Anticipating All-Around Improvement

[T.K.O.]

Anticipating All-Around Improvement


By Gray Caldwell
DenverBroncos.com

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Friday, April 2 marked a milestone that might have gone unnoticed in Denver.

No, not the fact that Bill Romanowski turned 44. Rather, the completion of Kyle Orton's first full year as a Denver Bronco.

With just about six months to prepare for last season, Orton put up career highs in nearly every passing statistic in 2009, and now joins the record books as one of two quarterbacks in Broncos history -- along with John Elway -- to record 10 games with a 90-plus passer rating in a single season.

Now in the midst of his first full offseason with the team, the quarterback expects to improve in all areas in his second year in the system, and his head coach shares that sentiment.

"He is going to know the offense so much better this time around than he did last year," Head Coach Josh McDaniels said. "I think anytime you have that feeling that you know the offense, you know the players, you know what they are going to do, you know what to expect -- I think that's obviously going to help your performance and I would look for that from Kyle. I would look for that in most of the players in the second year of our system."

Some of the differences at the quarterback position in year two start before the game even begins.

Instead of having discussions along the lines of 'This is what you do on this play,' Orton and his receivers can now discuss the nuances of the plays, how to run them and how each receiver prefers to run them.

Even at the line of scrimmage, rather than signaling different calls to the receivers, Orton said he expects to be able to "look over at them and we know what we're going to do."

"It's those subtleties," he said. "That's important in this league, when you can play with guys without any question on what you're going to do. The defense presents enough problems as it is. If you can know what everybody on your team's going to do, it makes it that much easier."

In addition to the fact that things will come easier to Orton in his second year in Denver, the signal caller isn't resting on his laurels. Despite one of his best statistical seasons in 2009, his team fell short of the postseason. For that reason, Orton said he is doing everything he can to make sure his play is where it needs to be to help the team reach its ultimate goal.

"There are things that I've got to do to improve, obviously, or we would have been in the playoffs last year," Orton said. "I think I can take my leadership to a whole new level. I think to have a great offense, you've got to have a guy that demands it from everybody, starting with himself. So I've got to demand perfection out of my play, and I'm going to expect that from everybody else on our offense as well. I think that's my main goal. Second, just take this offense to a whole new level, whether it's at the line of scrimmage, whether it's making the plays down the field or whether it's making something out of a busted play. Whatever it is, make sure that we get into the end zone when we need to get into the end zone."

Throughout the offseason, the team has added pieces to "improve the competition at every spot," as McDaniels said. That ranges from added bulk on the defensive line -- Justin Bannan, Jarvis Green and Jamal Williams -- to a new addition to the quarterbacks meeting room in Brady Quinn.

McDaniels said adding another signal caller "had nothing negative to do with Kyle Orton," and maintained that "there is no question" that Orton is the team's starter. Orton said he will continue working hard to prepare for the season whether there's a little competition at the position or not.

"I've never backed down from competition, and it really won't change my mindset going into the season at all," he said. "You've got to be a self-motivated player. You've got to realize that this is the NFL -- somebody's always going to come for your job. Tom Brandstater's going to try to take my job this year. If Chris (Simms) was here, he was going to try to take my job this year. Brady's going to do the same thing.

"The only way I keep my job is to perform and win games, and I plan on doing that."

[Northman]

"The only way I keep my job is to perform and win games, and I plan on doing that."

Put up or shut up Kyle thats all that matters my friend.

[Lonestar]

I've always beleived that it would take him a year to b comfortable with both the scheme and the players.

Inspite of that he put up career numbers for him.

I look forward to this coming year and thr maturation of the team in their schemes.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

[turftoad]

I've always beleived that it would take him a year to b comfortable with both the scheme and the players.

Inspite of that he put up career numbers for him.

I look forward to this coming year and thr maturation of the team in their schemes.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Ortons "career stats" from last year are a farce. All the short to intermediate passes don't reflect what is really the truth about those stats.

People want to give Orton a year to get comfy with the system but want to bash Cutler after his first year with the Bears.

Ironic isn't it.

[T.K.O.]

Ortons "career stats" from last year are a farce. All the short to intermediate passes don't reflect what is really the truth about those stats.

People want to give Orton a year to get comfy with the system but want to bash Cutler after his first year with the Bears.

Ironic isn't it.

the ironic thing is that orton adjusted to the new system and outplayed the guy who was supposed to be the "superstar" in the deal.....:laugh:

[MileHighCrew]

I know Cutler had a bad year, and that is fine. But if anyone was happy watching our offence the second half of last year I can't understand that. I know it is a I love Josh or I hate Josh thing, but the O last year really was unimpressive and that is being kind. Like the article I am looking forward to a lot of improvement because there HAS TO BE.

[Lonestar]

Ortons "career stats" from last year are a farce. All the short to intermediate passes don't reflect what is really the truth about those stats.

People want to give Orton a year to get comfy with the system but want to bash Cutler after his first year with the Bears.

Ironic isn't it.

I thought considering all the factors that KO had a good year. COuld have had a killer year IF:


everyone had been on the same page all year.

our starting WR and CTE would have really been into the seasonal year.

our OLINE could have pass protected for more than a heartbeat.

our OLINE could have power blocked like at least a college line could do.

OUR Rookie Rb could have had the stamina to last more than12 games. (but almost everyone knows this)

I suspect I can find about 15 more but this is the drift.

ALL I have ever asked is to give the guy a chance allow him to play with a full deck and slow down the vitriol that great QB can win all by themselves.

If after getting decent OLINE in front of him he or Quinn for that matter does not do the job then I'm all for getting newbie in to do so. OR maybe TB is the long term answer.

Repeating stuff enough times will not make it more or less true.

[Lonestar]

I know Cutler had a bad year, and that is fine. But if anyone was happy watching our offence the second half of last year I can't understand that. I know it is a I love Josh or I hate Josh thing, but the O last year really was unimpressive and that is being kind. Like the article I am looking forward to a lot of improvement because there HAS TO BE.

Our D was also unimpressive. Especialy, later in the year.

[turftoad]

I thought considering all the factors that KO had a good year. COuld have had a killer year IF:


everyone had been on the same page all year.

our starting WR and CTE would have really been into the seasonal year.

our OLINE could have pass protected for more than a heartbeat.

our OLINE could have power blocked like at least a college line could do.

OUR Rookie Rb could have had the stamina to last more than12 games. (but almost everyone knows this)

I suspect I can find about 15 more but this is the drift.

ALL I have ever asked is to give the guy a chance allow him to play with a full deck and slow down the vitriol that great QB can win all by themselves.

If after getting decent OLINE in front of him he or Quinn for that matter does not do the job then I'm all for getting newbie in to do so. OR maybe TB is the long term answer.

Repeating stuff enough times will not make it more or less true.

Sure are a lot of if's there.

Not many QB's have EVERYTHING at EVERY position. Jeeez.... if they did I could probably get some pretty decent stats.

Orton is hardly a GREAT QB by any means but thats where the great one shine is when they don't have EVERYTHING.

[Dreadnought]

Sure are a lot of if's there.

Not many QB's have EVERYTHING at EVERY position. Jeeez.... if they did I could probably get some pretty decent stats.

Orton is hardly a GREAT QB by any means but thats where the great one shine is when they don't have EVERYTHING.

Agreed. Tom Brady won Superbowl rings in '01, '03, and '04 with some frankly mediocre skill position guys - being charitable in the use of mediocre. Antowain Smith? Troy Brown? Deion Branch? Don't go making reservations for any of those guys Canton inductions. They were all usable guys who got carried to Championships by superb QB play and pretty stout defense

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Damn, do I want to see SOMEBODY succeed at the QB position in Denver this year. Somebody help me believe again, dammit! Kyle, Brady, Tom, somebody! There's no worse feeling than knowing that when your offense gets the ball late in the game down by one score that you have doubts in your QBs ability to get it done. It sucks knowing that if your defense allows more than 17-20 points, you're going to lose. Nobody expects a QB to pull it out every time, but having a chance would be nice!

[Lancane]

the ironic thing is that orton adjusted to the new system and outplayed the guy who was supposed to be the "superstar" in the deal.....:laugh:

Dumbest argument ever...let's see, Kyle Orton went to a team that had some offensive line talent, where as Chicago had what? Kyle Orton went to a team that had a premier receiver in Marshall, where as Chicago had what? Kyle Orton went to a team that had an offense known to pad quarterback stats, where as Chicago had what?

Jay Cutler without a decent damn receiver and offensive line still threw for 27 Touchdowns... and though he had more interceptions and Orton had better yards and a quarterback 'jerkoff' rating! But all in all I saw vastly more promise in Cutler then Orton.

[Lonestar]

You have always been a huge jay supporter and in your eyes he can do no wrong.

Whereas most of us are willing to support the Broncos QB regardless who it is.

Jay is gone, while admire your passoin and support of him he is history to the majority of bronco fans.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

[T.K.O.]

cutler "stunk it up" in chytown,plain and simple.you can admire his "talent" all you want but he definately made a boatload of dumb as plays and lead the league in int's red zone and otherwise.
i think cutler will have a better year this season.and he is a decent qb....he's just not the guy some try to make him out to be.at least not yet
. but i digress....i will not get into debates about the bears qb....i could'nt care less.

[topscribe]

Sure are a lot of if's there.

Not many QB's have EVERYTHING at EVERY position. Jeeez.... if they did I could probably get some pretty decent stats.

Orton is hardly a GREAT QB by any means but thats where the great one shine is when they don't have EVERYTHING.

So you belong to the All-Or-Nothing Club? Hyperbole much?

What if just some of those factors were there, as they are with most other QBs?

Say, if the running game hadn't taken a dump. Or the run defense had not
gone south. Or Orton had been free of serious injury, as most QBs were?

You know, just one or two of them. I agree with those who believe Orton did a
good job (such as his own coach), considering what he had to deal with. What
if he did not have to deal with just one or two of them? Would that have
facilitated a better performance?

Or is it that the Orton-bashers are so stubborn (a word one of them likes to
use) that they just cannot believe that Orton's performance can improve
concurrently with the improvement of some of those factors?

-----

[TXBRONC]

Sure are a lot of if's there.

Not many QB's have EVERYTHING at EVERY position. Jeeez.... if they did I could probably get some pretty decent stats.

Orton is hardly a GREAT QB by any means but thats where the great one shine is when they don't have EVERYTHING.

By Orton's own admission plays not to make mistakes, great quarterbacks play to make plays.

It's possible to win with a quarterback who plays not to make mistakes but usually means you either have superior talent at other positions on offense or truly great defense.

[T.K.O.]

By Orton's own admission plays not to make mistakes, great quarterbacks play to make plays.

It's possible to win with a quarterback who plays not to make mistakes but usually means you either have superior talent at other positions on offense or truly great defense.

great qb's do both......play to make plays and not make mistakes
good qb's do one or the other

[TXBRONC]

great qb's do both......play to make plays and not make mistakes
good qb's do one or the other

Great quarterback aren't afraid of mistakes. Quarterbacks that play to not mistakes are afraid of making them.

[T.K.O.]

i did'nt say afraid....i said play not to make them.as in play smart but know when to take their shots

[TXBRONC]

i did'nt say afraid....i said play not to make them.as in play smart but know when to take their shots

I understood what you said and I'm saying playing not to make mistakes is the same as being afraid to make them.

[T.K.O.]

I understood what you said and I'm saying playing not to make mistakes is the same as being afraid to make them.

so when you go to work and try to avoid mistakes. is it because you are afraid of being fired?
or because you want to do a good job ?
just wondering if you apply the same logic to everything:confused:

[TXBRONC]

so when you go to work and try to avoid mistakes. is it because you are afraid of being fired?
or because you want to do a good job ?
just wondering if you apply the same logic to everything:confused:

No and no.

As I have said repeatedly I'm going by what Orton has said and by how he's played.

[Lancane]

i did'nt say afraid....i said play not to make them.as in play smart but know when to take their shots

So in around about way the reason why Orton was tied for 15th in the league in touchdowns was because he was being safe and taking the shots he could? Could that also be the reason we barely had an 8-8 season and so many failed third down conversions? What if I told you that the touchdown ranking shows a lot more then you think? Like the fact that those in the Top Ten in Touchdowns are continually playoff bound! Granted he had less interceptions then several others...including Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning and Mark Sanchez and so forth, Drew Brees usually has more then he did in 2009 and same for Philip Rivers, he even had a better interception ration then the league's top passer in Matt Shaub... But guess what, they took more risks and reaped the rewards and continually do so.

I'm sure in the hell glad that Elway did not play safe or we would still be without a championship. And the guy who got us the closest since Elway, Jake Plummer was far from safe...those who play not to make mistakes tend to be mistakes at the pro level.

[topscribe]

i did'nt say afraid....i said play not to make them.as in play smart but know when to take their shots

This. ^^

-----

[topscribe]

So in around about way the reason why Orton was tied for 15th in the league in touchdowns was because he was being safe and taking the shots he could? Could that also be the reason we barely had an 8-8 season and so many failed third down conversions? What if I told you that the touchdown ranking shows a lot more then you think? Like the fact that those in the Top Ten in Touchdowns are continually playoff bound! Granted he had less interceptions then several others...including Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning and Mark Sanchez and so forth, Drew Brees usually has more then he did in 2009 and same for Philip Rivers, he even had a better interception ration then the league's top passer in Matt Shaub... But guess what, they took more risks and reaped the rewards and continually do so.

I'm sure in the hell glad that Elway did not play safe or we would still be without a championship. And the guy who got us the closest since Elway, Jake Plummer was far from safe...those who play not to make mistakes tend to be mistakes at the pro level.

Is that really the reason, Cane? How about a reason?

I mean, did a porous run defense and a running game taking a dump have
anything to do with it?

Or not . . .

-----

[TXBRONC]

So in around about way the reason why Orton was tied for 15th in the league in touchdowns was because he was being safe and taking the shots he could? Could that also be the reason we barely had an 8-8 season and so many failed third down conversions? What if I told you that the touchdown ranking shows a lot more then you think? Like the fact that those in the Top Ten in Touchdowns are continually playoff bound! Granted he had less interceptions then several others...including Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning and Mark Sanchez and so forth, Drew Brees usually has more then he did in 2009 and same for Philip Rivers, he even had a better interception ration then the league's top passer in Matt Shaub... But guess what, they took more risks and reaped the rewards and continually do so.

I'm sure in the hell glad that Elway did not play safe or we would still be without a championship. And the guy who got us the closest since Elway, Jake Plummer was far from safe...those who play not to make mistakes tend to be mistakes at the pro level.

I agree with everything you said.

I would add it is possible to win with quarterback like Orton if defense is rock solid and you're getting good play out of your special teams.

[Lonestar]

Let's see if one is recklees and wins games that is OK?

Does anyone think that perhaps he is doing what the HC wants.

Maybe even jay did not have mikes ok to be reckless. We will never know on that one. Pretty sure lovie was not overjoyed with the redzone turnovers.

Oh well I think the teram as awhole will be better IF they get some more beef on the OLINE middlle and some beef to backup the DLINE.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

[SOCALORADO.]

Relax everyone.
Qwinn is starting week 1 anyways.
You will never see Orton playing again.

[turftoad]

Let's see if one is recklees and wins games that is OK?

Does anyone think that perhaps he is doing what the HC wants.

Maybe even jay did not have mikes ok to be reckless. We will never know on that one. Pretty sure lovie was not overjoyed with the redzone turnovers.

Oh well I think the teram as awhole will be better IF they get some more beef on the OLINE middlle and some beef to backup the DLINE.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Reckless?? Who said anything about wanting a QB to playing reckless?

There is a difference between playing it to safe and taking some chances.

No one said anything about being reckless.

[Lancane]

Is that really the reason, Cane? How about a reason?

I mean, did a porous run defense and a running game taking a dump have
anything to do with it?

Or not . . .

-----

Oh do not get me wrong, it did not help that the defense had begun to fall apart, nor that we had issues with the run game.

But the run game was not that much worse then it was under Shanahan in 2008 in which Denver massed a total of 1,862 total yards at was 12th in the league...we had 1,836 this past season and were 18th in the league; even scoring via the run is close enough the past two seasons. The defense was vastly improved even with the late season meltdown, in 2008 our defense allowed 28 points a game, in 2009 we allowed 20.2 a game. What is the difference then? If the defense improved, even with the late season meltdown where did we get worse? In the passing game and offensive scoring, as I said the run game is very similar even in scoring...but we are worse in passing yardage, passing touchdowns, as well as third and fourth down conversions.

We had the same receivers as we did in 2008, we should have been improved in 2009 with Lloyd and Gaffney, except we worse. Change of offensive philosophy could be the issue, but it's a padded system, quarterback friendly because it pad stats...so again I ask what is the difference?

The Answer: Kyle Orton.

We ran near the exact same system as New England, Tom Brady had better yardage, touchdowns and so forth, Cassell was the same the year before. Playing to not make mistakes is something that neither Cassell or Brady did, it's something Kurt Warner does not do and he found some success in the spread. Again, I don't care about Orton's stats...fact is he plays safe, he plays to not mistakes, he can not shoulder the team in times of need and he is not as good as so many make him out to be. Yes, I know...give him a year, we sort of have to. It's possible that 2011 will be a lockout year, so we could end up with having to deal with him longer then that. Personally I believe McDaniels is betting his career on Orton, and I think it will be his undoing.

[TXBRONC]

Reckless?? Who said anything about wanting a QB to playing reckless?

There is a difference between playing it to safe and taking some chances.

No one said anything about being reckless.

Bulls eye.

A problem with always playing it safe if your defense is struggling and you fall behind by a significant amount you're problem not going catch up and over take your opponent more times than not.

[topscribe]

That is a terribly oversimplified answer, Cane:


Oh do not get me wrong, it did not help that the defense had begun to fall apart, nor that we had issues with the run game.

But the run game was not that much worse then it was under Shanahan in 2008 in which Denver massed a total of 1,862 total yards at was 12th in the league...we had 1,836 this past season and were 18th in the league; even scoring via the run is close enough the past two seasons. The defense was vastly improved even with the late season meltdown, in 2008 our defense allowed 28 points a game, in 2009 we allowed 20.2 a game. What is the difference then? If the defense improved, even with the late season meltdown where did we get worse? In the passing game and offensive scoring, as I said the run game is very similar even in scoring...but we are worse in passing yardage, passing touchdowns, as well as third and fourth down conversions.

In the first six games, the Broncos averaged 133 yards rushing per game. In
the last 10, they averaged 104. That is a significant drop.

In passing, they averaged 236 yards a game in the first six, 221 in the last 10.
A drop . . . not as significant, but a drop nonetheless.

That stout O-line took a dump in the last 10 games, giving up only 9 sacks in
the first six games, an average of 1.5 sacks a game (6 of those were in the
final three of those six), and the other 20 in the final 10 games, for an average
of 2.0.

So the rushing and passing yardage went down, and the sacks went up.

Meanwhile, the rushing defense really went south. Not once in the first six
games did the opponent exceed 100 yards, as a team. The average per game
for the Broncos' defense was 79.67 yards.

In the last 10, the average just went nuts. The Broncos gave up 1,581 yards
during that stretch for an average of 158.1 yards per game, double that of the
first six games.

Now, here is one analysis I read of the Broncos during that 2-8 debacle: The
opponent did not have to respect the running game during the last half of the
season. So they were comfortable in playing seven in the box and sending
their safeties deep and waiting for the pass. (Admittedly, this is paraphrased,
and I don't know for sure where I saw it now: I think it was by the DP's
Krieger.) This was documented by both McDaniels and Orton in the Baltimore
and Pittsburgh games, where they said the safeties were playing deep.

So that means when the Broncos passed, they were playing into the teeth of
the defense. But then, they had to because they were playing from behind so
much and dealing a lot more with third and longs.



We had the same receivers as we did in 2008, we should have been improved in 2009 with Lloyd and Gaffney, except we worse. Change of offensive philosophy could be the issue, but it's a padded system, quarterback friendly because it pad stats...so again I ask what is the difference?

The Answer: Kyle Orton.Again, oversimplified. See the above.



We ran near the exact same system as New England, Tom Brady had better yardage, touchdowns and so forth, Cassell was the same the year before. Playing to not make mistakes is something that neither Cassell or Brady did, it's something Kurt Warner does not do and he found some success in the spread. Again, I don't care about Orton's stats...fact is he plays safe, he plays to not mistakes, he can not shoulder the team in times of need and he is not as good as so many make him out to be. Yes, I know...give him a year, we sort of have to. It's possible that 2011 will be a lockout year, so we could end up with having to deal with him longer then that. Personally I believe McDaniels is betting his career on Orton, and I think it will be his undoing.Again, we are dealing with different factors in each case. New England had a
better defense, and they were playing in a familiar system, in which they had
played for years. Denver was in a brand new system, with a brand new team,
and not nearly as good of a defensive line, or an offensive one in the final half
of the season. And Brady - while, of course, he is a better QB, anyway, played
healthy. Orton did not. And NE had Moss and Welker.

Classic oversimplification and skewing of factors throughout. You're going to
have to do better than that, Cane.

-----

[Lancane]

Classic oversimplification and skewing of factors throughout. You're going to have to do better than that, Cane.

Have you ever noticed that you argue neither to win or lose an argument. You contend people's arguments with stats when they're correct but then try down play other statistics when you have no argument against such.

You would be one hell of an attorney...lol.

New England's defense was not better then Denver's in 2009, that would be false, all in all in each aspect the two were fairly close. Even though our defense was ranked higher because of we allowed less yards per game, the edge would go to them in points allowed.

And I never once said that people believed Brady was not a better quarterback then Orton or vice versa, the discussion was about those who play aiming to be mistake free against those that take risks... You continually bring up the quarterback ranking system to defend Orton, however, it's that same ranking as compared to the touchdown ratio difference which shows that those who continually take risks rather then playing mistake free are successful. Why is it that those with a high 'Rating' are continually playoff bound? Statistically Orton wasn't much better then Campbell, and yes I did see the argument between the two, but fact remains neither is really better then the other!

So I may have simplified some of the reason, it does not make it any less sound...because we were in all aspects equal to or better in almost every aspect give the passing game...it's a fact, it can not be changed or overlooked for it will remain such, no matter the what statistics or issues people want to argue with; whether it be the offensive line, the defense, the running game, the receivers...

It was the same line Cutler had when he was nominated to the Pro-Bowl, granted they had issues this past season, the same receivers Cutler had are still in Denver (so far) not to mention we added Gaffney and Lloyd, decent four and five wideouts and we had better running backs! The defense was vastly improved as well. The one aspect where we are not as good as we were was at quarterback.

[topscribe]

Have you ever noticed that you argue neither to win or lose an argument. You contend people's arguments with stats when they're correct but then try down play other statistics when you have no argument against such.

You would be one hell of an attorney...lol.

New England's defense was not better then Denver's in 2009, that would be false, all in all in each aspect the two were fairly close. Even though our defense was ranked higher because of we allowed less yards per game, the edge would go to them in points allowed.

And I never once said that people believed Brady was not a better quarterback then Orton or vice versa, the discussion was about those who play aiming to be mistake free against those that take risks... You continually bring up the quarterback ranking system to defend Orton, however, it's that same ranking as compared to the touchdown ratio difference which shows that those who continually take risks rather then playing mistake free are successful. Why is it that those with a high 'Rating' are continually playoff bound? Statistically Orton wasn't much better then Campbell, and yes I did see the argument between the two, but fact remains neither is really better then the other!

So I may have simplified some of the reason, it does not make it any less sound...because we were in all aspects equal to or better in almost every aspect give the passing game...it's a fact, it can not be changed or overlooked for it will remain such, no matter the what statistics or issues people want to argue with; whether it be the offensive line, the defense, the running game, the receivers...

It was the same line Cutler had when he was nominated to the Pro-Bowl, granted they had issues this past season, the same receivers Cutler had are still in Denver (so far) not to mention we added Gaffney and Lloyd, decent four and five wideouts and we had better running backs! The defense was vastly improved as well. The one aspect where we are not as good as we were was at quarterback.

Hmmm . . . I keep going back and forth between your response here and my
post, and, for the life of me, I cannot find any mention of QB ranking in it, Cane.
It's going to be hard to discuss anything with you if you start arguing all over
the board.

And then Cutler . . . Campbell . . . Gaffney . . . Lloyd . . .

Just what do you want to talk about? :noidea:

-----

[T.K.O.]

.

.. You continually bring up the quarterback ranking system to defend Orton, however, it's that same ranking as compared to the touchdown ratio difference which shows that those who continually take risks rather then playing mistake free are successful. Why is it that those with a high 'Rating' are continually playoff bound? .

well when orton was pressured into throwing for 431 yds in week 17,while our porous d let jamal charles rush for 259 yds,he had to take the risks you speak of and he threw 3 picks and one td in the proccess.
the fact that when the d was playing well early in the season he had a 9-1 td/int ratio and we were 6-0,so i guess its a safe bet that you CAN win with a qb who plays smart and takes only minimal risks.....as long as the rest of the team holds up their end of the bargain

[topscribe]

well when orton was pressured into throwing for 431 yds in week 17,while our porous d let jamal charles rush for 259 yds,he had to take the risks you speak of and he threw 3 picks and one td in the proccess.
the fact that when the d was playing well early in the season he had a 9-1 td/int ratio and we were 6-0,so i guess its a safe bet that you CAN win with a qb who plays smart and takes only minimal risks.....as long as the rest of the team holds up their end of the bargain

On top of that, only one of those three INTs was a bad throw when it counted.
Another was in garbage time when it is common to take chances, and the third
was a spectacular play by . . . Derrick Johnson, IIRC, who had feigned a pass rush
then dropped back into coverage behind the linemen - a Pro Bowl move by a Pro
Bowler.

In all actuality, that was a good game for Orton. I was really impressed by his
mobility in that game, too. It seemed his ankle was a lot better . . .

-----

[Ravage!!!]

as long as the defense allows ZERO points in the second half for an NFL record amount of straight games.

Its easy... E A S Y... to be safe with the ball when the defense is allowing ZERO points. But as we saw, when more of the game relied on the passing of our QB... 2-8

If only those slouches would stop allowing the other team to score points, we could just have anyone at QB

[TXBRONC]

as long as the defense allows ZERO points in the second half for an NFL record amount of straight games.

Its easy... E A S Y... to be safe with the ball when the defense is allowing ZERO points. But as we saw, when more of the game relied on the passing of our QB... 2-8

If only those slouches would stop allowing the other team to score points, we could just have anyone at QB

Yes it is possible to win that way as long as everything else is working well.

[T.K.O.]

a great example is the MAN himself....elway was the Gunslinger in the purist sense of the word....he made incredible plays every game and certainly won his share....BUT,it took the right coaching running game recievers and both lines to be playing well for him to win the big one.
so to say that having an elway type qb is a must to win....its false
a team has a much better chance of winning if it plays good at many positions than great at 1 or 2....it's SCIENCE ! believe in science

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/n/images/nacho-libre-8.jpg

[TXBRONC]

When Denver won the Super Bowl they became the first team in the history of the game to win one (actually two) without a defense ranked in the top 10. The defense was good but it had it's struggles. So far history shows that teams that have won the Super Bowl with a journeyman quarterback have had a great defense and special teams.

[Dreadnought]

When Denver won the Super Bowl they became the first team in the history of the game to win one (actually two) without a defense ranked in the top 10. The defense was good but it had it's struggles. So far history shows that teams that have one the Super Bowl with journey quarterback have had a great defense and special teams.

And I think its safe to argue that while it has always been possible to win a SB with a few weak spots, you flat can't win one without any strong spots. Please Identify any strong parts on this team apart from a superb but borderline ancient secondary. I can't

[Ravage!!!]

And I think its safe to argue that while it has always been possible to win a SB with a few weak spots, you flat can't win one without any strong spots. Please Identify any strong parts on this team apart from a superb but borderline ancient secondary. I can't

Great point.

You either have to have a very good defense, or a very good offense.

Personally, I would much rather have a very good offense, and a mid-range defense than the other way around.

[Ravage!!!]

Please Identify any strong parts on this team apart from a superb but borderline ancient secondary. I can't

Controversy.... we are strong at controversy :beer:

[TXBRONC]

And I think its safe to argue that while it has always been possible to win a SB with a few weak spots, you flat can't win one without any strong spots. Please Identify any strong parts on this team apart from a superb but borderline ancient secondary. I can't

I can't either.

Another sobering thought is that aren't many journeyman quarterbacks that have ever won more than one Super Bowl. In fact only one has ever won multiple Super Bowls and that was nearly 30 years ago.