April 6th, 2009

Brandt Making Sense – As Usual

Aaron Nagler in Andrew Brandt, Bears Suck

While it’s fun to bash the Bears and GM Jerry Angelo, Andrew Brandt has a great, reasoned take on the Cutler trade today. Money quote:

I was involved in a couple of such trades that looked like immediate losers for the Packers but now appear in a different light. In successive years, we traded Mike McKenzie and Javon Walker to New Orleans and Denver for second-round picks that turned into Nick Collins and Greg Jennings, respectively. At first blush, the trades looked one-sided for the Saints and Broncos, who acquired proven veterans while we got rookies from Bethune-Cookman and Western Michigan. The instant analysis of those trades certainly did not favor Green Bay.

Today, McKenzie is out of the league, recently released by the Saints. Walker lasted two seasons with the Broncos and caught 15 balls for the Raiders last season while collecting $13M. Collins was in the Pro Bowl a couple months ago, and Jennings may be a top 10 receiver in the NFL (he has 133 receptions the last two seasons compared to Walker’s 41).  A bit different look for these trades today, no? …

I guess I should follow my own edict when it comes to grading drafts when it comes to looking at trades, no? Yes, I definetly jumped the gun the other day. But it sure got the blood flowing, didn’t it? ;)

19 Responses to “Brandt Making Sense – As Usual”

Subscribes to this topic Comment RSS or TrackBack URL

“MAY be a top-10 WR”?????? really? MAY?

jeremiah said in April 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am

Think he meant to say “May be Top 5″ ;)

packeraaron said in April 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am

I’d like to see the list of WRs ahead of Jennings. I can think of at least three that have been cut or suspended due to character issues. And Jennings was just one of 5 picks that were parlayed from that deal.

I want Ted to give up #9 to Denver so they can take Sanchez, and we get another 6 picks.

bomdad said in April 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am

Sounds like you’re apologizing. For what ??
Everyone falls ‘in love’ with a strong-armed gunslinger. Cutler’s numbers just simply don’t merit 2 1sts, a 3rd & Orton.
One can’t analyze the trade based on the players Denver eventually will draft using the picks. The fact that Denver has the picks is the key. Chicago won’t be able to address their needs through the draft. They’ll have to become bigger players in free agency for at least the next two years. Good luck to them.
Perfect example: They need a WR to go with Cutler. At this point: what are their choices – Holt ?? Harrison ?? The Bears are already ham-strung because of this trade.

WoodyG said in April 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Apparently Gil Brandt and the Packers have a crystal ball. I’ll give them credit for getting rid of McKenzie, but Walker? Really? The dude had his career ruined by injuries. So unless the Brandt & Co. hopped in a Delorean to see how Walker’s career would turn out, not to mention the fact that both Collins and Jennings turned out to be pretty good players, I think this is a pretty egregious example of 20/20 hindsight. It’s a lot harder nailing draft picks than Brandt is making it out to be, so I think he’s being a bit disingenuous with this post. The Broncos will be lucky to nail one of those picks.

Further, this is like comparing apples to oranges. Teams have shown that they can effectively acquire WRs and secondary players through the draft. Acquiring QBs is a totally different animal. There is no hard and fast rule for drafting QBs. Look at how many #1 picks have failed over the last few years. The side of the road is littered with the careers of failed QBs. When you have a chance to acquire a talent such as Cutler who has shown what he is capable of in the league, you have to make that deal.

Keith said in April 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Jennings.

PackOne said in April 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Keith: I would disagree. The Packers traded Walker knowing full well about his injuries. He tore up his knee 3 quarters into his 4th season and then demanded a new contract. The Packers shipped him out of town to Denver where he rushed back from the injury to play in 12ish games (in which he produced, good for him) but then re-injured himself and hasn’t been the same since. Brandt & Co got it right. They got rid of a problem child and a team distraction and found a pretty good WR in the process. I always thought the Packers “won” from the get-go with that trade regardless of if the draft pick panned out.

Ryeguy812 said in April 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Ryeguy: Fair enough. My point still stands though. It’s a lot easier to replace Javon Walker than Jay Cutler.

Keith said in April 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

In both cases that Brandt mentioned, I thought the Packers made out pretty well. A second round pick for a disgruntled cornerback intentionally trying to be a cancer? A second round pick for an injured, disgruntled wide receiver with a Wonderlic lower than his shoe size? I thought the Packers were already ahead on those trades. The fact they turned into NC and GJ is icing on the cake.

L.A. said in April 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Come on Keith. Walker ruined his career, not his injuries.

packeraaron said in April 6th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Oh – and it’s ANDREW Brandt – not Gil.

packeraaron said in April 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Keith, if you scour the last 10 years of drafting the position that fails more than any other in the first round is WR, not QB.

QBs are the most important component to a teams success, and there are probably fewer good ones out there, but you only need one….WR are the toughest position to fill consistently because you need 3 and as I point out, they have the highest failure rate via being drafted in the first round. By the way, no matter who the bears draft at WR, history tells us that they probably won’t contribute much.

Brandt makes some good points on Collins and Jennings.

buckslayernyc said in April 6th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

I think that the important thing was that they were able to get rid of two cancer players. They needed to get those guys out of the locker room. Those two were cocky and were only looking out for themselves. The fact that we got two picks out of it were bonus.
Keith, you talk about 20/20 hindsight like it is a bad thing. It is the only way to actually analyze a decision. I think the draft “experts” who analyze a teams draft picks the day after the draft are only doing it because someone is paying them. It means nothing.
I would much rather see the experts spend the week after the draft analyzing the drafts 3 or 4 years ago. Who really ended up on top? How did the picks actually help their team? If Mel Kiper Jr. talked about that I might (and I mean might) actually pay attention to him.

PackerBacker said in April 6th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Buck, the Packers have 5 guys who could probably start on most teams around the NFL. The Packers have also acquired their secondary players in various ways. If you have a good personnel department, you can find capable WRs. Look at the Giants, they picked up Domenik Hixon off waivers from the Broncos and he had a solid season for them last year. You’re not going to find a starting QB off waivers. At least not a good one. Seriously, how many QBs other than Peyton and Brady (who are on a different level than everyone) would you take over Cutler? That’s a mighty short list my friend.

Keith said in April 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am

Domenik Hixon, of the famous big drop that basically cost them the Philly game?

But I digress….Other than Manning and Brady I would take Rivers, Brees, Rodgers, Warner, McNabb, the OTHER Manning, Ryan, Flacco, and MAYBE Romo over Cutler.

That’s just me.

packeraaron said in April 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am

The only guys I would say are DEFINITELY better than Cutler and who I would take over him are: Peyton, Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees. Warner is better, but I would prefer Cutler due to youth and health. I’ve always liked McNabb, but at this stage in his career I’ll take Cutler. I think Rivers, Cutler, Rodgers, and Romo are all neck and neck on that second level, with any of them having the capability to “make the leap” to join that elite group. I think Eli is in a group of his own between that top group and the second group, because I don’t put him on that top level, but I think he could get there… but at the same time, he has a ring. There is no way I put Ryan and Flacco ahead of Cutler after one year. Like I’ve said numerous times, if you gave Cutler a defense as good as the Ravens, they would have won the Super Bowl.

Keith said in April 7th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Keith – that’s all well and good, but I fail to see how you can completely discount the fact that Cutler just pissed and moaned his way off of the Broncos. I mean, his coach took a phone call about a trade and Cutler acts like McDaniels killed his mother. And then he basically calls Pat Bowlen a liar. Stay classy Cutler! No way I want this prick anywhere near my team…

packeraaron said in April 7th, 2009 at 11:29 am

You’re not going to find a starting QB off waivers. At least not a good one.
Kurt Warner called to say you are wrong again.

bucky said in April 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Bucky, Warner is an aberration and you know it. He looked finished with the Giants. And I’m not talking about a guy like Warner or Montana and Favre at the end of their careers. I’m talking about a top tier starting QB who will be the team’s franchise QB for years. During the Super Bowl when they kept saying “Warner could be the first QB to lead two different clubs to a SB win” I was less than impressed. There is a reason why this has never happened before – teams don’t let Super Bowl winning QBs go unless they believe they’re washed up. See Favre, Brett; Montana, Joe, Warner, Kurt; Namath, Joe; etc.

Aaron, there is a reason why I don’t own a “Jump to Conclusions Matt.” No one knows what really went on behind closed doors in Denver. Do we know that it wasn’t McDaniels who acted like a prick? Do we know for sure that Bowlen didn’t lie to Cutler?

Keith said in April 8th, 2009 at 10:22 am

Recent Entries

Auction


Sponsors


Streetviews