Let me start off by saying I'm more from the traditional JA line of thought in that you can never have too many draft picks and 9/10 trading down is the right move. So, how does one rationalize the cost of 2 #1's and a #3 to go with Orton?

Most of the people who are worried about the price are people like me. So, as one of those people I think I'm the best to rationalize the price. Let's say for a minute that the team decided Orton wasn't an answer. So, going into FA we are looking for a QB even though we said we weren't. What were our options in FA? There are no good QBs out there long term. Warner and Collins might have worked short term but they are band-aids not real fixes. So, if we're going to grab someone it had to be in the draft.

Most mocks have Stafford top 5(most #1) and Sanchez top 10. Freeman is a potential first round guy. However, he seems to be the type who needs a year or two to develop. So, because of that, I'm going to consider him out of the question.

Let's look at what we gave up.
18th pick, the 84th pick
We get back the 140th pick.

It's hard to put a value today on the 2010 pick. However, based off where we are today, I see no way we're worse than last year. I would put us in a dead heat or better with the Vikes. So, for the sake of argument I'm going to use the 22nd pick in 2010 as a reference point.

So, we have the 18th pick(value 900), the 22nd pick in 2010(value 780) and the 84th pick(value 170) or a total of 1850 points. The 140th pick is worth a total of 36 points. So, we're looking at a net loss of 1814 points and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler. It's hard to put a value on Orton but I can't honestly see anyone giving up more than a 4th round pick for him. So, for the sake of easy math let's say he's worth 61 points(4th round 20th pick range). That puts our total loss in picks at around 1875. To compensate for any possible mistakes in judgement, let's say that's an even 2000 points.

What would 2000 draft points get us? It would put us some where between the 3rd and 4th pick. In other words, if we traded everything we did for a 2009 pick, it's highly unlikely we could get Stafford who probably goes 1-3 most likely #1. That leaves Sanchez. Sanchez is probably top 10. I personally think Sanchez is a bad pick in the top half of the first round. If Sanchez does drop to the 10th pick, that's 1300 points in the trade value. The additional 700 points is worth the 26th pick.Any thing higher than the 10th pick for Sanchez pushes the additional value down to the 2nd round range.

So, you can view it like this if the price we paid worries you. We gave up less than it would have cost to get Stafford. As for Sanchez, Cutler costs us Sanchez and a later 1st, possibly early 2nd round pick. So while it seems like we gave up a ton to a draft guy like me, if you think about it like that, it's not as bad. Stafford or Cutler for what we gave up? That's the best way I can see to rationalize it.

---

At long last Ron Turner is gone. But it seems that with every blessing there is a curse. RIP Gaines Adams.

The list of failed to average QB's to come through here is all the rational I need. Your points are good though too! :)

Beck, that is a greeat way to look at it.  Plus, throw in the fact that we get a proven commodity (not to mention pro-bowl) vs. crap shoot draft picks.

It was a great deal for the Bears, any way you slice it.

---

"Change is Good, Except when it is Bad"

I wouldn't value next year's pick as high as you did.  Right now, the 22nd pick in the 2010 draft doesn't have as much value as the 22nd pick in this years draft, I would move it down about half a round and give it the value of the 38th pick

I'd look at it like this.

Jerry Angelo shines in the later rounds of the draft. Round 1 is not his strong suit.

Benson
Grossman
Haynes
Columbo
    vs
Harris (looking more and more like he may join the others above)
Olsen

Williams=undecided (but the fact that we signed Pace worries me)

I know, it's pretty common for 1st rounders to bust. It happens. But that's why this deal isn't all that bad. Orton is a wash. thrown in if you will. Denver needed a QB, we didn't have a place for a benched "team captain". Best case scenario, Angelo would have hit on one of those picks. But we still come out with a pro-bowl QB, who is in his PRIME. Not past it, not at the end of it...he's just hitting his prime.

---

Member #36 of the CBMB Jay Cutler Fan Club

Very nice rationale, Beck! I like your thinking. Here is how I reason out the cost: Sid Luckman holds the Bears' passing record with 14,686 career yards. Joey Harrington would be the Bears career passing record holder if he had his passing yards as a Bear. Scary thought, isn't it? If records were meant to be broken, that's one that needs to be broken quickly. Cutler could do that in a Bears uniform if he has 3+ seasons like he had last year.

And here's the "Value" rationale: If you were Jerry and with pick #18 you wanted to be "fixated on getting the QB position solidified", would you make a deal with the Devil if he were to guarantee that choice would have a successful career? All he'd want is next year's #1 draft choice and a few other pieces as well. Who's to say that's too much? One of those pieces in this case is Kyle Orton, who has lost any value to the Bears with the acquisition of Cutler and in trade, Jerry gets the warm fuzzy feeling that he found a place where Kyle might do well, too.

i keep hearing we are mortgaging our future.  then i remember we still have eight picks this year, yeah next year is only 6, but still... 

bear_down46:

i keep hearing we are mortgaging our future.  then i remember we still have eight picks this year, yeah next year is only 6, but still... 

Exactly! we still have a bunch of picks plus people have given up more for other players like Ricky Williams and Herschel Walker. We didn't give up that much. Also players have demanded trades before and had a lot of success, like John Elway and Eli Manning. I can't imagine having the opportunity to play for your childhood team. I can't wait till the season begins.

---

By any rationalization, the Bears gave up allot regardless of the point equivalant. Sure the 1st round picks might have been a bust, but they might have been the next Brian Urlacher or Tommie Harris as well. There is a direct correlation to NFL success and the number of first round picks in the starting lineup.

If it works out, and Cutler will need to perform better in Chicago than he ever did in Denver (an 86-88 QBR isn't going cut it) then it will clearly be one of the best and boldest moves the Bears have ever made.

If it doesn't end well, and the Bears have only a marginal improvement, it will mean the end of the current regime and years of rebuilding.

What is very clear is that the Bears MUST sign a legitimate receiver. Throwing caution to the wind, give NO the 2nd they have tendered and sign Lance Moore. He's young, caught 79 passes and could be linked to Cutler's success for years to come.

---

When you bleed, make it orange and blue

THE FACT IS THIS DRAFT HAS MEDIOCRE TALENT TOO.  THERE ISN'T THAT ELITE PLAYER.  SO WE CIRCUMVENTED THIS DRAFT AND UNFORTUNATELY NEXT DRAFT TO GET A PRO BOWL PLAYER IN A POSITION OF NEED THAT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION ON THE FIELD.

WE MORE OR LESS TRADED UP.  WOULD YOU RATHER KEEP ORTON AND GET MICHAEL CRABTREE OR EVERETTE BROWN? 

OR WOULD YOU RATHER GET A KNOWN COMMODITY IN CUTLER.

THE DECISION IS CLEAR, THIS WAS THE CONSERVATIVE SMART THING TO DO IF WE WERE GOING TO "TRADE UP" FOR AN ELITE PLAYER. 

beckdawg:

Let me start off by saying I'm more from the traditional JA line of thought in that you can never have too many draft picks and 9/10 trading down is the right move. So, how does one rationalize the cost of 2 #1's and a #3 to go with Orton?

Most of the people who are worried about the price are people like me. So, as one of those people I think I'm the best to rationalize the price. Let's say for a minute that the team decided Orton wasn't an answer. So, going into FA we are looking for a QB even though we said we weren't. What were our options in FA? There are no good QBs out there long term. Warner and Collins might have worked short term but they are band-aids not real fixes. So, if we're going to grab someone it had to be in the draft.

Most mocks have Stafford top 5(most #1) and Sanchez top 10. Freeman is a potential first round guy. However, he seems to be the type who needs a year or two to develop. So, because of that, I'm going to consider him out of the question.

Let's look at what we gave up.
18th pick, the 84th pick
We get back the 140th pick.

It's hard to put a value today on the 2010 pick. However, based off where we are today, I see no way we're worse than last year. I would put us in a dead heat or better with the Vikes. So, for the sake of argument I'm going to use the 22nd pick in 2010 as a reference point.

So, we have the 18th pick(value 900), the 22nd pick in 2010(value 780) and the 84th pick(value 170) or a total of 1850 points. The 140th pick is worth a total of 36 points. So, we're looking at a net loss of 1814 points and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler. It's hard to put a value on Orton but I can't honestly see anyone giving up more than a 4th round pick for him. So, for the sake of easy math let's say he's worth 61 points(4th round 20th pick range). That puts our total loss in picks at around 1875. To compensate for any possible mistakes in judgement, let's say that's an even 2000 points.

What would 2000 draft points get us? It would put us some where between the 3rd and 4th pick. In other words, if we traded everything we did for a 2009 pick, it's highly unlikely we could get Stafford who probably goes 1-3 most likely #1. That leaves Sanchez. Sanchez is probably top 10. I personally think Sanchez is a bad pick in the top half of the first round. If Sanchez does drop to the 10th pick, that's 1300 points in the trade value. The additional 700 points is worth the 26th pick.Any thing higher than the 10th pick for Sanchez pushes the additional value down to the 2nd round range.

So, you can view it like this if the price we paid worries you. We gave up less than it would have cost to get Stafford. As for Sanchez, Cutler costs us Sanchez and a later 1st, possibly early 2nd round pick. So while it seems like we gave up a ton to a draft guy like me, if you think about it like that, it's not as bad. Stafford or Cutler for what we gave up? That's the best way I can see to rationalize it.

You make good logical points. On top of that it was well written where most of the crap I read is nothing more than butchered english.

I justify this by knowing how many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. draft picks teams spend each year by trying to find that franchise player. We essentially handed Denver 3 crap-shoots for a guaranteed, young franchise player. Good luck to Denver on their trip to Vegas er... I mean the draft.

I JUST POSTED A SIMILIAR COMPARISION BY DRAFT VALUE.  I GAVE ORTON A LATE 1ST ROUND GRADE. 

GUESS WHAT...

3 MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO BACK END 1STs AND A THIRD STILL DOES TOUCH THE NUMBER ONE OVERALL SELECTION IN POINT VALUE...

WE GOT BETTER THAN A NUMBER ONE OVERALL DRAFT PICK IN CUTLER AND WE SPENT A LOT LESS TO GET IT THAN SAY IF WE TRADE TO GET MATT RYAN LAST YEAR.

WHOSE BETTER MATT RYAN JAY CUTLER????

NO MORE DOUBTING THIS TRADE.  THIS WAS THE SMART THING TO DO IF WE WERE GOING TO TRADE FOR ELITE TALENT, AND I FOR ONE WANT ELITE TALENT TO HAVE FUN WATCHING EVERY SUNDAY.  WE ARE NOW GUARANTEED A FUN QB TO WATCH, AND FOR THE PRICE...IT CAN'T BE BEAT...

beckdawg:

Let me start off by saying I'm more from the traditional JA line of thought in that you can never have too many draft picks and 9/10 trading down is the right move. So, how does one rationalize the cost of 2 #1's and a #3 to go with Orton?

Most of the people who are worried about the price are people like me. So, as one of those people I think I'm the best to rationalize the price. Let's say for a minute that the team decided Orton wasn't an answer. So, going into FA we are looking for a QB even though we said we weren't. What were our options in FA? There are no good QBs out there long term. Warner and Collins might have worked short term but they are band-aids not real fixes. So, if we're going to grab someone it had to be in the draft.

Most mocks have Stafford top 5(most #1) and Sanchez top 10. Freeman is a potential first round guy. However, he seems to be the type who needs a year or two to develop. So, because of that, I'm going to consider him out of the question.

Let's look at what we gave up.
18th pick, the 84th pick
We get back the 140th pick.

It's hard to put a value today on the 2010 pick. However, based off where we are today, I see no way we're worse than last year. I would put us in a dead heat or better with the Vikes. So, for the sake of argument I'm going to use the 22nd pick in 2010 as a reference point.

So, we have the 18th pick(value 900), the 22nd pick in 2010(value 780) and the 84th pick(value 170) or a total of 1850 points. The 140th pick is worth a total of 36 points. So, we're looking at a net loss of 1814 points and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler. It's hard to put a value on Orton but I can't honestly see anyone giving up more than a 4th round pick for him. So, for the sake of easy math let's say he's worth 61 points(4th round 20th pick range). That puts our total loss in picks at around 1875. To compensate for any possible mistakes in judgement, let's say that's an even 2000 points.

What would 2000 draft points get us? It would put us some where between the 3rd and 4th pick. In other words, if we traded everything we did for a 2009 pick, it's highly unlikely we could get Stafford who probably goes 1-3 most likely #1. That leaves Sanchez. Sanchez is probably top 10. I personally think Sanchez is a bad pick in the top half of the first round. If Sanchez does drop to the 10th pick, that's 1300 points in the trade value. The additional 700 points is worth the 26th pick.Any thing higher than the 10th pick for Sanchez pushes the additional value down to the 2nd round range.

So, you can view it like this if the price we paid worries you. We gave up less than it would have cost to get Stafford. As for Sanchez, Cutler costs us Sanchez and a later 1st, possibly early 2nd round pick. So while it seems like we gave up a ton to a draft guy like me, if you think about it like that, it's not as bad. Stafford or Cutler for what we gave up? That's the best way I can see to rationalize it.

What a yawner! I'm just glad the Bears finally have a real QB

---

Exactly! The way I rationalize the cost is JA put us in the position to be able to afford to trade what it took to make the deal! We've signed a lot of our core players to long term contracts last couple years. We're constantly in pretty good cap shape due to creative contracts. We didn't blow all our money this year early in FA.

Did we give up a lot. Yes, but that's what it took! We still have a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, two 5ths (one pretty early), a 6th and two 7th's. We've already signed 3 OL players plus Bazz and Bull. To top it off, we still have some money to spend in FA because our draft picks won't cost that much.

And if JA can get a little bit creative and maybe get someones high 2nd next year via a trade in the next year, it might not be much lower then our 1st would be next year if we have a good year! I'd say the Bears deserve some credit for being able to afford this high cost trade without giving up their future!!!!

bearsblitz7:

THE FACT IS THIS DRAFT HAS MEDIOCRE TALENT TOO.  THERE ISN'T THAT ELITE PLAYER.  SO WE CIRCUMVENTED THIS DRAFT AND UNFORTUNATELY NEXT DRAFT TO GET A PRO BOWL PLAYER IN A POSITION OF NEED THAT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION ON THE FIELD.

WE MORE OR LESS TRADED UP.  WOULD YOU RATHER KEEP ORTON AND GET MICHAEL CRABTREE OR EVERETTE BROWN? 

OR WOULD YOU RATHER GET A KNOWN COMMODITY IN CUTLER.

THE DECISION IS CLEAR, THIS WAS THE CONSERVATIVE SMART THING TO DO IF WE WERE GOING TO "TRADE UP" FOR AN ELITE PLAYER. 

Good post!  I like Orton and think he is going to do very well at Denver but this gives us an opportunity to get to a higher level and gives us stability at the position going forward.

JA is horrible in the first round.  Giving two up isn't that much of a loss.  We've gotten a proven commodity.  I'll take it.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
Hello everyone, this is my first post on this board.. I will be spending some time here now that we have something in common. That is of course now that I will be cheering for the Bears this year.. Yes I am a Broncos fan. Have been for over 20 years. This off season has been tough, The Broncos Brass have seriously engaged in some shady activity.. I have spent the last 6 weeks discussing the subject and to be honest, I am tired of talking about it.. So I will get to the point.

The Broncos lost out in this trade.. Cutler carried them to 8-8 last year... If it wasn't for Cutler they would have been lucky to win 5 games. I'm not just saying that as an opinion either. Well, everything is an opinion but it's an educated one.

I set out to find the expected QB winning % in the NFL when compared to the same deficit to overcome. I broke it into 7 categories, 1-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35 and 36+ . I went back the last 3 years for every team, all 768 games, 1536 winners and losers. From that info I was able to find the average winning % in each category. Now all I have to do is figure a QB’s average against the NFL average to see how he stacks up.. It is a way of leveling the playing field a bit when comparing one QB against another.

 

Here’s how Cutler stacked up last year. The average NFL QB would have won 5.2 games in Denver. Of course Denver won 8 so Cutler was + 2.8 games. In the 15 games Kyle Orton played last year the average QB would have won 7.4 games. Orton won 8 of the 15 games so he was just above average.

 

Also, it’s worth noting every QB who played for a team that was projected to win 7 or less of the 16 games they played, finished in the -. In other wards, when faced with terrible odds to overcome, the average QB will make more mistakes then normal, which would be expected.. It’s harder to play from behind then it is the lead. You force throws when you know you have to score 30 to have a chance of winning.

 

There’s no doubt in my mind Cutler would have played even better last year had he not had to force so many throws. If he could take a projected 5 – 11 team to 8-8, he could take a projected 8-8 team to 12-4. Even if his play didn’t improve from the better conditions, he would have taken an 8-8 team to 11-5.

 

How it basically figures out is that the average defense will allow the average QB to win 8 games.. Both Pittsburgh and Baltimore’s defense projected over 11 wins if they had an average QB.

*Edit* why does it say "Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }" at the beginning of my post? That doesn't show up while I am composing the post and I can't edit it out?

---

Trent Dilfer and Mark Shlereth were way out of line in their assessment.    That the Bears gave up way too much to get Cutler

Point A  2 1st round picks and a 3rd round pick along with Orton(who is expendalble in getting Cutler who is a franchise quarterback is a fair trade

Point B  It opens the door in the future to fill in the missing pieces we need (like a wide receiver) for example because it shows them our commitment to winning

Point C  It shows the rest of the players and the fans that this team is committed in going back to the Superbowl and not settling for mediocricy

Point D  Going through the sorry list of qb's that have started for the Bears since 1986

Point E   It makes everyone on the offense better, ( no more 8 in the box) Cutler's arm strength and ability to move out of the pocket will give more time for the open receiver, offensive line will be pumped to open holes for Forte and Block for Cutler

Point F   Half of 1st round picks fail or not live up to their expectations and 3rd round picks pan out 35 percent of the time

Well there is my top points what do u think of my assessment on this ??

---

Bearsfan1102

beckdawg:

Let me start off by saying I'm more from the traditional JA line of thought in that you can never have too many draft picks and 9/10 trading down is the right move. So, how does one rationalize the cost of 2 #1's and a #3 to go with Orton?

I like your thinking with one exception (which helps your argument). Teams receiving a draft pick in the next year will downgrade the draft pick one round to make it seem like a current year´s draft pick. To clarify, a 1st round pick in 2010 is worth a 2nd round pick in 2009.

So you can say that the Bears gave up a 1st (18th), 2nd(1st in 2010 equals a 2nd in 2009), 3rd (18th or so), and Orton for Cutler and a 5th round (early 5th). When Orton was drafted, we got him for an early 4th rounder. When Denver got Cutler, they traded a 1st (15th) and an early 3rd for him.

Using a draft value chart, the Bears give up 900 (1st), 400 (18 of 2nd), 180 (18th of 3rd), & 86 (104th where Orton was drafted). This is a total of 1566 points (between 6th and 7th pick of 1st round). Denver gives us 1050 (15th pick in 1st traded to draft Cutler), 250 (68th pick or 3rd rounder traded to draft Cutler), and 40 points (4th pick in 5th round) or 1340 points. In total, we gave up an extra 226 points for Cutler which is like the 9th pick in the 3rd round.

Is a pro-bowl QB worth an extra 3rd rounder thrown in to make the deal? I say yes.

For those who will say that I am selling Orton cheap, you are right but let me explain my reasoning. Say that the Bears pulled off the trade without Orton. Cutler would be the starter. Orton would sit on the bench for 2009 and leave in free agency. At least we get some value for someone who would not be a Bear in 2010.

fcspikeit:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
Hello everyone, this is my first post on this board.. I will be spending some time here now that we have something in common. That is of course now that I will be cheering for the Bears this year.. Yes I am a Broncos fan. Have been for over 20 years. This off season has been tough, The Broncos Brass have seriously engaged in some shady activity.. I have spent the last 6 weeks discussing the subject and to be honest, I am tired of talking about it.. So I will get to the point.

The Broncos lost out in this trade.. Cutler carried them to 8-8 last year... If it wasn't for Cutler they would have been lucky to win 5 games. I'm not just saying that as an opinion either. Well, everything is an opinion but it's an educated one.

I set out to find the expected QB winning % in the NFL when compared to the same deficit to overcome. I broke it into 7 categories, 1-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35 and 36+ . I went back the last 3 years for every team, all 768 games, 1536 winners and losers. From that info I was able to find the average winning % in each category. Now all I have to do is figure a QB’s average against the NFL average to see how he stacks up.. It is a way of leveling the playing field a bit when comparing one QB against another.

 

Here’s how Cutler stacked up last year. The average NFL QB would have won 5.2 games in Denver. Of course Denver won 8 so Cutler was + 2.8 games. In the 15 games Kyle Orton played last year the average QB would have won 7.4 games. Orton won 8 of the 15 games so he was just above average.

 

Also, it’s worth noting every QB who played for a team that was projected to win 7 or less of the 16 games they played, finished in the -. In other wards, when faced with terrible odds to overcome, the average QB will make more mistakes then normal, which would be expected.. It’s harder to play from behind then it is the lead. You force throws when you know you have to score 30 to have a chance of winning.

 

There’s no doubt in my mind Cutler would have played even better last year had he not had to force so many throws. If he could take a projected 5 – 11 team to 8-8, he could take a projected 8-8 team to 12-4. Even if his play didn’t improve from the better conditions, he would have taken an 8-8 team to 11-5.

 

How it basically figures out is that the average defense will allow the average QB to win 8 games.. Both Pittsburgh and Baltimore’s defense projected over 11 wins if they had an average QB.

*Edit* why does it say "Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }" at the beginning of my post? That doesn't show up while I am composing the post and I can't edit it out?

It tends to happen here when you copy paste. So, I'm guessing you've posted this on another board or blog some where and when you copy pasted it here it left some of the html coding in.

You made some really good points there btw.

---

At long last Ron Turner is gone. But it seems that with every blessing there is a curse. RIP Gaines Adams.

Bearsfan1102:

Trent Dilfer and Mark Shlereth were way out of line in their assessment.    That the Bears gave up way too much to get Cutler

Point A  2 1st round picks and a 3rd round pick along with Orton(who is expendalble in getting Cutler who is a franchise quarterback is a fair trade

Point B  It opens the door in the future to fill in the missing pieces we need (like a wide receiver) for example because it shows them our commitment to winning

Point C  It shows the rest of the players and the fans that this team is committed in going back to the Superbowl and not settling for mediocricy

Point D  Going through the sorry list of qb's that have started for the Bears since 1986

Point E   It makes everyone on the offense better, ( no more 8 in the box) Cutler's arm strength and ability to move out of the pocket will give more time for the open receiver, offensive line will be pumped to open holes for Forte and Block for Cutler

Point F   Half of 1st round picks fail or not live up to their expectations and 3rd round picks pan out 35 percent of the time

Well there is my top points what do u think of my assessment on this ??

I was talking about that ESPN garbage with a friend who is a packers fan. He found it hilariously bad. At one point those two said and I quote "the bears are just above the Lions." Did we not finish ahead of green bay last year? Did green bay get anything in offseason that puts them ahead of us?

Not to mention the fact that they then said the biggest loser was detroit. Ok I can sort of agree with that statement. But their reasoning behind bashing us for trading with them was that we had other holes to fill and now can't. And detroit doesn't? Detroit has 8 picks right now. 2 #1's, 1 #2, 2 #3's, 2 #6's and 1 #7. Before the trade, we had 1 #1, 1 #2, 2 #3's, 1 #4, 1 #5, 1 #6, and 2 #7's. If you say for a moment that detroit manage to make this deal we did and toss whatever crap QB they have in as the kicker we did with Orton, Detroit now has Cutler 1 #1(none next year), 1 #2, 1 #3, 1 #5, 2 #6's, and a #7 for a grand total of 7 picks of which 3 are traditional first day picks. We now have 1 #2, 1 #3, 1 #4, 2 #5's, 1 #6, 2 #7's for a total of 8 picks of which 2 are traditional first day picks. That's a huge contradiction.

I also remember hearing and I quote "they love Orton in Chicago." I'm glad those two have the pulse in chicago sports... I think what gets me the most is that last year everyone loved the Jared Allen trade from the Vikes perspective. They gave up a 1st and 2 3rds for him. The difference in value between the two trades is roughly Orton and a 2nd round pick. Cutler is a "franchise QB." Allen while a very good player is not. At this point do you think the vikes would trade Allen, Jackson and a 2nd round pick for Cutler ignoring the cap for the moment?

It's just really frustrating watching that garbage and I don't get NFL network. They murder us for YEARS about grossman and orton and all of the bums before them. And we go out and finally get someone and "we gave up too much." What the hell? You don't think any of the other x teams who were after Cutler wouldn't have gave up the same amount of picks? I'm sure if the Jets had done this trade they would have been praised for such a "bold move." That third round pick they gave up for Favre really worked out well for them last year. The A) didn't make the playoffs and B) now have nothing to show for it. But it was such a great move for them.

---

At long last Ron Turner is gone. But it seems that with every blessing there is a curse. RIP Gaines Adams.

beckdawg:

Let me start off by saying I'm more from the traditional JA line of thought in that you can never have too many draft picks and 9/10 trading down is the right move. So, how does one rationalize the cost of 2 #1's and a #3 to go with Orton?

Most of the people who are worried about the price are people like me. So, as one of those people I think I'm the best to rationalize the price. Let's say for a minute that the team decided Orton wasn't an answer. So, going into FA we are looking for a QB even though we said we weren't. What were our options in FA? There are no good QBs out there long term. Warner and Collins might have worked short term but they are band-aids not real fixes. So, if we're going to grab someone it had to be in the draft.

Most mocks have Stafford top 5(most #1) and Sanchez top 10. Freeman is a potential first round guy. However, he seems to be the type who needs a year or two to develop. So, because of that, I'm going to consider him out of the question.

Let's look at what we gave up.
18th pick, the 84th pick
We get back the 140th pick.

It's hard to put a value today on the 2010 pick. However, based off where we are today, I see no way we're worse than last year. I would put us in a dead heat or better with the Vikes. So, for the sake of argument I'm going to use the 22nd pick in 2010 as a reference point.

So, we have the 18th pick(value 900), the 22nd pick in 2010(value 780) and the 84th pick(value 170) or a total of 1850 points. The 140th pick is worth a total of 36 points. So, we're looking at a net loss of 1814 points and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler. It's hard to put a value on Orton but I can't honestly see anyone giving up more than a 4th round pick for him. So, for the sake of easy math let's say he's worth 61 points(4th round 20th pick range). That puts our total loss in picks at around 1875. To compensate for any possible mistakes in judgement, let's say that's an even 2000 points.

What would 2000 draft points get us? It would put us some where between the 3rd and 4th pick. In other words, if we traded everything we did for a 2009 pick, it's highly unlikely we could get Stafford who probably goes 1-3 most likely #1. That leaves Sanchez. Sanchez is probably top 10. I personally think Sanchez is a bad pick in the top half of the first round. If Sanchez does drop to the 10th pick, that's 1300 points in the trade value. The additional 700 points is worth the 26th pick.Any thing higher than the 10th pick for Sanchez pushes the additional value down to the 2nd round range.

So, you can view it like this if the price we paid worries you. We gave up less than it would have cost to get Stafford. As for Sanchez, Cutler costs us Sanchez and a later 1st, possibly early 2nd round pick. So while it seems like we gave up a ton to a draft guy like me, if you think about it like that, it's not as bad. Stafford or Cutler for what we gave up? That's the best way I can see to rationalize it.

Good analysis and thus Denver has a huge problem unless they are sold on Orton long term. To get into the draft range to pick Sanchez who is the only one of the 3 top rated Qb's that fits their offense they will have to give up their 2 #1's picks, pay a fortune to a high pick with no gaurantee that he will be a star. Denver has a problem.