McD / Cutler mess (Merged)

[JohnShaft]

"I just don't get how it got to that point in such a short period of time," the FOX NFL analyst Troy Aikman said today. "It seems to me that McDaniels had that in mind before he even got that job. That's what was bizarre to me."

The more I read about it the more it seems that McDaniels just plain didn't want Cutler from BEFORE Day 1 because he was sure a gunslinger would not be the right type of Quarterback for his system. He needed someone solid, if unspectacular, who would do what he wanted on the field. The system relies more on consistently making the right play rather than occassionally making a spectacular one.

After eveything that's been said since, including McDaniels saying Jay was fine for the system, the above fact still seems to lead to irrefutable logic.

1. Cutler is the wrong type of QB for a System QB System (he either wouldn't 'obey' or his talent would be wasted).
2. McDaniels WOULD want someone to play WITHIN his System.
3. It therefore makes the most sense to replace Cutler with someone that suited his system while also picking up a lot of value in the trading him.

I can't find any better logic than the above. Words can say anything. Actions, and motivations, are the truth of the matter.

[Lvegasbronco78]

yep... Charlie Weiss........... epic fail
Mangenius............ fail
Romeo C............. fail

It is amazing how coaches who "do not have" Brady, Vrable, Teddy, Moss, ect, ect....... seeem to "fail".......... system or roster? Oh and there is only 1 Bill B!

Everyone keeps jabbering about the "system"... hmmmmmm....

Time will tell....

Sad but true! But colts are hurting a little this year. Peyton is bleeding a little... does this make you feel like you need to say hurtful things? It's o.k buddy! just let it out..

[Lvegasbronco78]

It's been a while since I've written to all of you and you're still talking about McDaniels and Cutler.

It's time to turn the page and start looking at the future. What's done is done. Why are all of you still talking about Cutler and McDaniels?

I feel the next time I feel the urge to write, I will try not to until August, or until the Broncos play their first exhibition game.

Thats funny, thats all htere is to talk about, yea, I took about 2 months off myself. But get re-energized and bring it.. I'm sure once we win at least the first exhibition game, youre right something new! but loosing the best hurts for awhile!

[The Big D]

Great thread. For me, it's not about Cutler. It's about McD's judgement.
According to guys like Jaworski and Aikman this guy is on his way to being an elite QB. Elite QB's come along once a decade. You don't trade elite QB's.
Why? Because they win championships! Look at the last 20 Superbowls. 17 out of 20 of them were won by teams with QB's that are either in the Hall of Fame or will be in the Hall of Fame. I keep hearing that Orton will be a "decent QB". Well, statistically speaking decent QB's don't win Superbowls.

You've got your causality turned around - quarterbacks get put in the HoF because they win superbowls, not the other way around.

Earlier I posted a list of the last 10 superbowl winning QBs, and what the season before the win looked like. Well over half of them were decidedly mediocre. The idea that you can only win a SB with a QB with huge numbers, or even that it's the typical way to win a SB, is flat out wrong.

[broncolee]

That thought occured to me a week ago, and I realised why it took me so long, I'd never seen it posted here on the boards.

Really, when your Offense is excellent, and only a running back away from top of the league, why in the world do you hire an Offensive coach?

I mean it's just accepted wisdom that if you need a new Head Coach, and you have one half of your team sorted (O or D), you hire a Coach who is in the top of his field at the other half, and leave the bit that works fine alone.

I can't figure out why this didn't happen.

You must have joined the boards too late to see all the posts from people who wanted Bowlen to hire a defensive coach.

I don't think it was about hiring an offensive coach or a defensive coach. I think it was about hiring the best candidate for the job. Perhaps, McDaniels was the best candidate for the job. I think McDaniels experience with the Patsies might have helped him. Say what you want about former Patsies assistants, the fact is, the Patsies have been very successful and if you can bring someone in that can do things the way the Patsies do them, it's hard not to be tempted to do so in a copycat league.

Choosing a coach based solely on his specialty is not a smart idea. There are plenty of examples of defensive coaches taking head coaching jobs and not building strong defenses. Tony Dungy, Mike Nolan, and Marvin Lewis are all examples of defensive coaches who did not build strong defenses as a head coach. It is a completely wrong idea to assume that a defensive coach will improve a defense.

People who like to talk about the Broncos having the #2 offense last year like to ignore the fact that they were #16 in scoring. They like to ignore the inefficiency in the red zone. They like to pretend that every game the Broncos lost was because of the defense. The fact is, the offense had games where they put the defense in bad situations. The offense has to take a lot of the blame for losing to the Chiefs 33-19, the Raiders 31-10 at home, and to the Dolphins. They gave up a lot of turnovers against the Chiefs and Dolphins and gave no help to the defense in the first half of the Raiders game when the defense was playing well enough and keeping the game close. It is a false perception that the offense didn't need to be addressed.

It's also an assumption that a defensive coach wouldn't have changed anything on offense. I think you would be hard pressed to find a head coach that doesn't have input in any one part of the team. It's very possible that a defensive coach would have wanted a conservative, run oriented offense, depending on what his personal philosophy is about how the offense and defense should compliment each other.

[Crazy8]

The more I read about it the more it seems that McDaniels just plain didn't want Cutler from BEFORE Day 1 because he was sure a gunslinger would not be the right type of Quarterback for his system. He needed someone solid, if unspectacular, who would do what he wanted on the field. The system relies more on consistently making the right play rather than occassionally making a spectacular one.

After eveything that's been said since, including McDaniels saying Jay was fine for the system, the above fact still seems to lead to irrefutable logic.

1. Cutler is the wrong type of QB for a System QB System (he either wouldn't 'obey' or his talent would be wasted).
2. McDaniels WOULD want someone to play WITHIN his System.
3. It therefore makes the most sense to replace Cutler with someone that suited his system while also picking up a lot of value in the trading him.

I can't find any better logic than the above. Words can say anything. Actions, and motivations, are the truth of the matter.

I agree for the most part. I tend to think New England knew Cutler's weaknesses as exhibited by last year's game. I think McD didn't really want a part of that. But I also think McD then worked with Cutler for a few months and that clinched it. Upon seeing Cutler up close and personal, I think there were things about Cutler that McD thought would work against him as a QB in his system. My personal opinion is that one of those things was probably Cutler's ability to pick up the playbook. McD saw how quickly Cutler was able to "get it" for a few months. If Cutler was a little bit slow picking it up, then that would cripple McD's system since McD is notorious for adding things every week. There's no shame in that because of the sheer volume of the information involved. I probably couldn't do it either. So I'm not knocking Cutler. The other one of those things that I see can be summed up into one word.

Gunslinger.

Gunslingers are inconsistent and gamblers by definition. That's not something I think McD wants. He wants a guy who will look to the primary and then take the checkdown. Cutler's a guy who has a lot of confidence (for a good reason), and Cutler's more liable to look at the primary and force it to the primary because he believes in his arm and ability to squeeze the ball into tight spots.

That's just my two cents.

I think it's McD's right to feel that way. The QB is the most important position in his offense. He knows what he wants and needs. But, in this case, he'd better be right. He can't afford to be wrong.

[jhns]

Gunslingers are inconsistent and gamblers by definition. That's not something I think McD wants. He wants a guy who will look to the primary and then take the checkdown. Cutler's a guy who has a lot of confidence (for a good reason), and Cutler's more liable to look at the primary and force it to the primary because he believes in his arm and ability to squeeze the ball into tight spots.

If that is how he felt, why did he take this job? I do not understand......

Does anyone in the world believe McDaniels would have been hired if he mentioned that he would listen to offers for Cutler?

[Crazy8]

If that is how he felt, why did he take this job? I do not understand......

Does anyone in the world believe McDaniels would have been hired if he mentioned that he would listen to offers for Cutler?

Maybe because he was confident he could trade said problem for 2 first rounders and a 3rd.

I don't think your 2nd question really matters at this point. I wish I could give you a tissue though.

[jhns]

Maybe because he was confident he could trade said problem for 2 first rounders and a 3rd.

I don't think your 2nd question really matters at this point. I wish I could give you a tissue though.

The city of Denver will have a few years of world tissue supplies sent to them by the end of this season. There is no need to give me one. I have gotten pleanty already. You need to save yours for when you realize what just happened to this team.

[nea]

The city of Denver will have a few years of world tissue supplies sent to them by the end of this season. There is no need to give me one. I have gotten pleanty already. You need to save yours for when you realize what just happened to this team.

I am hoping everyone here is just being optimistic and not just in denial. Me I am a realist, I know which way it is probably going to go, but I hope for the best. Still love my team though!!!!!!!!!

[broncoinseattle]

Bowlen wouldn't have hired McD

If that is how he felt, why did he take this job? I do not understand......

Does anyone in the world believe McDaniels would have been hired if he mentioned that he would listen to offers for Cutler?

Exactly. If Bowlen had known McD was intending to ship Cutler out of town he never would have hired him. Bowlen was seduced by the thought of hiring Bellichick Jr. It was a mistake that will set us back years. I keep hearing "Orton is not that bad". Well, he's not that good either. You don't win championships with "good" QB's. Look at the last 25 Superbowls. Most of them were won by QB's who are either in the Hall of Fame or will be one day.

Sam Bradford in 2010! :go:

[broncoinseattle]

You've got your causality turned around - quarterbacks get put in the HoF because they win superbowls, not the other way around.

Earlier I posted a list of the last 10 superbowl winning QBs, and what the season before the win looked like. Well over half of them were decidedly mediocre. The idea that you can only win a SB with a QB with huge numbers, or even that it's the typical way to win a SB, is flat out wrong.

Hall of Fame QB's get to the Superbowl because they have the talent to get their team to the big game and win it. They're the difference makers.

Look at the last 25 years. They were won by QB's that were either drafted in the first round or were Pro Bowl QB's.

There are plenty of HOF QB's who did not win a Superbowl. I suppose you haven't heard of Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, etc.

But the teams that have won a SB share one huge consistency. 85% of the time they have won it with a franchise QB.

Folks who believe we can win the Superbowl with a good defense and no franchise QB are kidding themselves. It's a very low probability.

[The Big D]

Hall of Fame QB's get to the Superbowl because they have the talent to get their team to the big game and win it. They're the difference makers.

Look at the last 25 years. They were won by QB's that were either drafted in the first round or were Pro Bowl QB's.

There are plenty of HOF QB's who did not win a Superbowl. I suppose you haven't heard of Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, etc.

But the teams that have won a SB share one huge consistency. 85% of the time they have won it with a franchise QB.

Folks who believe we can win the Superbowl with a good defense and no franchise QB are kidding themselves. It's a very low probability.

The statistics just don't bear you out. Over half of superbowl winning QBs get there after a decidedly mediocre year.

[nea]

My thoughts on McDaniels? That he better stay on the other side of the stadium from me on fan day!!!!!

[broncoinseattle]

I think I understand...

The statistics just don't bear you out. Over half of superbowl winning QBs get there after a decidedly mediocre year.

Which means what? You believe it takes a mediocre QB to win the Superbowl? I referenced a simple stat that you aren't focusing on.
Over the last 25 years name 5 slouch QB's that have won the SB.