It was about playing for coaches that he liked AND the money.

Moreover, to add to the confusion; what hasn’t been explored in the possibility that Cutler’s request to be traded was being explored by the team. We’ve usually framed it as a bifurcation — either Cutler or McDaniels wanted the trade, rather than both.

Cutler’s statements at the time of Shanahan’s firing are fairly strident. He wasn’t concerned that his comments would be perceived as critical of Bowlen’s decision. He also states that the removal of Bates (QB coach) and other offensive coaches would be a further offense. He and Cook return to this issue after his trade request and — quite noticeably — make no mention of being offended by trade talks. This is very significant, and it bears repeating. The slight that purportedly set off the impasse between McDaniels and Cutler is nowhere to be found at the end.

You can look up the “you know” interview with Rich Eisen and listen to his answer to the question of whether he asked for a trade himself, before McDaniels was hired. He conspicuously avoids the direct question but refers to a misunderstanding that developed shortly after Shanahan was fired. Cook also cites the failure to retain the offensive coaches, after the trade request, and, like Cutler, makes no mention of a rationale involving the trade talks. Very few fans noticed this shifting rationale. And very few fans noted that this new (or original) rationale cited the very fact of hiring McDaniels rather than anything he did once arriving (although the decision of which coaches to let go was his, but he did consider retaining the others). And some were retained, such as Dennison and Turner.

Communication could have been part of the problem, although I rather doubt that Bowlen promised anything substantive. It’s more likely that he promised to consider retention of certain coaches. Bowlen, a lawyer, would never promise anything that could be used against him in court, and a broken promise can be grounds for a suit. The lawyers here at MHR can explain the finer points of this idea from contract law.

Cutler’s initial trade request (reported by Peter King) could have emboldened Xanders and McDaniels to look at trades. And that would explain why they were much more comfortable with the idea of trading him than fans believed. What they didn’t foresee was Cutler’s reaction (and Cook’s, more importantly) when they were notified about trade talks, which happened on the morning of Sat., February 28.

I won’t attempt to review all the details of this story at this point, but Cook and Cutler’s story had massive holes in it from the start. Neither Cutler nor Cook answer many of the questions that are put to them about the story. For instance, how did they hear about the trade request. Klis states in a report within days of the story breaking that Cutler knew about the trade talks that morning, alluding to a precise time. McDaniels says he told them that morning. Cook refers to internet reports and having heard from Cutler, but never offers specifics. He also parses his comments in a suspicious fashion; commenting in general rather than answering the question. Cutler never tells us how he learned, but he comments about the Broncos cutting off talks with Cook after the news hit the internet.

The point of cutting off communications with Cook that day is possibly significant since the “source close to the situation,” who Williamson cites, states that Cook is trying to arrange trades himself, but, as we know, he can’t unless the Broncos give him permission. We can conclude that the source that Williamson cites is Cook himself. It’s a source that knows everything about the issue (odd for anyone on the first day) and also knows Cutler’s intentions in great detail, which very few people would be party to. And, most notably of all, it’s a source that knows that Cutler wants a trade at that point, only hours after the purported slight. The Bears are named as one of the teams Cutler wants to be traded to.

A final point. The Cassel aspect of this issue has also been framed as a bifurcation. Schefter’s original report had teams approaching Denver with the intention of prying Cutler loose. Wiiliamson’s “source close to the situation” attempts to turn the story upside down, with Denver dangling Cutler in order to obtain Cassel. There are many problems with that version. Cutler clearly had far greater value than Cassel. He was a pro-bowler, had much more experience, and yielded far less once the trades were actually made. Cassel also had a very unfriendly contract. Also, he was available for 3 weeks and could have been obtained all along, if he was valued that highly by McDaniels. No evidence of Denver ‘going after Cassel’ emerges, except for later reports that appear to be based on Williamson’s “source close to the situation.” However, that particular angle to the story is pushed from the very beginning by Cutler himself. — as if scripted. He continually plants seeds about McDaniels wanting Cassel. He shows no evidence to corroborate that version, but he continually repeats that frame at every opportunity.

If McX were seeking to grant Cutler’s request then the offers for Cutler could be re-framed as an attempt to prepare for life without Cutler. Belichick has confirmed that there were no serious offers for Cassel, which is consistent with what the Broncos said. Finding a QB eventually would have been important, though. The “source close to the situation,” which Williamson cites, says that Cutler will probably leave at the end of his contract, so the need to replace Cutler eventually was a possibility that most fans hadn’t even considered. Holding here against his will was a possibility, by franchising him, but it would be prohibitively expensive and damaging to team chemistry. Many people have framed the Cutler issue as a choice by the Broncos, and rather than one made by Cutler (and Cutler reinforces this “the Broncos did it” framing). Whether we like the idea or not, the player still has the option of leaving at the end of his contract, so teams must prepare for that possibility.

My conclusion — Cutler was fully involved in the PR campaign from the very beginning. He sold the idea of McDaniels not wanting him and wanting “his guy” as well as he might sell a play-action fake on the field. And when that part of the story lost it’s usefulness it was dropped. There was no mention of the original offense at the end. It had disappeared. For an issue of such importance, one that would spur him to ask for a trade from a team which he supposedly loved playing for (according to him), it held so little importance at the end that it didn’t merit mention.