Now that we have closure on the story that has been beaten worse than Rihanna at a Grammy after party, here are my closing thoughts on today's blockbuster trade sending Jay Cutler to the Bears:
1. Whether it was the fear of being outbid by other teams or GM Jerry Angelo getting conned by Denver's asking price, I can't help but think the Bears overpaid for Cutler. Two first rounders, a 3rd and a starting quarterback for a guy with a losing record as a starter coming off his first Pro Bowl season who just pissed and moaned his way out of town? I understand that 25-year old quarterbacks with a lot of football left in them come at a premium but was Kyle Orton that bad last year that the Bears absolutely HAD to have Cutler? Cutler's presence has given the city of Chicago what it's been force-fed for 100 years: false hope. It seems like wishful thinking that a guy, whose numbers are a bit inflated due to a superior supporting cast and solid offensive line, will make a team with no true # 1 reciever and a shaky offensive line into an instant contender in a division in which you have to believe all three other teams are bound to improve. Two firsts and a third in this league can get almost anybody and with the Bears' need for a top reciever, it seems silly to me that Angelo couldn't just offer the same package to Arizona in exchange for WR Anquan Boldin. Boldin is the type of tough, physical reciever that would fit it well in a rough and tumble city like Chicago and would be a great complement to freakish speedster Devin Hester. If you're a Bears fan, would you rather have Kyle Orton throwing to Boldin and Hester or Jay Cutler throwing to Hester and.......Earl Bennett? Cutler's presence gives them an upgrade at QB, but it sure doesn't make them contenders. Speaking of wishful thinking, it seems mighty hopeful for the Bears to think they'll get three quality years out of oft-injured, 9-time Pro Bowl left tackle Orlando Pace.
2. So where do the Broncos go from here? Rumors have circulated that Denver has interest in USC QB Mark Sanchez, but that might be a smoke screen. Why would GM Brian Xanders and owner Pat Bowlen be so adamant on having a quarterback be included on any deal for Cutler if they were planning on tabbing Sanchez all along? And let's not write off Kyle Orton being a success in Denver. He's stepping into a weaker division, with a significantly better offensive line and recieving core. Orton went for 3,000 yards and 18 touchdowns playing behind a line that gave up 29 sacks and with his # 1 reciever being a reformed cornerback/kick returner. Imagine what he can do with Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal and some time to throw. The best move for Denver would be to rebuild that horrible defense and this draft is stockpiled with defensive talent. Picking 12th and 18th, the Broncos could have a shot at guys like Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji, USC inside linebacker Rey Maualuga and Ohio St. defensive back Malcom Jenkins, to name a few. If Orton fails to pan out, the Broncos are armed with two firsts next year to move up to snag one of the two prized franchise quarterbacks in next year's draft: Heisman winner Sam Bradford of Oklahoma and Texas' Colt McCoy. Let's also not forget Florida's Tim Tebow, who could be a interesting weapon in McDaniels' creative schemes.
3. The big loser in this mess has to be Jay Cutler. He trades in a world-class supporting cast and the oppurtunity to shine under the tuteledge of one of the NFL's brightest, young offensive minds for the chance to run for his life in the impatient Windy City. Cutler's arrival already sparks hope of Super Bowl aspirations for the Chicago faithful and it will be interesting to see how someone as thin-skinned as Cutler can handle the boo-birds if he gets off to a slow start. While it's understandable to be a bit heartbroken when you're surprised by unexpected trade rumors, you have to wonder if this was all worth it for Cutler? Because of his steep price tag, the Bears won't be able to build around Cutler for at least the next two years and the fact that his blind side is being covered by the clearly declining Pace can't be too reassuring for a guy who was only sacked 12 times last year. Cutler has three years remaining on his rookie contract and his PR can't take another hit if he attempts to whine his way out of town again. So now Cutler faces the harsh price of being unwilling to swallow his pride in a cutthroat business by being forced to play the role of savior for a team with bleak future.
4. With Cutler off the market, this opens the door for the other teams and players on the outside looking in of the Cutler Sweepstakes. The Lions will no doubt tab Georgia QB Matt Stafford with their first pick, with the hopes of finding him some protection later in the draft. The Jets will probably make an attempt at one of the two notable free agent QBs: Byron Leftwich and Jeff Garcia(though Garcia is a long-shot). Tampa Bay will probably try its damnedest to select Kansas State QB Josh Freeman and rebuild around him. If Sanchez doesn't end up in Denver, there's the more likely scenario of him going to San Francisco with the 10th pick(or an even bigger curveball, Seattle at # 4). An interesting scenario to watch will be Washington, who for some peculiar reason were more interested than need-be in Cutler and now face the possibility of an unhappy Jason Campbell now that word has gotten out.
Until next time, your favorite blogger's favorite blogger.....Dave Leonardis
Showing posts with label Jay Cutler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jay Cutler. Show all posts
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Brad Childress Opens His Yap
I really didn’t want to chime in on the Cutler saga. To me it has already been beaten to death.
"I don't see it as in shambles. Now, do you want improvement there? Yeah. We always know that the laser is going to get pointed at the quarterback. But I don't feel that way. I feel like we've upgraded with a guy like Sage [Rosenfels], and I think that [Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson] will compete."
He also said that in Rosenfels he feels the Vikings have someone who could grow into a Gus Frerotte.
If I were a Vikings season ticker holder or fan I would be upset. This is not the kind of thing you want to hear your coach saying.
Let’s review. For the past three seasons the Vikings have lead the league in run defense, averaging less than 80 yards per game given up each year, with a silly 61 ypg in 2006. They also run the ball better than almost anyone. They have
Many people, this writer included, think the Vikings are only a good QB away from being in Super Bowl contention. Childress saying he thinks they can be competitive with what they have is angering. The NFL is a win now league. The Vikings have a chance to put together a Super Bowl run. The coach should want to be the best, always. He should not just want to do what is adequate. I understand they gave Rosenfels starter money, but that shouldn’t be Childress’ concern, at least publicly. Tell me you don’t want to give up the picks, or Cutler doesn’t fit your system, but don’t try to convince me you would rather have Rosenfels and Jackson on the field over Cutler.
This whole situation makes me think of Ari Gold, Hollywood super-agent played brilliantly by Jeremy Piven on the HBO show Entourage. Ari has everything; The big house in the Hollywood Hills, the hot wife, partner at a big agency, tailored suits, and tons of cash. All he needs to complete the image is a car.
And he chooses two VW Passats over the 600 Series Mercedes Benz. Sure the Passats are reliable and get the job done, but they aren’t sexy and don’t turn heads. There are just some things a 600 can do that a VW cannot.
The same goes for Sage, TJack, and Cutler. Cutler is more talented and can do some things that the other guys cannot.
Brad Childress, you have Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson at quarterback.
Boom. Roasted.
-Gabe
EDIT: The Broncos traded Cutler to the Chicago Bears for Kyle Orton and a mess of draft picks.
The Age of Unimportance
The Jay Cutler-Denver Broncos debacle has got me thinking about how far we've come as a society....and it's not necessarily in a good way. Over the past decade or so, we as a society have become frivolous in the manner in which we classify celebrities. Time was, to be someone of legitimate relevance, you had to be an A-List actor or actress or a politician or entertainer. The only time athletes would ever venture into the world of Page Six worthiness would be if they found themselves dabbling in Hollywood via an acting career or marrying into a Hollywood lifestyle. We used to marvel at guys like Joe Namath and Michael Jordan because they were bigger than just sports figures. They transcended the game. Now, every high school junior with a 40 inch vertical thinks he's LeBron James.
The internet has emerged as a quick medium for the general public to get up-to-date news to a engine that can make stars out of average Joes. With the popularity of the internet dwarfing magazines and newspapers and even television, the latter three platforms now need to stay relevant by breaking stories that aren't really news and making celebrities out of people who aren't really that important. Think about the people who dominate the covers of your magazine stand. Time was, a single mother of eight children was a courageous woman who did what she could to make ends meet to feed her family. She was a normal person in abnormal circumstances. Now, two-bit hookers like the Octo-Mom and the wife from Jon and Kate Plus 8 are front page news.....and for what? What makes them relevant in our every day lives? In the worst economy in nearly a century, should we really be celebrating women having babies they can't afford to upkeep? The American public has morphed into bored, lifeless individuals who become suckers for a pretty face and interesting story. We made a celebrity out of Cpt. Sully because he crashed a plane into a lake and didn't kill anybody.
Reality television is largely to blame. Nearly two decades ago, MTV launched The Real World, which was popular because it presented a different form of entertainment. These were supposedly real people from different backgrounds who were forced to live under one roof in front of America and what came out of those shows in the beginning had alot of relevance because it presented real-life issues that fans of the show can bare witness to. There was Pedro in Real World San Francisco, who was a gay man dying of AIDS and every week was a look into the life of a man battling a disease that we didn't quite understand. Early on, alot of the seasons presented racial overtones with the constant pairings of different races who didn't quite understand each other because of a lack of exposure to one another. Now, not only has The Real World become a haven for drunken three-somes and sideshow freaks, but its popularity has spawned hundreds of other shows. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against drunken threesomes, but how can we stand on a moral high ground and denounce the evils of other countries when our TGIF is watching bimbos getting railed in a hot tub on national television? I hate to be the "What about the kids?" guy, but what message are we sending to the nation's youth? That if you want to be famous, all you have to do is be willing to eat bull dong and let cockroaches crawl up every crevice of your body? What happened to going to school and actually BECOMING something? Are we so desperate for a cheesy love story that we're willing to spend our nights watching a has-been like Bret Michaels attempt to find groupie love not once, not twice but THREE TIMES on national TV!? How can this doofus really expect to find the woman of his dreams through a sea of broads who are willing to deep-throat him for some screen time? At no point in our lives does it ever occur to us that maybe we should find a different source of entertainment? Who are Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian? They're rich, attractive girls who were skanky enough to bone on tape.....so we HAD to give them reality shows. Do our lives suck that bad that we find THESE people important?
Then there are shows like American Idol. Now, I don't have much of a problem with American Idol except for the fact that, like Real World, its popularity have spawned a crazy amount of bite-offs like "America's Got Talent" and "So You Think You Can Sing" and all of these crappy shows that only exist to give C-level celebrities like David Hasselhoff employed and given opportunities to freak shows who would otherwise be flipping burgers at Wendy's. It's also hard to give credibility to a show whose runner-ups outsell the winners. How motivated can you possibly be if you're in the Top 10 and you know that, even if you're the next person voted off, you'll still score a record deal and sell albums because you already have an established fan base? Doesn't that kind of spoil the sense of competition if someone can finish 6th and go platinum? And what's the point of having judges if America is just going to vote for the ambiguously gay emo kid with the funky hair who just did the 6,000th rendition of "Cry Me A River"? Sigh.
And really, I could go on and on with this. Perhaps I'm in the minority because I feel sad for America. I feel sad for America because our idea of quality programming is watching some MySpace groupie try to find a shot at love amongst a group of fellow internet hook-up shitbirds. Or maybe I feel sad because we've become a nation of people who no longer feel the need to try very hard. Perhaps that's why we're in a financial crisis. Who needs Wall Street when I can make millions making DVDs of college chicks whipping out their knockers? Of course there's no money to save GM, all our money is going to making sure Bret Michaels' love bus has enough room to fit an STD-infused orgy. Who would have thought that fame would be cheaper than gas? The ironic part of "reality television" is that there's no reality to it. We don't choose to showcase the lives of the thousands who lost their jobs in the worst economy in generations. We don't choose to shoot the "Real World" in Detroit? Why? Because that's too real for us.
Sincerely, Your Favorite Blogger's Favorite Blogger, Dave Leonardis.
The internet has emerged as a quick medium for the general public to get up-to-date news to a engine that can make stars out of average Joes. With the popularity of the internet dwarfing magazines and newspapers and even television, the latter three platforms now need to stay relevant by breaking stories that aren't really news and making celebrities out of people who aren't really that important. Think about the people who dominate the covers of your magazine stand. Time was, a single mother of eight children was a courageous woman who did what she could to make ends meet to feed her family. She was a normal person in abnormal circumstances. Now, two-bit hookers like the Octo-Mom and the wife from Jon and Kate Plus 8 are front page news.....and for what? What makes them relevant in our every day lives? In the worst economy in nearly a century, should we really be celebrating women having babies they can't afford to upkeep? The American public has morphed into bored, lifeless individuals who become suckers for a pretty face and interesting story. We made a celebrity out of Cpt. Sully because he crashed a plane into a lake and didn't kill anybody.
Reality television is largely to blame. Nearly two decades ago, MTV launched The Real World, which was popular because it presented a different form of entertainment. These were supposedly real people from different backgrounds who were forced to live under one roof in front of America and what came out of those shows in the beginning had alot of relevance because it presented real-life issues that fans of the show can bare witness to. There was Pedro in Real World San Francisco, who was a gay man dying of AIDS and every week was a look into the life of a man battling a disease that we didn't quite understand. Early on, alot of the seasons presented racial overtones with the constant pairings of different races who didn't quite understand each other because of a lack of exposure to one another. Now, not only has The Real World become a haven for drunken three-somes and sideshow freaks, but its popularity has spawned hundreds of other shows. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against drunken threesomes, but how can we stand on a moral high ground and denounce the evils of other countries when our TGIF is watching bimbos getting railed in a hot tub on national television? I hate to be the "What about the kids?" guy, but what message are we sending to the nation's youth? That if you want to be famous, all you have to do is be willing to eat bull dong and let cockroaches crawl up every crevice of your body? What happened to going to school and actually BECOMING something? Are we so desperate for a cheesy love story that we're willing to spend our nights watching a has-been like Bret Michaels attempt to find groupie love not once, not twice but THREE TIMES on national TV!? How can this doofus really expect to find the woman of his dreams through a sea of broads who are willing to deep-throat him for some screen time? At no point in our lives does it ever occur to us that maybe we should find a different source of entertainment? Who are Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian? They're rich, attractive girls who were skanky enough to bone on tape.....so we HAD to give them reality shows. Do our lives suck that bad that we find THESE people important?
Then there are shows like American Idol. Now, I don't have much of a problem with American Idol except for the fact that, like Real World, its popularity have spawned a crazy amount of bite-offs like "America's Got Talent" and "So You Think You Can Sing" and all of these crappy shows that only exist to give C-level celebrities like David Hasselhoff employed and given opportunities to freak shows who would otherwise be flipping burgers at Wendy's. It's also hard to give credibility to a show whose runner-ups outsell the winners. How motivated can you possibly be if you're in the Top 10 and you know that, even if you're the next person voted off, you'll still score a record deal and sell albums because you already have an established fan base? Doesn't that kind of spoil the sense of competition if someone can finish 6th and go platinum? And what's the point of having judges if America is just going to vote for the ambiguously gay emo kid with the funky hair who just did the 6,000th rendition of "Cry Me A River"? Sigh.
And really, I could go on and on with this. Perhaps I'm in the minority because I feel sad for America. I feel sad for America because our idea of quality programming is watching some MySpace groupie try to find a shot at love amongst a group of fellow internet hook-up shitbirds. Or maybe I feel sad because we've become a nation of people who no longer feel the need to try very hard. Perhaps that's why we're in a financial crisis. Who needs Wall Street when I can make millions making DVDs of college chicks whipping out their knockers? Of course there's no money to save GM, all our money is going to making sure Bret Michaels' love bus has enough room to fit an STD-infused orgy. Who would have thought that fame would be cheaper than gas? The ironic part of "reality television" is that there's no reality to it. We don't choose to showcase the lives of the thousands who lost their jobs in the worst economy in generations. We don't choose to shoot the "Real World" in Detroit? Why? Because that's too real for us.
Sincerely, Your Favorite Blogger's Favorite Blogger, Dave Leonardis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
