Who's the Blame for the Jay Cutler-Josh McDaniels Mess? Consider This...

Samuel Bell JrSenior Analyst IApril 3, 2009

CHARLOTTE, NC - DECEMBER 14:  Jay Cutler #6 of the Denver Broncos walks off the field after the Carolina Panthers defeated them 30-10 during their game at Bank of America Stadium on December 14, 2008 in Charlotte, North Carolina  (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)

The recent trade of former Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler was as big news as we've seen recently out of NFL front offices.

I nearly broke my favorite chair when ESPN broke the story that Cutler had been dealt to the Chicago Bears. I actually spilled the Corona I was drinking on the chair, which ironically was a Corona captain chair.

Anyhoo, I couldn't believe a franchise guy had been traded so quickly, and that it seemed like it was trading glasses of Kool-Aid.

There's a lot riding on a trade of that significance, and maybe the young exuberance of incumbent Broncos coach Josh McDaniels combined with a superego is how it happened so easily.

How do two men have this astronomical of a fallout, especially when millions of dollars are involved over soiled emotions?

It's like watching two sororities fight over the winner of a step show. In other words, there had to be a way to iron this thing out.

Apparently it wasn't, and Broncos fans and NFL fans alike are furiously taking sides in this issue. Who's to blame and why?

Is it Cutler because of his tissue-like emotions, and the fact he allowed a little spilled drink to soil them?

Is it perhaps McDaniels because of his flirtation with a former player that he felt comfortable with? There have been so many arguments about this issue, and everyone seems to feel like the answer is so simple.

Clearly it isn't.

The talk has been circled around what the Bears gave up for Cutler, and quite honestly I don't know why.

Draft picks are very important to a team's future, but when you trade them it's obvious the piece you're receiving means more to your future than the possible draft picks.

Who knows what those first round picks would bring Chicago? One thing for certain is more likely than not those picks will take time to show anything.

Cutler can show you something NOW. Risking something on a franchise QB with over 4,500 yards and 25 TDs with no defensive support is worth a few picks.

It's a calculated risk. The argument that Kyle Orton is nearly equivalent to Cutler is an obvious reach and complete fallacy.

Orton passed for less than 3,000 yards and 20 TDs, and ended the season with a 9-7 record. The Broncos were absolutely despicable on D, and everyone knows a QB's best friend is a defense. Just ask Kerry Collins.

Orton has shared time with Rex Grossman, and just won the full time job last season. He had a consistent running threat with rookie Matt Forte, something the likes of Cedric Benson couldn't provide them.

Before that Orton was just, well, very very average. It's amazing how fast people forget when someone breaks out a little.

Nevertheless, with a less than scintillating amount of talent coming out this season, and a possible QB dominated draft in 2010 with Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Zac Robinson and Tim Tebow coming out to name some, the Bears will be fine.

Denver could pick some players that don't pan out. Maybe one of the picks becomes a consistent contributor. Who knows, but the whole notion that they got the better deal with a whole plethora of potential talent is absurd.

Cutler is already established as a top-level performer in the league, and the Broncos are left with Orton, Darrell Hackney, and Chris Simms on their roster. Cutler's production trumps them all, easily.

At best the Broncos got the best they could hope for in exchange for Cutler, but it wasn't equal. When you give up your house in hopes of winning three, what happens when you don't receive any?


Of course, you could win three mansions and be sittin' pretty forever. I wouldn't want to gamble with that, though.

Neither should have McDaniels, and this scenario is why I believe he was the guilty party here.
Consider this:

You have a girlfriend of three years. She's become an amazing catch, as you've helped develop her into a woman and one who maximizes her personality's potential.

Everything seems OK, but you and her decide that you are better friends and you are taking a job elsewhere and don't want to continue a long distance relationship.

You move away, and are match-made with a new girl that is as beautiful as Eva Mendes. She has what you need in almost every conceivable way, and is far above average.

For some reason though, you find out your old girlfriend may be moving to town and is available.

Without even telling the new girl about it, you call up your ex's parents and tell them that you are in love with her and can't live without her, and try to convince them that she will be fine with you if she moves.

Meanwhile, your new girl finds out about it and the ex-girlfriend decides to move elsewhere. Now you've lost her and broke the trust with your new girl.

Essentially, Matt Cassel is the ex you couldn't get over, Cutler is the new girl, and you've just made a huge mistake. Realizing this, you try and get the new one back but she feels like she can never trust you.

She has that right, and she hasn't even known you that long.

When you look at it that way, Cutler was well within his rights to not trust McDaniels anymore. If someone did you like that, would you feel warm and cozy about going back to that situation?

You sure wouldn't, unless you were a guest on Maury.

Did Cutler kind of act like a baby? Sure he did, but he was within his rights to. If trust is a big thing to him, then why can't he be allowed to want to trust his coach?

McDaniels broke trust he never established, and tarnished his most important relationship as a coach. That my friend is a recipe for dissension.

Let Cutler re-establish himself in Chicago with a new coach he can trust, without sneaking behind his back.

He at least deserves that, right?


The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.