McDaniels plans to have a lot of No. 1 receivers

[DenBronx]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/25/mcdaniels-plans-to-have-a-lot-of-no-1-receivers

When the Denver Broncos traded wide receiver Brandon Marshall, they were trading away their unquestioned No. 1 receiver, who had almost one-third of their catches and one-third of their receiving yards from 2009.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels says he's not expecting one receiver to step up in Marshall's place in 2010. Instead, he's hoping to have a lot of receivers step up in Marshall's place.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year -- a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels told the Denver Post. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

That sounds good, but the flip side is that the reason McDaniels needs multiple receivers to take the place of Marshall is that he doesn't have any one receiver who's as talented as Marshall. The Broncos may be glad to have rid themselves of Marshall's off-field distractions, but a committee approach can't replace the contributions that Marshall made on Sundays.

[T.K.O.]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/25/mcdaniels-plans-to-have-a-lot-of-no-1-receivers

When the Denver Broncos traded wide receiver Brandon Marshall, they were trading away their unquestioned No. 1 receiver, who had almost one-third of their catches and one-third of their receiving yards from 2009.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels says he's not expecting one receiver to step up in Marshall's place in 2010. Instead, he's hoping to have a lot of receivers step up in Marshall's place.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year -- a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels told the Denver Post. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

That sounds good, but the flip side is that the reason McDaniels needs multiple receivers to take the place of Marshall is that he doesn't have any one receiver who's as talented as Marshall. The Broncos may be glad to have rid themselves of Marshall's off-field distractions, but a committee approach can't replace the contributions that Marshall made on Sundays.



can't ? i dont agree
maybe they wont ,but can't is far fetched.
this offense is designed to spread the ball around.in fact most successful teams in the league have better balance on offense and that's the direction the broncos are heading.
i have never been anti-marshall but i just don't see where losing him will mean we can't be just as competitive as we have been.hopefully other changes to the team will more than compensate ,otherwise we will just remain a mid-level team.

[TXBRONC]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/25/mcdaniels-plans-to-have-a-lot-of-no-1-receivers

When the Denver Broncos traded wide receiver Brandon Marshall, they were trading away their unquestioned No. 1 receiver, who had almost one-third of their catches and one-third of their receiving yards from 2009.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels says he's not expecting one receiver to step up in Marshall's place in 2010. Instead, he's hoping to have a lot of receivers step up in Marshall's place.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year -- a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels told the Denver Post. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

That sounds good, but the flip side is that the reason McDaniels needs multiple receivers to take the place of Marshall is that he doesn't have any one receiver who's as talented as Marshall. The Broncos may be glad to have rid themselves of Marshall's off-field distractions, but a committee approach can't replace the contributions that Marshall made on Sundays.

This is the crux of the matter imo. Now if we had quarterback of the caliber of Tom Brady it wouldn't be an issue but since we don't I think it could very well be an issue.

That's not to say that Thomas can't develop into one but that remains to be seen.

[weazel]

Having Marshall catching 90 - 100% of the balls last year was a recipe for disaster. It makes it much harder to win when only 1 guy is getting the ball.

Ask Indianapolis how fun it is when you have 4 capable receivers. I understand that they have Manning, but if they only had 1 guy that caught the ball, they wouldn't be near the offense.

[TXBRONC]

Having Marshall catching 90 - 100% of the balls last year was a recipe for disaster. It makes it much harder to win when only 1 guy is getting the ball.

Ask Indianapolis how fun it is when you have 4 capable receivers. I understand that they have Manning, but if they only had 1 guy that caught the ball, they wouldn't be near the offense.

There's a big difference in having a complete quarterback like Manning and having a journeyman quarterback who plays not to make mistakes.

[weazel]

There's a big difference in having a complete quarterback like Manning and having a journeyman quarterback who plays not to make mistakes.

thats why I qualified my first statement with the second...

I know what you're saying TX, but would you rather have 1 legit receiving threat or 4?

[silkamilkamonico]

There's a big difference in having a complete quarterback like Manning and having a journeyman quarterback who plays not to make mistakes.

While I agree with you and am not taking anything away from Peyton Manning because IMO he will go down as the greatest QB ever when all is said and done, but the guy has first round talent all over his offense.

Marvin Harrison
Reggie Wayne
Anthony Gonzalez
Dallas Clark
Marshall Faulk
Joseph Addai
Donald Brown

All first round picks. Must be nice.

[KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128]

A balanced offense is usually far more successful than an offense that forces the ball to one guy over and over in hopes of catching the other guys open. When the defense has to respect every guy on your offense you end up with the eagles offense, it works.

[Dean]

A balanced offense is usually far more successful than an offense that forces the ball to one guy over and over in hopes of catching the other guys open. When the defense has to respect every guy on your offense you end up with the eagles offense, it works.



http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/12603/brooking-calls-eagles-offense-predictable


There seems to be some disagreement on that point.

[jhildebrand]

Having a lot of #1's as WR's is nice and the right idea, IMHO. It is all meaningless if McDaniels can't get Orton to go through his progressions completely, not favor one side of the field, and not get too comfy with one WR. [Assuming Orton is the starter]

[arapaho2]

it seems some people under value the benefit of having a wr that can take the best cb on the team as well as a safty with him where ever he goes and still catch a hundred balls...in the process leaving the other wrs in one on one battles with the #2 and #3 cbs

and to use indy as an example is dumb...manning has a #1 reciever..goes by the name of wayne...had another before him went by the name of harrison...both are legit ...manning also finds it easier to spread the ball around when the best cb is covering wayne

we dont have wayne or a qb remotely close to manning

[Denver Native (Carol)]

it seems some people under value the benefit of having a wr that can take the best cb on the team as well as a safty with him where ever he goes and still catch a hundred balls...in the process leaving the other wrs in one on one battles with the #2 and #3 cbs

and to use indy as an example is dumb...manning has a #1 reciever..goes by the name of wayne...had another before him went by the name of harrison...both are legit ...manning also finds it easier to spread the ball around when the best cb is covering wayne

we dont have wayne or a qb remotely close to manning

No one knows yet if we have/do not have a qb remotely close to Manning on the roster right now. :confused:

[arapaho2]

No one knows yet if we have/do not have a qb remotely close to Manning on the roster right now. :confused:


if you dont know that our qbs are not in the same level as manning...then you need to quit watching football

[weazel]

it seems some people under value the benefit of having a wr that can take the best cb on the team as well as a safty with him where ever he goes and still catch a hundred balls...in the process leaving the other wrs in one on one battles with the #2 and #3 cbs

and to use indy as an example is dumb...manning has a #1 reciever..goes by the name of wayne...had another before him went by the name of harrison...both are legit ...manning also finds it easier to spread the ball around when the best cb is covering wayne

we dont have wayne or a qb remotely close to manning

so were we better with Marshall catching 90% of the throws, or when Marshall and Royal were bot getting around 1000 yards?

[Slick]

if you dont know that our qbs are not in the same level as manning...then you need to quit watching football

Be a dick to anyone else, but please don't speak to Carol that way.

[arapaho2]

so were we better with Marshall catching 90% of the throws, or when Marshall and Royal were bot getting around 1000 yards?


marshall getting a 100 catches was in no way shape or form a reason our offense sucked last season... any one to even hint that is living in lala land

he got a 100 catched cause he got open against the best cbs in the league
him getting open wasnt the problem...it was the crappy offense and qb play that limited the offense

and yes in 08 with marshall and royal getting a thousand yards..we were better...we didnt have a consistant run game and had a terrible defense

i recall a season where we had two 1000 yard recievers and a 2000 thousand yard rusher....we also had a dynamic offensive scheme and a great qb..the two things we lacked last year

[T.K.O.]

i recall a season where we had two 1000 yard recievers and a 2000 thousand yard rusher....we also had a dynamic offensive scheme and a great qb..the two things we'VE lacked since

yep

[jhildebrand]

marshall getting a 100 catches was in no way shape or form a reason our offense sucked last season... any one to even hint that is living in lala land

he got a 100 catched cause he got open against the best cbs in the league
him getting open wasnt the problem...it was the crappy offense and qb play that limited the offense

and yes in 08 with marshall and royal getting a thousand yards..we were better...we didnt have a consistant run game and had a terrible defense

i recall a season where we had two 1000 yard recievers and a 2000 thousand yard rusher....we also had a dynamic offensive scheme and a great qb..the two things we lacked last year

Even more of a concern is Marshall has caught 100+ balls three seasons running with a lot of it being double and sometime triple teamed. If the others couldn't get open with Brandon doubled, how are they going to get open now?

[Poet]

There's a big difference in having a complete quarterback like Manning and having a journeyman quarterback who plays not to make mistakes.

But what's it matter? If you have a QB who plays to make mistakes and force feds one player the ball and you don't win, why does that matter? Especially with the entire Marshall situation being what it was.

McDaniels pretty much took care of the problem - he traded Marshall and drafted a QB that he thinks can be a franchise guy like Manning or Brady.

[Lonestar]

Be a dick to anyone else, but please don't speak to Carol that way.

Some folks will never be civil just better to IGGY them.

Carol has forgot more football than a some of our illustroius members will ever know.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Lonestar]

But what's it matter? If you have a QB who plays to make mistakes and force feds one player the ball and you don't win, why does that matter? Especially with the entire Marshall situation being what it was.

McDaniels pretty much took care of the problem - he traded Marshall and drafted a QB that he thinks can be a franchise guy like Manning or Brady.

But but he traded cutlet and bm
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[jhildebrand]

if you dont know that our qbs are not in the same level as manning...then you need to quit watching football

I think what Carol said is accurate, Arapho.

The truth is we don't know what we have in our QB's. We know a bit about Orton and it ends there. We don't know how a change of scenery will be for Quinn and we certainly don't know squat about Tebow.

I know what people on both sides of the fense say about our QB's. However, I wouldn't bet against Tebow and Quinn, from the sounds of it, has been impressive.

Let's see what TC and preseason bring.

[TXBRONC]

But what's it matter? If you have a QB who plays to make mistakes and force feds one player the ball and you don't win, why does that matter? Especially with the entire Marshall situation being what it was.

McDaniels pretty much took care of the problem - he traded Marshall and drafted a QB that he thinks can be a franchise guy like Manning or Brady.

What does it matter? Let see, how well did it work out for us have quarterback who plays not to make mistakes? Same record as the guy he played to make plays. The quarterback who played not to make mistakes ended going 2-8 down the stretch with 12 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in that same period of time. So that didn't work out to well either.

You really need to get facts straight, Cutler didn't play to intentionally make mistakes. He tried to make plays, you want bitch that his decision making could have better fine, but at least try to be factual. In '08 Cuter targeted Marshall 177 times Orton targeted Marshall 149 times. Cutler also had one receiver with over 91 receptions and three others with 30 or more. Orton next closest receiver had an eye popping 54 reception. Btw in '08 Marshall had 104 receptions that's a difference of 13 more from the next highest total on the team (which Royals 91 receptions). In '09 Marshall had 101 receptions the next hi 54 by Gaffney. That's a difference 47 receptions so who was force feeding the ball King?

Really McDaniels has pretty much taken care of the problem? Tebow and Thomas haven't played one down so at best what you're saying is premature. The problem is pretty much taken care of if Tebow and Thomas are successful.

[Tempus Fugit]

What does it matter? Let see, how well did it work out for us have quarterback who plays not to make mistakes? Same record as the guy he played to make plays. The quarterback who played not to make mistakes ended going 2-8 down the stretch with 12 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in that same period of time. So that didn't work out to well either.

Orton, who was belittled as the inferior quarterback, was able to eek out as many wins as the allegedly superior quarterback had done the previous season, and to do so in his first year even while going to a team with a new system, a new head coach, and a defense that was in complete transition. Meanwhile, Cutler, that allegedly superior quarterback, took a 9-7 team that was returning its system and head coach, and wasn't making significant defensive scheme changes, and led it to a 7-9 season. On top of all that, the Broncos got a nice bonus of additional draft picks. I'd say that pretty clearly worked out fairly well for the Broncos.

[GGMoogly]

Orton, who was belittled as the inferior quarterback, was able to eek out as many wins as the allegedly superior quarterback had done the previous season, and to do so in his first year even while going to a team with a new system, a new head coach, and a defense that was in complete transition. Meanwhile, Cutler, that allegedly superior quarterback, took a 9-7 team that was returning its system and head coach, and wasn't making significant defensive scheme changes, and led it to a 7-9 season. On top of all that, the Broncos got a nice bonus of additional draft picks. I'd say that pretty clearly worked out fairly well for the Broncos.

I don't think anyone belittles Orton because he's an inferior quarterback. I think we belittle him because he's an adequate quarterback. Arguments can be made as to whether JC is a superior QB, but he clearly has a superior arm. So much so, that both the Denver and Chicago FO valued JC higher (hence, the trade differential).

The thing about adequate is, it doesn't sell seats (or jerseys) or win championships (the Dilfers of the world notwithstanding). Kyle's a real mensch, but now we've got Tebow. Things are ABOUT to become interesting!

[TXBRONC]

I don't think anyone belittles Orton because he's an inferior quarterback. I think we belittle him because he's an adequate quarterback. Arguments can be made as to whether JC is a superior QB, but he clearly has a superior arm. So much so, that both the Denver and Chicago FO valued JC higher (hence, the trade differential).

The thing about adequate is, it doesn't sell seats (or jerseys) or win championships (the Dilfers of the world notwithstanding). Kyle's a real mensch, but now we've got Tebow. Things are ABOUT to become interesting!

I don't think it's belittling to say that Orton is an average/journeyman quarterback. Maybe I'm wrong but I think there are far worse things to be called than journyman or average.

[T.K.O.]

I don't think it's belittling to say that Orton is an average/journeyman quarterback. Maybe I'm wrong but I think there are far worse things to be called than journyman or average.

yeah...like "jawalrus" or "jamarshmellow" :D

[Lonestar]

Pretty sure that cutlr targeted bm 179 times or more in 08
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[TXBRONC]

Even more of a concern is Marshall has caught 100+ balls three seasons running with a lot of it being double and sometime triple teamed. If the others couldn't get open with Brandon doubled, how are they going to get open now?

In '08 Royal caught 91 passes for nearly a 1000 yards.

[weazel]

marshall getting a 100 catches was in no way shape or form a reason our offense sucked last season... any one to even hint that is living in lala land

he got a 100 catched cause he got open against the best cbs in the league
him getting open wasnt the problem...it was the crappy offense and qb play that limited the offense

and yes in 08 with marshall and royal getting a thousand yards..we were better...we didnt have a consistant run game and had a terrible defense

i recall a season where we had two 1000 yard recievers and a 2000 thousand yard rusher....we also had a dynamic offensive scheme and a great qb..the two things we lacked last year

I said that the reason our offense sucked is because Marshall caught 100 balls?

[claymore]

Pretty sure that cutlr targeted bm 179 times or more in 08
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Why because you hate him?

[Tempus Fugit]

I don't think anyone belittles Orton because he's an inferior quarterback. I think we belittle him because he's an adequate quarterback. Arguments can be made as to whether JC is a superior QB, but he clearly has a superior arm. So much so, that both the Denver and Chicago FO valued JC higher (hence, the trade differential).

The thing about adequate is, it doesn't sell seats (or jerseys) or win championships (the Dilfers of the world notwithstanding). Kyle's a real mensch, but now we've got Tebow. Things are ABOUT to become interesting!

Inferior was mean in comparison to Cutler, who was viewed as being the superior quarterback. However, people here belittle Orton for pretty much everything, so let's not pretend that people here haven't considered him to be a generally inferior quarterback.

However, the point of my post was just to respond to what I believe was someone else's wrongheaded assertions and implications. It wasn't specifically to defend Orton. Orton is what he is.

[Bosco]

What does it matter? Let see, how well did it work out for us have quarterback who plays not to make mistakes? Same record as the guy he played to make plays. The quarterback who played not to make mistakes ended going 2-8 down the stretch with 12 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in that same period of time. So that didn't work out to well either. Cutler cost us games down the stretch with his horrible play. Orton didn't.


In '08 Cuter targeted Marshall 177 times Orton targeted Marshall 149 times. Cutler also had one receiver with over 91 receptions and three others with 30 or more. Orton next closest receiver had an eye popping 54 reception. Btw in '08 Marshall had 104 receptions that's a difference of 13 more from the next highest total on the team (which Royals 91 receptions). In '09 Marshall had 101 receptions the next hi 54 by Gaffney. That's a difference 47 receptions so who was force feeding the ball King? Think that had something to do with the 60+ more passing attempts we had in 2008?


Really McDaniels has pretty much taken care of the problem? Tebow and Thomas haven't played one down so at best what you're saying is premature. The problem is pretty much taken care of if Tebow and Thomas are successful. So even though they were purpose picked to fill huge holes in our team, McD hasn't addressed the problem because they haven't taken any snaps yet?

Great logic.

[TXBRONC]

Inferior was mean in comparison to Cutler, who was viewed as being the superior quarterback. However, people here belittle Orton for pretty much everything, so let's not pretend that people here haven't considered him to be a generally inferior quarterback.

However, the point of my post was just to respond to what I believe was someone else's wrongheaded assertions and implications. It wasn't specifically to defend Orton. Orton is what he is.

I made no assertions simply I stated some facts. You don't like it tough.

[Tempus Fugit]

I made no assertions simply I stated some facts. You don't like it tough.

Of course you made assertions. That is beyond question:


So that didn't work out to well either

The above, in context, is an example of an assertion, an opinion, and an implication.

[Lonestar]

Of course you made assertions. That is beyond question:



The above, in context, is an example of an assertion, an opinion, and an implication.

Touche!!!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[TXBRONC]

Of course you made assertions. That is beyond question:



The above, in context, is an example of an assertion, an opinion, and an implication.

No I sure didn't.

It's no assertion that Denver went 2-8 down the stretch and that Orton threw 11 interceptions in that same stretch. I'm sorry you can't keep up.

It seems to be your assertions that Orton did a great job. If he did such a great freakin then McDaniels should have made a long term commitment to him. Also if Orton is the shit then was no need to move back up into first round to pick a quarterback. Try listen to what the coach says it will benefit you honest.

[arapaho2]

Be a dick to anyone else, but please don't speak to Carol that way.


football shouldnt be a sexism class...i have more then enough respect for carol as a football fan...so a dudly doo right wasnt needed

as for being a dick...if she responds to me, AS A FOOTBALL FAN OF THE BRONCOS ...SHOULD I TREAT HER WITH GLASS SLIPPERS CAUSE SHES A FEMALE...IS THAT WHAT OR FEMALE FANS WANT..."IM A LADY SO DONT EXPECT ME TO MAKE FOOTBALL SENSE"

i dont think so....shes as much a bronco fan as you or i and deserves my full effort....besides i hardly think saying if she cant tell we dont have a qb in mannings league is being a dick

but hey if carol wants me to take it easy on her because shes a lady..i'll do it

[Lonestar]

Why because you hate him?
Can't get nuff of the hate stuff can you.

I just posted what IRC that jay targeted him 179 time trying ti clarify a misquoted number by another poster.
So take whatever shots
You want as they a wrong do not hate the guy but fail to understand why there is so much love for the loser.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Lonestar]

Josh McDaniels says he's not expecting one receiver to step up in Marshall's place in 2010. Instead, he's hoping to have a lot of receivers step up in Marshall's place.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year -- a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels told the Denver Post. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."


Not sure how anyone can find fault with this LOGIC if you are not one of BM's jock swingers. For that matter unless you flat out HATE Josh this is a very Logial theory.

I can hardly wait for the maroons to attack what he is quoted above.

Can't blieve any thing the liar says.

That's just coach speak.



What say you?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[roomemp]

football shouldnt be a sexism class...i have more then enough respect for carol as a football fan...so a dudly doo right wasnt needed

as for being a dick...if she responds to me, AS A FOOTBALL FAN OF THE BRONCOS ...SHOULD I TREAT HER WITH GLASS SLIPPERS CAUSE SHES A FEMALE...IS THAT WHAT OR FEMALE FANS WANT..."IM A LADY SO DONT EXPECT ME TO MAKE FOOTBALL SENSE"

i dont think so....shes as much a bronco fan as you or i and deserves my full effort....besides i hardly think saying if she cant tell we dont have a qb in mannings league is being a dick

but hey if carol wants me to take it easy on her because shes a lady..i'll do it

its called having some class ;)

[Lonestar]

its called having some class ;):salute::salute:

some will never get it so don't bother trying.

[arapaho2]

its called having some class ;)


ok so me saying we dont have anyone on the roster in mannings level.....and her saying "how do you know that"...followed but my if you cant see that we have noone in mannings level on the roster ..then you need to quit watching football

" a P. manning who will go down as the greatest qb to ever play"

if having a little common sense, some football IQ..some nfl sensibility is being a jerk...or having no class...then thats me

but the fact remains...we have no one on our roster comparable to payton manning ...deal with it...a simply fact ..an undeniable truth

[Ravage!!!]

I think what Carol said is accurate, Arapho.

The truth is we don't know what we have in our QB's. We know a bit about Orton and it ends there. We don't know how a change of scenery will be for Quinn and we certainly don't know squat about Tebow.

I know what people on both sides of the fense say about our QB's. However, I wouldn't bet against Tebow and Quinn, from the sounds of it, has been impressive.

Let's see what TC and preseason bring.

Yes we do. Tebow would have to make the most incredible, remarkable, UNBELIEBABLE change in the history of the NFL to be ANYTHING like Manning is in the NFL. Tebow will never be a passing QB like Manning. Manning is now as he was in college. People knew what they are were getting with Manning. We KNOW that Tebow will never be that kind of QB.

Elway still has the highest grade of ANY PLAYER ever to come out of college. They knew what they were getting when drafting Elway. No one will ever claim that Tebow is a passing QB. Thus, we know what we are getting with Tebow. No way he makes a complete and total change of WHO HE IS.

He's never going to be the cerebral, passing QB that Manning is. NEVER.

[Ravage!!!]

:salute::salute:

some will never get it so don't bother trying.

Pot.. meet kettle :salute:

[Ravage!!!]

Cutler cost us games down the stretch with his horrible play. Orton didn't.

Must have missed the last ten games of the season, oh and that Chiefs game, huh?

[Ravage!!!]

Its a great plan to have a lot of #1 Wrs on a team. But I'm still looking for just one.

[claymore]

Its a great plan to have a lot of #1 Wrs on a team. But I'm still looking for just one.

We have one. He just isnt that good. (Gaffney) :D

[Bosco]

Yes we do. Tebow would have to make the most incredible, remarkable, UNBELIEBABLE change in the history of the NFL to be ANYTHING like Manning is in the NFL. Tebow will never be a passing QB like Manning. Manning is now as he was in college. People knew what they are were getting with Manning. We KNOW that Tebow will never be that kind of QB.

Elway still has the highest grade of ANY PLAYER ever to come out of college. They knew what they were getting when drafting Elway. No one will ever claim that Tebow is a passing QB. Thus, we know what we are getting with Tebow. No way he makes a complete and total change of WHO HE IS.

He's never going to be the cerebral, passing QB that Manning is. NEVER.

- Tebow had the highest rating of any quarterback in college football last year.
- Clausen was the only marquee quarterback with a better completion percentage (68.0 to 67.8)
- 2nd fewest interceptions of any starter in the SEC in 2009.
- 2 years with 30 or more touchdown passes

Not only has Tebow been a very good college passer, he's done it in the toughest and most competitive conference in all of college football. To sit there and say he could "never" reach those levels in textbook definition of foolish.


Must have missed the last ten games of the season, oh and that Chiefs game, huh?

And how many of those can you lay at Orton's feet? Except for maybe the Pittsburgh game, there are none.

[arapaho2]

Cutler cost us games down the stretch with his horrible play. Orton didn't.



Great logic.


great logic is right...:coffee:

down the stretch last five games


year...player.....com%.........total ypg......total tds...total T.O's....
2008..cutler......65.8..........298pg............. 9...............6............

2009..orton.......61.9...........271.............. .9...............8

defensive points per game
2008 broncos....29.2
2009 broncos....27

last five games points off of qb turnover

cutler 2008...20 off his turnovers last five games
orton 2009..24 off his turnovers last five games

defensive take aways last five games

2008....3
2009 ...13


i guess your gonna have to point out where cutler cost us games and orton didnt:coffee:

[arapaho2]

I think what Carol said is accurate, Arapho.

The truth is we don't know what we have in our QB's. We know a bit about Orton and it ends there. We don't know how a change of scenery will be for Quinn and we certainly don't know squat about Tebow.

I know what people on both sides of the fense say about our QB's. However, I wouldn't bet against Tebow and Quinn, from the sounds of it, has been impressive.

Let's see what TC and preseason bring.

tebow is a running qb...never was a passing qb...has serious issues with his motion ...ran a offense where the idea was ...if a wr is covered...take off!!

manning came into the league as the most highly sought after qb since elway....

there is no comparrisens...at all

tebow may have a steller career....but we all know he will never be knocking manning off the pedestal

[Bosco]

great logic is right...:coffee:

down the stretch last five games


year...player.....com%.........total ypg......total tds...total T.O's....
2008..cutler......65.8..........298pg............. 9...............6............

2009..orton.......61.9...........271.............. .9...............8

defensive points per game
2008 broncos....29.2
2009 broncos....27

last five games points off of qb turnover

cutler 2008...20 off his turnovers last five games
orton 2009..24 off his turnovers last five games

defensive take aways last five games

2008....3
2009 ...13


i guess your gonna have to point out where cutler cost us games and orton didnt:coffee:

So you couldn't find a game besides Pittsburgh to blame on Orton? That's what I figured.

[Bosco]

tebow is a running qb...never was a passing qb... Wrong.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183484


has serious issues with his motion Had some throwing motion issues, which were corrected (with much media coverage) pre-draft and is now working with a noted QB guru in McDaniels which will lead to further improvement.

Also you have to consider that many quarterbacks have overcome mechanics issues in the NFL, including Philip Rivers and Tim Tebow's biggest comp, Steve Young.


...ran a offense where the idea was ...if a wr is covered...take off!! And luckily he came to a team that runs the NFL equivalent of that same offense. His toughest transition is going to be learning to go through a few more progressions.


tebow may have a steller career....but we all know he will never be knocking manning off the pedestal No, we don't know that.

[arapaho2]

So you couldn't find a game besides Pittsburgh to blame on Orton? That's what I figured.


aint got nothiing to do with blaming orton does it

the issue is YOU BLAMING CUTLER and not being unable to back it up


i showed you thier stats for the last five games...you said cutler cost us games and orton didnt....

if cutler had a better com%...more passing yards...same amount of total tds..less turnovers..less points given off his turnovers...with a worse defense...and one that handed the ball back to the offense 10 less times

how does that realisticaly compute to him costing us games while orton didnt:lol:

now prove your point or forever zip it

[arapaho2]

Wrong.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183484

Had some throwing motion issues, which were corrected (with much media coverage) pre-draft and is now working with a noted QB guru in McDaniels which will lead to further improvement.

Also you have to consider that many quarterbacks have overcome mechanics issues in the NFL, including Philip Rivers and Tim Tebow's biggest comp, Steve Young.

And luckily he came to a team that runs the NFL equivalent of that same offense. His toughest transition is going to be learning to go through a few more progressions.

No, we don't know that.


wrong ...tebow passes from one of the most talented teams in college...still never has been or will ever be considered one of the elite passers coming out of the college ranks


he had release issues that he's forcing himself to correct...get it?...theres no proof yet that as soon as the pressures on he wont revert to his natual motion.. i seen a story before that a qb coach tried to correct his release in school and gave up..because he reverted to his natual motion

rivers never overcame his motion..they never took a duck and made him cluck like a chiken.....they left his unorthadox motion alone and he plays fine with it, he had a unuasual release but was still one of the best pure passers comeing out of college....not the same tebow and and his natual release that isnt pro caliber ....you can force him to change but when it comes down to a game and a pressure situation...will he remember his release or go withs whats natual


im not saying tebow wont be great....but the point was... to not know if he will be in mannings level ...when he has never been in mannings level in college just to start his career....is blind

[claymore]

The chances of Tebow ever getting to Manning's level is so slim I cant believe its being argued.

[GGMoogly]

The chances of Tebow ever getting to Manning's level is so slim I cant believe its being argued.

Of course, what you're saying can't be argued. The chances of anyone reaching Manning's level are slim. The chances of becoming a professional athlete at all are slim. Odds are against it. Still, I like to go to Vegas now and then. I like to put some money on the ponies, maybe go with a long shot. Tebow is a long shot I like. Chances are slim? Maybe, but the payoff could be SWEET! :cool:

[TXBRONC]

Yes we do. Tebow would have to make the most incredible, remarkable, UNBELIEBABLE change in the history of the NFL to be ANYTHING like Manning is in the NFL. Tebow will never be a passing QB like Manning. Manning is now as he was in college. People knew what they are were getting with Manning. We KNOW that Tebow will never be that kind of QB.

Elway still has the highest grade of ANY PLAYER ever to come out of college. They knew what they were getting when drafting Elway. No one will ever claim that Tebow is a passing QB. Thus, we know what we are getting with Tebow. No way he makes a complete and total change of WHO HE IS.

He's never going to be the cerebral, passing QB that Manning is. NEVER.

That's true Tim will never be Manning or Brady. But I don't think that means he can't have great career.

I can think of one quarterback who went from being running quarterback to a very passer Roger Staubach. He won the Heisman as running quarterback and was until he got to the NFL that he refined passing skills.

[Softskull]

- Tebow had the highest rating of any quarterback in college football last year .

Here's the list of highest ratings over the last few year
2008 Sam Bradford
2007 Sam Bradford
2006 Colt Brennan
2005 Rudy Carpenter
2004 Stefan Lafors

That's a group that will make us forget about Peyton.
It doesnt mean squat.


- Clausen was the only marquee quarterback with a better completion percentage (68.0 to 67.8).

Actually NFL drafted QBs Dan LeFevour and Colt McCoy had better percentages than Tebow. Bradford was averageing over 68 before his injury year. Jamarcus Russel had a 67.8% his last year in the SEC. It also means squat.


- 2nd fewest interceptions of any starter in the SEC in 2009.

Five picks are good, but again, it wont tell you anything as a NFL starter.


- 2 years with 30 or more touchdown passes.

The same a Brady Quinn during his last years at ND. Those college TDs have served him well in the NFL, dont you think? He just got traded for a bar of chocolate and some silk panties.


- Not only has Tebow been a very good college passer, he's done it in the toughest and most competitive conference in all of college football. To sit there and say he could "never" reach those levels in textbook definition of foolish.

I think hoping that a nice guy QB with a huge heart will have any chance of outperforming the most skilled QB in our generation is extremely optimistic. I'm not one to bet againt Tebow, but not foolish enough to take that bet.


- And how many of those can you lay at Orton's feet? Except for maybe the Pittsburgh game, there are none.

I dont want to throw Orton under the bus. I actually like the person Orton. But final game against KC, three interceptions, two for pick6, sacked twice. If any of our former QBs had done that, you'd be killing them now.

[arapaho2]

Here's the list of highest ratings over the last few year
2008 Sam Bradford
2007 Sam Bradford
2006 Colt Brennan
2005 Rudy Carpenter
2004 Stefan Lafors

That's a group that will make us forget about Peyton.
It doesnt mean squat.



Actually NFL drafted QBs Dan LeFevour and Colt McCoy had better percentages than Tebow. Bradford was averageing over 68 before his injury year. Jamarcus Russel had a 67.8% his last year in the SEC. It also means squat.



Five picks are good, but again, it wont tell you anything as a NFL starter.



The same a Brady Quinn during his last years at ND. Those college TDs have served him well in the NFL, dont you think? He just got traded for a bar of chocolate and some silk panties.



I think hoping that a nice guy QB with a huge heart will have any chance of outperforming the most skilled QB in our generation is extremely optimistic. I'm not one to bet againt Tebow, but not foolish enough to take that bet.



I dont want to throw Orton under the bus. I actually like the person Orton. But final game against KC, three interceptions, two for pick6, sacked twice. If any of our former QBs had done that, you'd be killing them now.


some people forget that a qb unwilling or scared to take a shot...move the chains...taking the easy safe throw for little or no gain over the harder throw that may keep a drive going....makes it just as hard to win games as a turnover at times

[Denver Native (Carol)]

some people forget that a qb unwilling or scared to take a shot...move the chains...taking the easy safe throw for little or no gain over the harder throw that may keep a drive going....makes it just as hard to win games as a turnover at times

Unwilling or scared :tsk: does that equate to a QB who is calling the play which was sent into him from the sidelines, and if EVERYONE would have executed the way they should have, the play/throw would have been successful, and the chains would have been moved???????

[arapaho2]

Unwilling or scared :tsk: does that equate to a QB who is calling the play which was sent into him from the sidelines, and if EVERYONE would have executed the way they should have, the play/throw would have been successful, and the chains would have been moved???????


sure every play will work if every one excecutes it, in theory...not in reality however


and the qb does not just throw to a single guy...the coach does not say this play is for marshall and marshall only...if he's not open then throw it away....is that what you think happens?

every passing play has routes and manuevers designed to free wrs.....in that there were many many such cases all season where orton had a open wr deeper ...but choose the check down safe toss to a underneath route

sure the coaches playcalling on plays like the vaunted bubble screen leaves orton no choice on where the ball goes...but theres plenty of other plays he was unwilling to hit the harder target even if it meant a potential big play over the safe easy high percentage throw..fact

[TXBRONC]

Unwilling or scared :tsk: does that equate to a QB who is calling the play which was sent into him from the sidelines, and if EVERYONE would have executed the way they should have, the play/throw would have been successful, and the chains would have been moved???????

You do realize the quarterback has the option to check down or audible out of play altogether. If he completes a little swing pass on 3rd and 8 and it's stop short of the first down that's usually a poor decision.

[Lonestar]

Figures never lie,

Liars always figure.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[nevcraw]

Figures never lie,

Liars always figure. ]
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

should have made that bigger and more yellow..

[Lonestar]

should have made that bigger and more yellow..

I tried but 7 is as BIG as I could get.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

You do realize the quarterback has the option to check down or audible out of play altogether. If he completes a little swing pass on 3rd and 8 and it's stop short of the first down that's usually a poor decision.

Well yes, I do realize the quarterback has the option to check down or audible out of play altogether.

Also, then ANY quarterback who has EVER played the game has made a poor decision if he completes a little swing pass on 3rd and 8, and it's stopped short of the first down - never mind that the blocking in front of the receiver may not have been what it was suppose to be, etc., etc., etc.

[arapaho2]

Well yes, I do realize the quarterback has the option to check down or audible out of play altogether.

Also, then ANY quarterback who has EVER played the game has made a poor decision if he completes a little swing pass on 3rd and 8, and it's stopped short of the first down - never mind that the blocking in front of the receiver may not have been what it was suppose to be, etc., etc., etc.


but still...the 1st or 2nd option may have been open and that part excecutd perfectly..only to have a play it safe qb not want to risk making a tougher throw...so he takes the check down....get it?
the play itself may have been designed for a big gain but because the qb...failed to excecute his duty properly by making that first throw...he forces the play to a short easily defended check down

[arapaho2]

Figures never lie,



Liars always figure.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums



puppys poop on the rug if you dont train them to go outside

see i can make up stuff too

[Denver Native (Carol)]

but still...the 1st or 2nd option may have been open and that part excecutd perfectly..only to have a play it safe qb not want to risk making a tougher throw...so he takes the check down....get it?
the play itself may have been designed for a big gain but because the qb...failed to excecute his duty properly by making that first throw...he forces the play to a short easily defended check down

This is the explanation ONLY if someone does not like the particular QB they are referring to

Oh yeah, you bet I get it.

[Lonestar]

Whata Maroon. That is a very old saying. Not sure who first said it.

But I do know that Dale Carneige Said this one.

Better to be thought a Fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt!

Words to the wise.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Figures never lie,

Liars always figure.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Figures like leading the league in 3 and outs? What were we talking about, again?

[Softskull]

Better to be thought a Fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt!


Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ironic

[jhildebrand]

I can say this, Orton far too often was scared to run. Too many times was he moving with the ball only to try to dump the ball to a RB. He almost got each of our backs killed by doing it.

[Bosco]

aint got nothiing to do with blaming orton does it

the issue is YOU BLAMING CUTLER and not being unable to back it up


i showed you thier stats for the last five games...you said cutler cost us games and orton didnt....

if cutler had a better com%...more passing yards...same amount of total tds..less turnovers..less points given off his turnovers...with a worse defense...and one that handed the ball back to the offense 10 less times

how does that realisticaly compute to him costing us games while orton didnt:lol:

now prove your point or forever zip it

So you want to argue who cost us games on an individual basis and then you use the collective stats over a 10 game period to argue your point?

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously around here.


I can think of one quarterback who went from being running quarterback to a very passer Roger Staubach. He won the Heisman as running quarterback and was until he got to the NFL that he refined passing skills.

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/gabon/385/super_young.jpg



Here's the list of highest ratings over the last few year
2008 Sam Bradford
2007 Sam Bradford
2006 Colt Brennan
2005 Rudy Carpenter
2004 Stefan Lafors

And none of them were from SEC schools either. Bradford came from arguably the conference which is the closest in level of competition.


It doesnt mean squat. I never said it did. Ravage's little diatribe was all about claiming that Tebow wasn't a passing quarterback. I was simply refuting that.


Actually NFL drafted QBs Dan LeFevour and Colt McCoy had better percentages than Tebow. I missed McCoy, but LeFevour was not a marquee quarterback hence why I didn't include him.


Five picks are good, but again, it wont tell you anything as a NFL starter. Agreed, but as I said I was simply refuting Ravage's claims that Tebow wasn't a passing quarterback.


The same a Brady Quinn during his last years at ND. Those college TDs have served him well in the NFL, dont you think? He just got traded for a bar of chocolate and some silk panties. Brady has actually been serviceable for them, which is quite the statement considering the disarray that team is in.


I think hoping that a nice guy QB with a huge heart will have any chance of outperforming the most skilled QB in our generation is extremely optimistic. I'm not one to bet againt Tebow, but not foolish enough to take that bet. Saying "he can (which I am) reach that level" and saying "he will" are two different things.


I dont want to throw Orton under the bus. I actually like the person Orton. But final game against KC, three interceptions, two for pick6, sacked twice. If any of our former QBs had done that, you'd be killing them now. You're discounting my ability to be objective and look beyond the stats.

Orton sure didn't help us in that game, but it's hard to lay the game at his feet when the defense allowed over 520 yards, including 260 rushing yards from one player, which forced us into a shoot out where the Chiefs could make the risky gambles that resulted in two of the interceptions and 1 of the pick sixes.

[TXBRONC]

Well yes, I do realize the quarterback has the option to check down or audible out of play altogether.

Also, then ANY quarterback who has EVER played the game has made a poor decision if he completes a little swing pass on 3rd and 8, and it's stopped short of the first down - never mind that the blocking in front of the receiver may not have been what it was suppose to be, etc., etc., etc.

Just because other quarterback have made that mistake doesn't justify it. Nevermind that blocking may have been fine and that the receivers did what they were suppose to do. Our starting quarterback by his own admission has said that he plays it safe.

[Lonestar]

Good post Bosco:salute: but you will never change a haters mind.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Imagine trying to compare the Defenses in the SEC to the total lack of D in the Big 12.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[TXBRONC]

I can say this, Orton far too often was scared to run. Too many times was he moving with the ball only to try to dump the ball to a RB. He almost got each of our backs killed by doing it.

The thing that concerns me the most is that Orton would hold onto the ball way long. Maybe that will improve this season but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[jhildebrand]

So you want to argue who cost us games on an individual basis and then you use the collective stats over a 10 game period to argue your point?

Orton had a better D, which Arapaho mentioned. Orton had a #1 RB, Jay had scrubs. I think the individual and collective could be argued.



Orton sure didn't help us in that game, but it's hard to lay the game at his feet when the defense allowed over 520 yards, including 260 rushing yards from one player, which forced us into a shoot out where the Chiefs could make the risky gambles that resulted in two of the interceptions and 1 of the pick sixes.

Again, the McDaniels supporters acting as if the D operates in a vacuum completely independent of the O. You don't think Orton's pick 6 played a role in the D's performance? You don't think their continual 3 and outs didn't
contribute to the D's performance?

Again, the propensity of the most ardent McD supporters is too cast a critical eye on the D but turn the other cheek when it comes to the O.

Early in the season the D bailed the O out to the tune of a 6-0 record. Its too bad the O could never return the favor.

[jhildebrand]

The thing that concerns me the most is that Orton would hold onto the ball way long. Maybe that will improve this season but I'm not going to hold my breath.

It could. It will be his second year in the system and everything should come much more naturally to him. He has a distinct advantage over the other QB's on the roster. What concerns me is the report that the team was shopping him.

[EMB6903]

Orton is very solid within the play thats being called... once it breaks down and hes asked to make a play out of nothing is where his problem is, thats why he will always be an average QB at best.

[Lonestar]

Orton is very solid within the play thats being called... once it breaks down and hes asked to make a play out of nothing is where his problem is, thats why he will always be an average QB at best.


which coach did you get this from? or is it just your opinion .

Which is no better or worse than any one else's.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

It really would be nice to spread the ball around this year and take advantage of our receivers' strengths. I still have this feeling that our offense will once again struggle with an identity. Now, without Marshall on the squad, we don't have one real "playmaker". As of now, I think Gaffney and Lloyd are probably penciled in as the starters (which scares me) and Royal is the slot guy (where he really belongs).


Gaffney is at his best when he's not the #1 guy. When defenses start to forget he exists and he can find that soft spot in the zone. I don't have a lot of faith in him being that guy that gets targeted 70+ times. Lloyd, no matter what glowing reports he's getting in 7 on 7 no-contact drills in passing camp, has yet to prove he's a reliable option. For every highlight reel catch, there's an easy drop to go along with it (he reminds me of Lelie, just not as tall or a jump ball threat) and I doubt he'll be effective going over the middle. Hopefully Gaff and Lloyd can just be enough of a distraction to spring Royal a lot.

I have ZERO hope for McKinley and I doubt he'll even make the active roster this year (nobody will pick him up off waivers and he'd be PS eligible so that's a possibility) because he doesn't have any "special talents". He's not overly fast, not big, doesn't have great hands, isn't a good returner, etc.

It would be great if Thomas and Decker can get healthy and really become a part of the offense this year but I'm not holding my breath. Both could turn out to be great based on potential, but right now, that's all it is and of course, they're rookies.

I don't even know if Stokely will make the active roster this year being as old and injury prone as he is. He'll definitely beat out a guy like McKinley, though.

Overall looking at it objectively, unless Thomas and/or Decker can come in and make an immediate impact, I think our passing game will struggle, especially at first, which will cause the running game to struggle. For all the hope I have that the team will be improved this year I just think there are too many changes to the offense both on the LOS and in the WR corps to really get too excited about it before I can actually see them play in live action.

McDaniels' "theory" is sound, now they just need to execute.

[TXBRONC]

It could. It will be his second year in the system and everything should come much more naturally to him. He has a distinct advantage over the other QB's on the roster. What concerns me is the report that the team was shopping him.

I recall hearing reports that McDaniels was shopping him but I don't recall there being much interest in him. Quinn is the only one I recall that their was talk about the Jaguars having interest in him.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/broncos-99308-englewood-interested.html

ENGLEWOOD – The Denver Broncos have four intriguing quarterbacks on the roster, but none are on the trading block.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said he has no interest, at the moment, in moving Kyle Orton, Brady Quinn, Tim Tebow or Tom Brandstater.

“There’s not been one quarterback on our roster that’s been discussed or would be discussed at this point in any trade talks or anything else,” McDaniels said. “We’re going to let them compete and the best guy is going to play.”

McDaniels said the team will figure out a solution if it decides to go with just three quarterbacks.

As for any controversy, Orton is clearly the starter at this point. Quinn is a former first-round pick who was acquired by Denver in a March trade and Tebow was a first-round pick this year. Orton has been in first during offseason practices after throwing for 3,802 yards last season, and has at least one big endorsement in the locker room.

“It’s going to be a good battle, but I’ll tell you what – Orton, until he shows anything different, he’s my guy,” cornerback Champ Bailey said.

McDaniels has said repeatedly that Orton is his starter, but the position is open for competition. He said the same thing last year with Orton and Chris Simms and usually has that attitude about every position on the Broncos.

“The starter is the starter until someone beats him out,” McDaniels said. “The best player will play, that’s all I’m saying. It doesn’t matter if it’s a defensive end, punter, quarterback, center, if he’s the best player he’s playing.

“Right now (Orton is the best player and he’s in there first in the huddle, he knows the most. Does that mean that’s a guarantee for the season? No, and he knows that. Every quarterback knows that, every player knows that.”

[TXBRONC]

It really would be nice to spread the ball around this year and take advantage of our receivers' strengths. I still have this feeling that our offense will once again struggle with an identity. Now, without Marshall on the squad, we don't have one real "playmaker". As of now, I think Gaffney and Lloyd are probably penciled in as the starters (which scares me) and Royal is the slot guy (where he really belongs).


Gaffney is at his best when he's not the #1 guy. When defenses start to forget he exists and he can find that soft spot in the zone. I don't have a lot of faith in him being that guy that gets targeted 70+ times. Lloyd, no matter what glowing reports he's getting in 7 on 7 no-contact drills in passing camp, has yet to prove he's a reliable option. For every highlight reel catch, there's an easy drop to go along with it (he reminds me of Lelie, just not as tall or a jump ball threat) and I doubt he'll be effective going over the middle. Hopefully Gaff and Lloyd can just be enough of a distraction to spring Royal a lot.

I have ZERO hope for McKinley and I doubt he'll even make the active roster this year (nobody will pick him up off waivers and he'd be PS eligible so that's a possibility) because he doesn't have any "special talents". He's not overly fast, not big, doesn't have great hands, isn't a good returner, etc.

It would be great if Thomas and Decker can get healthy and really become a part of the offense this year but I'm not holding my breath. Both could turn out to be great based on potential, but right now, that's all it is and of course, they're rookies.

I don't even know if Stokely will make the active roster this year being as old and injury prone as he is. He'll definitely beat out a guy like McKinley, though.

Overall looking at it objectively, unless Thomas and/or Decker can come in and make an immediate impact, I think our passing game will struggle, especially at first, which will cause the running game to struggle. For all the hope I have that the team will be improved this year I just think there are too many changes to the offense both on the LOS and in the WR corps to really get too excited about it before I can actually see them play in live action.

McDaniels' "theory" is sound, now they just need to execute.

Orton could improve because it is his second year (as has been noted by many on this board) but I think there is a very chance he wont moreso because the changes to the receiving corp.

[EMB6903]

which coach did you get this from? or is it just your opinion .

Which is no better or worse than any one else's.

Excuse me what was that?

[Lonestar]

It really would be nice to spread the ball around this year and take advantage of our receivers' strengths. I still have this feeling that our offense will once again struggle with an identity. Now, without Marshall on the squad, we don't have one real "playmaker". As of now, I think Gaffney and Lloyd are probably penciled in as the starters (which scares me) and Royal is the slot guy (where he really belongs).


Gaffney is at his best when he's not the #1 guy. When defenses start to forget he exists and he can find that soft spot in the zone. I don't have a lot of faith in him being that guy that gets targeted 70+ times. Lloyd, no matter what glowing reports he's getting in 7 on 7 no-contact drills in passing camp, has yet to prove he's a reliable option. For every highlight reel catch, there's an easy drop to go along with it (he reminds me of Lelie, just not as tall or a jump ball threat) and I doubt he'll be effective going over the middle. Hopefully Gaff and Lloyd can just be enough of a distraction to spring Royal a lot.

I have ZERO hope for McKinley and I doubt he'll even make the active roster this year (nobody will pick him up off waivers and he'd be PS eligible so that's a possibility) because he doesn't have any "special talents". He's not overly fast, not big, doesn't have great hands, isn't a good returner, etc.

It would be great if Thomas and Decker can get healthy and really become a part of the offense this year but I'm not holding my breath. Both could turn out to be great based on potential, but right now, that's all it is and of course, they're rookies.

I don't even know if Stokely will make the active roster this year being as old and injury prone as he is. He'll definitely beat out a guy like McKinley, though.

Overall looking at it objectively, unless Thomas and/or Decker can come in and make an immediate impact, I think our passing game will struggle, especially at first, which will cause the running game to struggle. For all the hope I have that the team will be improved this year I just think there are too many changes to the offense both on the LOS and in the WR corps to really get too excited about it before I can actually see them play in live action.

McDaniels' "theory" is sound, now they just need to execute.
IIRC mckinley is the second fastest guy on the squad.
Lots of ifs in this post

If the oline gels that means better pass protection
Also means the RB will have more than a sliver of block to go through.

If moreno gets over the rookie jitters and runs. And if Bucky can do a whole season then there will be more conversions of 3rd and short.

If Orton or Quinn can use the time in the pocket to find a secondary or maybe even a 3rd receiver the passing game should improve.

If Clady and Harris are back on the field CLOSE to 90% they along with Kuper could make it easier for JD to work from center and who ever wins the OLG spot. IF all of this comes together then the absence of BM will not be felt and perhaps Joshes dreams/thoughts of 4-5 #1 WR's can come true. IF the OLINE is no better than last year all bets are off.

The dline has to make the front 7 better and in due course that makes the DB's better.

IF we win the LOS battles then we are crapping in tall cotton.

If not it will be like most of the last DECADE.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[TXBRONC]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/broncos-99308-englewood-interested.html

ENGLEWOOD – The Denver Broncos have four intriguing quarterbacks on the roster, but none are on the trading block.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said he has no interest, at the moment, in moving Kyle Orton, Brady Quinn, Tim Tebow or Tom Brandstater.

“There’s not been one quarterback on our roster that’s been discussed or would be discussed at this point in any trade talks or anything else,” McDaniels said. “We’re going to let them compete and the best guy is going to play.”

McDaniels said the team will figure out a solution if it decides to go with just three quarterbacks.

As for any controversy, Orton is clearly the starter at this point. Quinn is a former first-round pick who was acquired by Denver in a March trade and Tebow was a first-round pick this year. Orton has been in first during offseason practices after throwing for 3,802 yards last season, and has at least one big endorsement in the locker room.

“It’s going to be a good battle, but I’ll tell you what – Orton, until he shows anything different, he’s my guy,” cornerback Champ Bailey said.

McDaniels has said repeatedly that Orton is his starter, but the position is open for competition. He said the same thing last year with Orton and Chris Simms and usually has that attitude about every position on the Broncos.

“The starter is the starter until someone beats him out,” McDaniels said. “The best player will play, that’s all I’m saying. It doesn’t matter if it’s a defensive end, punter, quarterback, center, if he’s the best player he’s playing.

“Right now (Orton is the best player and he’s in there first in the huddle, he knows the most. Does that mean that’s a guarantee for the season? No, and he knows that. Every quarterback knows that, every player knows that.”

IIRC there was a rumor that Orton was on the trading block. What you highlighted isn't a denial of the veracity of the rumor. Head coaches are not always forthright with the media.

[dunk7]

This thread should be retitled...It should be McDaniels hopes his compilation of WR3's, WR4's and WR5's can become WR1's. I really hope Thomas and Royal can perform well or this is going to be an ugly year. You either have to have a good QB with average WR's or an average QB with good WR's. Unfortunately, it looks like we could be average at both. I'm going to cry if Lloyd and Gaffney are our starters as another poster suggested.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

IIRC mckinley is the second fastest guy on the squad.


I don't know where you came up with that, but nothing I've seen from him supports that. He was never a speedster at SC (I watch a lot of SEC games down here in NE FL). As far as WRs go, Eddie, Lloyd and Demaryius are all 4.3 guys (or were coming out of college). IIRC McKinley was in the 4.5 range, not that it matters, but he wasn't a blazer. Sydney Rice was the faster of the two and the deep threat for SC. The real reason McKinley wasn't drafted higher was his lack of anything "special". He was a "solid" possession guy in college, but never special. If I had to compare him to a guy currently on the roster, I'd say Gaffney, just with no experience.

Lots of ifs, but what is more likely... that all our new rookies will come in and produce like we hope or that they'll fall flat on their ass or not contribute at all? Prolly somewhere in the middle. If the O-line isn't any better than everything else is a moot point.


The dline has to make the front 7 better and in due course that makes the DB's better.

IF we win the LOS battles then we are crapping in tall cotton.

If not it will be like most of the last DECADE.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


Yep, pretty much.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Orton could improve because it is his second year (as has been noted by many on this board) but I think there is a very chance he wont moreso because the changes to the receiving corp.

My thought on Orton is simple. It's NEVER been about the mental side. Orton's a smart guy. He works hard. I just don't think he has the physical talent not to handcuff the playcalling. What good is it for him to read the coverage correctly if he can't make the needed throw or buy just one more second by sidestepping the rush. Orton needs a completely clean pocket and the ability to sent his feet to be even remotely effective. If he gets moved off his spot, the ball is going into the dirt or it's a sack.

Reading the defense isn't the problem. Quick reads that lead to quick, short passes are exactly what we did last year. Then the defenses we played sniffed that out and pressured Orton and crowded the LOS to take away those "hot reads" and Orton couldn't adjust by buying time and or accurately throwing the intermediate stuff consistently.

[Denver27og]

The title of this thread should read...

McDaniels plans to have alot of #2 wrs

[BCJ]

If everyone is a #1 guy, good luck with taking broncos wideouts for your fantasy football team and actually doing well. I just want everyone to be on top notch form so CB and safeties dont know who to double coverage.

[Bosco]

Orton had a better D, which Arapaho mentioned. Orton had a #1 RB, Jay had scrubs. And Cutler had a better and healthier offensive line, was in his 3rd year in the system with receivers playing in their proper positions.


I think the individual and collective could be argued. Not when you want to argue which QB caused their team to lose games. Arapaho knows that and knows he's on the losing end of this debate which is why he tried using the collective stats.


Again, the McDaniels supporters acting as if the D operates in a vacuum completely independent of the O. No, we're not.


You don't think Orton's pick 6 played a role in the D's performance? Not really.


You don't think their continual 3 and outs didn't contribute to the D's performance? We had three "3 and outs" in that game, the exact same as the Chiefs. We were also converting our 3rd downs at 47% in that game, which would have placed us in the top 3 if averaged out over the season, just FYI.


Again, the propensity of the most ardent McD supporters is too cast a critical eye on the D but turn the other cheek when it comes to the O. That's because the defense suffered a near epic collapse, while the offense was at least consistent in it's struggles.


Early in the season the D bailed the O out to the tune of a 6-0 record. Its too bad the O could never return the favor. Which game did the defense bail out the offense?

[Bosco]

As of now, I think Gaffney and Lloyd are probably penciled in as the starters (which scares me) and Royal is the slot guy (where he really belongs). In McDaniels offense, you really have 3 receivers who are starters. Lloyd will probably start on the wing with Thomas backing him up and getting plenty of snaps himself. Royal will be in the slot with McKinley or Stokley (if he makes the team) backing him up. Gaffney will be the split end working the intermediate routes with Decker backing him up.


Gaffney is at his best when he's not the #1 guy. When defenses start to forget he exists and he can find that soft spot in the zone. I don't have a lot of faith in him being that guy that gets targeted 70+ times. Lloyd, no matter what glowing reports he's getting in 7 on 7 no-contact drills in passing camp, has yet to prove he's a reliable option. For every highlight reel catch, there's an easy drop to go along with it (he reminds me of Lelie, just not as tall or a jump ball threat) and I doubt he'll be effective going over the middle. Hopefully Gaff and Lloyd can just be enough of a distraction to spring Royal a lot. Lelie had great hands, and Lloyd/Thomas aren't going to be going over the middle with any frequency.


I have ZERO hope for McKinley and I doubt he'll even make the active roster this year (nobody will pick him up off waivers and he'd be PS eligible so that's a possibility) because he doesn't have any "special talents". He's not overly fast, not big, doesn't have great hands, isn't a good returner, etc. He is fast, he does have very good hands and he looked decent as a returner from what little action he spent there.


I don't even know if Stokely will make the active roster this year being as old and injury prone as he is. He'll definitely beat out a guy like McKinley, though. I like Stokley but he's probably a preseason cut.


Overall looking at it objectively, unless Thomas and/or Decker can come in and make an immediate impact, I think our passing game will struggle, especially at first, which will cause the running game to struggle. For all the hope I have that the team will be improved this year I just think there are too many changes to the offense both on the LOS and in the WR corps to really get too excited about it before I can actually see them play in live action. I disagree. I think Royal is going to absolutely excel in the slot (think a rich man's Wes Welker), Gaffney is as proven as you can get at the spot he plays and between Lloyd and Thomas we'll have enough of a deep threat to at least keep teams honest.

[Lonestar]

The title of this thread should read...

McDaniels plans to have alot of #2 wrs

Guess you did not read the story.

Let me make it simple for you.
Josh hopes to have a #1 in each game. Someone that steps up and gets hot.

If that happens it will be hard for the defenses to know how to DEFENSE this team. Because each week it will be someone else taking them to the woodshed.

That make it simple enough.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[arapaho2]

This is the explanation ONLY if someone does not like the particular QB they are referring to

Oh yeah, you bet I get it.

no it wasnt a problem for cutler...nor for plummer for that matter.....cutler trusted his arm to make any throw anywhere...plummer had vision and wasnt afraid to make a mistake and he had success

plummer didnt have the great arm and that was his downfall...


i would rather put up with a qb makeing a few extra mistakes if that meant he had that killer never scared to take a chance aptitude...over im just gonna play it safe dink and dunk ...any day

[arapaho2]

Guess you did not read the story.

Let me make it simple for you.
Josh hopes to have a #1 in each game. Someone that steps up and gets hot.

If that happens it will be hard for the defenses to know how to DEFENSE this team. Because each week it will be someone else taking them to the woodshed.

That make it simple enough.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


every coach without a sure fire #1 wr says that....they keep saying every season until they find thier #1wr

[arapaho2]

So you want to argue who cost us games on an individual basis and then you use the collective stats over a 10 game period to argue your point?

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously around here.



http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/gabon/385/super_young.jpg




.


wait a minute there captain hero....i didnt say i wanna see who cost us games on a game to game basis...you did...remember your own bs and you wont look the fool

i never claimed orton cost us ....i said if cutler did then orton must have

you said cutler cost us games in the end stretch, and orton didnt...your words...not mine


i showed both qbs stats for the last five games...the stretch in 08 and 09....

to show if cutler costed us games...as you stated...then why didnt orton...he had more turnovers...more points off turnovers...less yards...less com%

YOU HAVE YET TO MAN UP AND BACK UP YOUR WORDS ..how did cutler cost us games down the stretch..while orton did not

dont spin it, deflect it, ignore it....just tell me how cutler cost us games...yet orton didn

[TXBRONC]

wait a minute there captain hero....i didnt say i wanna see who cost us games on a game to game basis...you did...remember your own bs and you wont look the fool

i never claimed orton cost us ....i said if cutler did then orton must have

you said cutler cost us games in the end stretch, and orton didnt...your words...not mine


i showed both qbs stats for the last five games...the stretch in 08 and 09....

to show if cutler costed us games...as you stated...then why didnt orton...he had more turnovers...more points off turnovers...less yards...less com%

YOU HAVE YET TO MAN UP AND BACK UP YOUR WORDS ..how did cutler cost us games down the stretch..while orton did not

dont spin it, deflect it, ignore it....just tell me how cutler cost us games...yet orton didn

Spot on. :salute:

[arapaho2]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/broncos-99308-englewood-interested.html

ENGLEWOOD – The Denver Broncos have four intriguing quarterbacks on the roster, but none are on the trading block.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said he has no interest, at the moment, in moving Kyle Orton, Brady Quinn, Tim Tebow or Tom Brandstater.

“There’s not been one quarterback on our roster that’s been discussed or would be discussed at this point in any trade talks or anything else,” McDaniels said. “We’re going to let them compete and the best guy is going to play.”

McDaniels said the team will figure out a solution if it decides to go with just three quarterbacks.

As for any controversy, Orton is clearly the starter at this point. Quinn is a former first-round pick who was acquired by Denver in a March trade and Tebow was a first-round pick this year. Orton has been in first during offseason practices after throwing for 3,802 yards last season, and has at least one big endorsement in the locker room.

“It’s going to be a good battle, but I’ll tell you what – Orton, until he shows anything different, he’s my guy,” cornerback Champ Bailey said.

McDaniels has said repeatedly that Orton is his starter, but the position is open for competition. He said the same thing last year with Orton and Chris Simms and usually has that attitude about every position on the Broncos.

“The starter is the starter until someone beats him out,” McDaniels said. “The best player will play, that’s all I’m saying. It doesn’t matter if it’s a defensive end, punter, quarterback, center, if he’s the best player he’s playing.

“Right now (Orton is the best player and he’s in there first in the huddle, he knows the most. Does that mean that’s a guarantee for the season? No, and he knows that. Every quarterback knows that, every player knows that.”


come on carol...since when did a statment from the team or mcd constitute truth?

remember: jay is our qb...i came to denver to work with jay....were gonna see how to get hillis more involved.....baily and dawk asked me to bench marshall.....marshall will be a bronco for a long time i hope...

[Tempus Fugit]

no it wasnt a problem for cutler...nor for plummer for that matter.....cutler trusted his arm to make any throw anywhere...plummer had vision and wasnt afraid to make a mistake and he had success

plummer didnt have the great arm and that was his downfall...


i would rather put up with a qb makeing a few extra mistakes if that meant he had that killer never scared to take a chance aptitude...over im just gonna play it safe dink and dunk ...any day

Fortunately for them, teams like the 2001 Patriots and the 2000 Ravens understood just how lousy your position is as a general proposition in the modern game, and went in the opposite direction.

[arapaho2]

Fortunately for them, teams like the 2001 Patriots and the 2000 Ravens understood just how lousy your position is as a general proposition in the modern game, and went in the opposite direction.


do we have the 2000 ravens defense? dont think so

[TXBRONC]

Fortunately for them, teams like the 2001 Patriots and the 2000 Ravens understood just how lousy your position is as a general proposition in the modern game, and went in the opposite direction.

Yep the Raven so pleased with quarterback play of Dilfer that jettisoned him after the season and look at his stats from '01 he didn't play worth a damn 12 tds and 11 ints

If you're really going say that Brady wasn't making plays in 01 then you're not the expert on Patriots that you claim to be Fudge.

[Tempus Fugit]

Yep the Raven so pleased with quarterback play of Dilfer that jettisoned him after the season and look at his stats from '01 he didn't play worth a damn 12 tds and 11 ints

And they've won how many Super Bowls since? They made the right move going with Dilfer over Banks, and then they got enamored with the canon arms and fell off the Super Bowl contender list. It's a perfect example of just how mistaken Arapaho2's position is.


If really going say that Brady wasn't making plays in 01 then you're not expert on Patriots that you claim to be Fudge.

You should perhaps have read the posts. I was responding to....


i would rather put up with a qb makeing a few extra mistakes if that meant he had that killer never scared to take a chance aptitude...over im just gonna play it safe dink and dunk ...any day

The Patriots' offense, once Bledsoe went down, was that of playing it safe and letting the defense punish people. It's why the final drive of the Super Bowl was such a change of pace. One can make plays while playing it safe rather than making "a few extra mistakes".

[TXBRONC]

And they've won how many Super Bowls since? They made the right move going with Dilfer over Banks, and then they got enamored with the canon arms and fell off the Super Bowl contender list. It's a perfect example of just how mistaken Arapaho2's position is.

Ah no what the Ravens did was to look for a franchise quarterback but didn't find one until Billick was dispensed with. It's rudimentary if you just pay attention just little bit.



The entirety of the Patriots offense once Bledsoe went down was that of playing it safe and letting the defense punish people. It's why the final drive of the Super Bowl was such a change of pace. One can make plays while playing it safe rather than making "a few extra mistakes".

Now I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about. I watched that Super Bowl that how it went down. The touchdown to Brown in back of the end zone, maybe not in your world that's not making a play but in the real world it is.

[Bosco]

wait a minute there captain hero....i didnt say i wanna see who cost us games on a game to game basis...you did...remember your own bs and you wont look the fool

i never claimed orton cost us ....i said if cutler did then orton must have

you said cutler cost us games in the end stretch, and orton didnt...your words...not mine

Really? In post #33 I responded to TXBronc's post about having the same record with the game-manager versus the gunslinger by reminding him that yes, Cutler cost us games and Orton didn't.

You responded by making this post.


Must have missed the last ten games of the season, oh and that Chiefs game, huh?

If that's not you claiming that Orton cost us games, I don't know what is. If you've got a problem with that, maybe you should learn to type in English and articulate your viewpoints a little better.


i showed both qbs stats for the last five games...the stretch in 08 and 09....

to show if cutler costed us games...as you stated...then why didnt orton...he had more turnovers...more points off turnovers...less yards...less com% So if you claimed that player XYZ had a bad game in week 3 and I posted his season stats to refute that, would you cry foul? Of course you would, because it's a completely irrelevant stat that does nothing to refute you, yet that is essentially the exact same thing you are doing now.


YOU HAVE YET TO MAN UP AND BACK UP YOUR WORDS ..how did cutler cost us games down the stretch..while orton did not That's because I've been too busy telling you how bad your debate skills are, but since you asked...

Games Cutler cost us (ignoring the SD debacle where Hochuli saved his ass)

Jacksonville - Dug the team a whole with his poor play early in the game. Failed to capitalize on strong defensive play in the 4th quarter when 3 of 4 Jacksonville drives ended with a punt after 5 plays or less. He responds with two 3 and outs.

Miami - 3 interceptions (including a pick 6) in a 26-17 loss.

Buffalo -Crucial 4th quarter interception. After the defense got him the ball back, he overthrew a wide open Brandon Stokley twice to turn the ball over on downs and end the game.

Oakland - Not a single touchdown, an interception which killed any comeback hopes (and resulted in an Oakland touchdown) and killed offensive production by refusing to check down off Marshall once the Raiders shut him down.

Games which he had a huge hand in losing: New England, Carolina, San Diego.

There you go.

[underrated29]

Really? In post #33 I responded to TXBronc's post about having the same record with the game-manager versus the gunslinger by reminding him that yes, Cutler cost us games and Orton didn't.

You responded by making this post.



If that's not you claiming that Orton cost us games, I don't know what is. If you've got a problem with that, maybe you should learn to type in English and articulate your viewpoints a little better.

So if you claimed that player XYZ had a bad game in week 3 and I posted his season stats to refute that, would you cry foul? Of course you would, because it's a completely irrelevant stat that does nothing to refute you, yet that is essentially the exact same thing you are doing now.

That's because I've been too busy telling you how bad your debate skills are, but since you asked...

Games Cutler cost us (ignoring the SD debacle where Hochuli saved his ass)

Jacksonville - Dug the team a whole with his poor play early in the game. Failed to capitalize on strong defensive play in the 4th quarter when 3 of 4 Jacksonville drives ended with a punt after 5 plays or less. He responds with two 3 and outs.

Miami - 3 interceptions (including a pick 6) in a 26-17 loss.

Buffalo -Crucial 4th quarter interception. After the defense got him the ball back, he overthrew a wide open Brandon Stokley twice to turn the ball over on downs and end the game.

Oakland - Not a single touchdown, an interception which killed any comeback hopes (and resulted in an Oakland touchdown) and killed offensive production by refusing to check down off Marshall once the Raiders shut him down.

Games which he had a huge hand in losing: New England, Carolina, San Diego.

There you go.



If I remember the jax game we had 3 fumbles in the redzone and marshall was responsible.

Buf- the int was not crucial. He did not overthrow stokely. Stokely had it in his hands twice. They ran the same play twice and both time brandon could not bring it in..watch it again.


I do not remember the other games off hand so I probably did not get to see them. But i remember those games very well. PS- we always lose to jax. The last time i remember us beating them was the '03 season in a tight low scoring game where q griffen ran for 42 yards.

[arapaho2]

Really? In post #33 I responded to TXBronc's post about having the same record with the game-manager versus the gunslinger by reminding him that yes, Cutler cost us games and Orton didn't.

You responded by making this post.



If that's not you claiming that Orton cost us games, I don't know what is. If you've got a problem with that, maybe you should learn to type in English and articulate your viewpoints a little better.

So if you claimed that player XYZ had a bad game in week 3 and I posted his season stats to refute that, would you cry foul? Of course you would, because it's a completely irrelevant stat that does nothing to refute you, yet that is essentially the exact same thing you are doing now.

That's because I've been too busy telling you how bad your debate skills are, but since you asked...

Games Cutler cost us (ignoring the SD debacle where Hochuli saved his ass)

Jacksonville - Dug the team a whole with his poor play early in the game. Failed to capitalize on strong defensive play in the 4th quarter when 3 of 4 Jacksonville drives ended with a punt after 5 plays or less. He responds with two 3 and outs.

Miami - 3 interceptions (including a pick 6) in a 26-17 loss.

Buffalo -Crucial 4th quarter interception. After the defense got him the ball back, he overthrew a wide open Brandon Stokley twice to turn the ball over on downs and end the game.

Oakland - Not a single touchdown, an interception which killed any comeback hopes (and resulted in an Oakland touchdown) and killed offensive production by refusing to check down off Marshall once the Raiders shut him down.

Games which he had a huge hand in losing: New England, Carolina, San Diego.

There you go.

gee i can see where arapaho2....and ravage...might confuse you...i mean we all see the resemblense in spelling :lol: :lol: :lol:

let me get this straight...cutler miami game where he had a pick six..cost us the game...but ortons three turnover game where he threw 2 pick sixs didnt???


hhaaahaaaa haaaa ok now stop it your killing me..:lol: :lol:

by the way your talking about the buffalo game where
we had a 13 point lead only to watch the defense surrender 4 consecutive scoreing drives..before cutler led the broncos down to take the lead by running in another TD..to go up 20-16 in the 4th?

even with a missed fg and marshall fumble in bills territory in the first half?
only to watch the bills run right down the field on a 65 yard pass from trent edwards..and then score a walk in td to take the lead?

never mind the fact cutler drove the broncos right down the next series to tie it ...no that dont count..no sir

only then to kick off and watch the defense allow the lowly bills to march right down again in 4 plays to go up 7...

the same game where he was forced to throw the ball 24 out of 26 offensive snaps... a total of two rushing attempts in the forth qrt?...matter of fact threw the ball 33 of 36 offensive snaps in the second half...

never mind the fact that the int didnt result in one single buffalo point...no sir that dont count.....never mind the fact cutler took the team right down for a game tieing drive...only to watch stokely drop a sure TD on third down that hit him in his hands in the endzone

it was all cutler right?

the sandiego game where cutler lead the team to 31 first half points....so the one fumble would have cost us the game and not the fact the defense surrendered a 31-17 point lead in the second half...no that one single play was the reason...kids

and you wanna talk about 3 n outs losing games for cutler...but ignore the multitude orton had?

talk about a selective memory:laugh: :laugh:

[Bosco]

If I remember the jax game we had 3 fumbles in the redzone and marshall was responsible. Jacksonville had 3 fumbles. We had two and lost both, one of them thanks to Cutler, which I forgot to mention in my previous post.


Buf- the int was not crucial. A red zone interception, with under 6 minutes to play in a game your team lost by 4 points in not crucial?

You're joking, right?


He did not overthrow stokely. Stokely had it in his hands twice. They ran the same play twice and both time brandon could not bring it in..watch it again. He did overthrow Brandon. On the last play, Stokley was laid out trying to catch the pass and got his hands on it but the defensive back knocked it away, which ultimately didn't matter as Stokley would have likely been ruled out of bounds anyway.

If Cutler doesn't overthrow that pass and/or throws it sooner, Stokley could have easily shielded the ball with his back and made a fairly easy catch.


we always lose to jax. No we don't. They have a 1 game lead on us in the series.

[arapaho2]

If I remember the jax game we had 3 fumbles in the redzone and marshall was responsible.

Buf- the int was not crucial. He did not overthrow stokely. Stokely had it in his hands twice. They ran the same play twice and both time brandon could not bring it in..watch it again.


I do not remember the other games off hand so I probably did not get to see them. But i remember those games very well. PS- we always lose to jax. The last time i remember us beating them was the '03 season in a tight low scoring game where q griffen ran for 42 yards.


your right on with stokely..right in his hands

jags game his ints gave the jags 3 points...marshalls fumble in the redzone was a 10-14 point swing since the jags scored a td off it...but i guess thats cutlers fault :coffee:

[underrated29]

Jacksonville had 3 fumbles. We had two and lost both, one of them thanks to Cutler, which I forgot to mention in my previous post.

A red zone interception, with under 6 minutes to play in a game your team lost by 4 points in not crucial?

You're joking, right?

He did overthrow Brandon. On the last play, Stokley was laid out trying to catch the pass and got his hands on it but the defensive back knocked it away, which ultimately didn't matter as Stokley would have likely been ruled out of bounds anyway.

If Cutler doesn't overthrow that pass and/or throws it sooner, Stokley could have easily shielded the ball with his back and made a fairly easy catch.

No we don't. They have a 1 game lead on us in the series.



I think the buff game was pretty much summed up by the previous post. So instead.

Please tell me the last time we beat the jags? I honestly do not know. But I am pretty sure that it was when I said we did. '03. They always play us tough. They knocked us out of the playoffs the year before the SB. Then next year we beat them..then dont remember except that the last time we beat them was '03.

So for the past 7 years we have not beat the jags. And this year I have that first game down as a loss too.

[arapaho2]

Jacksonville had 3 fumbles. We had two and lost both, one of them thanks to Cutler, which I forgot to mention in my previous post.

yeah his fumble in our territory in the first qrt really cost us the game:coffee:

A red zone interception, with under 6 minutes to play in a game your team lost by 4 points in not crucial?

a game we had a 13 point lead...a game the defense allowed 2 back to back td drives in the late 4th qrter? yeah that int cost us what? no more than marshalls redzone fumble right?

You're joking, right?

He did overthrow Brandon. On the last play, Stokley was laid out trying to catch the pass and got his hands on it but the defensive back knocked it away, which ultimately didn't matter as Stokley would have likely been ruled out of bounds anyway.

yet he did hit stokes right in the hands on one of them..square..and it was dropped..fact

If Cutler doesn't overthrow that pass and/or throws it sooner, Stokley could have easily shielded the ball with his back and made a fairly easy catch.

No we don't. They have a 1 game lead on us in the series.

selective at best:lol:

[Bosco]

gee i can see where arapaho2....and ravage...might confuse you...i mean we all see the resemblense in spelling :lol: :lol: :lol: You're right, I mixed up the posts. Your's was this one (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=986761&postcount=50), which said basically the same thing.


let me get this straight...cutler miami game where he had a pick six..cost us the game...but ortons three turnover game where he threw 2 pick sixs didnt???

hhaaahaaaa haaaa ok now stop it your killing me..:lol: :lol: Correct. In the Miami game, Cutler was basically the only one who didn't show up for that game. The Chiefs game was pretty much team wide suck.


by the way your talking about the buffalo game where
we had a 13 point lead only to watch the defense surrender 4 consecutive scoreing drives. The missed field goal and 3 and out sure didn't help. Even then, they had a whole 3 point lead.


before cutler led the broncos down to take the lead by running in another TD..to go up 20-16 in the 4th? It was the 3rd quarter.


never mind the fact that the int didnt result in one single buffalo point...no sir that dont count..... Thanks to the defense stepping up and bailing his ass out, giving him the opportunity to make another drive.


never mind the fact cutler took the team right down for a game winning drive...only to watch stokely drop a sure TD on third down that hit him in his hands in the endzone See previous post.


it was all cutler right? Yep.

[arapaho2]

You're right, I mixed up the posts. Your's was this one (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=986761&postcount=50), which said basically the same thing.


sure it did:rolleyes:


Correct. In the Miami game, Cutler was basically the only one who didn't show up for that game. The Chiefs game was pretty much team wide suck.

you mean his 307 passing yards and two tds was him not showing up?...not withstanding the other 77 yards td pass to marshall called back?

The missed field goal and 3 and out sure didn't help. Even then, they had a whole 3 point lead.

It was the 3rd quarter.

denver had a 4 point lead going into the 4th..if your gonna aurgue stats with me at least be correct

Thanks to the defense stepping up and bailing his ass out, giving him the opportunity to make another drive.

to bad the defense didnt bail his ass out when they surrenders the 13 point 1st qrter lead...or when the allowed two b2b 4th qrt tds....but that dont matter does it :coffee:

See previous post.

i did it sucked as bad as the rest

Yep.

selective memories:lol::lol::lol:

[Bosco]

your right on with stokely..right in his hands Say what?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008122109/2008/REG16/bills@broncos#tab:watch

2:36: No one within 5 yards of Stokley. Too bad the football wasn't either.

2:43: I was mistaken, this pass was underthrown and Stokley had to jump for it, allowing the DB to get his hands in there and knock it loose. Note the horrible mechanics and throwing off the back foot.


jags game his ints gave the jags 3 points...marshalls fumble in the redzone was a 10-14 point swing since the jags scored a td off it...but i guess thats cutlers fault :coffee: So Cutler's turnovers don't count because the defense held, but Marshall's do because the defense didn't?

Well, that makes sense.


I think the buff game was pretty much summed up by the previous post. So instead.

Please tell me the last time we beat the jags? I honestly do not know. But I am pretty sure that it was when I said we did. '03. They always play us tough. They knocked us out of the playoffs the year before the SB. Then next year we beat them..then dont remember except that the last time we beat them was '03.

So for the past 7 years we have not beat the jags. And this year I have that first game down as a loss too. 2005.

[Bosco]

selective memories:lol::lol::lol:

Learn how to multi-quote messages. I'm not about to spend time parsing out shit you add to my quotes.

[arapaho2]

Say what?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008122109/2008/REG16/bills@broncos#tab:watch

2:36: No one within 5 yards of Stokley. Too bad the football wasn't either.

2:43: I was mistaken, this pass was underthrown and Stokley had to jump for it, allowing the DB to get his hands in there and knock it loose. Note the horrible mechanics and throwing off the back foot.

note the fact stokely had it in his hands....thats all that matters a receiver is paid to bring that in

So Cutler's turnovers don't count because the defense held, but Marshall's do because the defense didn't?

Well, that makes sense.

really?...cause i never said that...i said acording to you, cutlers int that didnt cost us any point lost us the game...but marshalls redzone fumble didnt...thats your own line of thinking right...your the one blaming cutler for the lose because of the int....yet ignoreing marshalls that did cost us 7

2005.


you have yet to prove how cutlers more yards,better completion rate, less turnovers...less points off turnovers by him cost us games where ortons play didnt

[arapaho2]

Learn how to multi-quote messages. I'm not about to spend time parsing out shit you add to my quotes.


learn how to answer me without quoteing other people first:rolleyes:

[Bosco]

no :coffee:

Enjoy your one-sided conversation then.

[arapaho2]

Enjoy your one-sided conversation then.

beats listening to your dribble:cool:

[underrated29]

Say what?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008122109/2008/REG16/bills@broncos#tab:watch

2:36: No one within 5 yards of Stokley. Too bad the football wasn't either.

2:43: I was mistaken, this pass was underthrown and Stokley had to jump for it, allowing the DB to get his hands in there and knock it loose. Note the horrible mechanics and throwing off the back foot.

So Cutler's turnovers don't count because the defense held, but Marshall's do because the defense didn't?

Well, that makes sense.

2005.


so the first pass was overthrown.
The second one was perfect. - You say note the bad mechanics. I say note the 2 unblocked defenders in his face.
I hardly blame that loss on cutler.


as for 2005- that is the year we went 13-3. I thought it was '03. Still the same game I was talking about the game where qgriffen/ma combined for like 42 total yards. That was it, i just mixed up the year we went 13-3. So i stand corrected on that date.

[Bosco]

The second one was perfect. - You say note the bad mechanics. I say note the 2 unblocked defenders in his face.
I hardly blame that loss on cutler. That was far from perfect. It was horribly underthrown. Stokley had a step on his defender yet he had to stop, turn around and attempt a leaping catch. Even then he still might have caught it had the defender not got his hands in there.

Sure Cutler had the two defenders coming after him, but he had enough time to set his feet and make a proper throw. He would have taken a shot, but part of being an elite quarterback (which Cutler seems to think he is) is standing in there and taking those shots instead of throwing lame duck passes. Had Cutler mastered that concept, we might win that game.

[Lonestar]

That was far from perfect. It was horribly underthrown. Stokley had a step on his defender yet he had to stop, turn around and attempt a leaping catch. Even then he still might have caught it had the defender not got his hands in there.

Sure Cutler had the two defenders coming after him, but he had enough time to set his feet and make a proper throw. He would have taken a shot, but part of being an elite quarterback (which Cutler seems to think he is) is standing in there and taking those shots instead of throwing lame duck passes. Had Cutler mastered that concept, we might win that game.

HE might even be on the team had he not been a Jeff George.

[Bosco]

HE might even be on the team had he not been a Jeff George.

Oh well. I'm glad he's gone.

[GEM]

Learn how to multi-quote messages. I'm not about to spend time parsing out shit you add to my quotes.


learn how to answer me without quoteing other people first:rolleyes:


Enjoy your one-sided conversation then.


beats listening to your dribble:cool:

You 2 need to stop with the back and forth personal stuff. If you can't have a decent football debate without going after each other for this or that that have nothing to do with the debate, put each other on ignore and save the rest of us the childish antics.

[Softskull]

That was far from perfect. It was horribly underthrown. Stokley had a step on his defender yet he had to stop, turn around and attempt a leaping catch. Even then he still might have caught it had the defender not got his hands in there.

Sure Cutler had the two defenders coming after him, but he had enough time to set his feet and make a proper throw. He would have taken a shot, but part of being an elite quarterback (which Cutler seems to think he is) is standing in there and taking those shots instead of throwing lame duck passes. Had Cutler mastered that concept, we might win that game.

Dude, are you still fighting this? Cutler threw for 350+ yards, it was the second coldest game ever played in Denver, he ran for two tds, but you think Cutler lost this game?

"I had both hands on the ball," Stokley said. "I've got to catch it. That's what they pay me to do."Buffalo score on five consecutive posessions.

There are certainly games you can lay the blame at Cutler's feet (GB, 49ers last year) but this wasn't one of them.

[Bosco]

Dude, are you still fighting this? Cutler threw for 350+ yards, it was the second coldest game ever played in Denver, he ran for two tds, but you think Cutler lost this game? When you're down and you throw an interception late in the 4th quarter, and then after the defense gets the ball back and you fail to hit your wide open receiver on 3rd and 4th down, then yes, the loss is on your head.

Yards don't win games. Points do.


"I had both hands on the ball," Stokley said. "I've got to catch it. That's what they pay me to do."Buffalo score on five consecutive posessions. That's what a true professional would say. Guys like Cutler and Jimmy Clausen might throw their teammates under the bus, but not guys like Stokley.

[Bosco]

Dude, are you still fighting this? Cutler threw for 350+ yards, it was the second coldest game ever played in Denver, he ran for two tds, but you think Cutler lost this game? When you're down and you throw an interception late in the 4th quarter, and then after the defense gets the ball back and you fail to hit your wide open receiver on 3rd and 4th down, then yes, the loss is on your head.

Especially if just a few short months later you're going to cry foul over supposed trade rumors because you're a "franchise quarterback".

Yards don't win games. Points do.


"I had both hands on the ball," Stokley said. "I've got to catch it. That's what they pay me to do."Buffalo score on five consecutive posessions. That's what a true professional would say. Guys like Cutler and Jimmy Clausen might throw their teammates under the bus, but not guys like Stokley.

[Softskull]

Dude, really? Check out 2:48. He should have caught that ball. He was right. He did have both hands on it. A true professional takes responsibility for his own actions.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d88cde/NFL-GameDay-Bills-vs-Broncos-highlights

[Bosco]

Dude, really? Check out 2:48. He should have caught that ball. He was right. He did have both hands on it. A true professional takes responsibility for his own actions.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d88cde/NFL-GameDay-Bills-vs-Broncos-highlights

Discussed this already.


That was far from perfect. It was horribly underthrown. Stokley had a step on his defender yet he had to stop, turn around and attempt a leaping catch. Even then he still might have caught it had the defender not got his hands in there.

Sure Cutler had the two defenders coming after him, but he had enough time to set his feet and make a proper throw. He would have taken a shot, but part of being an elite quarterback (which Cutler seems to think he is) is standing in there and taking those shots instead of throwing lame duck passes. Had Cutler mastered that concept, we might win that game.

I'm honestly glad Stokley stepped up and took the blame. It would have looked pretty bad had he come out and said "yeah, my quarterback couldn't throw an accurate pass to save his life and it cost us the game". That said, when you watch the film, it's easy to see which of the two was the one who screwed up.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

And they've won how many Super Bowls since? They made the right move going with Dilfer over Banks, and then they got enamored with the canon arms and fell off the Super Bowl contender list. It's a perfect example of just how mistaken Arapaho2's position is.


Here's where you're completely out to lunch. You actually think the loss of Trent Dilfer doomed the Ravens? Seriously? Okay, now you're really grasping at straws to try to make a point about Orton.

The Ravens were a victim (one of the first) of the salary cap. They had to blow up almost that entire defense. Siragusa and Adams left (their starting DTs, roughly the equivalent of the Williamses in Minnesota), Rod Woodson, Kim Herring, Duane Starks, etc all left via free agency because the Ravens were in cap hell.

That's why they weren't as dominant the next season (although they made the playoffs). I had nothing to do with losing Dilfer. That's just ridiculous.

[TXBRONC]

Here's where you're completely out to lunch. You actually think the loss of Trent Dilfer doomed the Ravens? Seriously? Okay, now you're really grasping at straws to try to make a point about Orton.

The Ravens were a victim (one of the first) of the salary cap. They had to blow up almost that entire defense. Siragusa and Adams left (their starting DTs, roughly the equivalent of the Williamses in Minnesota), Rod Woodson, Kim Herring, Duane Starks, etc all left via free agency because the Ravens were in cap hell.

That's why they weren't as dominant the next season (although they made the playoffs). I had nothing to do with losing Dilfer. That's just ridiculous.

I had forgotten about losses because the cap. That aside if the Ravens thought Dilfer was the shit they would have kept him. What did he do afterwards? Absolutely nothing. Bilick then spent the rest of his tenure looking for a franchise quarterback.

I think what some people but certainly not everyone can't come to grips with is that if McDaniels thought Orton was anything more than a journeyman quarterback he would have given a long term contract and probably wouldn't have draft a quarterback in the first round.

[TXBRONC]

I think the buff game was pretty much summed up by the previous post. So instead.

Please tell me the last time we beat the jags? I honestly do not know. But I am pretty sure that it was when I said we did. '03. They always play us tough. They knocked us out of the playoffs the year before the SB. Then next year we beat them..then dont remember except that the last time we beat them was '03.

So for the past 7 years we have not beat the jags. And this year I have that first game down as a loss too.

The last time we beat Jacksonville was 2005. We beat them in Jacksonville and we've only played twice since then 2007 and 2008.

[underrated29]

The last time we beat Jacksonville was 2005. We beat them in Jacksonville and we've only played twice since then 2007 and 2008.

Yeah it was the year we went 13-3. they were game #4. I remember because i was on a cruise and was watching it on a cruise and made a fool of myself infront of a bunch of cruise people...I just mixed up the year we went 13-3...Thought it was '03 but it was '05.

[TXBRONC]

Yeah it was the year we went 13-3. they were game #4. I remember because i was on a cruise and was watching it on a cruise and made a fool of myself infront of a bunch of cruise people...I just mixed up the year we went 13-3...Thought it was '03 but it was '05.

I was pretty sure it was '05 but I had look back to make sure.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I think what some people but certainly not everyone can't come to grips with is that if McDaniels thought Orton was anything more than a journeyman quarterback he would have given a long term contract and probably wouldn't have draft a quarterback in the first round.

QFT. That is the BOTTOM LINE of all of this talk. Orton is the guy right now, but after the season, and maybe earlier than that, he won't be.

[Lonestar]

QFT. That is the BOTTOM LINE of all of this talk. Orton is the guy right now, but after the season, and maybe earlier than that, he won't be.

Almost NO RFA have received no contracts to date.

It has to do with solidarity between owners and uncertainty with the CBA.

For anyone to say orton was not resigned yet is nonsense.

The plain and simple reasons are Josh wants some more time looking at him after a good first season, with increased competition behind him.

Why would any OWNER spend guaranteed money on any RFA till they have to. It would weaken a very strong bargaining position they have with the NFLPA and their 200 or so RFAs and another 200 or so that are due to be next year. They want as much leverage as they can get. As for Josh bringing in Quinn why not he has to be better than stiff simms was. As for Tebow picking up a great athlete like he is and just happens to be a QB well why the hell not.

If any of the QB's turn into a bonefide FQB it will be great for the TEAM. If not then the illusive hunt will continue.
As you say Orton is the guy now and I suspect he will surprise a lot of folks in his second year.

But then they will never admit it as they have dug their bunkers because of their love affairs with jay or John.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[TXBRONC]

If the McDaniels believed that Orton was the future he would have gotten contract. If he believed him then their was no need to draft a quarterback especially early. Anyone that believes that the lack of CBA is a reason to not to sign someone you believe is long term solution especially at quarterback is fooling themself.

[TXBRONC]

QFT. That is the BOTTOM LINE of all of this talk. Orton is the guy right now, but after the season, and maybe earlier than that, he won't be.

Bingo. The lack of CBA is just a convenient excuse for not re-signing a player. It's nieve to think otherwise. At the end of year McDaniels praised Orton up and down said he did such a great job yet for all the rhetoric his actions don't match up. If McDaniels believed he did such a great job he might as well re-sign and get him locked in to a long term contract.

I thought McDaniels early on in the offseason was emphatic about being the starter apparently I was mistaken. From what I've been reading lately McDaniels has not told Orton that he's unquestionably the starter this year and from Orton mouth he has said that he'll have to compete to keep his job. I guess the coach wasn't as impressed with Orton as some might think.

[BCJ]

I thought this was worth bumping (and last thread I posted in). Lots of response so some crow and kudos will be shown I am sure! I think McD had this one spot on.

[silkamilkamonico]

A lot of crow to be served in this thread.

McDaniels knew what he was doing all along when he traded Marshall.

[BroncoJoe]

The doubters will some how come up with excuses.

Again.

[BroncoWave]

There's a big difference in having a complete quarterback like Manning and having a journeyman quarterback who plays not to make mistakes.


Having a lot of #1's as WR's is nice and the right idea, IMHO. It is all meaningless if McDaniels can't get Orton to go through his progressions completely, not favor one side of the field, and not get too comfy with one WR. [Assuming Orton is the starter]


it seems some people under value the benefit of having a wr that can take the best cb on the team as well as a safty with him where ever he goes and still catch a hundred balls...in the process leaving the other wrs in one on one battles with the #2 and #3 cbs

and to use indy as an example is dumb...manning has a #1 reciever..goes by the name of wayne...had another before him went by the name of harrison...both are legit ...manning also finds it easier to spread the ball around when the best cb is covering wayne

we dont have wayne or a qb remotely close to manning


Its a great plan to have a lot of #1 Wrs on a team. But I'm still looking for just one.


We have one. He just isnt that good. (Gaffney) :D


This thread should be retitled...It should be McDaniels hopes his compilation of WR3's, WR4's and WR5's can become WR1's. I really hope Thomas and Royal can perform well or this is going to be an ugly year. You either have to have a good QB with average WR's or an average QB with good WR's. Unfortunately, it looks like we could be average at both. I'm going to cry if Lloyd and Gaffney are our starters as another poster suggested.


The title of this thread should read...

McDaniels plans to have alot of #2 wrs


every coach without a sure fire #1 wr says that....they keep saying every season until they find thier #1wr

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6JPrNHnRVZI/SW5WXZh6soI/AAAAAAAAC9E/zPAPSK8gqJo/s400/eat-crow.jpg

[jhildebrand]

Has Orton not progressed this year with regard to going through his reads? :confused: I think almost everyone here has commented on the huge improvement Orton has made. Only a couple of times has he stared down his WR the entire play. We are also seeing far less panicked dump offs to RB's.

[TimTebow15MVP]

I dont get why people make this shit a big deal when mcdaniels clearly said theres no number one wideout in his offense from day 1. that alone shoulda let marshall know he cant be a bitch around here.

But anyways like phil simms said the broncos have the best WR core in the entire league. id much rather that be true than having the best WR in the game.... when your 5-6 deep your much better off than having just one dominant WR. its really a no brainer.

[T.K.O.]

T.O. chocinco disagree:laugh:

[Northman]

I

But anyways like phil simms said the broncos have the best WR core in the entire league. id much rather that be true than having the best WR in the game.... when your 5-6 deep your much better off than having just one dominant WR. its really a no brainer.

Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin disagree with you.

[jhildebrand]

I dont get why people make this shit a big deal when mcdaniels clearly said theres no number one wideout in his offense from day 1. that alone shoulda let marshall know he cant be a bitch around here.

But anyways like phil simms said the broncos have the best WR core in the entire league. id much rather that be true than having the best WR in the game.... when your 5-6 deep your much better off than having just one dominant WR. its really a no brainer.

I think it could easily be argued that Lloyd is the number 1 WR at this point. If I was in the same "I told you so mood" I could go dig up all the threads/posts claiming Gaffney would easily replace Marshall "because look at the game he had against KC." :coffee:

[BroncoJoe]

Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin disagree with you.

:headslap:

[Northman]

:headslap:

Shouldnt that be facepalm?

[BroncoJoe]

I think it could easily be argued that Lloyd is the number 1 WR at this point. If I was in the same "I told you so mood" I could go dig up all the threads/posts claiming Gaffney would easily replace Marshall "because look at the game he had against KC." :coffee:

Doesn't matter what was said on this board. What matters is what happens on the field.

Why do I still come here?

[jhildebrand]

Doesn't matter what was said on this board. What matters is what happens on the field.

Not sure I follow you. But what happens on the field is what matters. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of those with the "i told you so" attitude.



Why do I still come here?

Because your life just isn't complete without it. :D

Tned appreciates your support.

[Lonestar]

Doesn't matter what was said on this board. What matters is what happens on the field.

Why do I still come here?

Frankly I debate that a lot my self.

But living out in the boonies with zero chance of getting decent Bronco info, after looking at the other forums this is the least of all evils. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Ravage!!!]

Wait. People are trying to serve up crow, already? A 2-2 team that has the QB throwing up the ball 50 times a game, and we are saying that the passing numbers PROVE that we are better without Marshall, really?

What team would NOT put up big passing numbers if their QB was on pace to throw 700 times a season? Orton is distributing the ball great, but is this offense really better? I don't seem to see it on 3rd downs. I don't seem to see it near the goal line. Maybe it will prove to be better later on down the season, but after 4 games people are actually trying to serve up crow? Seriously?

This is reheated crow, btw. This is the same crow that was served up to those that were bragging for the first 6 weeks of last year's season.

[silkamilkamonico]

I don't think this is any different than people trying to "serve" crow on how awesome Cutler is 3 games into the season, a year late ironic enough.

Or the same people trying to serve reheated Crow on Hillis, 4 games into the season on a 1-3 team.

Or that the miraculous turnaround of our defense attributed to Nolan is somehow left with Noaln residue on it, even without the defenses best player.

I would hope the general fan would be smart enough to see that we in no way shape, or form, do we miss Marshall, just like there's a strong likely hood that we do miss Hillis.

The problem with the people in this place, is while trying to throw out "I told you so's", continue to make excuses for the other side that they've been wrong at.

I've been wrong, you've been wrong, 100% of the fans that visit this board have been wrong about McDaniels and his decisions one way or another.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think this is any different than people trying to "serve" crow on how awesome Cutler is 3 games into the season, a year late ironic enough.

Or the same people trying to serve reheated Crow on Hillis, 4 games into the season on a 1-3 team.

I would the general smart fan would be smart enough to see that we in no way shape, or form, miss Marshall, just like there's a strong likely hood that we do miss Hillis.

The problem with the people in this place, is while trying to throw out "I told you so's", continue to make excuses for the other side that they've been wrong at.

I've been wrong, you've been wrong, 100% of the fans that visit this board have been wrong about McDaniels and his decisions one way or another.


I think we will miss Marshall, absolutely. Sorry if I don't fit into your "generally smart fan" category. But, to me, its pretty silly to say that an offense got better by getting rid of one of the best players at their position.

If Lloyd is doing well, explain how he wouldn't be any BETTER by having Marshall on the other side of the field? Seems that Lloyd, our #1, is on pace for 4 TDs. I would also argue very much that Marshall is a LOT bigger threat than anyone we have on the roster for those plays closer to the enzone. Not to mention the third down conversion catches.

But as far as your first point. Maybe not be different, but doesn't make it any more right.

Good way to separate the "I hate Marshall" crowds from the rest if you are tired of the Hillis and Cutler threads.

[Northman]

I don't think this is any different than people trying to "serve" crow on how awesome Cutler is 3 games into the season, a year late ironic enough.

Or the same people trying to serve reheated Crow on Hillis, 4 games into the season on a 1-3 team.

Or that the miraculous turnaround of our defense attributed to Nolan is somehow left with Noaln residue on it, even without the defenses best player.

I would hope the general fan would be smart enough to see that we in no way shape, or form, do we miss Marshall, just like there's a strong likely hood that we do miss Hillis.

The problem with the people in this place, is while trying to throw out "I told you so's", continue to make excuses for the other side that they've been wrong at.

I've been wrong, you've been wrong, 100% of the fans that visit this board have been wrong about McDaniels and his decisions one way or another.

I agree Silk, you are wrong.

[silkamilkamonico]

I think we will miss Marshall, absolutely. Sorry if I don't fit into your "generally smart fan" category. But, to me, its pretty silly to say that an offense got better by getting rid of one of the best players at their position.

If Lloyd is doing well, explain how he wouldn't be any BETTER by having Marshall on the other side of the field? Seems that Lloyd, our #1, is on pace for 4 TDs. I would also argue very much that Marshall is a LOT bigger threat than anyone we have on the roster for those plays closer to the enzone. Not to mention the third down conversion catches.

But as far as your first point. Maybe not be different, but doesn't make it any more right.

Good way to separate the "I hate Marshall" crowds from the rest if you are tired of the Hillis and Cutler threads.

"Missing Marshall" isn't the point. The point is, the majority of the people said our passing offense would be terrible this year without him. They are wrong.

Cutler? How about this one. "Trading Jay Cutler will set this franchise back 3-5 years, maybe 7." That's a laughable one.

We aren't that much better, or worse, than last year right now if someone's going to assess the team. We also aren't that much better, or worse, than any Denver team since 2005.

At this point, McDaniels is merely carrying on the "stagnant" label Shanahan left us with.


I agree Silk, you are wrong.



That's a terrible "argument".

[TXBRONC]

I'm glad McDaniels wants Orton to spread the ball around but it really isn't his control once the play is called.

[Ravage!!!]

I would hope the general fan would be smart enough to see that we in no way shape, or form, do we miss Marshall, just like there's a strong likely hood that we do miss Hillis.




"Missing Marshall" isn't the point. The point is, the majority of the people said our passing offense would be terrible this year without him. They are wrong.



Hmmm.. that doesn't seem to be what you said. The thread was about our #1 Wrs, and you specifically said that the "general fan would be smart enough to see that we in no way shape, or form, do we MISS Marshall..."

I just pointed out that I think we DO miss Marshall despite putting up the passing numbers of a team that throws 50 times a game.

I don't know why you are bringing Shanahan into the discussion. :whoknows:
I guess thats something else I'm not smart enough to see.

[TimTebow15MVP]

I think we will miss Marshall, absolutely. Sorry if I don't fit into your "generally smart fan" category. But, to me, its pretty silly to say that an offense got better by getting rid of one of the best players at their position.

If Lloyd is doing well, explain how he wouldn't be any BETTER by having Marshall on the other side of the field? Seems that Lloyd, our #1, is on pace for 4 TDs. I would also argue very much that Marshall is a LOT bigger threat than anyone we have on the roster for those plays closer to the enzone. Not to mention the third down conversion catches.

But as far as your first point. Maybe not be different, but doesn't make it any more right.

Good way to separate the "I hate Marshall" crowds from the rest if you are tired of the Hillis and Cutler threads.

You seriously sound like a marshall fanboy. the broncos are not missing marshall, the broncos have like 3 wideouts putting up top 15-20 stats. much much better deep threats. (something marshall never will be) If marshall was here then orton would still be eyeing down marshall, forcing balls to marshall, and lloyd and company would not be a factor. therefor our already one dementional offense gets way easier to defend knowing ortons just gonna stare down marshall as he did last year. A rookie QB needs a number one wideout. So he can stare him down. not a veteran like orton who mastered the offense and realize that if he goes through his progressions everybody is a option and somebody will be open. ber on

besides a number one WR is a goto guy. if you have 5-6 guys you can goto arent you better off?

You say having marshall would make lloyd better? lol....hello last year. whn lloyd and royal was here and gaffs, all of them were neglected for moslt of the game because of marshall.

[weazel]

lego is fun!

[jhildebrand]

If marshall was here then orton would still be eyeing down marshall

SO it was Marshall's fault Orton was eyeing down Marshall? :confused:

Care to expand on that.

[broncobryce]

SO it was Marshall's fault Orton was eyeing down Marshall? :confused:

Care to expand on that.

Marshall bitched if he didn't get the ball. Not as bad as TO, but still.

[Ravage!!!]

Marshall bitched if he didn't get the ball. Not as bad as TO, but still.

Really? Thats the first I've heard of this. I've never heard of this at all. However, I'm pretty certain all WRs want the ball, but you are saying the reason that Marshall caught 100 passes, and Orton threw to him so often is because Marshall "bitched" so much? Really? I'd love to read the article, or the source, from which you got that tidbit.

[slim]

Mods, please move this thread to the Miami Dolphins forum.

tia.

[TimTebow15MVP]

SO it was Marshall's fault Orton was eyeing down Marshall? :confused:

Care to expand on that.

Addition by subtraction dude. simple as that. I know its hard for you and some other supa star lovers to believe but getting rid of marshall was the best thing that happend to this offense. and the numbers dont lie. but men and woman do.

lloyd having a career year. gaffs having a sweet year, royal back to the dominant royal. did you see those rankings for orton? none of that existed last year with marshall.

[Reidman]

Lest we forget this is the second year in this Bronco offense for McDaniels and Orton....

just saying...

[TXBRONC]

Marshall bitched if he didn't get the ball. Not as bad as TO, but still.

Bryce I don't recall ever reading or hearing that Marshall would bitch about not getting the ball. I also do not remember ever seeing he pitch a fit during a game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[TimTebow15MVP]

Yeah i dont recall marshall bitching about not getting the ball. if you go by body language then yeah he bitches a little bit but he never came out and said things about not getting the ball. and even if he did so did jerry rice.

[jhildebrand]

Addition by subtraction dude.

:lol:



simple as that. I know its hard for you and some other supa star lovers to believe but getting rid of marshall was the best thing that happend to this offense. and the numbers dont lie. but men and woman do.

lloyd having a career year. gaffs having a sweet year, royal back to the dominant royal. did you see those rankings for orton? none of that existed last year with marshall.

Hmmmm so Orton is a weak individual with a weak constitution so much so that he obliged B Marshall's every request? :rolleyes:

With this line of logic, Lloyd is crying for the ball nonstop!

[Lonestar]

Lest we forget this is the second year in this Bronco offense for McDaniels and Orton....

just saying...

as it is for most if not all of the receivers.

From what I have heard they put in a new game plan, with many new plays designed specially for the upcoming team each Wednesday.

So while it is easier no one should be resting on any laurels.

[TimTebow15MVP]

:lol:



Hmmmm so Orton is a weak individual with a weak constitution so much so that he obliged B Marshall's every request? :rolleyes:

With this line of logic, Lloyd is crying for the ball nonstop!

what the **** are you talking about? :confused:

[Lonestar]

:lol:



Hmmmm so Orton is a weak individual with a weak constitution so much so that he obliged B Marshall's every request? :rolleyes:

With this line of logic, Lloyd is crying for the ball nonstop!

I think we are all logical enought to say Orton did not fulfill Marshalls every desire. But I also suspect we all know that with someone that is not overly mobile a Lousy pass protect Oline and having two bad ankles KO was looking for someone to get the ball to.

This year he has lots of folks that KNOW there routes unlike last year, and can get open so I suspect if asked he likes door #2 a lot better than last year.

[jhildebrand]

Look I know people want to serve up crow and have an "I told you so" love fest. But let's turn the tables.

Most of the people who said we wouldn't miss Marshall were the very same people who pointed to Gaffney's game against KC saying he would be as good as Marshall. Yet the reality is Brandon Lloyd is the one who has done the most to replace Marshall. So should we be serving crow to those people re Gaffney even though we are ONLY 4 weeks into the season :confused:

[jhildebrand]

what the **** are you talking about? :confused:

Well you made the claim that it was Marshall's fault that Orton stared him down.

All things Equal speaking it must be Orton's fault he is targeting Lloyd as much as he is.

I mean, if Marshall forced a grown man to stare him down than Orton must be one seriously weak individual.

[TimTebow15MVP]

I didnt even blame marshall for what orton was doing. but orton was simply locked into his big time WR instead of going through his progressions. its not the reason marshall got subtracted. marshall got himself traded. im just talking about on the field stuff though. orton is a better player knowing he has to go thru his progressions and not just force it to his goto guy all the time. look at the teams who have a group of wideouts there much much better. saints, colts, packers, some of the top passing teams in the league have 3-5 wideouts they love.

[Lonestar]

Look I know people want to serve up crow and have an "I told you so" love fest. But let's turn the tables.

Most of the people who said we wouldn't miss Marshall were the very same people who pointed to Gaffney's game against KC saying he would be as good as Marshall. Yet the reality is Brandon Lloyd is the one who has done the most to replace Marshall. So should we be serving crow to those people re Gaffney even though we are ONLY 4 weeks into the season :confused:

That is about the 5th or 6th time you have had to quote that that I can remember maybe even in this thread.

does it matter who took marshalls spot as the go to guy?

the facts are we really do not miss him much or at least a lot of us do not.

Time to move on with the rest of us.

[jhildebrand]

That is about the 5th or 6th time you have had to quote that that I can remember maybe even in this thread.

does it matter who took marshalls spot as the go to guy?

the facts are we really do not miss him much or at least a lot of us do not.

Time to move on with the rest of us.

I have been over Marshall for a long time! In fact the only thing that I ever questioned was whether of not the value we received was enough. I think my thread clearly answers that.

What I am not over is the "I told you so" "eat crow" thread that this turned into all while people neglect to mention the fact that the very reason we weren't going to miss Marshall, Gaffney, hasn't been the reason we don't miss Marshall. It is a bit rich for me. That is before bringing up the "sample size" argument so many seem to lob around as their only defense ;)

[TimTebow15MVP]

Look I know people want to serve up crow and have an "I told you so" love fest. But let's turn the tables.

Most of the people who said we wouldn't miss Marshall were the very same people who pointed to Gaffney's game against KC saying he would be as good as Marshall. Yet the reality is Brandon Lloyd is the one who has done the most to replace Marshall. So should we be serving crow to those people re Gaffney even though we are ONLY 4 weeks into the season :confused:

Lotta people said gaff would be the guy, then lotta people heard mcdaniels at the end of the year conferance say they will def get royal involved and said royal would bounce back, lotta peole when we drafted bay bay said ooo theres the replacement, then alotta people said oooo eric decker, then we saw willis in otas and training camp and said ooooo ahhhhh hes a player. Saw lloyd in camp and preseason and said ooooooo nice, what you get out of all of this is we have a good GROUP of wideouts. we dont miss marshall nor do we need marshall. anybody that thinks otherwise is just a fanboy. which is fine. just doesnt make you look good in a arguement.

[Tned]

You seriously sound like a marshall fanboy. the broncos are not missing marshall, the broncos have like 3 wideouts putting up top 15-20 stats. much much better deep threats. (something marshall never will be) If marshall was here then orton would still be eyeing down marshall, forcing balls to marshall, and lloyd and company would not be a factor. therefor our already one dementional offense gets way easier to defend knowing ortons just gonna stare down marshall as he did last year. A rookie QB needs a number one wideout. So he can stare him down. not a veteran like orton who mastered the offense and realize that if he goes through his progressions everybody is a option and somebody will be open. ber on

besides a number one WR is a goto guy. if you have 5-6 guys you can goto arent you better off?

You say having marshall would make lloyd better? lol....hello last year. whn lloyd and royal was here and gaffs, all of them were neglected for moslt of the game because of marshall.

I find it ironic that you use and argument that if Marshall was still here that Orton would constantly look for Marshall, since that is actually an endorsement of Marshall and criticism of Orton.

Now, I will fully admit that I didn't have any faith in Lloyd or Gaffney. Gaffney so far isn't much better than I thought (3rd or 4th WR material -- possession/3rd down guy maybe), even though he has had a couple big games. However, I am coming around on Lloyd. He's looked VERY impressive.

As to Marshall, he definately would have made both Lloyd and Royal better, because Marshall would almost always draw a double team or coverage rolled in his direction, which makes it far more likely for Lloyd and Royal to be singled up without safety support.

I think the only two cases that can be made for the team being better with Marshall gone are:


He's such a disruption in the locker room, that team cohesiveness suffers as a results.

Orton would only throw to his best receiver, Marshall, and not spread the ball around, leading to more incompletions and interceptions, because Orton failed to do his job right.


He's gone, so it is all speculation at this point, but the one thing I have trouble getting my head around is any claim that the team would be worse (on the field) with Marshall than without.

[Day1BroncoFan]

He's such a disruption in the locker room, that team cohesiveness suffers as a results.

Orton would only throw to his best receiver, Marshall, and not spread the ball around, leading to more incompletions and interceptions, because Orton failed to do his job right.


He's gone, so it is all speculation at this point, but the one thing I have trouble getting my head around is any claim that the team would be worse (on the field) with Marshall than without.

tned, if either of those cases were true woudn't that make the Broncos worse on the field?

[Tned]

tned, if either of those cases were true woudn't that make the Broncos worse on the field?

If, and it's a big if, on or both of those were true, then it might make the team worse on the field. Specifically, number 2. If Orton wasn't capable of spreading around the ball, because Marshall was too "good" or "easy" a target, then I suppose you can make the argument that the team is better off without him, because it 'forces' Orton to spread the ball around, but that to me is kind of backwards logic and a reach.

[gobroncsnv]

we don't have a balanced offense, but we do have a balanced passing attack. The air game appears to be better to me this year, and the stats are bearing it out. The only thing we can base it on is the 4 games we've played this year compared to anybody else's. I'm not gonna squawk too bad about where we sit right now. I had the Titans game chiseled in as a loss. The 2 losses, we've been in those games. Feels to me like we're a team on the grow. Putting on my asbestos suit now.

[Ravage!!!]

You seriously sound like a marshall fanboy. the broncos are not missing marshall, the broncos have like 3 wideouts putting up top 15-20 stats. much much better deep threats. (something marshall never will be) If marshall was here then orton would still be eyeing down marshall, forcing balls to marshall, and lloyd and company would not be a factor. therefor our already one dementional offense gets way easier to defend knowing ortons just gonna stare down marshall as he did last year. A rookie QB needs a number one wideout. So he can stare him down. not a veteran like orton who mastered the offense and realize that if he goes through his progressions everybody is a option and somebody will be open. ber on

besides a number one WR is a goto guy. if you have 5-6 guys you can goto arent you better off?

You say having marshall would make lloyd better? lol....hello last year. whn lloyd and royal was here and gaffs, all of them were neglected for moslt of the game because of marshall.

Lets start with your ending remark since you find it funny, as do I.

If I recall, last year was the player's first year in the system, was it not? People specifically pointed to Orton on how much HE would get better with a season under the belt. How is it, that if Orton and the WRs are more familiar with the system, that Orton would revert BACK to simply aiming the ball at Marshall? Wouldn't he continue to find the open guy.... or is the ONLY open guy on the field suddenly going to be Marshall if he's on the playing :confused:

How is our third down conversion ratio? If Marshall isn't the deep threat (as you said), then he's the ultimate in possession receiver, correct? I believe Johnson in Houston is labeled as a 'deep threat'.. yet, not only has Marshall absolutely destroyed him in the number of TDs through the first four years of their respective careers, but Johnson has never scored 10 TDs in a season. You saying that our offensive scoring couldn't "use" a guy that is absolutely out producing a WR like Johnson, no matter who the QB is?

So the "rookie" QBs are the only ones that need a #1 WR talent? Thats interesting. Not very factual, but interesting nonetheless. WHat I'm still stumped on, is if these guys are good without Marshall on the field, how is it they all of a sudden don't get open, and suddenly aren't available "options" for the QB to throw to??:confused: I seem to remember how defenses were constantly having to shift people over, bracket, and double cover Marshall (some on here would even tell you he was triple and quadruple covered). If teams are putting two on Marshall, doesn't that leave open the space for a guy like Lloyd to get more single coverage? I'm stumped, because I know I've always heard that WRs with single coverage are the ones that QBs target, and having a guy that pulls double coverage, helps the other side. Much like a QB sacking DE takes double coverage and frees up the opposite end. I guess I heard wrong, all these years.

Another thing I'm a bit confused on. Didn't you just say that Orton is a veteran and has "mastered" McD's system? Then how is it that after mastering the system, and being a veteran, he would continue to stare down Marshall and only throw his way? Does Marshall somehow make Orton forget the system?

A guy like Marshall absolutely is a "go-to" guy. You don't think that Rod Smith was a "go-to" guy? You don't think that Ed McCaffrey was a "go-to" guy on 3rd downs? Explain to me, again please, how having a dominant "go-to" guy suddenly takes the other WRs off the field, and is BAD for a QB to have?

I'm confused with this logic since it seems every week we hear, from the ex-coaches and ex-QBs in the booth, how the QB finds "his guy" on those tough third down situations and IMPORTANT downs/throws.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, a team ONLY needs #1 talent at the WR position if we have a rookie QB, and having a "go-to" guy is a bad thing since it makes the QB only look towards that one WR and makes the QB forget the system he's mastered, thus making the offense less dimensional. Do I have all of this correct?

[Ravage!!!]

we don't have a balanced offense, but we do have a balanced passing attack. The air game appears to be better to me this year, and the stats are bearing it out. The only thing we can base it on is the 4 games we've played this year compared to anybody else's. I'm not gonna squawk too bad about where we sit right now. I had the Titans game chiseled in as a loss. The 2 losses, we've been in those games. Feels to me like we're a team on the grow. Putting on my asbestos suit now.

I certainly don't see anything to flame you over. I think we absolutely are putting up big numbers with the passing game, but its hard to say how "good" it is since we are throwing the ball 50 times a game.

Now, I know I've been an Orton detractor, but I'll be the first to say that he's distributing the ball very very well. Nothing to criticize him about. He's doing what is asked of him. One could point out about the number of 3 yrd passes, but seriously, I'm not complaining, in the least.

My thing, is that we are putting up BIG numbers with the passing game because we are throwing the ball 50 times a game. Through four games (and its only 25% of the season, I do realize), Orton is on pace to throw the ball 700 times.

When the total yards record was set back in '84, they didn't have all the rules to protect the QB nor all the rules to give the WRs such freedom to run. DBs and safeties can't lay the wood like they used too, but the QB that set that record only threw the ball 27 times a game. We are throwing, literally, twice as many throws per game. We SHOULD be having some HUGE numbers with out passing game, as should MANY QBs in today's league.

The average number of throws is 450 per season. Thats 28.125 throws a game. Orton is going to hit that number by week 10.

[Lonestar]

I find it ironic that you use and argument that if Marshall was still here that Orton would constantly look for Marshall, since that is actually an endorsement of Marshall and criticism of Orton.



I think the only two cases that can be made for the team being better with Marshall gone are:


He's such a disruption in the locker room, that team cohesiveness suffers as a results.

Orton would only throw to his best receiver, Marshall, and not spread the ball around, leading to more in completions and interceptions, because Orton failed to do his job right.


He's gone, so it is all speculation at this point, but the one thing I have trouble getting my head around is any claim that the team would be worse (on the field) with Marshall than without.


I suspect your a creature of habit and do things a certain way f Possible . Like Most humans we all do.. IF marsahll is around there is no doubt in my mind that KO goes for him more often than not. Because he is comfortable with him. Just like you do when you get home you get into a routine and when it goes a twitter you get uncomfortable.

Yes he probably would have gotten double coverage. But then so are our current ones and when DT is out and about he may even get some triple looks.


I have for very long time felt we could do as good if not better without marshall, now we will see if that is a fact or not.

[gobroncsnv]

Well, I think had we tried to run more against the Titans, we'd be 1-3. At this point, it makes the most sense to go with what is our hot hand, and do the occasional run just to see if we have the mojo back yet. But I'll go with Herm Edwards' "you play to win the game"... Until we come up with a better way to do so, I'm throwing the ball.

[Ravage!!!]

Well, I think had we tried to run more against the Titans, we'd be 1-3. At this point, it makes the most sense to go with what is our hot hand, and do the occasional run just to see if we have the mojo back yet. But I'll go with Herm Edwards' "you play to win the game"... Until we come up with a better way to do so, I'm throwing the ball.

I can't deny that. We have to throw, and its scary to see us HAVE to throw that much. I knowwhe have too, but don't like to see it.

[Tned]

I suspect your a creature of habit and do things a certain way f Possible . Like Most humans we all do.. IF marsahll is around there is no doubt in my mind that KO goes for him more often than not. Because he is comfortable with him. Just like you do when you get home you get into a routine and when it goes a twitter you get uncomfortable.

Yes he probably would have gotten double coverage. But then so are our current ones and when DT is out and about he may even get some triple looks.


I have for very long time felt we could do as good if not better without marshall, now we will see if that is a fact or not.

Actually, we will never know, because as you and others have said, clearly McDaniels and company have worked a lot with Orton over the offseason, and he's finally got two healthy legs. So, peaople can't talk about how Orton is flourishing BECAUSE he's in the second year in the system and can play, rather than think, and then on the other hand say, "see, he's doing so much better because Marshall is gone". I don't think it's reasonable to use both sides of that argument.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I can't deny that. We have to throw, and its scary to see us HAVE to throw that much. I knowwhe have too, but don't like to see it.

Ditto. I love the way Kyle is playing right now, but every time he drops back the chance for him to take that one bad sack that wrecks an ankle again, goes up.

He's been sacked an awful lot, too. If he gets hurt, we may really be in trouble.

[gobroncsnv]

well, for that matter, we've had more players injured in practice and pre-season... best thing that happens to the Broncos as a team is to play a regular season game, lotta passes or not.

[Lonestar]

Actually, we will never know, because as you and others have said, clearly McDaniels and company have worked a lot with Orton over the offseason, and he's finally got two healthy legs. So, peaople can't talk about how Orton is flourishing BECAUSE he's in the second year in the system and can play, rather than think, and then on the other hand say, "see, he's doing so much better because Marshall is gone". I don't think it's reasonable to use both sides of that argument.


I have always said that in his second year he would be better. jsut becasue he does not have to think about the plays.

Now finding out in the off season he had BOTH ankles with high ankle sprains, coupled with getting rid of the weak links in the interior OL, the WR actually knowing the scheme and running correct routes unlike last year.

well how could he not be better.

I also believe that BM was his snoopy blanket a safe place for him to go we under heat.

this year it seem like he is a totally different guy.

Absolutely NO one saw this much improvement coming from this guy. I knew he would be better but not like this so far.

Y'all had me almost had me convinced he had a rag arm, although I knew better because Top told us so.

[Tned]

I have always said that in his second year he would be better. jsut becasue he does not have to think about the plays.

Now finding out in the off season he had BOTH ankles with high ankle sprains, coupled with getting rid of the weak links in the interior OL, the WR actually knowing the scheme and running correct routes unlike last year.

well how could he not be better.

I also believe that BM was his snoopy blanket a safe place for him to go we under heat.

this year it seem like he is a totally different guy.

Absolutely NO one saw this much improvement coming from this guy. I knew he would be better but not like this so far.

Y'all had me almost had me convinced he had a rag arm, although I knew better because Top told us so.

I'm not one of the Y'all's on the rag arm. I would thow noodle arm out everyone once in a while to tick people off that were getting carried away (yea, it might have been baiter-ish, but I've grown since then). Instead, I have been saying that he lacks deep ball accuracy. That he will overthrow on a rope or underthrow a balloon, but rarely hit a receiver in stride on deep balls.

While his accuracy is still not what you would get from an elite QB or that you really want in a vertical passing game, is light years better than last year and what I saw of him in Chicago.

I commented multiple times on here and to friends, that I didn't understand his lack of deep passing, because when you watch him on the flares and other routes, he throws with plenty of velocity, but then when he throws the deep ball, he looks horrible.

While clearly I wasn't impressed with the Cutler trade, I always thought Orton had a chance to flourish in McDaniels spread, quick hitting system, but I never expected the improvement we have seen from last season to this season. I figured we would see an improvement over last year (2nd year in system), but not as much as we are seeing.

The last two game especially have impressed me. While he has thrown two picks vs. three TDs, which I wouldn't normally think was very good, when you consider the complete lack of a running game, and 107 passes thrown in those two games, throwing ONLY two picks is a major accomplishment. Throw in the high completion rate, and the last two games have been VERY impressive. Throw in last week was against the Titans and it is even MORE impressive.

I hope he plays this way all year.

[Reidman]

All this bantering makes me wonder....

Is Moss going to be bad for the Vikings..? I mean with Favre forcing the ball to him even in double coverage..sorry, totally off topic I know but it's exactly what is being discussed here...

[Bosco]

What I am not over is the "I told you so" "eat crow" thread that this turned into all while people neglect to mention the fact that the very reason we weren't going to miss Marshall, Gaffney, hasn't been the reason we don't miss Marshall. It is a bit rich for me. That is before bringing up the "sample size" argument so many seem to lob around as their only defense ;)

I'm not sure about what other people said, but McDaniels has used Gaffney in the exact same way I said he would during the off season. He's also only three catches off from Royal and Lloyd, who both lead us with 25 catches a piece.

(Sorry, I had to throw my hat in the "told ya so" ring. :D )

[Lonestar]

All this bantering makes me wonder....

Is Moss going to be bad for the Vikings..? I mean with Favre forcing the ball to him even in double coverage..sorry, totally off topic I know but it's exactly what is being discussed here...

I doubt it Moss will open up the field for other WR and Backs.

He is good as is Farve, but he will get his 4-6 catches a game hopefully 3 of them TD's.

[BCJ]

Wait. People are trying to serve up crow, already? A 2-2 team that has the QB throwing up the ball 50 times a game, and we are saying that the passing numbers PROVE that we are better without Marshall, really?

What team would NOT put up big passing numbers if their QB was on pace to throw 700 times a season? Orton is distributing the ball great, but is this offense really better? I don't seem to see it on 3rd downs. I don't seem to see it near the goal line. Maybe it will prove to be better later on down the season, but after 4 games people are actually trying to serve up crow? Seriously?

This is reheated crow, btw. This is the same crow that was served up to those that were bragging for the first 6 weeks of last year's season.

Your just mad because someone quoted you as needing to eat crow. Orton is completing those passes at a high percentage even though everyone knows we are throwing it. Enjoy the crow/raven and hope u dont have to serve any back to us.

[Tned]

All this bantering makes me wonder....

Is Moss going to be bad for the Vikings..? I mean with Favre forcing the ball to him even in double coverage..sorry, totally off topic I know but it's exactly what is being discussed here...

Yep, exactly. Different rules/arguments for different players. It just all depends which "opinion" you are trying to prove to others.

[Lonestar]

Yep, exactly. Different rules/arguments for different players. It just all depends which "opinion" you are trying to prove to others.

Let's see 5 year QB vs 20+ year HOF vet.immature WR vs HOF WR

Off the top of my head a little different conversation. Or should be. Imo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Tned]

Let's see 5 year QB vs 20+ year HOF vet.immature WR vs HOF WR

Off the top of my head a little different conversation. Or should be. Imo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

So, what you're saying is that Orton simply isn't good enough to not lock on to only Marshall if he's here? :confused: I fail to see how claiming that Orton is incapable of doing his job is a justification for saying the team is better off without Marshall.

[Ravage!!!]

I find it interesting that Belicheck, a coach many on this board consider to be the best coach and player evaluator in football, is in preliminary trade talks with San Diego for Vincent Jackson. It seems that the very coach that is considered the best in the game, feels its better to have top talent at WR than to NOT have that "#1 guy" that QBs lock onto. Even when that player would be considered a "head case" by some on the boards.

I hope we aren't going to hear that its ok because they have Tom Brady, and Tom is capable of NOT locking onto that #1 guy.

[broncobryce]

Jim miller on sirius just said demaryius will end up being one of the greatest of all time. A little early to say, but nice to hear.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Tned]

Jim miller on sirius just said demaryius will end up being one of the greatest of all time. A little early to say, but nice to hear.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Sure hope he's right.

[broncobryce]

Bryce I don't recall ever reading or hearing that Marshall would bitch about not getting the ball. I also do not remember ever seeing he pitch a fit during a game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums
Sorry I was not able to respond earlier, but it was on like a micd up or something last season. He was talking to orton and said something like "I'm so mad at your ass right now" because he didn't get him the ball. If you want I will find it again when I get home.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[broncobryce]

I wouldn't say he pitched a fit, but if I was a qb I wouldn't want a receiver constantly in my ear "hey I was open" last play every play.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Ravage!!!]

I wouldn't say he pitched a fit, but if I was a qb I wouldn't want a receiver constantly in my ear "hey I was open" last play every play.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ask any NFL QB (and I say this because you hear every NFL QB on tv say it) that every WR comes back to the huddle and says "man I was open" on every play. THey laugh about it, and every QB laughs as they hear the other say it, because its so normal. Its expected. Its what they do.....especially the guys that want the ball. You want your WRs to want the ball.

You'll even see the WRs that sit with them as they are talking about it, laugh, and just look and say "Thats because we always are."

[slim]

I wouldn't say he pitched a fit, but if I was a qb I wouldn't want a receiver constantly in my ear "hey I was open" last play every play.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

All WR do that.

I am pretty sure the QB's just tune them out.

[BroncoNut]

Sorry I was not able to respond earlier, but it was on like a micd up or something last season. He was talking to orton and said something like "I'm so mad at your ass right now" because he didn't get him the ball. If you want I will find it again when I get home.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

that doesn't sound like the Brandon Marshall I met in the Invesco shop last year.

[MasterShake]

that doesn't sound like the Brandon Marshall I met in the Invesco shop last year.

Is this the same "Brandon Marshall" that lured you into his van in the parking lot? Nut, when will you learn that just because a guy has a Marshall jersey on, that doesn't make him Marshall. He was white with a moustache for gods sake...

[BCJ]

Ask any NFL QB (and I say this because you hear every NFL QB on tv say it) that every WR comes back to the huddle and says "man I was open" on every play. THey laugh about it, and every QB laughs as they hear the other say it, because its so normal. Its expected. Its what they do.....especially the guys that want the ball. You want your WRs to want the ball.

You'll even see the WRs that sit with them as they are talking about it, laugh, and just look and say "Thats because we always are."

Yes, but when Shannon Sharpe said it, he was always open.

[BroncoNut]

LOL Shake.

[robert ethan]

Gaffney and......(Buckhalter?), for Logan Mankins. ASAP.

[Bosco]

I find it interesting that Belicheck, a coach many on this board consider to be the best coach and player evaluator in football, is in preliminary trade talks with San Diego for Vincent Jackson. It seems that the very coach that is considered the best in the game, feels its better to have top talent at WR than to NOT have that "#1 guy" that QBs lock onto. Even when that player would be considered a "head case" by some on the boards.

I hope we aren't going to hear that its ok because they have Tom Brady, and Tom is capable of NOT locking onto that #1 guy.

Those preliminary talks are just rumors at this point.

[Ravage!!!]

Those preliminary talks are just rumors at this point.

ahh... says you? Doesn't seem to be a rumor according the the sports radio. I know they aren't always right, but they generally don't report things that they don't have a source behind.

As of right now, I'll take their word on that.

[Bosco]

ahh... says you? Doesn't seem to be a rumor according the the sports radio. I know they aren't always right, but they generally don't report things that they don't have a source behind.

As of right now, I'll take their word on that.

Says me and Logan Mankins agent who called the idea of it happening "ludicrous" along with the lack of any verifiable sources and the common sense failing of two teams refusing to pay their own RFAs but then turning around and swapping them, presumably to give them new deals.

[Ravage!!!]

Says me and Logan Mankins agent who called the idea of it happening "ludicrous" along with the lack of any verifiable sources and the common sense failing of two teams refusing to pay their own RFAs but then turning around and swapping them, presumably to give them new deals.

Ahh... I miscommunicated. I wasn't referring to the "mankins" supposed trade. I was referring to the reports on ESPN radio that "talks between the Patriots and San Diego for WR Vince Jackson" are in preliminary stages.

I, personally, don't see a Mankins for Jackson trade happening. Rarely do you see trades for big name players like this, and yet the rumors of them happening come about every year.

[Bosco]

Ahh... I miscommunicated. I wasn't referring to the "mankins" supposed trade. I was referring to the reports on ESPN radio that "talks between the Patriots and San Diego for WR Vince Jackson" are in preliminary stages.

I, personally, don't see a Mankins for Jackson trade happening. Rarely do you see trades for big name players like this, and yet the rumors of them happening come about every year.

Oh ok. I thought we were talking about the trade.

[NightTrainLayne]

Is this the same "Brandon Marshall" that lured you into his van in the parking lot? Nut, when will you learn that just because a guy has a Marshall jersey on, that doesn't make him Marshall. He was white with a moustache for gods sake...

I still have big doubts on this.

I was in the shop at the same time with Nut (it's not that big). When I was getting ready to check out, Nut says, "Well that was cool to meet Brandon."

I was like, "Who?"

"Brandon Marshall. He was just in here buying some stuff."

Who knows. But either Nut met BM and didn't bother to get my attention, :mad::mad::mad::mad: or he just saw another tall black guy buying stuff in the store. . .I mean, how many players are buying stuff in the team store at the stadium 2-3 hours before kickoff?