The Cutler/Orton Trade Revisited

Getting Decker, Ayers, and Franklin was worth it….Tebow has produced well but is still a question mark long term, and DT hasn’t really produced outside of one game.

When it comes to folks that still bemoan and support Cutler, I hope people understand this…..

Tebow has had everyone and his mother criticize him, including his own coach and VP. Yet all he has done is work hard, stay positive, and lead his team to victories.

When Cutler was questioned by his coach, he stopped returning calls and wanted out.

Cutler to me isn’t worth a bag of shit, and it still infuriates me that some Bronco fans still support the guy. Just my two cents.

Because of all the trade up and down, most people would stop mid-way through their analysis. This gives a great big picture of the trades. I recommend everyone to read this post and then they can make their opinion if they think it was worth it or not. Personnaly, I think it was a great trade. The use of the picks what not necessarily top-notch, but we still believe we came out on top even after arguable picks.

And it looks a fair trade, but we got more than we lost imo. Not a big difference but we made a good overall trade.

I’d say we came out on the plus side of the ledger overall, even just looking at on-the-field production and not factoring any potential that DT has to become a great NFL receiver.

We got the chance to build our roster and the Bears got the missing piece they needed for a Super Bowl run. It could have been worse. Cutty could have stayed in Denver, cursed out McD over the mic on National TV… then left for free agency and we would have received nothing in return.

Great run down though.

I break it down differently.

I’d say the trade was Cutler and Knox for Orton, Ayers, Dick Quinn, DT and Decker.

I’d say we lost the trade, but that would be misleading. Yes, Chicago got more out of this deal than us, but Denver doesn’t miss Cutler and his strange leadership or his expensive price tag. Jay’s poor play in 2009 allowed than 2nd (and unknown at the time) 1st rounder end up as a high round 1 pick in what was an excellent draft.

For Denver, DT is the real problem because he looks like a future bust to me. Ayers is a solid starter and Orton gave Denver two decent seasons. Decker is also a solid starter as is John Knox for Chicago.

If DT becomes a good pro, then the deal looks better for us. If not, then you know why it’s dangerous to trade established players for draft picks (esp when your GM is some punk McKid with a massive ego, lack of talent, and his short board).

The Quinn, Alphonso Smith and Seth Olsen picks were such absolute nonsense.

I don’t object to what Denver got for Cutler, as the offers were based on current market value. Wasting the picks after so many years of weak drafts has been maddening.

Robert Ayers, a bust

Ayers isn’t a bust. He’s doing very well for us this year. Unless I read it wrong, and you meant Robert Ayers and a bust.

Excellent break down tunesmith! I like the trade. It seems to be working out so far and the more TT develops the better it looks.

Cutler IS missed in Denver.

However, if Tebow doesn’t pan out (or Elway doesn’t give him the chance to pan out), we lose by a large margin. The original trade was a win – what has transpired since is a complete loss.

I like that for Brandon Marshall we got Tebow and Franklin in return.

Orlando will be a good , solid offensive linemen and will improve.

Tim speaks for himself.

it was very near the best (most productive) core of young offensive players ever drafted and assembled by one team.

So spin it. Twist it and arrange it how ever you like. Josh McDaniels made the biggest mistake(s) in the history of the franchise, if not the league.

The Cutler trade (enmeshed with McD feelings as well), and Tebow.

If we insist on seeing how our Bears-obtained picks worked out (I don’t think we should) it seems strange not to mention Alfonso Smith. After the Chicago trade we had two 2010 first-round picks and sent one to Seattle in exchange for their 2009 second-round pick, with which we took Smith. Would even McDaniels have squandered our next-year’s first-round pick if we’d had only one? The fact that Seattle insisted on our 2010 pick because they assumed it would be higher than we one we got from the Bears is a technicality and doesn’t change the fact that the Cutler trade was arguably what enabled the Seattle trade that led to Smith.

But I question that the trade itself can only be evaluated in the light of subsequent performances by draftees. What we got as compensation for giving up a better QB for a supposedly lesser one was one present and one future first-rounder plus upgrading a fifth-round to a third-round pick. What was done with those picks is a separate matter. If I trade my seen-better-days Cadillac for $1500 and a reliable compact and then lose the $1500 at a card game, does that mean I made a bad trade? Or does it simply mean I squandered some of the proceeds? McDaniels got more for Cutler than anybody thought he would. That should be to his credit. What’s to his discredit is he wasted his haul ina bad 2009 draft, including the 2010 first-rounder which he didn’t have the patience to wait for. Trying to segregate our picks between those we already had and those we got from the Bears is misleading and a waste of time. McDaniels, once the decision was made, did well on the trade but washed out in the draft in which he spent most of the proceeds. ( He lost the $1500 in a card game.) End of story.