being kept if Cutler is brought in? Reports are that Bus Cook is insisting on an extention for Cutler which would no doubt need to be part of any team acquiring him... how is Rosenfels any better off with the Vikes behind Cutler [after a contract extension] than playing behind Schaub? Just Sunday, Tarvaris was quoted in the Star Trib saying virtually the same thing... "I can only go by what someone tells me and [coach Brad Childress] told me it would be an open competition " I don't doubt the Vikes will express interest and pounce on a blue light special [which we all know will never be available]... as far as competing with other teams (like the Lions who have 5 picks in the first 84) they simply won't pay market value given the spot they've put themselves in. They may publicize 'interest' to appease gullible Vikes fans. I'm surprised I need to explain all of this. Be realistic for a moment. Personally, I'd deal with that fallout if we can get a Cutler, but I seriously question whether the team has the fortitude to pay market value and expose itself to appearing short-sighted in going after Rosenfels in a day 1 trade. I've consistently bemoaned that day 1 trade, and that it could haunt the big picture as better QBs come available unexpectedly. They did not pounce on and give assurances to some journeyman DE on Day 1 of league business last year, and lo and behold they were in a position to go strong after Allen.
so why is Cutler even talking with McDaniels then?
ok, 3000+850-1200=2650. So, if this is true, Cutlers fair market value at one time was 2650. If peppers = 1345, the panthers are still off by roughly 1300 points - a mid-to-late first and second would do it.
You really think that coaches have no say over personnel? Really? Especially McDaniels, who could've gone to any number of teams this offseason? You think he would've chose Denver if they told him his input on trades and personnel moves wouldn't matter? If McDaniels really had no say, then why Matt Cassell? Why would Denver's GM go after Cassell without McDaniels pushing for it? If I'm that GM and I have total control and have no need to listen to my coach's input, then I'm checking QB off the list as a position I need upgrading at.
That wasn't a lie at all, Plummer was terrible which is why he retired after that year.
As is almost always the case, somebody leaked something and Cutler caught wind of the negotiations. Again, this happens more often than not. AT THAT POINT, Cutler goes to McDaniels, and says - "Hey, heard these rumors, what's the deal?". McDaniels' response (the correct one , according to you) was "What? I don't know what you are talking about. We'd never trade you away! You the MAN."Now if Cutler is NOT traded we get the current situation. Everybody is pissed. But even if Cutler IS traded, as I said before, he STILL knows McDaniels lied to his face, and everyone else knows it too. What I am talking about right now isn't about whether any player can be traded at any time. Yes, the players know this is the case (maybe even Cutler), and for the most part, they accept it. What I am talking about is specifically the fact the your boss, your team leader, whatever, has lost credibility not only with Cutler, but with the rest of the players as well. The next time a player goes to this coach with a question, they simply won't know if what the coach is telling him is the truth.Maybe this is standard practice in the NFL, I'm sure there is a lot of deception floating around. But I just have a very difficult time believing that lying is the best approach for a situation like this.This doesn't make any sense. If McDaniels was successful on trading Cutler, this discussion never would have taken place. It only happened after he failed to trade Cutler.Generally speaking though, I think you're being naive if you don't think that all the players know that they're all assets, and that management will trade any one of them if they decide it'll improve the team. All except Jay Cutler anyway.Again, let's assume McD WAS successful and traded Cutler away (after telling him he wasn't going to do that, and wasn't even pursuing it). Cutler is gone, but anyone who has talked to Cutler (i.e. the whole team) now KNOWS the head coach will lie to their faces.Just to be clear, you think that is totally OK from a leadership perspective, is actually a solid strategy and doesn't hinder his ability to lead the team? Am I reading you right?Not if you don't do it effectively. I think I was pretty clear about that.If McDaniels thinks that Player X is an upgrade over Cutler, and also knows that Cutler is going to throw a tantrum if he finds this fact out, what is McDaniels supposed to do? Not pursue that player to (in his opinion) the detriment of the team? No - try to get the player, and really make sure you get the deal done. If you fail at that, lie about it like there's no tomorrow. McDaniels screwed up both of these things, and that's what I blame him for.You really believe that lying to your starting QB and ostensibly one of your best players is an effective management strategy? Especially when history has shown that the kind of lie we are talking about almost always come out eventually?I've been defending McDaniels for the most part, but I certainly don't think he's handled this well, I just think it's for different reasons than most.Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with lying to Cutler about trying to trade him.There are sound reasons why you might not want Cutler finding out that he was being shopped, and I honestly don't think players have some kind of "right" to be privy to every trade option that the front office explores. Just how I feel about it.
1- That's not why the guy retired. 2 - Youre just not being honest here if you think, despite Plummer being "terrible" while leading the team to a 7-4 record, that a friggin' ROOKIE who never had a winning season in college would lead a team to the playoffs and actually gave that team a better chance to win. Keep it clean, man. Keep it clean.
.. not to mention the different "risk/reward" levels between Shanahan's "lie" and McDaniels. Shanahan took a lot less risk and had the resume to take it.
I argued in favor of the move a couple years ago when the switch happened and nothing between then and now has caused me to change my opinion. In fact it was solidified by Cutlers play over the past few years and the fact that Plummer is out of the league.Pointing to a record is a silly argument...why in the world would Minn want to replace Gus Frerotte wasn't he like 9-2 last year?
Um, that is media coachspeak. You have to know this, or did you just start watching football this week? And besides, it wasn't a lie, as Culter DID give them a better chance to win. The offense as a whole was much better with Cutler in there, so he put them in better position to win those games.
Plummer was not good in '06. Look up the numbers. The Broncos got off to a 5-1 start because the defense was insanely good over that stretch. They then fell apart over the rest of the season. Culter outperformed Plummer by a wide margin in '06, and the offense as a whole was much better with that rookie in there. They went 2-3 with Cutler in there because the defense was terrible.
Which is page 1 of the Bus Cook playbook. Make the player look like the victim to help them win the media battle. It really isn't a coincidence that Cook did the same thing with Favre and McNair. Really, I won't even get into these debates about who's right anymore. It's irrelevant because Cook is the one manipulating the media and using them to paint his clients as victims. That's how he gets leverage while his clients come out looking like they don't shoulder any blame. Heck, some of them even get sympathy from the fan base.
I agree with this, but it comes with the territory of being well paid in a fan-driven business. What's funny about this particular situation though is that McDaniels is making more $$$ in 2009 than Cutler. McDaniels signed a 4-year, $8mm contract [and coaches salaries are generally flat-lined with mild per annum escalators], whereas Jay will make $1.035mm this year.Note: I was being a bit tongue in cheek here. Cutler will actually make more than $7mm this year based on likely-to-achieve incentives including $4mm extra for taking 70% of the team's snaps and an almost $2mm escalator for being in the top 5 of any major passing category [which he stands a good shot at in terms of attempts or yards I would think]
hahahaha....and here I was just speculating about that a few posts earlier.there you go --- follow the money.there's your occam's razor (no h, dude)./thread
I think the Risk v. Reward is that makes lying the right decision. People seem to think that this is what the two possible outcomes were:A) McD tries to trade Cutler, Cutler gets wind of is, McD tells him the truth, Cutler says "Okay, cool, see you on Monday."B) What has happened: McD lying -> Cutler getting wind anyway -> Cutler crying to the media, putting houses up for sale, and demanding a trade.I think most of B) was going to happen once Cutler finds out he was being shopped anyway, lying or not lying.
apparently not.cutler and cook are probably hangin' at cutty's right now drinking wine coolers and rofl'ing at this thread right now.
of course. Plummer plays and wins, the defense is on fire. Cutler plays and loses, the defense was terrible. I'll take that into account. Look, obviously Plummer's #s were bad in '06. But they werent a year earlier when he led that team to 13 wins and a monster win against New England in the playoffs, which is no small feat. He didnt just wake up one morning at 31 years old and suddenly suck. Was he having a bad year? By the #s, yes. Was the team winning? Obviously. Should a guy get benched in favor of a rookie when he's led the team to a 7-4 record? Dont even bother answering that question. We both know what it is.
based on this logic shouldn't Frerotte be the starter in Minn this year? why in the world would they want to replace a guy who was 8-3 and had so much succcess last year? Heck, that's even better than Plummer.
Im not gonna make a case for Frerotte, who'll be a 38 year old journeyman who's played for 7 different teams heading into the season. Im not going to hate on a team for wanting more stability out of their QB situation. But Frerotte did win. And maybe you should ask the Minnesota fan base about that one, and just how much they like their Head Coach. But, apply that logic to the Kerry Collins situation though, and you'll have your answer.
Your sarcasm indicates that you are either not getting it or are refusing to concede this point because you are another one of those internet tough guys who hates to admit that he is wrong. But I will spell it out for you: In the 11 games Plummer played:-the offense averaged 18 points per game-the defense allowed 15 points per gameIn the 5 games Cutler played:-the offense averaged 25 points per game-the defense allowed 28 points per gameAlso, the defense allowed 24 points per game in Plummer's last five games (where the team went 2-3), after allowing only 7 points per game in the first six (where the team went 5-1). The offense scored 20 points or more with Plummer in '06 three times in 11 games. With Cutler, they scored 20 points or more in all five games. This is really not open to debate. The offense was much better with Cutler in '06 than with Plummer. Everything you look at tells this. Everything. Really, it is as plain as day for anyone with two eyes and an objective mind to see.
So Cook told McDaniels to try to trade away a young pro-bowl QB in favor of Cassell? Cook lied to Cutler about said negotiations?Going to/playing the media IS something Cook seems to try to work pretty hard, which is why I take SOME of Cutler's perceived "baby" issues with a grain of salt. Cook is trying to take advantage of an ugly situation. No doubt about it. And he is probably doing what he can to make the situation seem uglier. But the ORIGINAL and ongoing issues don't have a whole lot to do with Cook.Which is page 1 of the Bus Cook playbook. Make the player look like the victim to help them win the media battle. It really isn't a coincidence that Cook did the same thing with Favre and McNair. Really, I won't even get into these debates about who's right anymore. It's irrelevant because Cook is the one manipulating the media and using them to paint his clients as victims. That's how he gets leverage while his clients come out looking like they don't shoulder any blame. Heck, some of them even get sympathy from the fan base.
Considering this is the third time we've seen this play out, you'd think more people would catch on to Cook's tactics.
Pro Bowl, 4500 yds passing, Team Captain, popularly viewed as face of the franchise. Like him or not, he's viewed as a top, young QB with oodles of potential. May not be enough for you, but he's got a LOT of leverage in this. Just as the Broncos can talk about trading him because it's "a business", likewise Cutler can act like a baby and threaten a holdout as he's only set to make $1 million this year. Since "it's a business", you know? Why does Cutler have to "sack up"? Why can't Denver "sack up"? Especially since they are set to lose a lot more than Cutler does. Cutler will have a starting QB job in the league and a big contract to go with it at some point no matter what happens here. Denver might spend the next several years looking for a replacement.Maybe I'm not the first to say it, but what exactly has Jay Cutler accomplished in his career for these histrionics to be justified?I own Cutler on a fantasy team, and I love having him, but dude, you're not all that. If Wayne Gretzky can get traded, so can you. Sack up.
