Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

02 Apr 2009

ESPN INSIDER: Is Cutler Trade Biggest Ever?

Chicago had to give up a ton of draft value to get him, but it is possible that Jay Cutler is the most valuable young talent ever traded after already establishing himself as a Pro Bowl-quality player. The quarterbacks listed in his similarity scores are a collection of Hall of Famers and near-Hall of Famers. Sure, he's a big crybaby, but wouldn't we have said that about John Elway in 1983? Perhaps my favorite Cutler stat: Cutler has more years in the DYAR top ten (two) than all Chicago quarterbacks combined since 1994 (one).

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 02 Apr 2009

55 comments, Last at 21 Apr 2010, 3:01am by coach bags outlet


by andrew :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:36pm

I can't read the article, but I still think the Herschel Walker trade is the biggest trade in terms of what was netted for one player.

by tuluse :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:20pm

Based on the abstract, I think it's what trade did both sides get a lot. Herschel Walker didn't do much in Minnesota.

I think Ditka trading his whole draft for Ricky Williams has to up there too.

by keith (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:34am

I read it on Insider. "Biggest" isn't meant to infer largest in terms of number or players or picks, but biggest in terms of magnitude. 25 year old Pro Bowl QBs aren't traded every day.

by manderson (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:05am

Can't read this article but it seems like unnecessary hype for a story that has already been covered to death

by Josh :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:34pm

No, it's not. It's almost the equivalent of Pittsburgh trading Ben after winning the Super Bowl in his second year. Cutler's a top 5 QB when you consider how many years he has left. And it shows how freaking stupid Josh McDaniels is.

by MJK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:32pm

By all accounts, this trade happened because Pat Bowlen decided he wanted Cutler gone. Peter King indicated that McDaniels was trying to play the "wait a little for cooler tempers to prevail, Cutler is under contact and we can keep him on our team" game. But Bowlen up and decided he'd had enough, and went over his coach's (and de facto personnell man's) head and announced to the world that they would be trading Cutler. Once he did that, there was nothing McDaniels could do to gainsay him.

As far as I can tell, the only mistakes McDaniels made was (1) not starting trade talks sooner (he had to know the Pats would be in a hurry to unload Cassel), and (2) not spending more effort pussyfooting and pandering to Cutler's ego. I'm pretty sure that part of the problem is that all the QB's he's worked with and had success with (Brady, Cassel, Gutierrez, etc.) were late round draft picks or undrafted and had to work hard with a humble attitude and strong work ethic. He never had to deal with whiny, prima donna first round picks with egos to match their draft stature.

by Jimmy Oz (not verified) :: Tue, 04/07/2009 - 7:12pm

Wow MJK, you've got a hard on for Patriot QB's or have you just broken up with Cutler. Either way, totally gay and utterly subjective.

Fact according to me: Peter King is the NFL's Tokyo Rose/Lord Haw-Haw. When people tell Peter King something, they know that its going to get printed unfettered by criticism. If we start here, lets look backwards.

What reason does Bowlen have for telling Peter King that it was his decision?
Bowlen comes off as an interferring Jerry Jones or Al Davis type because shipping out a Pro-Bowl QB for not returning phone calls would, in most cases, undermine a head coach.

Unless of course the head coach didn't care and thought he could win with 'any' QB. If that's the case, now Bowlen has reasons (media, fans & players attitude to McDaniels) to take the blame off his rookie head coach.

Continuing on with the theme and looking at Cutler's actions - all he's done is force the trade that McDaniels wanted anyway. Doesn't this make more sense than your posturing?

by Key19 :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:14am

So trading one player to get enough picks to build the foundations of a Super Bowl dynasty has less magnitude than trading a whiny pima donna for a three picks?

Ok... I guess the Broncos are going to draft two Hall of Famers with their picks like the Cowboys did with two of the picks they received (Emmitt Smith and Darren Woodson). And on top of that, also get more two solid players (Russell Maryland and Kevin Smith).

If the Broncos' picks do result in future Hall of Fame players coming to their team (and a subsequent Super Bowl dynasty run), I will possibly change my mind regarding which trade I think had more magnitude. But come on, you really think Cutler/unknown picks has more magnitude than Walker/HoF picks + Super Bowls?

by boing (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:04am

i can't believe this happened...mcdaniels is an idiot - though cutler's a crybaby i'll admit. this changes everything!

by Travis :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:04am

The biggest trade I can think of was the Dickerson trade in 1987:

Colts get:
Eric Dickerson (from Rams, had 7,000 rushing yards in first four years of career; would rush for 1,000 yards in next 9 games while leading Colts to division title)

Bills get:
Cornelius Bennett (unsigned by Colts, drafted #2 overall in 1987, eventually went to 5 Pro Bowls and 5 Super Bowls)

Rams get:
Bills #1 in 1988
Bills #1 in 1989
Colts #1 in 1988
Colts #2 in 1988
Colts #2 in 1989
Greg Bell (from Bills, would lead league in rushing TDs in 1988 and 1989)
Owen Gill (from Colts, career soon ended)

I'm not an Insider, so I don't know if this was covered in the article.

by ammek :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:07am

With all those picks the Rams really ought to have dominated the league in the early 90s. Instead, they were the Lions du jour.

I think they used one of the picks to draft Flipper Anderson, and maybe Fred Strickland with another. Apart from that, a bunch of meh.

Did you hear that, Josh?

by Travis :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:53am

(left off in #7) The Rams also got the Bills' #2 in 1989.

The players drafted with those picks:

Buffalo No. 1 – 1988 (Gaston Green, RB, 14th overall)
Indianapolis No. 1 – 1988 (Aaron Cox, WR, 20th overall)
Indianapolis No. 2 – 1988 (Fred Strickland, LB, 47th overall)
Buffalo No. 1 – 1989 (Cleveland Gary, RB, 26th overall)
Indianapolis No. 2 – 1989 (Frank Stams, LB, 45th overall)
Buffalo No. 2 – 1989 (Darryl Henley, DB, 53rd overall)

Two of the six draft picks were used on running backs, in addition to the two RBs the Rams received in the trade, PLUS the Rams already had Charles White, the NFL's leading rusher in 1987. This is the kind of management that led to nine consecutive losing seasons between 1990 and 1998.

by ammek :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:34pm


by Theo :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 7:23am

Robert Delpino pick #117 and Keith Jones pick #147 were also running backs taken by the Rams in 1988.

by James-London :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:08am

As to the size of the trade, Michael Lombardi at the National Football Post makes an interesting point. The Bears were going to pick at #18 in the 1st round this year anyway, so that shouldn't be counted as a 'cost'. If you take that view, the paid a #3 and next years #1 to get Cutler, who is their 1st round pick this year. Viewed that way, this isn't a costly trade for Chicago.


Phil Simms is a Cretin.

by TomC :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:09pm

James, I generally find your posts thoughtful and intelligent, so I'm going to direct this to Lombardi and not to you: That is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Say I have 5000 dollars. I am planning to spend that 5000 dollars on a new roof for my house. Then someone says to me: "Hey, I'll give you my Mercedes-Benz for your Honda Civic and 5000 dollars." I like my Civic OK, but I've always wanted a Benz, so I do the deal. I now have a Mercedes-Benz, and I have neither my Honda Civic, nor my 5000 dollars, nor my new roof. Can Lombardi please explain to me how the $5000 should not be counted as a "cost," seeing as how I was going to spend it anyway on a new roof?

by Jimmy :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:53am

post removed

by Jimmy :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:51am

I think the point is that if a player as good as Cutller was available at 18 where the Bears pick they would have taken him. Not that any draft pick could be as proven as Cutler is.

It might however turn out that the biggest piece of freight sent to Denver is Orton. If the guy is a starting NFL QB (and I guess now we all find out one way or another) he is probably more valuable than any of the picks involved even f he never turns into a Pro Bowler.

by MJK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:38pm

That logic is right up there with the time I heard the San Francisco Giants manager comment that, with regard to interleague play, playing against an AL team was like facing two extra batters each time through the rotation because (1) you didn't have to face the pitcher, and (2) you had to face someone better than a pitcher.


by parker (not verified) :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 9:57am

This logic absolutely makes sense. The roof analogy makes no sense because you are not forced to buy a new roof by a certain day along with all of your neighbors. The Bears added one player they wanted and gave up the chance to get several other chances to add other players. You can logically consider cutler this year's first round draft pick.

by Kibbles :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 5:41pm

No you can't. I mean, if you logically consider Cutler this year's first round pick, then Chicago just traded this year's 3rd and next year's first in exchange for Denver's 5th. That's a trade worthy of the Washington Redskins right there.

You *CAN*, however, logically consider Cutler this year's first, this year's third, and next year's first.

by Feagles - King ... :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:15am

It seemed like the article focused more on how Cutler's numbers stacked up against HOF-caliber quarterbacks and some other prominent ones. Speaking strictly to the ESPN article (I'm an Insider only because of my magazine subscription), it's funny how you forget that someone like Neil Lomax put up big numbers his first couple of years in the league.

by johonny (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:58pm

Lomax went down with a hip problem. Catastrophic injury is always hard to predict.

by Gringo Starrr (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:45am

I don't know which picks were from the trade and which were theirs originally, but in '88, the Rams drafted RB Gaston Green, WR Aaron Cox, DB Anthony Newman, WR Flipper Anderson, and LB Fred Strickland in the first two rounds. (Buffalo, with a 2nd-round pick they didn't trade, drafted HOF-er Thuman Thomas).

In '89, the Rams drafted DT Bill Hawkins, RB Cleveland Gary, LB Frank Stams, LB Brian Smith, and DB Darryl Henley. (Indy got back into the first round and drafted Andre Rison) The mere fact that they had to fill the same holes in '89 as they did in '88 speaks to how well they used those draft picks.

by zerlesen (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:05pm

As a Denver fan, I'm just happy the trade got done in time for us to start work on getting rid of Ryan Clady before the draft.

by andrew :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:21pm

For Comparison, the Herschel Walker trade:

Vikings received:

Herschel Walker
# Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1990 (54) (Mike Jones)
# San Diego's 5th round pick - 1990 (116) (Reggie Thornton)
# Dallas's 10th round pick - 1990 (249) (Pat Newman)
# Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1991 (68) (Jake Reed)

By 1992, the only player left on the Vikings was Jake Reed.

Cowboys Received:

* LB Jesse Solomon
* LB David Howard
* CB Issiac Holt
* RB Darrin Nelson (traded to San Diego after he refused to report to Dallas)
* DE Alex Stewart
* Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990 (21) They traded this pick along with pick (81) for pick (17) from Pittsburgh to draft (Emmitt Smith)
* Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990 (47) (Alexander Wright)
* Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990 (158) (traded to New Orleans, who drafted James Williams)
* Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (11) (Pat Harlow)
* Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (38) (Darryll Lewis)
* Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (37) (Darren Woodson)
* Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (71) (traded to New England, who drafted Kevin Turner)
* Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993 (conditional) - (13) (traded to Philadelphia Eagles, and then to the Houston Oilers, who drafted Brad Hopkins)

by Josh :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:36pm

Trading RB's is much more common than trading QB's, even Pro Bowl RB's. Herschell, Dickerson, Faulk, Portis, etc. When was the last time a QB this good this young was traded? It's the position that makes it a huge trade.

by Travis :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:16pm

The closest I can think of, in terms of young non-rookie quarterbacks being traded:

Steve Young (drafted #1 overall in the 1984 dispersal draft) traded before the 1987 draft for the 49ers' 2nd and 4th rounders.

Steve Walsh (drafted in the first round of the 1989 supplemental draft, costing the Cowboys the #1 overall in the 1990 draft) traded during the 1990 season for the Saints' #1 in 1991, their #3 in 1991, and a conditional #2 in 1992 (later upgraded to the #1, I'm pretty sure).

Neither was proven on the NFL level, however.

by andrew :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:06pm

1967, Vikings traded Fran Tarkenton (who had been to two pro bowls (1964 and 1966, and was MVP of the 64 game)), in exchange for:

No 1 1967 Clint JOnes RB Michigan State, mostly a backup but stayed in league for 7 years.
No 2 1967 Bob Grim WR Oregon State, played 11 years in the NFL, 7 with Vikes, 3 with Giants, 1 with Bears, went to 1 pro bowl (1971).
No 1 1968 Ron Yary OT USC, Hall of Fame, 15 years in NFL. #1 overall pick, 7 pro bowls, 6 time first team all-pro, team of the decade...
No 2 1969 Ed White OG California, 15 year career, 4 pro bowls.

Tark did go to 4 pro bowls with the giants, though the players he was traded for went to 12.

by Bobman :: Tue, 04/14/2009 - 4:31am

The best part is that Franny went BACK to the Vikes and had guys like Yary blocking for him.

That kind of weird circularity reminds me of Indy's 1990 draft--they traded away a lot to Atlanta for the #1 slot to pick Jeff George. One guy they traded away was Chris Hinton, a monster stud LT, one of the few players I liked. And a few short years later, whom was he blocking for? Jeff George.

by Jerry :: Tue, 04/14/2009 - 5:33pm

And you remember how the Colts got Hinton, don't you? He came over in the Elway trade.

by MJK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:41pm

Ummm..... how about Drew Brees to the Saints? Or was he not traded? I can't remember...

I would agree that Cutler likely will be quite good. But Drew Brees isn't exactly chopped liver...in fact, I think he's a safer bet than Cutler right now (even if Cutler has more upside).

And I still think there is a chance (slim, but non-negligible...maybe 10%) that Cassel will turn out to be better than Cutler. Time will tell...

by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 6:58pm

Brees was a free agent, hard as that is to believe now.

(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")

by tuluse :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 3:21pm

Drew Brees is probably the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the game, Cutler is like 6-10. So yeah, I would rather have Brees. But top 10 QBs don't grow on trees.

by Kibbles :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 5:43pm

Although it's worth considering that Brees is over 4 years older than Cutler, and since he doesn't have as strong of an arm he likely won't age as well, either. The question isn't whether you'd have Brees or Cutler, it's whether you'd rather have 7 years of Brees or 12 years of Cutler.

I can still see someone taking Brees under those conditions, but it does make the question a bit less clear-cut.

by BaconAndWaffles :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:16pm

For those that don't have Insider, the focus of the article is on Cutler's value, not the value of what the Broncos received for him.

Clearly, there have been trades that have netted more player and/or draft pick value than the Cutler trade. The question is if Cutler has the highest (potential) value for a player ever traded. The article shows that Cutler's most similiar quarterbacks included Montana, Favre, Brady and more. This mostly shows what his ceiling could be, not what it will be. Between Cutler's age and prior performance, it is pretty hard to argue that anyone with more potential value has been traded.

by Podge (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:18pm

I think the biggest trade ever is Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams, because it just makes me think that he didn't actually care about what he was giving up, and that if they'd said to him "This year's and next year's" he'd have probably still said yeah.

In terms of pure value the Dickerson trade is probably bigger, but the Williams trade is great.

by Podge (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:19pm

I've just looked it up and discovered that the Saints *did* give up next years 1st and 3rd!

by Charlie (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:53pm

"The article shows that Cutler's most similiar quarterbacks included Montana, Favre, Brady and more."


Golly, that would be nice.

I really hope this works out. It is incredible to think that the Bears now theoretically have a good quarterback. I felt giddy last year when it became apparent they had one who could take the snap from center. I don't know what watching forward passes will be like.

Although Chicago finding a QB is also a portent of the end of the world, so it's not all good news.

by Bobman :: Tue, 04/14/2009 - 4:41am

Steve Bartman, shake hands with Jay Cutler.

Let a new curse begin. (Though I can't quite figure how an NFL spectator can interfere--that would take some doing, and an octagenerian Mike Curtis to deck him.)

by Anonymous56 (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:58pm

Cutler is HOF, you heard it here first. The man will retire with about as many yards as Marino, and very possibly a bowl or two now that he's matched with a team that's got a D and a running game that will likely never let him go.

For that reason I believe this trade is going to prove the biggest and most franchise-altering in history both for Chi and Den. And Denver will finally have repaid its karmic debts for the Elway draft situation, the Cleveland AFC championships (specifically the fumble), and the Eric Lindros trade that netted Peter Forsberg.

by Chrisjm15 (not verified) :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 12:09pm

It's a HUGE trade.
25yr old QB (not going to mention Pro-bowl as it's just a popularity contest) with a rocket arm and no aparant ceiling on the upside.

Most of the teams in the league would have loved to have Cutler - including New England (does anyone really know if Brady will come back fine??).

This guy is 16-1 when the Broncos concede less than 21 pts - the Bears defence will do that 10 times this season.

What Denver do with 4 first round picks over the next 2 years and some good young wide recievers and an average to good O-line is now down to their front office.
With good managment they could create an average defence and get a QB throwing to some pretty talented guys.

The future is bright for both teams.

by Josh :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 2:20pm

He has a rocket arm, but does he have a laser-rocket arm?

by Tracy :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 4:27pm

Yes, he does have a laser rocket arm. And he's not afraid to use it. (Sometimes when he shouldn't)

by Jimmy :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:43am

For my mind this trade only works from the Broncos point of view if they are able to get good production from Orton for at least three or four years (which they probably would be able to do, but they will need a proper RB, he isn't the kind of QB who will carry a team on his shoulders). That would allow them to patch up what is a terrible defense if they can use the four first rounders they have over the next two years to provide four starters. That shouldn't be out of the question, of it is a little unlikely; they do of course still have the rest of their draft picks anyway.

If they end up trading the two picks they have this year up to get Stafford or Sanchez then the only way I can see the Cutler trade from Denver's point of view is very poorly. That is trading birds in the hand for birds in the bush.

by ChiTown (not verified) :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 9:14pm

Noone seems to mention that the Bears had 2 3rd round picks this year. They have the compensation pick from the Vikings for Bernard Berrian, which is a 3rd round pick. They still have picks 2 though 7 this year. Next year they have picks 2 through 7. If you, theoretically, used your 1st round pick on Cutler this year, you're one 1st rounder down total. Doesn't seem like a bad move. They'll still be able to draft. Could a Boldin move be coming next?

by Jimmy :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:35am

I think Boldin would require more picks than the Bears have to offer. I think a trade for Chad Johnson is more likely as he is actively trying to talk his way out of Cincinnati and is a lot older, they might get him for a second and some change (ie the spare fifth from Denver).

Wouldn't you rather the Bears right now had Berrian and no pick #99? Yes they have a pick left, but they would have the reciever opposite Hester without having to spend the pick.

by Kibbles :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 7:20pm

No one mentions that the Bears had a second 3rd rounder because it's not really relevant to the discussion. I mean, imagine the Bears had all 32 3rd rounders, and they traded 31 of them for Cutler. Would you defend that trade by saying "hey, sure, Chicago just traded 31 picks for Cutler... but you're ignoring the fact that they still have a 3rd rounder, so it's not like they're down any 3rd rounders at all!"

The 3rd round pick was a cost, regardless of how many other picks the Bears might have. If they didn't trade for Cutler, they could have used that 3rd rounder to improve their team. Now they cannot. Even if you pretend that this year's first was used on Cutler, they're *STILL* down a 1st and a 3rd. Whether that's a worthwhile cost or not is a different argument, but you can't argue that that was the cost.

by Charlie (not verified) :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 10:17am

I suppose the point about the #3 is a broader one about whether the Bears still have the ability to add players after this trade, and whether all of the people who've been saying they've mortgaged their future were aware that Chicago still have picks 2-7 for the next two years.

But you're right - the cost is the cost: a #1 and a #3 even if you pretend that this year's #1 went on Cutler. I suppose the reason giving up the #3 didn't feel like such a wrench was because most Bears fans hadn't budgeted for that #3 anyway. For me, it was a nice surprise to get a #3 for losing Berrian, like finding a tenner down the back of the sofa; losing it a couple of weeks later just feels 'easy come, easy go'.

by dg (not verified) :: Tue, 04/14/2009 - 5:53pm

Remember declining marginal benefit. After a certain point the number of draft picks in a round matter less because not all of those guys will make the team. If you believe a second third round is unlikely to land a player that sticks, then you are wrong. Given it's the third round and a second pick in that round, I'd tend to agree with your reasoning generally, but with that important caveat.

by b-rick (not verified) :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 9:09pm

This isn't even close to be the biggest trade ever. It isn't in the league of Herschel Walker to Minnesota or even Dickerson to the Colts. CHicago did not risk anything at all when you consider that Cutler has gained experience and has just begun to realize his potential AND the Bears will be paying him less than many back-up QBs this season.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 11:33pm

Vears draft Bobby Layne in 1948 and then tarde ghim to NY bulldogs for something (nothing good, just a crap player..) After season Bulldogs trared Layne to Lions where he go to lead team to NFl championships in more than one season. Layne trade to Lions go down as maybe most imporatnetant trrade in history of Nfl.

by Eddo :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 9:36pm

Raiderjoe actually brings up a really good point here; the Layne trade was indeed huge for the NFL.

My understanding of the situation (which was "confirmed" by Wikipedia) was that, after Layne said he didn't want to play for the Bears any longer, George Halas traded Layne to the Bulldogs because (a) the Bulldogs were terrible and (b) he feared Layne going to the rival AAFC, thus hurting the NFL as a whole.

by Ernie Cohen (not verified) :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 6:50pm

I'm also not an insider, but what everybody here seems to be ignoring is the huge difference made by free agency and the salary cap.

Until the NFL adopted the salary cap in 1993, having a great players was much more valuable than it is today, becuase it was all but impossible for a good player to change teams via free agency. So trades were far more significant; the Walker and Dickerson trades really meant that the teams were getting these players for the rest of their careers if they chose. Similarly, draft picks were much more valuable, because if you found a good player he was yours forever.

Moreover, with a slary cap, it is not enough to have good players. What matters is that you have players worth more than what you are paying them (since every team has approximately the same payroll). Draft picks are still valuable because they represent potential bargains.

Which brings us to Cutler. The real value of the Cutler deal is his contract, which provides his services at a very reasonable rate for the next three years, after which he is a UFA, and he gets rather expensive for Chicago to retain.

But there's no way to compare the value of Cutler's contract for three years to what, in 1987, looked like all but the first 3 years of the career of the best running back of his generation.

by coach bags outlet (not verified) :: Wed, 04/21/2010 - 3:01am

coach bagscoach bags have the supple texture of the worn leather
coach bags outletcoach bags outlet that quality is theunparalleled
cheap coach bagscheap coach bags Design the appearance of strange
coach handbagscoach handbags is very fashion
coach outlet coach outlet have good flexibility
cheap coach bagscheap coach bags are so cheaper