Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The Cutler/Orton/Tebow Trade...Revisited

So.....Now that Kyle Orton has been sacked by the Broncos and Jay Cutler is out for the season for the Bears, I thought it would be nice to look back upon the initial trade that brought Orton to Denver, Cutler to Chicago, and was partially responsible for bringing Tim Tebow to Denver. In this article I will attempt to clarify who ultimately wound up being involved in this trade, and then I will attempt to use a metrics-based approach to do a light evaluation of how this trade has worked out so far. The source information for this article comes from a brilliant article done by Denver Post writer Mike Klis, and from the data and statistical analyses done by the hard working folks over at Pro-Football Reference.com.


Here is a diagram outlining how the trades started out and who ultimately was brought to the Broncos/Bears either wholly or in part, by this trade.



To summarize the personnel involved in the trade, the Broncos traded Jay Cutler and the draft pick that ultimately wound up being Johnny Knox to the Bears. In exchange, the Broncos got Orton and draft picks that ultimately wound up becoming Robert Ayers, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, 1/2 of Richard Quinn, and 1/3 of Tim Tebow. Yes, part of this trade went toward the draft pick that was Tebow, so it wouldn't be too far off base to say that the Cutler trade was partially responsible for Tebow coming to Denver.

While many have criticized Josh McDaniels' actual draft selections, he seems to have been pretty good at trading picks for more picks and moving around the draft board. In this case he took 2 - 1st Round Picks and a 3rd Round Pick and wound up with 2 - 1st Round Picks, a 3rd round Pick, 1/2 of a 2nd Round Pick and 1/3 of a 1st Round Pick.

So how good or bad was this trade??

It is awfully hard to use a fact-based approach to evaluate a trade of this kind, but I have taken a stab at rating it "so far" while keeping in mind that most people in this trade are still very young. I have utilized a metric devised by the folks over at Pro-Football Reference.com. The metric is called Approximate Value and in its simplest terms is an attempt to measure the value of players across positions and sides of the ball. A better/fuller explanation of this metric can be found at the Pro-Football Reference Blog.

Now don't take the rest of this post too serious as it is more for fun than anything else, but I have taken the AV described above and attempted to evaluate the trade with the AV metric. I have probably misused it by summing the AV's to try to get to an overall AV trade value. Here is what I found:


AV Analysis20092010
Cutler1112
Knox69
Bears Total1721



Orton1111
Ayers34
Thomas02
Decker01
1/2 of Quinn0.51
1/3 of Tebow01
Denver Total14.520

Through the 2009 and 2010 seasons, the Bears hold a slight advantage when the AV's are totaled. While certainly too early to really tell if this was a fantastic trade for either team, it will be fun in the future to watch these players and see how this trade, involving so many players, turns out...Enjoy!

Happy Thanksgiving to all...Cheers...

Bo

2 comments:

  1. Actually it would be extremely off base to link the Cutler trade to Tebow. It's lazy writing by the Denver post and equally lazy analysis by you. The Marshall trade is more closely linked to the Tebow trade.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your feedback. I am sorry you did not leave a name so I can have a better dialog with you. Here are some facts:

    While the Marshall trade more directly corresponds to the Tebow trade, if you look CLOSELY at this article you will notice that 1)I never said that this trade was more than partially responsible for Tebow, nor did I ever say I was handling the Marshall trade. I know there are other articles that claim to analyze this trade and then go on about the Marshall trade, that, in my opinion is deliberately misleading.

    This lazy analysis took hours to put together as I checked and rechecked info from the Post, NFL Draft website, and Pro-football Reference.
    If you had read the article more closely you would have seen that it was supposed to be mostly fun, but thanks anyway for you feedback.

    ReplyDelete