The Denver Broncos' Solution to the Jay Cutler Mess: DO NOTHING!

A popular long-running sitcom was oft referred to as "a show about nothing." A hit funk song from the 1970s declared that war was good for nothing. And "nothing" was the number of wins by the 2008 Detroit Lions and the number of losses by a certain Miami Dolphins franchise.

The Denver Broncos should be inspired by and follow those and other great examples of things empty and void in resolving the mess with their 25-year-old record-setting Pro Bowl QB, Jay Cutler.

Maybe they Broncos need guidance in doing so, as they are right now being run by a first time general manager and a first time head coach. So, they can go around and ask the other 31 teams in the NFL how they plan to deal with trading THEIR 25-year-old record-setting Pro Bowl QBs.

The other teams would reply "nothing." Why? Because they don't have such creatures on their roster to consider trading or not trading to begin with. Well, the Broncos can simply do the same and pretend they don't have one either.

Take a cue from the movie Single White Female, where the crazed killer asks her roommate, "Who is this Hedra anyway? No one's seen her. She's not on the lease." The Broncos can say, "Jay Cutler? Who is he? If he's not our starting QB, then he's Nemo (Latin for NO ONE) as far as the NFL is concerned."

Jay Cutler is under contract to the Denver Broncos for the next three seasons. While the contract doesn't compel Cutler to play for the Broncos (thanks NFLPA collective bargaining agreement!) it can keep Cutler from playing anywhere else.

What is more, if Cutler refuses to play, not only do the Broncos not have to pay him, but they have the option of fining him for each day he misses.

They won't be able to recoup all of the money that Cutler is owed (again, thanks collective bargaining agreement!) but Cutler will have to pay the Broncos for the privilege of doing nothing.

You might ask "how can a franchise do such an evil thing! It is unprecedented!" No it isn't. The Bengals made it clear that they were willing to do the same to Chad Johnson.

Also, the Detroit Lions did it to Barry Sanders.

Officially, Barry Sanders "retired," but the truth was that Sanders just didn't want to play for the Lions anymore (for obvious reasons). The Lions let Sanders know that they weren't going to trade him or release him, but instead use his contract to make sure that he wasn't going to go help another team win and make them look like fools in the process.

Now when the Lions did it, it was an idiotic decision, because they could have gotten players or picks for Sanders to make their team better. So isn't that the same case with Cutler? Ah, no.

You see, Barry Sanders was a TAILBACK. A first ballot Hall of Fame one, true, but still a tailback. You can replace a great tailback with a very good one rather easily, or you can win without one.

But in today's NFL, you aren't going to win without an effective QB, especially in the AFC. Now sure, its POSSIBLE, but only if you have great players practically everywhere else.

That does not describe the Broncos, who were only 8-8 WITH Cutler's 4,500 yards and 25 TDs in the AFC West, the second worst division in football (to the NFC West).

And that is why Cutler has no leverage. If he leaves, the Broncos are still going to stink no matter what they get in return. So instead of helping another team—and helping Cutler—by allowing him to use his record setting skills for another team, it is better for them to force Cutler to play for them, and in the worst case scenario let make him sit.

Making Cutler sit will result in the Broncos being no worse than they would be if they traded him.

What if they trade Cutler for another QB? If they do, they'll only wind up with someone that another franchise can't win with, like Brady Quinn or Kyle Orton. So...Cleveland and Chicago can't win with those guys, but Denver can?

What if they trade Cutler for a high draft pick that they can use on Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez?

No rookie QB is going to be able to run Josh McDaniels' complex and precision offense no matter how good he is, and teams that run such systems generally take QBs later in the draft anyway precisely because it is going to take at least two or three years before he'll be ready to play.

So scratch that.

Fine, but what about getting a package of players and picks for Cutler to make your team better?

First of all, no team is going to give up the sort of difference making player at a critical position in a trade.

Every franchise has guys that are untouchable because if they give those guys up, they won't be any better than Denver is now, and if that be the case, what is the point in trading for Cutler anyway, especially since they would also give up the draft picks that would use to try to replace their cornerstones?

Also, as stated already, even if Denver were to get a couple of starters in a trade and use the draft picks to select a couple more starters, they still wouldn't be any good because they still wouldn't have a quarterback. Sure, maybe they'd be 8-8 instead of 4-12, but they still wouldn't be a playoff team.

Instead, they'd be paying a lot more money to the guys and draft picks that they got for Cutler for the privilege of not being any good until they get an effective QB. You go sell the Broncos owner Pat Bowlen on spending more money to NOT make the playoffs and see how far that gets you.

Bowlen will reply that if he wanted that, he would have never fired Dan Reeves, let alone Mike Shanahan.

So, since trading Cutler benefits Denver in no way, why do it? No one can provide an answer. The media will never acknowledge this, because the media has an interest in making sure that star QBs in the NFL continue to get pampered.

So what.

The media is not going to win a single game for the Broncos, nor will they write a single check to Pat Bowlen to help him pay his players.

What the media WILL do is mock Denver for the next 20 years if Cutler goes on to have a Hall of Fame career somewhere else, and the Broncos should keep that in mind when the media is ripping them to shreds for refusing to give into Cutler's demands.

And the guy who will receive the brunt of the abuse will be Josh McDaniels, who would be fired within three seasons and unable to get another head coaching job ... a career ruined by age 35.

That is just one benefit to saying "Us or nobody" to Cutler. Another benefit: It strengthens the position of McDaniels with the players that Denver will still have. Another benefit still: A league without Cutler in it will be an easier league for the teams that don't have Cutler—including Denver—to win games and compete for the playoffs.

Is that much to gain by keeping Cutler on the sidelines? No. But that isn't the point. The point is that if Cutler isn't going to play for Denver, then they lose anyway. Keeping Cutler from playing elsewhere allows them to cut their losses.

It is not in the NFL's best interests?

Well, life will move on in the NFL, who will just find another star to promote. Is it in Jay Cutler's best interests? No, but Jay Cutler is a grown man with tens of millions of dollars in the bank who can take care of himself.

It is in the best interests of the Broncos, and if the Broncos don't look out for their own interests, who will? Not the NFL franchises trying to beat the Broncos on the field, and certainly not Jay Cutler.

Besides, time is on the Broncos' side. Right now, the fans and the media are backing Cutler and blaming the Broncos, especially McDaniels.

The only reason is not the facts of the case—that Denver has the right to trade any player that they choose, that McDaniels has the right to get the players that he wants, and it is in the interests of the Broncos and in general the NFL to assert the authority of the coach, general manager, and owner (in all of whose eyes Cutler is sticking his thumbs right now), or else the NFL will descend into the repugnant chaos that the NBA was a few years ago.

The last one is key. The media would love to keep the line going that "quawtabacks is special!" and that the league should bend over backwards to keep them happy.

The truth is that the other players aren't going to buy some grotesque standard where the QB is pampered while the guys who the QB cannot possibly win without have to "shut up and play!"

It will take approximately five seconds before a guy gets it into his head "you think your QB is all that? Fine...see how good he is without me blocking/running the ball/catching the ball/playing defense for him.

As a matter of fact, Cutler's biggest defenders love to point out "he hasn't had any help!" to explain away the fact that he hasn't had a winning season since high school.

Of course, it is true—though not as ironclad as Cutler apologists claim—but that is all the more reason why the Broncos can't and shouldn't buy the media line that they should accommodate Cutler because QBs are so special.

In truth, accommodating Cutler would set a bad precedent for the franchise and the NFL.

This is nothing like Baltimore (Indianapolis) and San Diego being forced to trade away John Elway and Eli Manning, a favorite media canard, as players are not obligated to sign with the team that drafts them...they can re-enter the draft.

But once a player signs a contract with a franchise, the player should either play for the team or be traded or released on terms that benefit the franchise. The idea that you are going to be able to get away with a "QB with hurt feelings" exception to this without no one else trying to exploit it is unrealistic.

So, as this drags on, eventually the media is going to be forced to stop saying, "How DARE Denver offend Jay Cutler by trying to trade for the OBVIOUSLY INFERIOR Matt Cassel," (funny how people who are so concerned with Cutler's feelings could care less about Cassel!).

The fans will be forced to stop saying "Josh McDaniels doesn't know what he is doing, plus none of the Belichick assistants have done anything anyway!" to saying, "Ok...why isn't this guy in camp?

"This isn't about him wanting a bigger contract, this isn't about some real personal dispute with his head coach, because he has barely spoken to—let alone played for—his head coach and doesn't even know the guy. He is hurting the team, and it is time to move on."

Of course, Cutler is free to defy public opinion and remain intransigent, but again, look at it from Josh McDaniels' point of view, and the owner who has a vested interest in McDaniels' succeeding. If Cutler is traded, the story line forever will be "it was McDaniels' fault.

"He did something or said something that alienated the franchise" and McDaniels never lives it down. But once public opinion swings, the fans and the media will have no choice but to conclude that Cutler is the one being unreasonable.

The fans will have to accept that Cutler is not going to get what he wants: McDaniels is not going to be fired, and not only that, but they aren't even going to get any picks and/or players for the guy.

And the media, whose whole strategy of making money off the NFL, will have to deal with the best young QB in the NFL—indeed the best young QB in a long time—is on the sidelines hurting their bottom line in a bad economy.

Again, it won't be enough to force Cutler to play for McDaniels and Bowlen if he doesn't want to, but it will certainly make the Broncos look a lot better than they do right now.

That plus not being stuck with paying the players and picks that they would get for Cutler so they can lose games with a higher payroll AND not having to see Cutler light it up for someone else—and inevitably down the line beat the Broncos at some point—is the best deal that they will be able to manage should Cutler choose to continue to act this way.

And if that is the best that the Broncos can do, then it is my advice that they take it.

Again, trading Cutler hurts the Broncos far more than it could possibly help them, so they shouldn't do it. Jay Cutler is a Denver Bronco until his contract runs out. Of course, taking this stance would effectively end Cutler's career, but keep in mind: It would be Cutler's own decision to throw it away.