If Cutler is Available, Trade for Him
by John Morgan on Mar 11, 2009 10:43 PM PDT
Email
Print
152 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd trade better than that.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 11, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
and that....
would be a bad idea.
We have greater needs than a QB of the future, that we can address (either in the 4th spot or in different trade) with that number 4 pick.
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Now let's not say anything we might regret later...
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 11, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that would a terrible trade on your part.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
But to be realistic, it isn't going to happen.
Cutler is going somewhere he can start, if he leaves Denver.
I honestly don't know if this is a good idea or not
but I’d consider dealing ’Beck to Denver as part of a player+pick deal to get Cutler.
You are sure of this because...?
If we get Cutler, which probably won’t ever happen, Hass is gone.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 12, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Then I'm glad I'm a third party observer
So I can make opinions based on small amounts of logic and fact while enjoying no consequences or repercussions. Sometimes it’s nice to be a fan.
I hate this line of reasoning.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the logical line of reasoning is telling us that Ruskell
isn’t going to dump Hasselbeck this offseason. If Hass is injury riddled next year as well, then that may change.
As I said above, I’d trade Hass and our 4th pick for Cutler in a heartbeat. But I’m not Ruskell, am I?
With the team going 4-12,
people would give Ruskell a pass for trading Hasselbeck this offseason. They may not like the move, but they would understand Ruskell’s thinking – which would be making the team younger.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 12, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
No, they wouldn't.
Most casual fans probably think this season was an aberration due to injury, with Hasselbeck being no exception. I doubt that few, if any, think that Hasselbeck should be the scapegoat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Hasselbeck wouldn't be a scapegoat
if we improve the team at the same time. If we got a chance to trade for LT, its not like we’re saying Julius Jones was the reason for our implosion last year.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 12, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Matt holds more sway in the organization than you give him credit for.
This (Cutler) is not happening.
by lemonverbena on Mar 12, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I think when you have an opportunity to get a young, elite QB you take it.
Hasselbeck and our 1st rounder is NOT a lot for an elite QB. Even throwing in our 3rd rounder or something doesn’t make it a bad idea. This is a smart organization, and if it makes the team better for the next five years, they’ll do it. If the Broncos called with that offer, it’d be silly not to take it.
However, I doubt the Broncos even call with that offer.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 12, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
even if it means the draft pick that would go to Patrick Chung?
say it aint so joehn (ok, that was a reach)
Ok, let's see if I can come up with a realistic yet meaningful comparison
I’d give a year of my hairline in exchange for Seattle trading their first overall pick for Jay Cutler.
by John Morgan on Mar 11, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Jay Cutler is on the verge of elite
And 25.
by John Morgan on Mar 11, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Fuck hair
Let’s do it.
Realistically, what are the odds of something like this happening? I would be absolutely ok with Cutler on this squad. Would we have to send a QB (backup obviously) to Denver to facilitate this? Wallace? Frye?
I want to poop at your house - Thingray
by tootthekazoo on Mar 11, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't really know and I don't really care
Maybe this is all dead-time BS, but at this point I have to pay attention. I would trade Hasselbeck and Seattle’s first overall pick for Cutler. We’re talking a future top five quarterback entering his prime.
Short of Herschel Walker, I’d be willing to trade a good portion of the draft to acquire Cutler.
And that’s the point. This is absurd. Either legitimate rumor mongering or a “Dallas trades Herschel Walker” once in a lifetime opportunity.
by John Morgan on Mar 11, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
No brainer.
I would trade Hasselbeck and Seattle’s first overall pick for Cutler. We’re talking a future top five quarterback entering his prime.
Hell, I'd trade picks 1, 3, and Hasselbeck.
A Cutler/Houshmandzadeh/Chung off season should be illegal.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 12, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't see it.
Not that this hypothetical scenario is without merit—you’ve outlined how important the next QB is to this team. But it’s too far-fetched to imagine Ruskell deciding to cut bait on Hasselbeck, a proven leader on and off the field, for Cutler, a guy who cried in his soup over the possibility of being traded, and whose diabetic monitor shorted out when he was thrown in the pool by prankster teammates at the Pro Bowl.
The FO doesn’t have this kind of boldness in them.
by lemonverbena on Mar 12, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions
...Cutler is probably better than Hasselbeck right now, and younger.
Who cares if he cried in his soup about being traded? He’s a damn good player. Being upset about maybe being traded is different than being a T.O. like clubhouse cancer.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 12, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
No way.
Cutler is young and promising but I don’t believe that for one minute.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Well you can believe what you want.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 12, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
It's the trade that built their dynasty
And my point was short of mortgaging the franchise, Seattle should pursue trading for him.
How many picks (and how high) would classify
“mortgaging the future”?
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 12, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions
My only question would be just how much to give?
First and second? This years first and next years first? Probably some combination thereof, the Chargers got two firsts, a third and a fifth out of Manning the lesser.
Leroy Hill?
great, now i’ve gotten suckered into speculating realistically on things that will never happen.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 11, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Considering Denvers defensive woes
Leroy Hill might be enticing. Part of a package though, no way Denver would walk away from a Cutler deal with us without the 4th pick in the draft.
i got it, what if we swapped firsts
threw in Leroy Hill, and then got them to trade Brandon Marshall for Albert Haynesworth whom they immediately give to us (while absorbing his cap hit) in exchange for Brian Russell AND Morgan’s hairline?
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 11, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
That may possibly be the most lopsided anything ever
I want to poop at your house - Thingray
by tootthekazoo on Mar 11, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Would Kansas City part with Cassel?
As in, we give them Hasselbeck + #4 and Denver gets Matt Cassel + Seattle’s 2nd rounder and we get Jay Cutler and Kansas City’s 3rd rounder.
Kansas City will have effectively traded their 2nd and 3rd rounders for Vrabel, Hasselbeck and the #4 pick overall.
Denver will have traded Jay Cutler and got Cassel and a 2nd rounder
Seattle gets Cutler and all is well in the world.
Wait, someone needs to check the intangibles chart for "Emo"
Just what exactly would we be getting ourselves into? Is he clutch? Does he want the ball and plan to score?
by Nate Dogg on Mar 11, 2009 11:49 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I would be totally jazzed
This whole QB of the future thing is stressing me out. I do not want to wallow and hang around 8-8 records for the next six years once Matt is no longer playing, while trying to find a QB of the future. Cutler would totally fix that, and make us a contender well into the next decade. Our first pick and Hill is not giving up too much for that degree of security and awesomness.
The him pouting issue, he is upset due to his team not wanting him. He is not upset because he is not throwing the ball enough, which is as close to an equivilent as I can come up with to WRs crying about not getting the ball enough. Being upset because he has feelings of loyalty to a team that is not sharing those feelings is not a bad thing. We all get upset about our jobs, we just do not get asked about it a dozen times a day like athletes do. He was asked a question and answered honestly, he did not call a press conference to air his displeasure. I think if we all compared it to our own life then we would be a little more understanding.
I am aware that the “he makes millions” of dollars argument is going to come up, but if I was paid a million dollars I could still not turn off my feelings. To be the level of athlete these guys are, they have to have heaps of passion, and when money turns off that passion, that is when they become busts.
I'd trade 1st from this year, 2nd from next
and Brian Russell.
I Know, it’s a little steep. But it has to be done.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
There's a difference in saying "If Cutler is available, trade for him"
and “Let’s trade a third round pick and Brian Russell for Peyton Manning.”
Why would Denver do any of this?
I recognize that we are in one of the NFL’s two major news deadzones right now, but seriously, Denver’s not crazy. Even if Josh McDaniel is Pat Bolen is not. Denver took some phone calls. Cutler got his feelngs hurt, yadda, yadda. But, Matt Cassell is off the market now.
I’m not even a huge Cutler fan. I think he may be one of these guys who is about as good as he’s going to get right now. Having said that, you don’t get rid of a star (and potentially elite) player at a premium position unless you’re rebuilding and he’s going to age out before you’ve rebuilt. It’s too hard to get quality QBs, LTs, and CBs. When you have one you don’t mess with it just because people’s feelings are hurt.
Should Seattle be on the phone checking into Cutler’s availability? Absolutely, but for due diligence—nothing more.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Cutler is a Whiner, let Denver keep him
The grass is not always greener on the other side. I’m shocked at how many of you are so quick to pull that trigger and at the cost of a #1 pick plus more???
Bottom line is the question asked many times. Why would Denver do this? The fact that they were willing to dump him for Cassel tells me there are more skeletons in the closet. I suspect it may come down to Cutler simply being an asshole that nobody wants to work with. A chip off TO’s block. Let him rot in his own swill. There are diamonds in the rough in this QB class. I say make the damn scouts and coaches do their job and find one.
Well,
I’m shocked at how many of you are so quick to pull that trigger and at the cost of a #1 pick plus more???
A bird in the hand…
The most under-rated qualities of a QB are Character and Leadership
Cutler has just demonstrated he’s lacking. I’ll do the work for the scouts and give you a diamond in the rough flying under the radar. Todd Boeckman-OSU.
From a prior comment in another thread:
I’ve been doing a little research, looking for the "Brady" diamond in the rough that could be had in late rounds and have settled on an interesting prospect… Todd Boeckman from Ohio State. Now, before you get riled up about a senior who was benched in favor of a Freshman, consider this:
1. Boeckman was 1st team Big Ten QB in 2007 leading Buckeyes to BCS title game.
2. Benched in ‘08 after 3rd week thrashing by USC, a game in which he was 14/27 with 2 picks… but Beanie Wells did not play (injured), one TD pass to Robiskie was called back due to holding, a second long pass inside the 10, ditto. The O-line was a sieve and Boek is no Seneca when it comes to scrambling ability. Neither are most NFL QB’s. And USC embarrassed a lot of offenses this year. I think Trussel unfairly threw him under the bus.
3. He handled the benching with extreme humility, stayed positive, remained a team captain, took the high road. Conclusion: Very high character.
4. Played in pro-style offense, 5 and 7 step drops.
5. Prototypical size, good arm strength, excellent accuracy (65%+)
6. 5th year senior who would have gone mid rounds in 2008 draft had he not returned for his senior season. Again, thanks for the loyalty Trussell.
He is projected to go undrafted, due exclusively as far as I can tell because he saw little playing time after USC. Seems to me he’d be worth a 7th round pick as a project. Watching film he actually reminds me a lot of Hass. I saw one game live late in the season (can’t recall which) where he came in late and threw beautiful touch pass into the corner of the endzone to his replacement QB (Pryor), who happens to be 6’6" and a very good receiver as well.
Summary, aside from Staffords greater number of starts, I don’t see a lot more potential with him than I do with Boeckman. Boeckmans big mistake seems to be playing for and trusting Trussel.
Hey, I'm definitely on board with Boeckmann, as I've said before.
He probably won’t pan out, but he won’t cost anything. I thought of him as a better more polished version of Matt Flynn, and Flynn looks to be (after one year so SSS) a decent NFL backup.
That being said, a guy who just sits back and lets his team get screwed up is not great either. Cutler lost his head coach and offensive coordinator, probably his two biggest mentors for the past few years. I’d be pretty upset as well. As we discussed before with the whole ‘alpha dog’ thing, this is one of the bigger problems I have with the NFL. They want a bunch of Alpha dogs with big egos, but when one of them gets a bit too selfish like TO, they ostracize him. Cutler was criticized by Kiper for saying he had a better arm than Elway, yet Mike Reilly gets praised for saying that he thinks he’s the best QB in this draft. I think chemistry and attitude, 95% of the time is a two way street that can lead to any conclusion that person wants. It just depends on what direction you want to run with it.
Oh, almost forgot.
Kyle Orton was a big 10 QB with a good junior year that was benched some his senior year if I remember correctly, and he seems to be a serviceable starter. Seems like a no brainer to me, do we get a kicker/longsnapper type with our 7th or do we get young QB with potential who was in all fairness probably unfairly benched at a top 10 program?
Also, I it’s Tressel. I think you’re morphing him with Brain Russell or Tim Ruskell or something.
Regarding the Long Snapper Situation
According to Tyler Schmidt’s agent, he is doing quite nicely rehabbing from his back surgery and will be at spring camp. We’ve also “entertained” a couple free-agents recently, so I hope we don’t have to spend another pick in the draft.
Regarding QB, good comment about Orton. Let’s not forget also that Cassel was a backup who never played at all. College coaches are looking for something different than the NFL, and the best NFL prospects sometimes get overshadowed.
Actually
I don’t think he ever says Boeckman is tall.
5. Prototypical size
is for Boeckman.
(Pryor), who happens to be 6’6"
is for Pryor.
that TD to Pryor...
was against Texas in the game that proved USC was the best team in the land, even if nobody off the west coast recognized it…
I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I could not agree with this any more...
and that’s a shame. Er, but seriously, I totally agree.
I don’t think it would be wise to dump Hass (the QB, not Hass the WR) for Cutler. I DO think Jay has the tools to technically be a very good QB, but he does not have the pair or the leadership qualities (or experience for that matter) that Matthew does. Yeah, I’m talkin’ about the pair.
I would not trade these two straight across this year. Maybe later if Cutler shows he can be effective in his new system or whatever they’re doing now in Denver, and grows up some.
We need Matt this year if we’re going anywhere.
Drafting a guy like Boeckman is the wisest course of action, imho. Again, look at our history with our low picks/undrafted FAs— Krieg, Zorn, Kitna, and Hasselbeck. Upper round guys, not so good.
Are you implying that the franchise itself has some skill drafting late round quarterbacks and some weakness drafting early round quarterbacks?
As if the Seahawks franchise is a living entity with abilities of its own?
And offensive linemen lower back.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Not exactly...
I’m saying that we have had more success developing QBs that didn’t cost too much. I’m sure the same applies to many franchises. The bust rate of 1st round QBs seems to be pretty significant (although I haven’t done a statistical analysis).
I would guess that if someone made a list of the top 20 or 40 (whatever) QBs in history, and then looked at where drafted (or how acquired), you’d find that more than half were low picks (or FAs). Just a guess, not certain. I’d actually like to see that list, and I’ll do it myself if I get some time.
But regardless of how the data turns out, it’s clear to me that if there’s an OBVIOUS sure-thing franchise QB like Elway, Manning, or Bledsoe, you take him. But there are many more non-high picks like Montana, Warner, Moon, Brady, our QBs, etc.
I certainly could be shown to be wrong, but I’d rather spend a late pick every year on a QB that could become great than to spend a 1st on someone who is not a sure thing.
But to answer your question directly, you’d have to ask it what abilities it has. I wouldn’t want to offend it.
There have been 83 quarterbacks drafted in the first round since 1967
20 of them have made the super bowl. Only 50 quarterbacks total have played in a superbowl.
Yes this includes the Grossmans and Dilfers of the world.
So we have a 25% chance of Stafford taking us to the Super Bowl?
Now there’s some math I can get behind.
Hass actually cost us a fair amount -
We swapped 1st round picks with Green Bay, dropping from 10th to 17th, and gave up a high 3rd.
For your question about the top 20 or so QB’s, how would you define “best”?:
If you go by career yardage: 16 of the top 30 were all drafted in the first (most of them top-10) 7 were drafted rounds 2-3. and 7 were rounds 4 or later, or UDFA
By career passing rating: 15 of the top 30 were drafted in the 1st. 4 drafted rounds 2-3. 11 of them were 4th or later, or UDFA’s.
Out of 42 Super Bowls, 26 have been won by 1st round QBs. 7 by ones drafted rounds 2-3, and the rest by later picks or UDFA.
(Anyone feel free to re-check my #‘s and call me out if I’m wrong – I just did a quick glance at pro-football-reference.com)
In each category, that’s about 50% of the leaders coming from a round that produces less than 10% of the overall new talent pool every year.
As fans, I think we have a skewed perception – The few late round successes stick in our mind while we never even hear of the 20 other players who flame out. Similarly, the occasional 1st round bust jumps out at us, while we forget the other 20 1st rounders that come in and quietly do their job.
We like rooting for the underdog, but the reality is that the top NFL talent consistently comes right from where you’d expect – the top of the draft.
by jteckmann on Mar 12, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is all a pipe dream. We are't getting Cutler.
Although I said the same thing about Housh, but that was a bit more realistic considering there were mutual feelings of interest. And this is discounting the fact that Cutler is an arrogant douche, albeit a talented one.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Hass and the pick for Jay and their pick
Is what I’d like to see if Cutler struggles for some reason we still have Seneca.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Mar 12, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions
Would Hass even fit in with Denvers new offense?
I know they used to be WCO, which is why Cutler would be a good fit here, but I’m guessing Denvers new coach will be installing the same offense that New England runs, which I didn’t think was the WCO. But maybe I’m wrong.
I would be happy to give up our 1st and 2nd and Denvers choice between Hass, Wallace, Hill if they prefer defense, or even our next years 1st. If they don’t pick Hass, which I doubt they would, we trade him to try and recover some of our picks. Trade him either for a 2nd, or if no takers, trade him for a 3rd and a conditional pick in next years draft that could become a 2nd if he starts enough games.
I agree with John that QBs of Cutlers caliber do not become available often, and certainly not a year or two before they even hit their prime, so you have to make a bold move when the chance becomes available.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 12, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions
Cutler is a baaaaad idea...
What has he ever won?
Vanderbilt?
17-20 as QB in Denver, in a weak era for the AFC West (SD only decent squad…)
17-20 as a QB under one of the certified “genius” NFL minds, Mike Shanahan.
Due to proximity (living in Denver) I’ve watched far more Bronco games than I would like, and he seems headstrong and armstrong. I am quite comfortable saying he is as good as he is going to get, and could regress as easily as improve.
And take away Brandon Marshall’s propensity for YAC and great grabs and he looks even worse…
And so many of you want to give away Leroy, our 4th overall AND a 2nd and 3rd. Seriously?!?!?
He is NOT that good. He’s decent and frustrating right now. You give up that much to him, you’ll see the frustration Denver fans feel at him turn to hatred and disgust due to his high price tag.
Walk away from this in a HEART BEAT.
No deal!
I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions
Using wins and losses isn't a very good method to evaluate quarterbacks or any player.
Last season Cutler put up the fifth best DYAR and posted the 7th best DVOA for a QB.
Cutler is good and he’s only 25.
Perhaps not, but winners find a way to win...
And to quote the link (thank you by the way):
“DVOA is still far away from the point where we can use it to represent the value of a player separate from the performance of his ten teammates that are also involved in each play. That means that when we say, "Larry Johnson has a DVOA of 27.6%,” what we are really saying is “Larry Johnson, playing in the Kansas City offensive system with the Kansas City offensive line blocking for him and Damon Huard selling the fake when necessary, has a DVOA of 27.6%.”
My argument is that Jay Cutler, playing in the Denver Mike Shanahan offense, with the Denver offensive line blocking for him, and elite WR Brandon Marshall catching and running for him (and Eddie Royal, a true burner)…
I just don’t think he’s that good, never have. Would I be okay having him? Certainly. But at the cost of numerous picks and players? Absolutely not. And today, with a healthy Hass with a healthy offense around him (that’s admittedly assumed), I believe Hass is the better player TODAY. And I want to win TODAY and tomorrow. And if Hass is healthy, I think he has 2-5 good/great/solid seasons to go…
Has Denver, a team that has been well above average in the 15-20 years prior to his arrival been as good with him as without? No. Absolutely not, and it isn’t all his fault, but he and his team’s performance cost Mike Shanahan his job. That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a young QB, to be a catalyst in the ending of a HoF coaches career in a city in which he was a fixture in a city’s sports scene.
I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
"Winners find a way to win"
Sorry, but that quote is totally bullshit.
A QB may have the most impact on a team than any other one player, but when it comes down to it…he’s still one player.
It isn’t Cutler’s fault that Denver’s defense is shit, or that they have no RB to speak of.
Denver offense last year
Total yards per game, 2nd in the NFL
Passing yards per game, 4th in the NFL
Looks like Cutler did his job to me.
I would be curious to see the time of possession differential, could not find it on ESPN’s page.
wouldn't you expect...
a QB with a team that fires away to have better numbers than one that does not?
Wasn’t Cutler given a situation ripe for “gunning away” and posting elevated passing statistics?
A defense that allows a ton of points, therefor the offense is behind and in passing situations.
A solid pass-blocking O Line.
A lack of running game, allowing to “let fly.”
A legit top 10 in the league WR
A legit top 10 in the league speed WR2
An offensive minded coach who has always had teams put decent numbers on the scoreboard one way or another.
And Redwolf75, they didn’t “have no RB to speak of” they had the same situation we did at WR, only at RB….
And redwolf75, why is that quote bullshit? “Winners find a way to win.” How is that bullshit? Because you can’t prove it with stats? I love that argument, the “stats prove all” but when the intangibles behind the stats can’t be defined, that destroys the stat.
He’s 17-20 as a starter, for a team in a weak division, for a coach who was a proven winner. He didn’t win in college. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to the fact that he hasn’t won.
Maybe you are right. Maybe winners don’t always find a way to win.
But losers never do…
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
No matter how often or how vehemently you assert it
using the Broncos W/L record and vague intangibles isn’t going to win over anyone and isn’t viable evidence to support your claim that the Seahawks shouldn’t consider Cutler. These are terrible ways to evaluate a player, straight out of the Bill Bavasi book of destroying franchises. You can’t dismiss Cutler’s DVOA and DYAR, total passing yards, or any other metric because your gut tells you that the gosh darn kid isn’t a winner.
Your evaluation is completely and utterly subjective.
Here’s a tip. Using phrases like “proven winner” or “Winners always find a way to win” are not acceptable in an argument here. In this community, those phrases are big red flags that are going to turn off most readers.
I recommend that you read up on this, this, and this.
Also, your new signature isn’t helping your cause at all.
I never said it wasn't on some level subjective....
What I do believe is that the big red flag is a big red flag because IT IS A BIG RED FLAG.
The guy hasn’t won… you can statistisify why that is… and that’s fine.
But this I know… he hasn’t won, in a place that makes a habit of winning…
I read the USSM, and I stopped reading the sycophantic comments, but I do appreciate the perspective of the writers. I just want to put an alternative perspective out there..
and I didn’t say we shouldn’t consider Cutler. What I did say is that the cost is WAAAY too high. Detroit’s 20th pick? Yes. Our 4th PLUS ADDITIONALS (as many have endorsed) not so much.
As for my signature, it is as much to irritate the Denver folks I work with on a daily basis as anything, but I will hold true to believing Hass is a better option than Cutler PLUS losing several picks/players to acquire him.
That’s the crux of my argument, that Cutler’s cost is FAR too high for us, given our numerous needs and a potentially all-star level serviceable QB to consider.
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 13, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm sorry but that quote really is bullshit.
While I agree with you in principle, that defense was the downfall of the Broncos, not Cutler.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh...
a QB with a team that fires away to have better numbers than one that does not?
Actually, no. Opposing defenses will then be able to play the pass.
A defense that allows a ton of points, therefor the offense is behind and in passing situations.
The terrible defense which explains Denver’s 17-20 record during Jay Cutler’s reign.
A lack of running game, allowing to "let fly."
…allowing the opposing defense to play the pass…
Maybe you are right. Maybe winners don’t always find a way to win.
But losers never do…
Cutler is a “loser” because his defense sucks? Uh, yeah, ok.
You didn't know that winning quarterbacks sprinkle magic coverage-improving pixie dust onto the defensive backs during pre-game?
It’s one of the perks of being a gritty leader. Now losers like Cutler? No magic pixie dust for them.
Hey, it worked for Favre.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
And just to clarify, whiskey is right about "better numbers"
if he’s just talking about total yards. However, a QB’s DVOA is going to go down if he’s “letting it fly.”
Those records reflect more upon
his team’s terrible defense than they do on his ability. He could score 30 points a game and lose, that defense was so terrible.
and in the same vein of reasoning...
His offense was relatively talented around him, therefor his numbers inflated by an oddity situation of being in games that allowed his gunslinger mentality to be in full display.
I just don’t believe most gunslingers do much better than he has done to date. They tend to win some games and lose others for their team, being maddeningly inconsistent.
Having a decent O-Line and a true number 1 WR and a coach that managed to get the absolute most out of his offenses for years may have a lot more to do with Jay Cutler’s success than does Jay Cutler.
Just like Shanahan made RB’s out of nobodies, he made zone blocking Linemen out of nobodies, and he also got solid performance out of (in addition to HoF Elway), Jake Plummer, Bubby Bristor, and Brian Griese. Maybe Jay Cutler is the latest example of Shanahan’s success, and not Jay Cutler’s…
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
that's hardly fair....
but whatever.
Fine, let’s give Denver the 4th, our 2nd, our 3rd, Leroy Hill, dump Hass and give them next year’s 2nd and 3rd for him.
Then when we struggle in multiple areas, and everyone is bitter and displeased about that, we can then be happy because we have “our QB of the future” to build around the next 3-5 years (while we spend 1-4 years in that “building” process.
If I could get him for our 2nd rounder I would. The 4th overall plus change? Absolutely not.
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
whoosh?
what does that mean?
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, the irony!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Well here's how I look at it.
The 4th overall could very well be Stafford. I think Stafford has a 30% chance to be as good as Cutler, 5% chance to be better, 20% chance to be a bit worse, and 45% chance to be a complete bust.
Because of this, we would need to trade the 4th plus something (Hass since we wouldn’t need him if we had Cutler) for Cutler.
Well, I wouldn't pick Stafford...
So that makes that part of the logic completely irrelevant to me.
I want position players. We HAVE a QB and a suitable back up, both could be here for a few more years. We started our last great run with an OT drafted… let’s do the same again, instead of trading that building block for a QB, when we have one I still like!
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions
No one cares if we have a quarterback you still like.
We have an aging Quarterback with real injury concerns. You like him. Great. Buy his jersey. If are able to turn our #4 pick into a young talented quarterback entering his prime we pull the trigger.
by Jason X U S N on Mar 12, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Couldn't have said it better.
We’ve really beat this dead horse, but Hass is indeed on the decline. QBs who perform well at old age a la Kurt Warner are the exception, not the rule.
But that's if you think Hasselbeck is old.
I think we can still squeeze at least two more great seasons from him provided we do something about the pass protection. However, I’d be ecstatic if we had a QB of the future on board. But I question if that QB is Sanchez/Stafford.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if you don't think Hasselbeck is old and buy into the idea that QBs can play well into their late 30s
you have to consider ’Beck’s injury history and his free agent status in two seasons. That alone makes it perfectly reasonable to expect that in two years it is likely that someone else will have to man QB. That means we need to find someone sooner rather than later.
Part of me really wishes we could have snagged Brian Brohm last year.
Well, it seems logical that if we added someone like Monroe or a better center, Hass wouldn't be hit as much
lowering the risk of injury. We’ve all seen that he can carve a secondary if he has a fairly decent amount of time to throw. And if he stays healthy, he should be a fairly good QB until he becomes a FA, where our QB of the future steps in.
Yeah, I wanted Brohm too…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
If I remember correctly, Hass's back injury developed
during training camp. A better OL wouldn’t have changed anything.
I think we could still snag Brohm this year or next
And at a decent value.
Rodgers is the long term starter, and Flynn won the back-up spot. Brohm could be good trade bait,.
The “young back up from similar offense” is also a potential source of our next QB, and glancing around NFL rosters, I don’t see many other names that fit the bill better than Brohm.
That's why I think he's a good option
Because he didn’t have that impressive pre-season to earn him the sort of “Mr. August” buzz that Hass had. Instead, since Flynn had the good pre-season, Brohm’s looking like the odd man out, and probably won’t cost a boat load of picks.
I’m uncomfortable with drafting a QB high this year, and IMO the QB class overall is weak. And while I see the logic behind it, I’m also uncomfortable with giving up a huge package of picks for a guy like Cutler, and risk pulling the plug on Hass too early.
Brohm still has all the physical tools that made him a borderline 1st round prospect last year, and projected as a good fit in our scheme. If he was in this draft class he’d probably be the 2nd-3rd best QB (on par with Sanchez). You have the bonus that he’s basically red-shirted, spending a year in a very similar NFL offense, learning the playbook, etc.
I’d much rather give up a 3rd for Brohm then spend a pick on the late round prospects that are in this draft. It’d be buying low on a good young talent, and there’s no media frenzy or huge contract to cloud the team’s judgment so he could sit on the bench 2-3 years while you milk every last productive season out of Hass.
But does Brohm win?
What was his record in Pop Warner?
SWEET
You win the “I’m witty sarcastic/snarkey winning and being a winner as an attribute” award.
Please progress as quickly as possible to Mariner conversation as USSMariner.com, to talk about the lack of value in Willie (Effin) Bloomquist.
Look, I’m not saying statistics don’t play a role, but the value of a future QB vs our present one is the argument.
If you believe as I do that the present one has one or more good years remaining, then giving up the farm for the next QB is a poor investment.
I have a multitude of reasons why I see that as the case, not the least of which is being a Seattle fan surrounded by Bronco fans on a daily basis (YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW FUCKING FRUSTRATING THAT IS) but I simply don’t see a great value in trading for Cutler. That is all.
Brohm? Really? He’s as meaningless as anyone else that hasn’t stepped up in this league and won some games.
I hate to break it to you stat guys, but wins matter. If you can explain why guys win, great. Tell me why and let me understand…. if you can’t, don’t quote stats as a defining reason that is undefinable..
Teach me, or let my old school 10 letter, 6 year paid coaching, logic intelligence and trying to make my teams play at the pinnacle of their ability mind see things as I see them.
And perhaps, even if you have stats, grant that maybe just maybe there are numbers beyond decipherable stats that are significant when it comes to W/L…
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 13, 2009 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions
You're completely dismissing statistics (and anything else that disagrees with you) in favor of your love of grit and intangibles.
In a lot of communities that would be perfectly acceptable. Not so much here.
I didn't completely disregard stats....
I just “mostly” did.
And I apologize if I’m coming off as the wild old school guy here. I believe there is a balance that needs to be found between stats and the evaluation that happens between our ears naturally and inherently.
And you’ll notice it was 2:14 when I posted that… 2:14 PDT. I live in Denver and was 5 beers and 8 washington apples in. I’d say that’s a pretty fair argument and a pretty reasonable post considering my state of mind at 3 in the morning while drunk. (And realizing that I was writing up that late reminds me why I was such a hurting unit at work today.)
Anyway, I will continue to attempt to be a graceful witty addition to the conversation, and I believe my perspective is a reasonable one even if I don’t have the statistical detail to back it up.
I do think I have a higher more acute level of awareness of the scout/evaluation side because of my own personal sports history which skews me opposite the “stat-guys” more than most. I also know I get more frustrated with random sports arguments than you do with me due to my own ability to analyze and evaluate situations in sports and make a rational decision.
I went overboard on the “winning” argument, I will admit. But it is an argument that needs to be put out there preferably by someone with a modicum of logic. Maybe I was too sophist in my point but there is a point there that should always stay in the open— winning goes beyond the stats— even in baseball where apparently I decided to rant the USSM. (Mainly the sycophantic commentators, not so much the authors who I appreciate what they’ve given me in baseball.)
And for the record I do think Cutler is around the 10-15th best QB in the league, with potential to get into the bottom of the top 10. I just think he has a ceiling there that prevents me from wanting to give up a 4th and additionals for him.
Thanks for humoring me, gentlemen. Hope I didn’t anger you too much. :)
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 13, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Man, I agree with your opinion, but
Wins are possibly the most useless ‘statistic’ ever.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 13, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
It's really the only one that matters
Everything else is a way to achieve wins.
I agree, sort of...
When you say it that way. But I don’t think they are “the most useless” stat.
In evaluating individuals
it’s pretty damn useless.
Of course wins matter!
You play to win the game. You don’t play to just play it. Thats the great thing about sport, you play to win the game.
Cutler is 17-20 in his first 37 starts
Peyton Manning was 19-18.
Bart Starr 15-21-1.
Marc Bulger 26-11.
by John Morgan on Mar 13, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Marc Bulger isn't bad though.
In fact, he’s well above average.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 13, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
This just in.....
Not gonna happen. Hey what if we find a way to create a clone of Steve Largent, and sign him to play Safety for us next year? Check the ball skills.
Cogito Ergo Sum
It's not going to happen but...
I’m absolutely shocked so much of the Seahawk fan base is so against the idea of losing Hass to get Cutler
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
I think I've defined myself as the primary devil's advocate...
and I’m mainly against the cost, not Cutler himself.
Though I’m not a fan of him either… but if we got him cheap I would be amendable to the concept…
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 13, 2009 2:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Why? He had an off year last year. Do you know why?
I think my back wold hurt to, if I had Colbert, and McMullen starting a division game. I also think a lot of people are pulling the chord a little to far from the ground.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Back injuries don't always get better.
Look, Hasselbeck is probably my favorite Seahawk, but Jay Cutler is good, has been getting better since he became a starter, and is 8 years younger than Matt. Sometimes you’ve got to let the favorites go. Plus, it’s not a sure thing Matt bounces back. I mean, I feel like he can still run an 85 passer rating and keep this team competitive. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to upgrade the position and solidify it for the next decade? I don’t think so.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 13, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
An example of this point
Before Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett stabbed me in the back, I was a huge Sonics fan. Being the age I am, my all time favorite player ever was Gary Payton. When he and Desmond Mason got traded for Ray Allen and whatshisface, I was downright pissed off.
See, that was me being completely irrational. Ray Allen was a very good player at that point and had age on his side, whereas Payton was in the declining part of his career.
The next season, the fans as a whole weren’t very upset about losing Payton anymore, and that’s because Ray Allen was so good. If you replace fan favorite talent with younger talent, things will eventually work out.
I was ecstatic.
I was never a huge Payton fan (though I started appreciating him more when he left), and am a huge fan of 3 point shooters, which Ray Allen obviously is.
I was always a Payton fan (the 20 is in my name for a reason, it's always been my number).
I ruptured every internal organ celebrating when the Sonics traded for Ray Allen.
I was also a huge Payton fan.
I remember being nostalgic/pissed the day the trade went down, spending the next couple days more upset that we had to throw Mason into the deal, and then spending the rest of the season growing a man-crush on Ray.
The fan base is generally against the idea of losing.
And there’s big-time fear of the unknown when it comes to replacing QB’s.
People loved Jim Zorn, but got over him pretty quick when Krieg started taking us to the play-offs. It took a lot longer for the fans to get over Krieg because Stouffer/McGwire sucked.
It will be the same thing with Hass. There will be the initial outcry when his time is finally over, because he’s been such a fan-fav and franchise cornerstone for so long. But if his replacement comes in and does alright, it will die off quick. If his replacement or the team struggles for a few seasons, you’ll never hear the end of it.
That's because Zorn was awful the time he got replaced.
There’s still a reasonable chance Hass can crank out another Pro-Bowl season while Cutler has growing pains here and then we’ll bitch and moan.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 13, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Looks like Cutler is available after all.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805
He has requested a trade.
Hass and the 4th for Cutler and the 13th anyone ?
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Mar 15, 2009 11:31 PM PDT reply actions
Sorry I mean the 12th pick not the 13th and I would do it.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Mar 15, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd do it without the 12th.
Easily. Also Denver says they don’t just want picks. Hass + 4 might be enough?
To me, that would be too much.
I’d be scared to include Hasselbeck in a trade, especially when he’s still got what it takes to lead them to a Super Bowl this year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
