On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:10:08 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote: >Down early and no way to come back. Will anyone wonder if Orton is the right >choice now?
the "right" choice? lessee, Orton for $1m or Cutler for $15m... hmmm, I'd have to go with the bargain at this point.
for all the talk about this "great defensive game" I sure did see a lot of missed tackles. almost all the plays in the 2nd half, the broncos D missed the first, or the first few, opportunities to make a tackle.
moreno looked hesitant. head down, up the gut, three yards and a cloud of dust. for a minute I swear I saw Dan Reeves there in his hoodie. -- biff [hr14kb...@sneakemail.com] (put "blackcherry" in the subject line to get through) _______ ____ | /----/ (____) c (.).) |Budw| ( (_)) (_)(__) \ . | | (__) \___/ | (__) ---- Words of Wisdom for Saturday, October 17, 2009... Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.
> > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:10:08 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>Down early and no way to come back. Will anyone wonder if Orton is the > >>right choice now?
> > the "right" choice? lessee, Orton for $1m or Cutler for $15m... hmmm, > > I'd have to go with the bargain at this point.
> Playing in the NFL isn't about saving money, it's about winning football > games.
Well, the Broncos _do_ have the largest amount of "dead money" on the cap in the NFL this year. When you run up against the salary cap, it is about saving money. That said, a lot of the dead money is for Cutler, and if he hadn't been traded, it wouldn't have accelerated against this year's cap.
As for whether Orton is the right choice for this offense, I want to see the whole season before we make that judgement. But at first glance, this game would seem to illustrate the points that Cleatarrior, et al, have been making. One might even say that Flacco versus Orton was the biggest difference between these two teams today.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:34:03 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote: >> the "right" choice? lessee, Orton for $1m or Cutler for $15m... hmmm, >> I'd have to go with the bargain at this point.
>Playing in the NFL isn't about saving money, it's about winning football >games.
With a salary cap, winning games is about making the best use of the money. Get rid of dead money and hire the players who make the best impact for the dollar.
Money isn't anything by itself. The cost of something is whatever else you could have purchased. In this case I can speculate that it is Orton and Dawkins vs Cutler.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:34:03 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>> the "right" choice? lessee, Orton for $1m or Cutler for $15m... hmmm, > >>> I'd have to go with the bargain at this point.
> >>Playing in the NFL isn't about saving money, it's about winning football > >>games.
> > With a salary cap, winning games is about making the best use of the > > money. Get rid of dead money and hire the players who make the best > > impact for the dollar.
> > Money isn't anything by itself. The cost of something is whatever > > else you could have purchased. In this case I can speculate that > > it is Orton and Dawkins vs Cutler.
> The Broncos could have kept Cutler and gotten Dawkins so that speculation > would be a bit specious.
Not really. Cutler made it exceedingly obvious that Denver couldn't keep him. I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but his reaction (to what has happened to *every* QB in the NFL at one time or another) was very childish.
No one is safe, when it comes to trade talks. He should have realized that. I doubt that McD really wanted to trade the guy, he just wanted to see if there were options, and what he could get for a top line QB.
On Nov 2, 11:29 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not really. Cutler made it exceedingly obvious that Denver couldn't > keep him. I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but his reaction (to > what has happened to *every* QB in the NFL at one time or another) was > very childish.
> No one is safe, when it comes to trade talks. He should have realized > that. I doubt that McD really wanted to trade the guy, he just wanted > to see if there were options, and what he could get for a top line QB.
I think Clark is referring just to the salary-cap situation, and in that respect, he's right. Trading Cutler actually made the Broncos 2009 cap situation worse than keeping him would have.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:27:06 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote: >> Money isn't anything by itself. The cost of something is whatever >> else you could have purchased. In this case I can speculate that >> it is Orton and Dawkins vs Cutler.
>The Broncos could have kept Cutler and gotten Dawkins so that speculation >would be a bit specious.
Well, they're at the cap, so the money they would have spent on Cutler went somewhere. If they wanted both Cutler and Dawkins, something else would have to have been cut. Where do you think the difference was spent?
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:46:01 -0800 (PST), Adam Smith
<adamcsm...@fastmail.us> wrote: >I think Clark is referring just to the salary-cap situation, and in >that respect, he's right. Trading Cutler actually made the Broncos >2009 cap situation worse than keeping him would have.
How so?
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 02:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote: >> Well, they're at the cap, so the money they would have spent on Cutler >> went somewhere. If they wanted both Cutler and Dawkins, something >> else would have to have been cut. Where do you think the difference >> was spent?
>When Cutler was traded all the remaining bonus money was charged against this >year.
That's a bummer. I guess we'll see exactly how good of a trade it was next year. Cutler signed for a lot of money with Chicago.
>In terms of dead money, Bly was number one and Cutler was number two or >so. The Post had a story on it.
$36 million, the highest in the league.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
|
