PDA

View Full Version : Kyle Orton: remains one of the lowest paid starting QB’s in the NFL.



Jagsbch
07-29-2010, 01:38 PM
The Denver Post reports about the salary of starter Kyle Orton, and how he remains one of the lowest paid starting QB’s in the NFL:

Kyle Orton was hoping to get his a multiyear contract this offseason.

Instead, he got Brady Quinn and Tim Tebow added to the Broncos roster.

Classified as a restricted, rather than an unrestricted, free agent because of a labor dispute between team owners and the NFL Players Association, Orton settled for a one-year, $2.621 million salary that makes him one of the league’s lowest-paid starting quarterbacks.

“We shot it around, and that’s fine,” Orton said of his own contract talks that went nowhere this offseason. “I’d love to have security. I’d love to have a deal. But I also know where we’re at and I know I’m in camp right now. My side of talking about it is over with. My agent knows what I want. If we can get close, great. If not, I’m fine playing with what I’m making right now.”

LINK to the rest of the article (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15627365)

BroncoWave
07-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Makes sense. Most of the starting QB's are either established veterans with big contracts or young guys still on their rookie deal. Not many teams have mid-round journeymen as their current starter.

yardog
07-29-2010, 04:13 PM
:tsk:
If he plays like last year he's over paid IMO.

KCL
07-29-2010, 04:16 PM
:tsk:
If he plays like last year he's over paid IMO.

Maybe Denver should have tried harder to sign Cassell...I hope he earns his money.

Bosco
07-29-2010, 04:17 PM
:tsk:
If he plays like last year he's over paid IMO.

You mean a near top-10 performance?

Davii
07-29-2010, 04:20 PM
Maybe Denver should have tried harder to sign Cassell...I hope he earns his money.

I bet you would've like that just so Cassel wasn't being overpaid to underperform in KC huh?

yardog
07-29-2010, 04:25 PM
You mean a near top-10 performance?

I mean 8-8 and no vertical threat.

KCL
07-29-2010, 04:37 PM
I bet you would've like that just so Cassel wasn't being overpaid to underperform in KC huh?

Like I said Davii...I hope he earns his money...there was only one game last season that he stood out and looked like a starting QB.
Hopefully the Chiefs put together a good team he can work with.

SORRY :focus:

SOCALORADO.
07-29-2010, 05:04 PM
I mean 8-8 and no vertical threat.

I saw a great stat for all the stat geeks and clowns who are constantly hampster wheeling for the noodle armed orton the other day on E!SPN.
DEN had the 4th lowest passing average per attempt in the NFL at 7.0 yards an attempt.
The worst i think was SEA at 6.1.
orton=dink and dunk.

Bosco
07-29-2010, 05:29 PM
I mean 8-8 and no vertical threat.

You need a vertical threat receiver for that don't you? Insert Demaryius Thomas.

Tempus Fugit
07-29-2010, 06:20 PM
You mean a near top-10 performance?


I saw a great stat for all the stat geeks and clowns who are constantly hampster wheeling for the noodle armed orton the other day on E!SPN.
DEN had the 4th lowest passing average per attempt in the NFL at 7.0 yards an attempt.
The worst i think was SEA at 6.1.
orton=dink and dunk.

NFL.com says otherwise, with Denver ranked 15th:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASS ING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

Lonestar
07-29-2010, 06:39 PM
NFL.com says otherwise, with Denver ranked 15th:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASS ING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

well that is a zinger, kinda wondering how that will be explained.:salute:

SOCALORADO.
07-30-2010, 08:33 AM
NFL.com says otherwise, with Denver ranked 15th:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASS ING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

No. The stat is not passing in general but how far the QB threw the ball.
Orton was 4th lowest in distance he attempted to throw the football down field averaging only 7.1 yards of distance per attempt.
Dink and Dunk.
SEA was the worst with their QB only attempting to throw the ball no further than 6.1 yards if i remember correctly. I cant remember the other 2 teams in the stat. I want to say TEN was one of them but i am not sure.
E!SPN even had a graphic for it.

barehead
07-30-2010, 08:36 AM
No. The stat is not passing in general but how far the QB threw the ball.
Orton was 4th lowest in distance he attempted to throw the football down field averaging only 7.1 yards of distance per attempt.
Dink and Dunk.
SEA was the worst with their QB only attempting to throw the ball no further than 6.1 yards if i remember correctly. I cant remember the other 2 teams in the stat. I want to say TEN was one of them but i am not sure.
E!SPN even had a graphic for it.
agreed

Lonestar
07-30-2010, 09:18 AM
No. The stat is not passing in general but how far the QB threw the ball.
Orton was 4th lowest in distance he attempted to throw the football down field averaging only 7.1 yards of distance per attempt.
Dink and Dunk.
SEA was the worst with their QB only attempting to throw the ball no further than 6.1 yards if i remember correctly. I cant remember the other 2 teams in the stat. I want to say TEN was one of them but i am not sure.
E!SPN even had a graphic for it.

Got a link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Jagsbch
07-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Got a link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I got to have that link. No doubt:eek:

LordTrychon
07-30-2010, 09:22 AM
http://images.quizilla.com/G/gunhoe86/1080725667_esktoplink.gif

pnbronco
07-30-2010, 09:41 AM
Oh LT......:laugh:....love it.

I don't know what will happen this year. I just think I will never respect a QB as much as I will Kyle Orton. The man was traded and got here 2 days later willing to work from the get go. Heard boos at a practice and carried on. Had his bone pop out of finger and carried on. Sprained his ankle bad and practical had to drag his leg into the next game but did it. When he was hoping to get long term contract, he got one year and 2 QB's to take his job and he's still trying to do his best.

The man has shown fortitude and courage like I haven't seen in years. He's just a good man.

SOCALORADO.
07-30-2010, 09:54 AM
Got a link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Yeah. Enjoy.
http://espn.go.com/

hotcarl
07-30-2010, 09:57 AM
tl;dr

yardog
07-30-2010, 09:59 AM
You need a vertical threat receiver for that don't you? Insert Demaryius Thomas.

Who was Cutlers deep threat reciever the year before?

Lonestar
07-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Who was Cutlers deep threat reciever the year before?

Better yet how many games did the starting Oline players miss in 08.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
07-30-2010, 11:31 AM
Who was Cutlers deep threat reciever the year before?

The last legitimate deep threat the Broncos have had was Javon Walker. I think
the Broncos were kind of hoping the next would be Eddie Royal, but, good as he
promises to be, he is apparently destined for the slot.

Kenny McKinley could still break out, and Brandon Lloyd has shown the ability
to get downfield. And now we have great hopes for Demaryius Thomas. But
until then, the Broncos have had no sure deep threat for a couple years now.

-----

Overtime
07-30-2010, 01:08 PM
8-8 record, mediocre passing stats, and too many INT's do not justify a long term deal. he's paid according to his production, which in my opinion shoulda got his worthless ass cut from the roster, but then again, who the hell am I?

claymore
07-30-2010, 01:14 PM
Better yet how many games did the starting Oline players miss in 08.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If you are looking to use injuries as an excuse, the 08 Broncos get way more sympathy than the 09 Broncos.

Its not even close.

Northman
07-30-2010, 01:15 PM
If you are looking to use injuries as an excuse, the 08 Broncos get way more sympathy than the 09 Broncos.

Its not even close.


Shhh, dont bring logic in mate.

Jagsbch
07-30-2010, 04:13 PM
Yeah. Enjoy.
http://espn.go.com/

That is a lame link do you have a direct link to the actual page you got your info off of?

girler
07-30-2010, 04:27 PM
That is a lame link do you have a direct link to the actual page you got your info off of?

Don't mind me, I'm not adding to this conversation, I just have to laugh at this line: "you got your info off of?" :laugh:

SOCALORADO.
07-30-2010, 04:41 PM
That is a lame link do you have a direct link to the actual page you got your info off of?

I got my info from E!SPN NEWS. Wed night.
Shouldnt be too hard for a guy with all the time you got to create links and new threads here to just pop over and rewatch it.
They even had a chart/graphic of the bottom 4 teams.

Bosco
07-30-2010, 04:53 PM
Who was Cutlers deep threat reciever the year before? No one really, and with the West Coast Offense, having a deep threat is not an essential element like it is with McDaniels' offense.

Ravage!!!
07-30-2010, 05:10 PM
Hmmm... how many Super Bowls has McD's system won? Maybe they need to look into something that doesn't need it.

I think thats bunkus. I think every offense is opened up with the deep threat, which is why teams keep trying to bring them onto the squad. If a offense "relies" on a deep threat, and you don't have one... then what, more excuses? Just not buying it.

arapaho2
07-30-2010, 05:27 PM
Hmmm... how many Super Bowls has McD's system won? Maybe they need to look into something that doesn't need it.

I think thats bunkus. I think every offense is opened up with the deep threat, which is why teams keep trying to bring them onto the squad. If a offense "relies" on a deep threat, and you don't have one... then what, more excuses? Just not buying it.


shanny always looked for a spped guy..didnt he:confused:

maybe bosco should have told shannahan he didnt need one for his offense

Bosco
07-30-2010, 06:48 PM
Hmmm... how many Super Bowls has McD's system won? Maybe they need to look into something that doesn't need it. In it's 5 years of existence it's resulted in 3 playoff appearances (to include an AFCCG berth), a Super Bowl berth, no losing seasons and the greatest offense in league history.

I'd say that's a pretty damn impressive resume that stacks up well against what Shanahan had done to that point in his career.


I think thats bunkus. I think every offense is opened up with the deep threat, which is why teams keep trying to bring them onto the squad. The difference is philosophy. The WCO typically uses the short passing game to setup the run. Shanahan used the run to set up the short and intermediate passing game. McDaniels will either use the short passes to open up the deep route or vice versa, but regardless it is imperative to have the deep threat there, much more so than in the WCO where it's more of a luxury.


If a offense "relies" on a deep threat, and you don't have one... then what, more excuses? Just not buying it. When that happens you generally get an offense that is performing at a much less optimal rate. Think the 2008 Patriots or the 2009 Broncos.


shanny always looked for a spped guy..didnt he:confused: He did? He jettisoned Anthony Miller after the 1996 season and none of his primary receivers from 97-98 (Smith, McCaffery and Green) would qualify as deep threats. Eddie Kennison and Ashley Lelie were the only true deep threats Shanahan truly tried to implement into his offense and Lelie was replaced by a more prototypical WCO receiver in Javon Walker.

TXBRONC
07-30-2010, 07:41 PM
shanny always looked for a spped guy..didnt he:confused:

maybe bosco should have told shannahan he didnt need one for his offense

Shanahan always tried to stretch the field vertically and as well as horizontally. Anyone that says the a west coast style offense doesn't try to do that has no idea what their talking about.

Lonestar
07-30-2010, 07:53 PM
No. The stat is not passing in general but how far the QB threw the ball.
Orton was 4th lowest in distance he attempted to throw the football down field averaging only 7.1 yards of distance per attempt.
Dink and Dunk.
SEA was the worst with their QB only attempting to throw the ball no further than 6.1 yards if i remember correctly. I cant remember the other 2 teams in the stat. I want to say TEN was one of them but i am not sure.
E!SPN even had a graphic for it.


Got a link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


Yeah. Enjoy.
http://espn.go.com/

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh,

got a link that works to a specific story or stat

red98
07-30-2010, 08:19 PM
Shanahan always tried to stretch the field vertically and as well as horizontally. Anyone that says the a west coast style offense doesn't try to do that has no idea what their talking about.

True. But Shanny got the deep play off play action as opposed to sending a Randy Moss deep kinda threat.

Probably because he didn't have a choice. Remember all those years of looking for that 3rd receiver that could "stretch the field"?

You're right of course. Shanny always tried, he just didn't always have the horses to do it. It's to his credit he found a way around that.

Lonestar
07-30-2010, 08:51 PM
Y'all know that you do not have to have a blazer to get a WR deep just have to have one that can fake the DB out of their jock. All you need is one step on one to complete passes.

Nice to have a burner but unless they can do something more than run it is a moot POV.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
07-30-2010, 10:48 PM
True. But Shanny got the deep play off play action as opposed to sending a Randy Moss deep kinda threat.

Probably because he didn't have a choice. Remember all those years of looking for that 3rd receiver that could "stretch the field"?

You're right of course. Shanny always tried, he just didn't always have the horses to do it. It's to his credit he found a way around that.

McCaffrey and Smith were never mistaken for world class sprinters but they were faster than a lot of people gave them credit for.

I agree play action was the staple of the passing attack in those days but had a lot to do with who was running the ball in those days as well.

My main point is while Denver didn't have world class speed at wide receiver during the Super Bowl years Shanahan still wanted to stretch the field vertically as well as horizontality. If you're not going even attempt to stretch the field vertically defenses will catch on to that pretty quickly and they'll start smothering those short and intermediate routes.

Bosco
07-30-2010, 10:57 PM
True. But Shanny got the deep play off play action as opposed to sending a Randy Moss deep kinda threat.

That's exactly right. He'd get defenses focused on trying to stop our generally powerful running game and then he'd fire off a deep play action pass to Rod or Eddie, usually with great success. It's still a far different philosophy than what we have now.

red98
07-30-2010, 11:11 PM
McCaffrey and Smith were never mistaken for world class sprinters but they were faster than a lot of people gave them credit for.

I agree play action was the staple of the passing attack in those days but had a lot to do with who was running the ball in those days as well.

My main point is while Denver didn't have world class speed at wide receiver during the Super Bowl years Shanahan still wanted to stretch the field vertically as well as horizontality. If you're not going even attempt to stretch the field vertically defenses will catch on to that pretty quickly and they'll start smothering those short and intermediate routes.

Oh I agree! Was just pointing out that while Shanny was searching for that deep threat (Lelie gave him some of that, when he actually caught it!) he found a different way to get it done.

Peerless
07-30-2010, 11:14 PM
Second post wins in this thread.

red98
07-30-2010, 11:18 PM
Second post wins in this thread.

Peerless's avatar wins this thread! ;)

RAIDERS
07-30-2010, 11:19 PM
Someone post that link if you find it!

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 11:08 AM
In it's 5 years of existence it's resulted in 3 playoff appearances (to include an AFCCG berth), a Super Bowl berth, no losing seasons and the greatest offense in league history.

I'd say that's a pretty damn impressive resume that stacks up well against what Shanahan had done to that point in his career.

Yeah, before McD, their offensive schemes and success with Brady didn't do squat. :coffee:

jhildebrand
07-31-2010, 11:12 AM
Nice to have a burner but unless they can do something more than run it is a moot POV.


Like consistently lead the league in YAC? :confused:

I wonder just how much that will be missed!

Lonestar
07-31-2010, 11:17 AM
About as much as an infected boil.

Glad he is someone elses diva.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
07-31-2010, 11:38 AM
Yeah, before McD, their offensive schemes and success with Brady didn't do squat. :coffee:

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

rcsodak
07-31-2010, 04:57 PM
Makes sense. Most of the starting QB's are either established veterans with big contracts or young guys still on their rookie deal. Not many teams have mid-round journeymen as their current starter.

careful with your "journeymen" label.

This is his 2nd team....just like Houston is Schaub's... Hate to see what that makes Favre!

rcsodak
07-31-2010, 04:59 PM
I saw a great stat for all the stat geeks and clowns who are constantly hampster wheeling for the noodle armed orton the other day on E!SPN.
DEN had the 4th lowest passing average per attempt in the NFL at 7.0 yards an attempt.
The worst i think was SEA at 6.1.
orton=dink and dunk.

Nevermind the plays that are called, right?

-hater-

What was the difference between Denver and the top spot? 1.8yds? LMAO

rcsodak
07-31-2010, 05:08 PM
8-8 record, mediocre passing stats, and too many INT's do not justify a long term deal. he's paid according to his production, which in my opinion shoulda got his worthless ass cut from the roster, but then again, who the hell am I?

Why are you talking about Cutler? He's not on the roster any more. :rolleyes:

rcsodak
07-31-2010, 05:14 PM
McCaffrey and Smith were never mistaken for world class sprinters but they were faster than a lot of people gave them credit for.

I agree play action was the staple of the passing attack in those days but had a lot to do with who was running the ball in those days as well.

My main point is while Denver didn't have world class speed at wide receiver during the Super Bowl years Shanahan still wanted to stretch the field vertically as well as horizontality. If you're not going even attempt to stretch the field vertically defenses will catch on to that pretty quickly and they'll start smothering those short and intermediate routes.

Teams look for wr's that can master the double moves more than just straightline speed.
McCaffrey and Rod were great examples.

Lelie was the 'burner', but he only had straightline speed, and little to nothing once he caught the ball.

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 05:42 PM
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Everything you stated. You said that his offense RELIES on the deep threat. Which you then continued to state that HIS (McD's) offense proved to have success because of playoff births. However, its not like he was coaching or calling plays with an average QB and/or team that didn't already win 3 Super Bowls without him as the OC.

HENCE....the question is presented, is his offense (that RELIES on the deep threat and can't perform at "optimal rate" ) really that good if he doesn't have a Tom Brady? Don't know, because so far all we have seen is dink-n-dunk.

THAT is what it has to do with the topic at hand.

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 05:45 PM
careful with your "journeymen" label.

This is his 2nd team....just like Houston is Schaub's... Hate to see what that makes Favre!

2nd team in 5 years, and will be his third in 7. While Favre is on his second after playing 20. Doesn't even fit to be a comparison, not even by your sarcastic standards.

rcsodak
07-31-2010, 05:54 PM
2nd team in 5 years, and will be his third in 7. While Favre is on his second after playing 20. Doesn't even fit to be a comparison, not even by your sarcastic standards.

Wow. The smartest poster on the boards, and you fail.

Minnesota is Favre's 3rd team.

LordTrychon
07-31-2010, 06:03 PM
Wow. The smartest poster on the boards, and you fail.

Minnesota is Favre's 3rd team.

4th, technically.

Pot, Kettle.

TXBRONC
07-31-2010, 06:08 PM
4th, technically.

Pot, Kettle.

:nod:

KCL
07-31-2010, 06:10 PM
4th, technically.

Pot, Kettle.


LMAO...You're right...I had to look that up btw.....:hahaha: to rc
too funny.... :lol:

TXBRONC
07-31-2010, 06:26 PM
LMAO...You're right...I had to look that up btw.....:hahaha: to rc
too funny.... :lol:

He spent his first season in the League with the Falcons who drafted him in the 2nd round.

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 06:33 PM
Wow. The smartest poster on the boards, and you fail.

Minnesota is Favre's 3rd team.


4th, technically.

Pot, Kettle.

yup.. I was wayyyy off. I wasn't even thinking.

Although, I still believe the point still stands. There is no comparison between a QB in the 15th year of his HOF career is comparable to a 5th year QB that will be lucky to get another starting job.

Sorry about using the wrong stats with my sarcastic response.

TXBRONC
07-31-2010, 06:46 PM
yup.. I was wayyyy off. I wasn't even thinking.

Although, I still believe the point still stands. There is no comparison between a QB in the 15th year of his HOF career is comparable to a 5th year QB that will be lucky to get another starting job.

Sorry about using the wrong stats with my sarcastic response.

Considering that Farve spent all of one season with the Falcons and threw all of two passes it's easy to overlook.

LordTrychon
07-31-2010, 06:56 PM
yup.. I was wayyyy off. I wasn't even thinking.

Although, I still believe the point still stands. There is no comparison between a QB in the 15th year of his HOF career is comparable to a 5th year QB that will be lucky to get another starting job.

Sorry about using the wrong stats with my sarcastic response.

I think Favre could hop teams every year for the next 6 years and the fact that he was in GB so long makes him a non-journeyman.

Other than that, I'm not sure where to draw the line as to what's journeyman and what's not.

LordTrychon
07-31-2010, 06:58 PM
McNabb. He's a better example.

Bosco
07-31-2010, 07:04 PM
Everything you stated. You said that his offense RELIES on the deep threat. Which you then continued that HIS (McD's) offense proved to have success because of playoff births. However, its not like he was coaching an average QB and/or team that didn't already win 3 Super Bowls without him as the OC. Completely irrelevant. His offense was a massive overhaul from what Weis ran in New England.


HENCE.... is it really his offense, that RELIES on the deep threat and can't perform at "peak performance" without it, really that good if he doesn't have a Tom Brady? Don't know.

THAT is what it has to do with the topic at hand. He's had offenses without deep threats (2005 & 2006) and one without Brady (2008) who was replaced by a quarterback who couldn't take advantage of the deep ball. The one year he had both (2007) his offense was the greatest in NFL history.

So yeah, I'd say his offense is that good.

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 07:06 PM
McNabb. He's a better example.

McNabb was in Philly for 10 years, and Was is his second... correct? I personally don't think you can be the starter for 10 years and be considered a journeyman.

I think if you are released or traded every few years, then that qualifies. I also think that your skill-level also comes into play. Orton is bound ot be a journeyman if he expects to be a starter. He might end up sitting on one team, long term, as a back-up to someone.

Then... he'll have a good season after coming in for an injured starter, get another shot as the primary signal caller for a team that is in desperate need, and again be replaced in a year or so.

I've used the crystal ball. :D

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 07:12 PM
Completely irrelevant. His offense was a massive overhaul from what Weis ran in New England.

He's had offenses without deep threats (2005 & 2006) and one without Brady (2008) who was replaced by a quarterback who couldn't take advantage of the deep ball. The one year he had both (2007) his offense was the greatest in NFL history.

So yeah, I'd say his offense is that good.

Again..all you've proved is that that Brady is that good. Brady won Super Bowls without McD's offense, and had a the BIGGEST (greatest) failure/choke in NFL history with it.

As you said, the QB Cassel "couldn't take advantage of the deep ball".. and now Orton couldn't and wouldn't take advantage. Thus, so far, all you've told me is that the offense looked REALLY good when Brady and Moss are healthy, and not so much when one or neither are in the lineup.

Thats not exactly a proclamation as to how good the system is, but rather a ringing BELL as to how good the players on the other team are/were.

LordTrychon
07-31-2010, 07:12 PM
Sorry... I was thinking 'QB who was with one team for a long time and is now on their second team and doesn't make a good example for a journeyman QB'.

Forgot who brought what up.

Problem is that it's hard to come up with decent examples of journeyman. Journeyman QBs are normally backups. After a certain amount of time, they're often dropped if they no longer have the potential to grow. If you're going to have a mediocre QB as a backup (as most are)... you may have one you hope is groom-able or has a chance at surprising you.

Ravage!!!
07-31-2010, 07:14 PM
Completely irrelevant. His offense was a massive overhaul from what Weis ran in New England.
I think we have a FAR FAR different definition as to what a "massive overhaul" is. They kept the same QB (one that was young and a 3 time SB winner) and a strong OL. They added two WRs. Thats massive?

TXBRONC
07-31-2010, 11:15 PM
I think we have a FAR FAR different definition as to what a "massive overhaul" is. They kept the same QB (one that was young and a 3 time SB winner) and a strong OL. They added two WRs. Thats massive?

Massive overhaul no, tweaked yes.

Tned
07-31-2010, 11:32 PM
Sorry... I was thinking 'QB who was with one team for a long time and is now on their second team and doesn't make a good example for a journeyman QB'.

Forgot who brought what up.

Problem is that it's hard to come up with decent examples of journeyman. Journeyman QBs are normally backups. After a certain amount of time, they're often dropped if they no longer have the potential to grow. If you're going to have a mediocre QB as a backup (as most are)... you may have one you hope is groom-able or has a chance at surprising you.

Yea, I think I even used journeyman with Orton a week or two ago. It's hard to say if the label really fits, since he has only been with two teams. My logic, not that I spent a lot of time thinking about it, at the time was:

He couldn't keep the starting job in Chicago. He was essentially a throw in (from Chicago's viewpoint) in the trade for Cutler. After a 'solid' season in Denver, the head coach trades for a former 1st round QB and then drafts a QB in the first round, while signing Orton to an RFA tender making him one of the lower paid QBs in the nfl. There is little indication that Orton is anything more than a placeholder until Quinn or Tebow can earn the job.

Now, the terms journeman would likely fit better if he is with another team in 2011, and it may be unfair to label him as such while still the starter of the Broncos, only his second team, but the fact is that it is only a tiny minority of people that see him as a great starting option.

I hope he has a career year to the point where McDaniels has to consider signing him to a long term contract and shelving Tebow for a while, but I doubt it will happen.

Bosco
07-31-2010, 11:51 PM
Again..all you've proved is that that Brady is that good. Brady won Super Bowls without McD's offense, and had a the BIGGEST (greatest) failure/choke in NFL history with it.

As you said, the QB Cassel "couldn't take advantage of the deep ball".. and now Orton couldn't and wouldn't take advantage. Thus, so far, all you've told me is that the offense looked REALLY good when Brady and Moss are healthy, and not so much when one or neither are in the lineup.

Thats not exactly a proclamation as to how good the system is, but rather a ringing BELL as to how good the players on the other team are/were.

I'm constantly amazed at this. It's like you can only be a great offensive coordinator if you have a great offense full of scrubs.

Truly ming boggling.


I think we have a FAR FAR different definition as to what a "massive overhaul" is. They kept the same QB (one that was young and a 3 time SB winner) and a strong OL. They added two WRs. Thats massive? I was referring to the massive overhaul in the scheme.

Ravage!!!
08-01-2010, 04:50 AM
I'm constantly amazed at this. It's like you can only be a great offensive coordinator if you have a great offense full of scrubs.

Truly ming boggling.

I was referring to the massive overhaul in the scheme.

It is truly mind boggling that you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having an great offensive SYSTEM and having a statistically great offensive season. Until he proves that his system works with something OTHER than Tom Brady and Moss in the lineup, then he will always have the stigma of being just another OC that succeeded with a Great WR and HOF QB on the roster.

Even by your OWN post, you pointed out that his offense was great when Brady and Moss were in the lineup, but failed and diminished when they weren't, or, had other QBs that didn't "take advantage" of the deep ball. Then you pointed out that the offense RELIES on a deeep threat, one that many coaches try to find....or at least try to find a guy that does more than simply run fast.

So until he can show me that this offense actually WORKS with someone other than one of the best QBs ever to play the game..... then it will ONLY be an offense that succeeded BECAUSE he had one of the best QBs ever to play the game. As of yet, its been shown (by you) that his offense has NOT had success WITHOUT Brady, and we know Brady had success before McD.

Ravage!!!
08-01-2010, 04:56 AM
I was referring to the massive overhaul in the scheme.

So, you are telling me that the offense that McD runs is MASSIVELY different than that of Weis?? Really? So he (McD) went out and got Quinn, because of his familiarity of the system, when it was MASSIVELY different than what he learned at ND under Weis??

So going by what you are telling me, 1 of these 3 things is true. Either Weis was running McD's system in ND, our HC went out and got a QB that was familiar with our system that wasn't at all our system, OR or these two systems are not MASSIVELY different, at all.

Elevation inc
08-01-2010, 06:31 AM
It is truly mind boggling that you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having an great offensive SYSTEM and having a statistically great offensive season. Until he proves that his system works with something OTHER than Tom Brady and Moss in the lineup, then he will always have the stigma of being just another OC that succeeded with a Great WR and HOF QB on the roster.

Even by your OWN post, you pointed out that his offense was great when Brady and Moss were in the lineup, but failed and diminished when they weren't, or, had other QBs that didn't "take advantage" of the deep ball. Then you pointed out that the offense RELIES on a deeep threat, one that many coaches try to find....or at least try to find a guy that does more than simply run fast.

So until he can show me that this offense actually WORKS with someone other than one of the best QBs ever to play the game..... then it will ONLY be an offense that succeeded BECAUSE he had one of the best QBs ever to play the game. As of yet, its been shown (by you) that his offense has NOT had success WITHOUT Brady, and we know Brady had success before McD.


well there was that cassel guy who led his team to a 11-5 record in that offense....:lol: ;)

Jagsbch
08-01-2010, 06:54 AM
When Tim Tebow ended his unofficial holdout last week, the clock officially started ticking on Kyle Orton. The widespread perception is that Tebow's arrival for Broncos training camp, which starts today at the team's Dove Valley headquarters, means Orton is on borrowed time. A lame-duck incumbent. Dead Broncos quarterback walking into shotgun position.

"Who's not?" John Elway, the Broncos' Hall of Fame quarterback, said last week. "I mean other than Peyton Manning and top-echelon quarterbacks, who's really not?"

Even Elway himself, in the midst of his career, had to go through the indignity of receiving the message from his coaches that he was near the end and Tommy Maddox was here to replace him.

"I remember right where I was because I was coming into (Stapleton airport) waiting on my bags, and some guy walked up to me and says, 'Did you hear who you guys drafted today?' " Elway said.

With the No. 25 draft pick in 1992, the Broncos took not receiver Carl Pickens, as Elway had hoped, but a raw, sophomore quarterback from UCLA with a Hollywood-sounding name — Maddox.

Not until Elway learned that Pickens was still on the board at No. 25 did it set in exactly what coach Dan Reeves was trying to tell him. Elway, who had just finished his ninth season, would have his immediate replacement dressing right beside him.

"At that point in time, I just said, 'Well, I'm going to have to stay on it and stay good,' " Elway said.

Good? Over the next seven years, Elway posted his six best statistical seasons in terms of quarterback rating, a run of efficiency capped by consecutive Super Bowl titles. By then, Maddox was off playing in a rebel league.

An ill-advised draft decision, to be sure, but then again, who knows? Maybe it was the first-round selection of Maddox that helped spur Elway into finishing his career with a flourish...

Elway, ordinarily a scratch golfer, and Orton, who has a 2-handicap, played a round together this summer. Most people don't think Orton is very athletic because he's an immobile quarterback, but he not only can golf with anybody, he bowled a 268 a few minutes before the Broncos traded up to take Tebow with the No. 25 pick in the NFL draft on April 22...

By Mike Klis of
The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15650350)

Jagsbch
08-01-2010, 07:59 AM
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/gatorbytes/files/2010/06/tebow.jpg

The focus is football now.
“Yes, right now.”

How many hours a day are you here?
“All day.”

You arrive when?
“5:45 (a.m.) until probably 8:45 (p.m.)”

And along with just playing football and throwing, what else are you doing here?
“Lifting, running, conditioning, practicing, meeting, drill myself, training room, everything. It’s just constant football. It’s great, there’s nothing else to do. I love it, it’s my job.”

Palm Beach Post (http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/gatorbytes/2010/06/12/1-on-1-with-tim-tebow/)

Bosco
08-01-2010, 02:06 PM
It is truly mind boggling that you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having an great offensive SYSTEM and having a statistically great offensive season. Until he proves that his system works with something OTHER than Tom Brady and Moss in the lineup, then he will always have the stigma of being just another OC that succeeded with a Great WR and HOF QB on the roster. What great offensive coordinators have built their reputations without some very good offensive players, especially quarterbacks? You keep wanting to dock McDaniels for the fact he had Brady but did you dock Shanahan's cred because of Elway and Young?

Somehow, I'm willing to bet that's a pretty much one way street with you.


Even by your OWN post, you pointed out that his offense was great when Brady and Moss were in the lineup, but failed and diminished when they weren't, or, had other QBs that didn't "take advantage" of the deep ball. If you consider a top 10 offense and reaching the playoffs 75% of the time to be failure, well give me failure any day.


well there was that cassel guy who led his team to a 11-5 record in that offense....:lol: ;)

Well that doesn't count because they still had some great players on offense! McD gets no credit until he builds a great offense full of nothing but scrubs! [/Ravage's lunacy]

Bosco
08-01-2010, 03:05 PM
So, you are telling me that the offense that McD runs is MASSIVELY different than that of Weis?? Really? So he (McD) went out and got Quinn, because of his familiarity of the system, when it was MASSIVELY different than what he learned at ND under Weis??

So going by what you are telling me, 1 of these 3 things is true. Either Weis was running McD's system in ND, our HC went out and got a QB that was familiar with our system that wasn't at all our system, OR or these two systems are not MASSIVELY different, at all.

Yes, it is a massively different system. Weis ran a pretty straight up version of the old Earhart-Perkins offense when he was in New England. Josh installed a pro-version of the spread option that Urban Meyer runs in Florida and has abandoned much of the old Weis' system save for the tendency to run out of singleback, two tight end sets.

The thing is that quite a few of the formations and terminology of Josh's system was in the old playbook, but rarely if ever used, and Weis himself opened up his offense some after going to Notre Dame. This is why people can claim that both Quinn and Tebow are "familiar" with the offense and be correct.

I'll give you props for at least having some basis for your belief.

Superchop 7
08-02-2010, 01:11 PM
If Orton can't handle a long term "back-up QB" contract, get rid of him.

I would love to have him here for a long time, but, he isn't the future at his position.

He is a back-up.

Ravage!!!
08-02-2010, 01:42 PM
What great offensive coordinators have built their reputations without some very good offensive players, especially quarterbacks? You keep wanting to dock McDaniels for the fact he had Brady but did you dock Shanahan's cred because of Elway and Young?

Those coaches are all 'questioned' until they accomplish something WITHOUT their HoF QB. No coach won the Super Bowl with Elway other than Shanahan. No OC could win the Super Bowl with Young, other than Shanahan.

Shanahan ACCOMPISHED more with those QBs than the other coaches that coached before him. McDaniels, accomplished LESS than previous OCs that coached Brady. Thats not exactly a point to back-up your stance....AGAIN. You continue to prove my points. Thank you.

OTHER Coaches won Super Bowls with Brady, and McDaniels COULD NOT. Again, keep ranting all you want... but the truth is..UNTIL McDaniels can actually show that his offensive "system" works outside of having Brady and Moss on the team, then it will ALWAYS be pointed out that he only succeeded because he had one of the best QBs behind center. Until he can have a winning season as a HC, until his stats compare to those of Shanahan/Tuna, then comparing McD to them is pointless and comical.

Don't act like this is new and/or hypocritical. Thats a disillusioned and blind perspective. You don't think its been pointed out that Belicheck didn't succeed in Cleveland, and didn't do well until he stumbled upon Brady as his QB??? Quit being such a blind defender, and accept the fact that McDaniels hasn't proved a SINGLE THING. NOTHING/Nada/Zero/Zilch. The only thing he has shown, is that he's been successful with Brady and Moss in the lineup.

YOUR OWN Post shows that his "system" went severely down when they weren't in the lineup.


If you consider a top 10 offense and reaching the playoffs 75% of the time to be failure, well give me failure any day.

Really? Because I believe (as well as most NFL coaches/GMs/Franchises) that the season is a failure unless you win the SUper Bowl. :lol: But hey, if you are happy with Failure......


Well that doesn't count because they still had some great players on offense! McD gets no credit until he builds a great offense full of nothing but scrubs! [/Ravage's lunacy]

There's your problem. You don't read. Thats not what was typed at all. UNTIL he proves he can win WITHOUT Brady... period, then it will be pointed out. He hasn't... at all. He can win with great players in Denver...but he needs bring them in. He needs to accumulate, draft, hire, fire and build a team to get credit..... ESPECIALLY after his first two offseasons of dumping off top talent.

So, he needs to either bring in players, or draft and develop them, or its ALWAYS going to be pointed out that the ONLY success he had was the ONE year in which the Patriots had a great year, and then COMPLETELY folded in the Super Bowl when the other team took away Randy Moss (his deep threat that McDaniels apparently RELIES on by your words) and successfully suffered the BIGGEST choke-job in NFL History.

Look at the OC in Indy... you think he gets credit for being a great OC when he has Manning? Billick was known for being an offensive "guru" and had the MOST PROLIFIC OFFENSE IN NFL HISTORY... (guess who he had on his roster.. Moss. Just like McD). What did Billick's offense look like in Baltimore? They were pathetic. Billick never was given the "benefit" of being called an offensive genius after his teams in Baltimore.

Thats just the reality.

[/Reality of the situation]

Ravage!!!
08-02-2010, 01:44 PM
If Orton can't handle a long term "back-up QB" contract, get rid of him.

I would love to have him here for a long time, but, he isn't the future at his position.

He is a back-up.

He's not going to be a back-up in Denver. Same situation as was with Plummer. Plummer was never going to be the back-up to Cutler, after beign the starter in Denver. I can't think of any situation where a team kept the former starter, and signed them as the back-up to the NEW starter.

Ravage!!!
08-02-2010, 03:51 PM
And yes.. I picked Billick specifically because he won a Super Bowl in Baltimore. If McD wins a Super Bowl here, fantastic.

But Billick was hired by Baltimore because they were already a defensive stud team, and needed offense. They hired an OC that just coached the most prolific offense in NFL history, in Minnesota ( which was broken by the 2007 Patriots). What player was on both teams, Moss. A coincidence? I don't think so.

But what got the benefit for that Super Bowl win in Baltimore? It wasn't the offensive genius or prowess of Brian Billick. It was a season that I consider the epitome of mediocrity, and Billick's offensive out-put was pathetic. Brian showed that his high powered offense looked really good when you have Randy Moss streaking down the field catching the Randall Cunningham rainbows.... but when you didn't have that..... free-fall.

If McD had come to a team that was considered a defensive force, then I can say that the offense we showed last season may be enough. But he didn't, and the offense floundered.

Its EASY to be an offensive "genius" when you have Brady and Moss going for the big TDs. Just ask Billick.

TXBRONC
08-02-2010, 04:07 PM
And yes.. I picked Billick specifically because he won a Super Bowl in Baltimore. If McD wins a Super Bowl here, fantastic.

But Billick was hired by Baltimore because they were already a defensive stud team, and needed offense. They hired an OC that just coached the most prolific offense in NFL history, in Minnesota ( which was broken by the 2007 Patriots). What player was on both teams, Moss. A coincidence? I don't think so.

But what got the benefit for that Super Bowl win in Baltimore? It wasn't the offensive genius or prowess of Brian Billick. It was a season that I consider the epitome of mediocrity, and Billick's offensive out-put was pathetic. Brian showed that his high powered offense looked really good when you have Randy Moss streaking down the field catching the Randall Cunningham rainbows.... but when you didn't have that..... free-fall.

If McD had come to a team that was considered a defensive force, then I can say that the offense we showed last season may be enough. But he didn't, and the offense floundered.

Its EASY to be an offensive "genius" when you have Brady and Moss going for the big TDs. Just ask Billick.

The talent on the field makes all the difference in the world.

Ravage!!!
08-02-2010, 04:19 PM
The talent on the field makes all the difference in the world.

Absolutely... always :beer:

Sconnie Bronco
08-02-2010, 04:28 PM
If Orton can't handle a long term "back-up QB" contract, get rid of him.

I would love to have him here for a long time, but, he isn't the future at his position.

He is a back-up.

Its an interesting point that you make.

They say a great leader can also be a great follower. For as much as people build Orton up on things like leadership, we'll see if thats really the case if he gets benched. Id think that hed be a pro about it but it also seems like he might have a little bit of a chip on his shoulder at this point in time. He was younger when he was moved to 2nd string with the Bears and he's looking to make money now.

Sconnie Bronco
08-02-2010, 04:34 PM
And yes.. I picked Billick specifically because he won a Super Bowl in Baltimore. If McD wins a Super Bowl here, fantastic.

But Billick was hired by Baltimore because they were already a defensive stud team, and needed offense. They hired an OC that just coached the most prolific offense in NFL history, in Minnesota ( which was broken by the 2007 Patriots). What player was on both teams, Moss. A coincidence? I don't think so.

But what got the benefit for that Super Bowl win in Baltimore? It wasn't the offensive genius or prowess of Brian Billick. It was a season that I consider the epitome of mediocrity, and Billick's offensive out-put was pathetic. Brian showed that his high powered offense looked really good when you have Randy Moss streaking down the field catching the Randall Cunningham rainbows.... but when you didn't have that..... free-fall.

If McD had come to a team that was considered a defensive force, then I can say that the offense we showed last season may be enough. But he didn't, and the offense floundered.

Its EASY to be an offensive "genius" when you have Brady and Moss going for the big TDs. Just ask Billick.

If I remember correctly, one of the things that added to Billicks appeal was that he made it work with both Cunningham (who had been written off) and Brad Johnson (who was a never was at that point).

I like your analysis but I think the idea that he made it work with two different QBs validated him more than what youve acknowledged. But, like you say, its also true that both QBs were throwing to Moss along with Cris Carter.

Bosco
08-02-2010, 06:04 PM
Those coaches are all 'questioned' until they accomplish something WITHOUT their HoF QB. Shanahan was well regarded as an offensive guru when he joined us as the HC. Even then, what did Shanahan accomplish without Elway or Young? Not much.


No coach won the Super Bowl with Elway other than Shanahan. No OC could win the Super Bowl with Young, other than Shanahan. And Shanahan was also the OC during our three Super Bowl losses where our offense seemingly failed to show up and we were outscored 136-40. See, it's a two way street.


McDaniels, accomplished LESS than previous OCs that coached Brady. You might want to check your facts here. Brady's worst season under McD was better than his best season under Weis. He also set the NFL record for touchdown passes when McD was running the offense.


Again, keep ranting all you want... but the truth is..UNTIL McDaniels can actually show that his offensive "system" works outside of having Brady and Moss on the team, then it will ALWAYS be pointed out that he only succeeded because he had one of the best QBs behind center. And as I've repeatedly told you, he's proven that already in the two seasons without Moss and the season without Brady when they were still a top 10 offense every year.


YOUR OWN Post shows that his "system" went severely down when they weren't in the lineup. If you consider going from the greatest quarterback in the game to one who hadn't started a game since high school and still maintaining a top 10 offense to be a "severe" decline, well then give me that severe decline any day. Hell, it sure would have been nice to have that severely declined offense in 2008 as the Shanahan/Cutler/Marshall/Royal juggernaut was coming up lame for basically the entire 2nd half of the season.


So, he needs to either bring in players, or draft and develop them, or its ALWAYS going to be pointed out that the ONLY success he had was the ONE year in which the Patriots had a great year, and then COMPLETELY folded in the Super Bowl when the other team took away Randy Moss (his deep threat that McDaniels apparently RELIES on by your words) and successfully suffered the BIGGEST choke-job in NFL History. A) Again, reference comment about McD's top 10 offense every year in New England.

B) You conveniently forget to mention that against the Giants, the Patriots offense scored a touchdown late in the game to put them ahead. On the very next drive the Pats defense let them drive down the field and score, so unless you believe McD and Brady are responsible for that defensive failure, it's pretty hard to hold it over their heads as a "choke job"

C) The Giants didn't disrupt the Pats offense by taking away Moss. They did that by attacking their two injured offensive linemen and the injured Tom Brady with their excellent defensive line.


Look at the OC in Indy... you think he gets credit for being a great OC when he has Manning? You're historical football knowledge is obviously pretty poor. Tom Moore (that's his name, by the way) is arguably one of the better offensive coaches the league has ever seen. He was on the Steelers staff when they were making their Super Bowl runs in the 70's, coordinated their offenses through most of the 80's, installed the offensive system that Dennis Green ran with success in Minnesota, coordinated the potent Lions offenses of the mid 90's, installed the current Colts offense and has been Manning's mentor from day one.

And the Colts seem to think he's pretty valuable. They've kept him around through three coaching staffs and thrown lots of money at him to keep him from retiring.


Billick was known for being an offensive "guru" and had the MOST PROLIFIC OFFENSE IN NFL HISTORY... (guess who he had on his roster.. Moss. Just like McD). What did Billick's offense look like in Baltimore? They were pathetic. Billick never was given the "benefit" of being called an offensive genius after his teams in Baltimore. A) Brian Billick was basically the wingman for the Tom Moore/Dennis Green offense, alot like Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini were for the Bill Belichick defenses.

B) The 1998 Vikings offense was the most prolific, until Josh McDaniels and the Patriots came along and surpassed them by 33 points.

Ravage!!!
08-02-2010, 06:33 PM
Jeez... this is why I ignored your posts for so long. I have Sooo many freakin things to say in response to you, but its just tooo effing tiring to do that damned line by ling thign with you. Your posts are montrosities that just get sooooo boring to read.

You want to give McD credit for having a good season while having one of the most accomplished and best QBs, all at the prime of his career, at his helm. Yet don't want to acknowledge that he is always going to be questioned on whether it was him or his talent? Seriously? Thats absolutely absurd. Its ridiculously absurd.

McD hasn't proved a damn thing. He hasn't proved to accomplish anything without coaching Tom Brady..... PERIOD. That was the point of from the start.

Everyone knows Moore is the OC in Indy. Everyone also knows that Manning calls his own plays. Everyone that Watches football, knows that any OC can go in and not lose a single step from Moore being the OC in Indy.

I don't care if Billick was the "wingman" of anything... lol.... the point is he was ANNOINTED the "offensive guru" title. Just like McD was on the bootstraps of Belicheck and Brady, and given the same label. You keep making my point.

I didn't conviently forget that the Patriots scored :LOL: my god.... I also recall how LAUGHABLE it is that they only scored 14 points, even when Tom Brady laughed at the idea that was allt hey were going to score.

So you are saying, that the Patriots defense blew that game when their offense couldn't score? :lol: Typical you. They took away Moss from the beginning. :lol: You act as though you know it all, and your "assessment" is correct. They "attacked" the offensive line while taking away Moss. Doesn't matter WHAT the Giants did (nice try on spinning it away from the lack of offense from the Patriots)... the point is...their offense did NOT adjust to what the Giants were doing.

:lol:

Bosco
08-02-2010, 08:18 PM
Jeez... this is why I ignored your posts for so long. I have Sooo many freakin things to say in response to you, but its just tooo effing tiring to do that damned line by ling thign with you. Your posts are montrosities that just get sooooo boring to read. If you can't handle dealing with someone who is through and specific in their posts, maybe you should just go hang out in the smack talk forum where you can get by with one liners.


You want to give McD credit for having a good season while having one of the most accomplished and best QBs, all at the prime of his career, at his helm. Yet don't want to acknowledge that he is always going to be questioned on whether it was him or his talent? Seriously? Thats absolutely absurd. Its ridiculously absurd.

McD hasn't proved a damn thing. He hasn't proved to accomplish anything without coaching Tom Brady..... PERIOD. That was the point of from the start. I'm completely dumbfounded how you magically ignore the 2008 season when Brady spent all but 1 quarter on the sidelines. That offense the 8th best offense in the league, far better than our 16th ranked offense.

I seriously don't get it. You want McD to have good offenses without Moss and Welker. He did that in 2005 and 2006. You want him to have a good offense without Brady and he does that in 2008. I get this feeling that you're just not going to give him any respect until he fields a top notch offense without any elite players.


Everyone knows Moore is the OC in Indy. Everyone also knows that Manning calls his own plays. Everyone that Watches football, knows that any OC can go in and not lose a single step from Moore being the OC in Indy. If everyone knows his name, how come you didn't mention it? Yeah, Manning calls most (not all) of his own plays, but that is a somewhat recent development. And if anyone could step in for him and not miss a beat, how come the Colts have gone to such great lengths to keep him?


I don't care if Billick was the "wingman" of anything... lol.... the point is he was ANNOINTED the "offensive guru" title. And the people who did that weren't very bright. I'm always very skeptical of coordinators who work under head coaches with the same specialty as them. It tends to muddy the waters on how effective they truly are. Billick, Kubiak, Heimerdinger, Crennel, Mangini...etc, are all examples of recent failures from that same line.


Just like McD was on the bootstraps of Belicheck and Brady, and given the same label. You keep making my point. Belichick is a defensive coach. You knew that too, right?


So you are saying, that the Patriots defense blew that game when their offense couldn't score? :lol: Typical you. Neither team did much scoring. It just so happens that McDaniels offense came through in the clutch while the defense didn't.


They took away Moss from the beginning. :lol: You act as though you know it all, and your "assessment" is correct. You're right. I'm supremely confident in my ability to assess what is happening on a football field.


They "attacked" the offensive line while taking away Moss. Moss had 5 catches for 62 yards and a touchdown. Not a stellar performance, but not shutdown like you would have us believe. They were also multiple plays where he was open down the field but Brady was getting pummeled in the backfield.


Doesn't matter WHAT the Giants did (nice try on spinning it away from the lack of offense from the Patriots)... the point is...their offense did NOT adjust to what the Giants were doing. Once again, your version of reality needs some serious correcting. The Patriots made numerous adjustments in the 2nd half, including using more two and three tight end sets and using the fullback more. None of that is much help when your interior linemen are injured and your quarterback is on a bum ankle.

atwater27
08-03-2010, 08:17 AM
If you can't handle dealing with someone who is through and specific in their posts, maybe you should just go hang out in the smack talk forum where you can get by with one liners.


At least in the smack talk forums the pretentious posters like yourself can actually spell the words they are trying to talk smack with.

claymore
08-03-2010, 08:39 AM
B) The 1998 Vikings offense was the most prolific, until Josh McDaniels and the Patriots came along and surpassed them by 33 points.

You dont find it just a little bit coincidental that Randy Moss was involved with both offenses?

Ravage!!!
08-03-2010, 12:05 PM
If you can't handle dealing with someone who is through and specific in their posts, maybe you should just go hang out in the smack talk forum where you can get by with one liners.
Hardly. Its just that you insist on going step by step by step. ITs tiring, but I can play your game. I hate reading your long, pompous rants, but hell... I'm game. Usually these long-effing posts RUIN a thread, when everyone passes them because it gets old to read your continued defense of NOTHING.


I'm completely dumbfounded how you magically ignore the 2008 season when Brady spent all but 1 quarter on the sidelines. That offense the 8th best offense in the league, far better than our 16th ranked offense.
No I'm not ignoring. :lol: YOU YOURSELF pointed out in another post that the reason McD's offense wasn't working at "optimal whatevers" because Cassel wouldn't take advantage of the deep ball. Plus this is the VERY team that just went 18-0 the season before, and we are supposed to be surprised that Cassel performed wll with this team? Really? What a shocker. I've never hear of Frank Reich or Scott Mitchell. Guys that come off the bench and perform fantastically as a back-up... even leading a team to the greatest-come back-win in NFL history. Guys that played with a very good team around them and performed.


I seriously don't get it. You want McD to have good offenses without Moss and Welker. He did that in 2005 and 2006. You want him to have a good offense without Brady and he does that in 2008. I get this feeling that you're just not going to give him any respect until he fields a top notch offense without any elite players.
How about until he puts up a top-notch offense without the Patriots?? Duh. How does someone pound this through your head? What has any of the Patriot cast-off coaches done after leaving Belicheck? Nothing.

It absolutely astonishes me that you can't see that. I don't care what Josh did with Brady, Moss, and the Patriots. Lots of coaches have had success there. Other OCs won Super Bowls with the Patriots before McD was a significant part of that team. His changes didn't seem to improve that.... no matter how MASSIVE you make them out to be.

The point is, and always HAS BEEN, that until McD does it AWAY from Brady and the Patriots.....then he will ALWAYS be looked upon as a guy that succeeded because of that team. Period. Its that simple. UNTIL he can show me more than some crappy dink-n-dunk offense in Denver, than I'm going to see that his offensive success in NE, was a direct result of having Brady throwing the ball.


If everyone knows his name, how come you didn't mention it? Yeah, Manning calls most (not all) of his own plays, but that is a somewhat recent development. And if anyone could step in for him and not miss a beat, how come the Colts have gone to such great lengths to keep him?

:lol: I didn't mention his name to make a point. No one cares what the OC's name in Indy is, because he's not the reason for their offensive success. As far as why keep him around at such lengths? Why change? They have a coach that is willing to accept that all he has to do is give small suggestions to Manning, and Manning takes over. What OC wouldn't LOVE to coach Manning? Not to mention they just hired a new HC. Keeping more things in tact just makes sense.

There, I gave you three reasons.


And the people who did that weren't very bright. I'm always very skeptical of coordinators who work under head coaches with the same specialty as them. It tends to muddy the waters on how effective they truly are. Billick, Kubiak, Heimerdinger, Crennel, Mangini...etc, are all examples of recent failures from that same line.

Uhmmm... McD has even to go as far as wearing a friggin hoody to be like Billy boy. YEah.. I'm skeptical as well. As far as you saying the people that annoited Billick an offensive 'guru' weren't very bright. Wow... go figure you suggesting other people aren't as bright as you are. You are the know it all of football. But I'm guessing since you have defended McD's offense so much, you believe that the label is correct for him, right? I mean, he only accomplished the same thing as Billick did.... except Billick didn't have Brady.


Belichick is a defensive coach. You knew that too, right?
No shit. Whats that got to do with McD riding the bootstraps of their success??


Neither team did much scoring. It just so happens that McDaniels offense came through in the clutch while the defense didn't.
:lol: Their offense was non-existant through the game, and you want to give them credit for "scoring in the clutch" and taking AWAY from the defense when they held the other team to 17 points??? Thats LAUGHABLE at best! Thats the biggest joke I've heard, and one from a Patriots fan that is hilarious. You give the offense a pass when they barely scored 14 points when their offense was supposed to be the greatest of all time? Their offense LOST that game... period. Your sentence about the Patriots offense "came through in the clutch" seems to be something the Giants did.


You're right. I'm supremely confident in my ability to assess what is happening on a football field.

Yeah.. I see. You stated how the Giants attacked an injured OL, and then injured Brady. You sound like a Patriots fan that is making excuses. The only reason the Giants won that game, is because everyone on the Patriot offense was hurt, and the defense failed.


Moss had 5 catches for 62 yards and a touchdown. Not a stellar performance, but not shutdown like you would have us believe. They were also multiple plays where he was open down the field but Brady was getting pummeled in the backfield.

1) multible plays of "being open" doesn't count if Brady misses the pass, or isn't Moss isn't thrown to. Shut down, is shut down. :lol:

2) 4 catches for 44 yrds came with 11 minutes and fewer minutes left in 4th quarter. 1 catch for 18 yrds with :28 left in the 2nd quarter. No catches in first quarter, no catches in 3rd quarter. No passes were thrown to him in the 1st, and only one was thrown at him in the 3rd (with :14 left). Thats shut down.


Once again, your version of reality needs some serious correcting. The Patriots made numerous adjustments in the 2nd half, including using more two and three tight end sets and using the fullback more. None of that is much help when your interior linemen are injured and your quarterback is on a bum ankle.

See, again, making excuses about the "injured" OL, and QB. :lol: How you must have CRIED when the Patriots lost that game (I cheered harder than I have since Denver won).

But making adjustments doesn't mean anything if the adjustments don't work. I don't care if you make 1,000 changes. You can't say "he did make numerous adjustments" if the adjustments got you the same result. So labeling off the adjustments made, doesn't mean squat. What needs some SERIOUS correcting is the thought process that makes anyone believe along your thought process. Who cares if they don't progress to better results???

They are only GOOD adjustments if they actually accomplish something. Otherwise, you just made yet another point for me.

Bosco
08-03-2010, 04:28 PM
No I'm not ignoring. :lol: YOU YOURSELF pointed out in another post that the reason McD's offense wasn't working at "optimal whatevers" because Cassel wouldn't take advantage of the deep ball. That's right, I did say that, but I fail to see what that has to do with the topic at hand, save for the fact that even a less than optimal Josh McDaniels offense was top 10 and outperformed our supposedly elite offense with Jay Cutler at the helm.


Plus this is the VERY team that just went 18-0 the season before, and we are supposed to be surprised that Cassel performed wll with this team? Really? What a shocker. How well did our 1999 team do when John Elway was gone and Griese was running the show?


How about until he puts up a top-notch offense without the Patriots?? Duh. How does someone pound this through your head? What has any of the Patriot cast-off coaches done after leaving Belicheck? Nothing.

It absolutely astonishes me that you can't see that. I don't care what Josh did with Brady, Moss, and the Patriots. Lots of coaches have had success there. Other OCs won Super Bowls with the Patriots before McD was a significant part of that team. His changes didn't seem to improve that.... no matter how MASSIVE you make them out to be. Charlie Weis is the only other OC the Pats have had under Belichick. Also I'm not really concerned the other Pats assistants. Not only are their failures greatly exaggerated, but the only offensive minded one went into college football which is a massively different game. Regardless, their records have absolutely nothing to do with Josh McDaniels.


The point is, and always HAS BEEN, that until McD does it AWAY from Brady and the Patriots.....then he will ALWAYS be looked upon as a guy that succeeded because of that team. Period. Its that simple. UNTIL he can show me more than some crappy dink-n-dunk offense in Denver, than I'm going to see that his offensive success in NE, was a direct result of having Brady throwing the ball. So just for the record, you're stating that when (and it will happen) Josh builds an elite offense here in Denver, you will give him full credit and quit with the "it was all because of (insert elite player) being here!" bullshit?


:lol: I didn't mention his name to make a point. No one cares what the OC's name in Indy is, because he's not the reason for their offensive success. As far as why keep him around at such lengths? Why change? They have a coach that is willing to accept that all he has to do is give small suggestions to Manning, and Manning takes over. What OC wouldn't LOVE to coach Manning? Not to mention they just hired a new HC. Keeping more things in tact just makes sense.

There, I gave you three reasons. So let me get this straight. One of the greatest offensive coordinators in NFL history and Peyton's career mentor is not at all responsible for the offensive success there just because Peyton is now well versed enough in offense to call his own plays, yet Indy has actively talked him out of retirement more than once and threw very significant money at him to keep him on staff through the pension system changes?

If you honestly believe he's just "another guy" there, well, I don't know what to tell you except that several teams have kept him on their staff during coaching changes (Indy has done it twice in fact) so that should be a pretty big clue as to how valuable they feel he is.


Uhmmm... McD has even to go as far as wearing a friggin hoody to be like Billy boy. Really, is this what you've degraded yourself to? Talking about ******* fashion choices? Is it really a shocker that coaching staffs in cold climates wear things like hoodies?

Please, please tell me we're not going down that road.


YEah.. I'm skeptical as well. As far as you saying the people that annoited Billick an offensive 'guru' weren't very bright. Wow... go figure you suggesting other people aren't as bright as you are. You are the know it all of football. But I'm guessing since you have defended McD's offense so much, you believe that the label is correct for him, right? I mean, he only accomplished the same thing as Billick did.... except Billick didn't have Brady.


No shit. Whats that got to do with McD riding the bootstraps of their success?? It's very simple really. The label is much more relevant when they were coordinating their specific unit by themselves. It's not an absolute indicator, but it is good litmus test.


:lol: Their offense was non-existant through the game, and you want to give them credit for "scoring in the clutch" and taking AWAY from the defense when they held the other team to 17 points??? Thats LAUGHABLE at best! Thats the biggest joke I've heard, and one from a Patriots fan that is hilarious. You give the offense a pass when they barely scored 14 points when their offense was supposed to be the greatest of all time? Their offense LOST that game... period. Your sentence about the Patriots offense "came through in the clutch" seems to be something the Giants did. What is hilarious about it? You can say what you want about their performance earlier in the game but when it absolutely mattered, they walked down the field and scored the go ahead touchdown and the defense couldn't hold on. To call that a choke job is about the most retarded bullshit someone could spew.

It's a shame you weren't around here in 2006 when we lost the season finale to the 49ers and that you apparently didn't post much when we lost to the Bears in 2007. I can only imagine the outrage you would show at someone blaming that loss on Cutler and the offense.


Yeah.. I see. You stated how the Giants attacked an injured OL, and then injured Brady. You sound like a Patriots fan that is making excuses. The only reason the Giants won that game, is because everyone on the Patriot offense was hurt, and the defense failed. Brady and at least one of the offensive linemen were hurt coming into the game. I don't recall if the other one just aggravated an existing injury or if it was a new one, but he actually had to be taken out of the game and replaced with Hochstein.


1) multible plays of "being open" doesn't count if Brady misses the pass, or isn't Moss isn't thrown to. Shut down, is shut down. :lol:

2) 4 catches for 44 yrds came with 11 minutes and fewer minutes left in 4th quarter. 1 catch for 18 yrds with :28 left in the 2nd quarter. No catches in first quarter, no catches in 3rd quarter. No passes were thrown to him in the 1st, and only one was thrown at him in the 3rd (with :14 left). Thats shut down. Ahh yes, more Madden fan boy talk. "They shut him down! Ok, they didn't really shut him down they just killed his quarterback, but THEY SHUT HIM DOWN!!1! LOLZ!!"

Just curious, but how old are you? You talk about football alot like a teenager.


But making adjustments doesn't mean anything if the adjustments don't work. I don't care if you make 1,000 changes. You can't say "he did make numerous adjustments" if the adjustments got you the same result. So labeling off the adjustments made, doesn't mean squat. What needs some SERIOUS correcting is the thought process that makes anyone believe along your thought process. Who cares if they don't progress to better results???

They are only GOOD adjustments if they actually accomplish something. Otherwise, you just made yet another point for me. See, now you're moving the goalposts because you were wrong. You claimed they didn't make adjustments. I gave you specific examples of how they did, and now you're crying that they don't matter because they didn't work.

Why can't you stick with an argument?

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Bosco, its kind of crazy to be bragging about anything the 07 Patriots offense did in the SB against the Giants. Its a 60 minute game and they didnt even hit 20 points.

Not only that but you blame the loss on the Patriot defense.

Bosco
08-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Bosco, its kind of crazy to be bragging about anything the 07 Patriots offense did in the SB against the Giants. Its a 60 minute game and they didnt even hit 20 points.

Not only that but you blame the loss on the Patriot defense.

Who is bragging about it? I'm simply pointing out that in a clutch situation they delivered the lead. I'm also not necessarily "blaming" the loss on their defense as much as recognizing that unlike the offense, they failed in the clutch.

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 04:56 PM
Who is bragging about it? I'm simply pointing out that in a clutch situation they delivered the lead. I'm also not necessarily "blaming" the loss on their defense as much as recognizing that unlike the offense, they failed in the clutch.

OK, well what about the other 55 minutes when the Pats could only score 1 TD?

Overhyping that drive in the 4th qtr doesnt change the fact that NEs offense didnt do much the rest of the game.

If that offense was as good as youre claiming, NEs defense holding NY to under 20 points should have been easily good enough.

Lonestar
08-03-2010, 05:09 PM
OK, well what about the other 55 minutes when the Pats could only score 1 TD?

Overhyping that drive in the 4th qtr doesnt change the fact that NEs offense didnt do much the rest of the game.

If that offense was as good as youre claiming, NEs defense holding NY to under 20 points should have been easily good enough.


You do realize that the NYG have a damned fine Defense and probably the best DL in the league that particular year.

To be beat by the best is nothing to be ashamed of.

Bosco
08-03-2010, 05:20 PM
OK, well what about the other 55 minutes when the Pats could only score 1 TD?

Overhyping that drive in the 4th qtr doesnt change the fact that NEs offense didnt do much the rest of the game. I'll be damned, but I'm pretty sure we covered this already.


If that offense was as good as youre claiming, NEs defense holding NY to under 20 points should have been easily good enough. Even considering that their lone poor performance of the season came in the Super Bowl, I don't think there is any question to how good that offense was.

arapaho2
08-03-2010, 05:29 PM
You do realize that the NYG have a damned fine Defense and probably the best DL in the league that particular year.

To be beat by the best is nothing to be ashamed of.


you do realize the giants were the 7th rank total defense...the pats were the 4th

the giants were ranked #1 in sacks..the pats were ranked #2
the pats were the 4th ranked scoreing defense...the giants 17th

however the pats offense was ranked 1st total offense
the giants 17th
the pats were the 1#scoreing offense with 36 ppg
giants 17th with 23 points per game

Bosco
08-03-2010, 05:39 PM
You do realize that the NYG have a damned fine Defense and probably the best DL in the league that particular year.

To be beat by the best is nothing to be ashamed of.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. The McDaniels haters want to hold that loss over his head like it's his fault that he faced one of the all-time elite defensive lines with several injuries to his offensive line and quarterback. Of course they forget that when healthy, the Pats dropped 38 points on that same Giants team that was fighting for their playoff lives.

I'll give the Giants credit though, they played good defensive football and took absolute advantage of the chink in the Pats armor.

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 05:41 PM
You do realize that the NYG have a damned fine Defense and probably the best DL in the league that particular year.

To be beat by the best is nothing to be ashamed of.

Did New England even hit their regular season average one time during that post season?

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 05:48 PM
I'll be damned, but I'm pretty sure we covered this already.
All I remember is a semantic objection and you calling Ravage out for not wanting to get into it. The other 55 minutes that netted 7 points still hasnt been explained.


Even considering that their lone poor performance of the season came in the Super Bowl, I don't think there is any question to how good that offense was.

Id be curious to know what their average per game in the playoffs were that year. I seem to remember them barely scoring 20 against the Chargers. Did they ever hit their average that post season? Did they even hit 30 that post season?

Isnt the postseason a more valid test of an offense? Thats when you go up against the better defenses and have a better idea that theyre not just running up the score against weaker regular season teams.

Bosco
08-03-2010, 06:10 PM
All I remember is a semantic objection and you calling Ravage out for not wanting to get into it. The other 55 minutes that netted 7 points still hasnt been explained. It has been explained. The Giants were pounding Brady and they were trying to figure out a way to protect him.


Id be curious to know what their average per game in the playoffs were that year. I seem to remember them barely scoring 20 against the Chargers. Did they ever hit their average that post season? Did they even hit 30 that post season?

Isnt the postseason a more valid test of an offense? Thats when you go up against the better defenses and have a better idea that theyre not just running up the score against weaker regular season teams. They dropped 31 and 21 on the Jags and Chargers, however they were also running the ball much more than they were earlier in the season. That trend actually started with a couple weeks left in the regular season.

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 10:03 PM
It has been explained. The Giants were pounding Brady and they were trying to figure out a way to protect him.

They dropped 31 and 21 on the Jags and Chargers, however they were also running the ball much more than they were earlier in the season. That trend actually started with a couple weeks left in the regular season.

31+21= 26 ppg. Thats OK but hardly all time great. And including the SB, Im coming up with 22 ppg during the part of the season that mattered most.


Isnt running the ball one way to slow down a pass rush? I just looked it up. They went from averaging 30 carries per game in the first two playoff games to 16 in the Super Bowl, which might have been when they needed to run the ball most.

Bosco
08-03-2010, 10:39 PM
31+21= 26 ppg. Thats OK but hardly all time great. And including the SB, Im coming up with 22 ppg during the part of the season that mattered most. But you're trying to take a very small sample size, look at their numbers and draw a conclusion about the offenses ability. That's not a great way of looking at things to begin with and it gets even worse when you fail to take into consideration that the Pats had long sealed up home field advantage and were starting to run a less exotic scheme.


McDaniels, Patriots players said, has an intuitive feel for the game. When defenses were not sure yet what receiver Randy Moss had left early in the season, McDaniels opened the floodgates, spreading the field and throwing deep. Then, as games became closer late in the season, McDaniels turned the Patriots back to their grind-it-out roots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/sports/football/30patriots.html

This is not exactly uncommon practice in the NFL. The 1998 Broncos did it, and the Colts do it almost every year.


Isnt running the ball one way to slow down a pass rush? I just looked it up. They went from averaging 30 carries per game in the first two playoff games to 16 in the Super Bowl, which might have been when they needed to run the ball most. Running the ball doesn't do much for slowing down a pass rush these days. Play action and screen passes will though. Also the Patriots tried running the ball repeatedly in that game and it wasn't working either. Their best success seemed to come out of the 3 wide, 1 tight, 1 back sets.

Sconnie Bronco
08-03-2010, 11:11 PM
But you're trying to take a very small sample size, look at their numbers and draw a conclusion about the offenses ability. That's not a great way of looking at things to begin with and it gets even worse when you fail to take into consideration that the Pats had long sealed up home field advantage and were starting to run a less exotic scheme.

They averaged 22 ppg in the playoffs and lost the SB because their juggernaut offense was only able to score 14 points. None of that has anything to do with what you're saying.




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/sports/football/30patriots.html

This is not exactly uncommon practice in the NFL. The 1998 Broncos did it, and the Colts do it almost every year.

Running the ball doesn't do much for slowing down a pass rush these days. Play action and screen passes will though. Also the Patriots tried running the ball repeatedly in that game and it wasn't working either. Their best success seemed to come out of the 3 wide, 1 tight, 1 back sets.

When youre less dependent on the pass, its harder for the DLine to pin their ears back. And, sorry, 16 times is not "repeatedly".

In the end, thats all water under the bridge. Its a different team with different players in a different city.

Bosco
08-04-2010, 12:19 AM
They averaged 22 ppg in the playoffs While coasting against two teams that were no competition for them. Seriously, trying to skew the numbers to make the greatest offense in NFL history look below average is ridiculous.


and lost the SB because their juggernaut offense was only able to score 14 points. None of that has anything to do with what you're saying.
See the problem here is that you assume all else would be equal. You'd have to believe that if the Patriots came out firing on all cylinders that the Giants wouldn't adjust and the Pats defense would still be able to hold them to 10 or 17 points.

It just don't work like that.


When youre less dependent on the pass, its harder for the DLine to pin their ears back. And, sorry, 16 times is not "repeatedly". They were gaining 2.8 yards per carry. It clearly wasn't working, so they moved away from it.

Sconnie Bronco
08-04-2010, 01:10 AM
While coasting against two teams that were no competition for them. Seriously, trying to skew the numbers to make the greatest offense in NFL history look below average is ridiculous.

They beat Jax and SD by around 10 per game. Thats hardly coasting. Against a hobbled San Diego, it was only 14-12 going into the 4th qtr.

Its not the greatest offense in history. It averaged 22 points per game in the post-season.


See the problem here is that you assume all else would be equal. You'd have to believe that if the Patriots came out firing on all cylinders that the Giants wouldn't adjust and the Pats defense would still be able to hold them to 10 or 17 points.

What Im assuming is that by having to adjust to the run, they couldnt exclusively focus on the pass over the duration of the game.




They were gaining 2.8 yards per carry. It clearly wasn't working, so they moved away from it.

They still needed to continue running. Its not like ditching the running game was really helping them. They wouldnt have been running to win. They would have been running so they could pass to win. Not including sack yards, they averaged 5.5 yards per attempt by passing 48 times in the game that mattered most. They averaged 8.3 on the season and Brady averaged 7.3 over his career. Trent Dilfer averaged 5.3 yards per attempt that year.

Sorry but this wasnt the greatest offense in history.

Bosco
08-04-2010, 01:45 AM
They beat Jax and SD by around 10 per game. Thats hardly coasting. Against a hobbled San Diego, it was only 14-12 going into the 4th qtr. Trust me, they were coasting. Had they wanted to, they would have dropped 38 on the Chargers just like they did earlier in the season.


Its not the greatest offense in history. It averaged 22 points per game in the post-season. You know, the last time I checked they didn't selectively take a 3 game sample to determine the greatest offenses in NFL history. Just to put this stupid issue to bed, refer to the NFL Record Book.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/Records/All_Time_Team_Records.pdf


Most Points, Season

589 New England, 2007
556 Minnesota, 1998
541 Washington, 1983


What Im assuming is that by having to adjust to the run, they couldnt exclusively focus on the pass over the duration of the game.

They still needed to continue running. Its not like ditching the running game was really helping them. They wouldnt have been running to win. They would have been running so they could pass to win. Not including sack yards, they averaged 5.5 yards per attempt by passing 48 times in the game that mattered most. They averaged 8.3 on the season and Brady averaged 7.3 over his career. Trent Dilfer averaged 5.3 yards per attempt that year. What do you not understand about the fact that the running game was not working? I've analyzed this game several times and can assure that with the injuries on the line that the Patriots were not going to be able to run the ball.

Oh, and this isn't the Mike Shanahan West Coast Offense anymore. Running to set up the pass is a dying philosophy in the NFL.

Sconnie Bronco
08-04-2010, 02:51 AM
Trust me, they were coasting. Had they wanted to, they would have dropped 38 on the Chargers just like they did earlier in the season.

I dont trust you. Being up by 2 going into the 4th qtr of the afc championship game and winning by 9 isnt coasting.


You know, the last time I checked they didn't selectively take a 3 game sample to determine the greatest offenses in NFL history. Just to put this stupid issue to bed, refer to the NFL Record Book.

Its important to do well in the regular season but the true test begins in the post season. The regular season can be apples and oranges. You dont know if other great offenses of the past ran up the score as much as NE. The postseason is where you see good teams every game. The postseason is when it matters most.







What do you not understand about the fact that the running game was not working? I've analyzed this game several times and can assure that with the injuries on the line that the Patriots were not going to be able to run the ball.

The passing game also wasnt working because they threw it 75% of the time and this was against a team that had a good pass rush. Their yards per attempt were on Trent Dilfer's level and when you look at net passing yards, they averaged 4.8 yards per attempt. Its not like they lit up the scoreboard when they ran more the previous two games but they needed to run more against the Giants.


Oh, and this isn't the Mike Shanahan West Coast Offense anymore. Running to set up the pass is a dying philosophy in the NFL.

Its not about running to set up the pass where this discussion is concerned. Its about having sufficient balance to help your passing game be more effective against a team that could rush the passer.

Ravage!!!
08-04-2010, 12:41 PM
You do realize that the NYG have a damned fine Defense and probably the best DL in the league that particular year.

To be beat by the best is nothing to be ashamed of.

You do realize that that defense wasn't even considered to be that GOOD until the playoffs, and they creeped in.. and you do realize that the offense of the Patriots was supposed to be GREAT.

Its not like the Giants had a "Raven" like defense.. one of the decade. It was a 'good' defense. It was an "ok" defense that absolutely DOMINATED the most prolific offense in NFL history.

So they didn't get beat by the best..... at all.

Ravage!!!
08-04-2010, 12:54 PM
I'm not reading through another mega post of the same crap... but I'll say this.

Everyone that has been seen me posting over the last number of years knows that I have pointed out a TON of times... that Noll never won a SB without Bradshaw, Landry never won without Staubach, Walsh never won without Montana, Shanahan never won a SB without Elway, and Belicheck has never won anything without Brady.

So quit giving me this CRAP that I don't recognize that coaches need great players (the debate on who makes whom is another topic). I'm saying that McD, right NOW, is like ANY OTHER OC that has coached great players..... Un-proven. He hasn't shown for a second that his offense can do SQUAT without Brady and Moss. Nothing. Zero.. Zilch. He hasn't proved that he can succeed for a moment when not riding under the Belicheck's umbrella. You can give me all your crap stats you want, you can blame ALLLLL their losses on injured players and whatevers if that makes you feel better about your team, but it doesn't change the fact that McD is still looked upon as a guy that succeeded when coaching under Belicheck and having Brady... and thats all (that and having the ability to trade away pro-bowl players).

But no matter what, until... UNTIL.... McD can actually prove that he can succeed without Brady and without Belicheck, then he will ALWAYS be questioned as to what was truly the weight behind his mild success in NE. I don't care who he brings in, or what person he drafts, or who he wins with.

Because as of right now, he's won games with a QB that was a 3-TIME SB champion before he even was involved. Thats not exactly stepping into a situation to IMPROVE the team. He was riding the wave. Until he shows something different, that will ALWAYS be the stigma set upon him. Thats just the reality that EVERYONE will have (except those that will make some injury excuses).

Ravage!!!
08-04-2010, 12:55 PM
Oh, and this isn't the Mike Shanahan West Coast Offense anymore. Running to set up the pass is a dying philosophy in the NFL.

HORN... incorrect.

The run to set up the pass is no different than passing to set up the run. It absolutely is NOT dying in the NFL. Thats why the best teams still have strong running games.

KCL
08-04-2010, 01:05 PM
So why exactly is Orton one of the lowest paid starting QBs?

clay..care to answer?

claymore
08-04-2010, 01:07 PM
So why exactly is Orton one of the lowest paid starting QBs?

clay..care to answer?

Because noone is willing to pay him more than what we are paying him.

KCL
08-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Because noone is willing to pay him more than what we are paying him.

And why aren't the Broncos willing to pay him more?

claymore
08-04-2010, 01:11 PM
And why aren't the Broncos willing to pay him more?

Unlike backup, and third string QB, the Broncos dont like overpaying for their 1st string QB.

Ravage!!!
08-04-2010, 01:22 PM
Really, is this what you've degraded yourself to? Talking about ******* fashion choices? Is it really a shocker that coaching staffs in cold climates wear things like hoodies?
My god you are blind!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Take your head from out between McD's buttcheeks for just a moment, those are NOT earmuffs!!! :lol: "coaching staffs in cold climates wear things like hoodies!!!!" ahahaahaah

You own a McD hoodie, don't you. :elefant:


It's very simple really. The label is much more relevant when they were coordinating their specific unit by themselves. It's not an absolute indicator, but it is good litmus test.

To you. Has nothing to do with how you see it. We already know you believe yourself to be smarter than everyone else... but the reality is both coaches were given the same title. Both had the most prolific offense to date, while both were coaching Moss on the team. McD isn't looked upon as being anything other than another coordinator that has left the Belicheck tree......except by your brown-hole kisser.


What is hilarious about it? You can say what you want about their performance earlier in the game but when it absolutely mattered, they walked down the field and scored the go ahead touchdown and the defense couldn't hold on. To call that a choke job is about the most retarded bullshit someone could spew.
No :lol: its not a choke job to a Patriot's fan. Its obviously a choke job by everyone else's standards. You want to defend an offense that couldn't score more than 2 TDs, blame it on injuries, and then say that they "marched down the field" as if they could have done it at any moment :lol: Its pathetic to listen to you defend this with such a blindness for the truth. The offense choked, plain and simple. They couldn't score and panicked when the defense they were playing against were out-manhandling them and taking their "awesome" offense out of the game.


Brady and at least one of the offensive linemen were hurt coming into the game. I don't recall if the other one just aggravated an existing injury or if it was a new one, but he actually had to be taken out of the game and replaced with Hochstein.
Blaming the offensive woes on injuries is lame. Not for an offense that was supposed to be the greatest. Lame.


Ahh yes, more Madden fan boy talk. "They shut him down! Ok, they didn't really shut him down they just killed his quarterback, but THEY SHUT HIM DOWN!!1! LOLZ!!"

Just curious, but how old are you? You talk about football alot like a teenager.
Seems I hit a nerve. Thats because you know its true. Moss was thrown at 11 times. 5 Catches... 4 in the last drive. He was shut out the entire game. They took him out of the game. I would think that EVENTUALLY he would make some catches, but for 3 quarters and 4 minutes of the game... he was taken OUT of the game. Thats being shut-down. You read like an old man that has turn beat-red purely because someone pointed out that your team's WR was shut out. He was. He was taken out of the game... period. Then you want to blame it all on the ankle of the QB....it's becoming pathetic.


See, now you're moving the goalposts because you were wrong. You claimed they didn't make adjustments. I gave you specific examples of how they did, and now you're crying that they don't matter because they didn't work.

Why can't you stick with an argument?

Nice try on the twist. :lol: But hardly holds water. Making a statement that the offense made a ton of adjustments, despite them not working, means squat. :lol: You keep hanging your hat on that "yeah, they made adjustments, I just told you what they changed" mantra and make yourself feel better....because those changes were OBVIOUSLY worth making. After all, who wouldn't want to brag about making worthless changes?

Please. Other than you, no one is "moving the goalposts." YOu are doing your damnest to make yourself feel "right" despite just making an absurd statement and back-pedaling as fast as you can.

Northman
08-04-2010, 01:27 PM
So why exactly is Orton one of the lowest paid starting QBs?

clay..care to answer?

Because he sucks.

claymore
08-04-2010, 01:29 PM
Because he sucks.

I didnt want to say it. Que top and youtube film studies.

Northman
08-04-2010, 01:31 PM
I didnt want to say it. Que top and youtube film studies.

What Top and Orton do behind close doors is none of my business. :listen:

KCL
08-04-2010, 01:32 PM
I didnt want to say it. Que top and youtube film studies.
You could have said it...you're just too busy saying other things.

claymore
08-04-2010, 01:33 PM
What Top and Orton do behind close doors is none of my business. :listen:

Long Plow Deep Ball comes to mind. Im a little claravoint.

Northman
08-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Long Plow Deep Ball comes to mind. Im a little claravoint.

:lol::lol:

TXBRONC
08-04-2010, 02:49 PM
Trust me, they were coasting. Had they wanted to, they would have dropped 38 on the Chargers just like they did earlier in the season.

The Patriots chose to play like shit in the AFCCG? Their pristine record was on the line they chose to coast? That's laughable. :rofl:

Saying that the Patriots could have dropped 38 points on the Chargers and chose not to is a weak excuse besides the fact you can't prove it.

Not only that the game was in their house and the Chargers came with their starting quarterback having a torn ACL and their starting running back on the sideline for the vast majority of the game.

Bosco
08-04-2010, 03:08 PM
HORN... incorrect.

The run to set up the pass is no different than passing to set up the run. It absolutely is NOT dying in the NFL. Thats why the best teams still have strong running games.

Wanna bet?

http://www.fantasydc.com/2008-2009-passrun-ratios/

As you can see, all but six teams threw the ball less than 55% of the time, and only two of those went to the playoffs. On the flip side you had four teams go to the playoffs throwing more than 60% of the time and a fifth (Dallas) at 59% of the time.


Nice try on the twist. :lol: But hardly holds water. Making a statement that the offense made a ton of adjustments, despite them not working, means squat. :lol: You keep hanging your hat on that "yeah, they made adjustments, I just told you what they changed" mantra and make yourself feel better....because those changes were OBVIOUSLY worth making. After all, who wouldn't want to brag about making worthless changes?

Please. Other than you, no one is "moving the goalposts." YOu are doing your damnest to make yourself feel "right" despite just making an absurd statement and back-pedaling as fast as you can.

Let's review.


the point is...their offense did NOT adjust to what the Giants were doing.


Once again, your version of reality needs some serious correcting. The Patriots made numerous adjustments in the 2nd half, including using more two and three tight end sets and using the fullback more.


But making adjustments doesn't mean anything if the adjustments don't work. I don't care if you make 1,000 changes. You can't say "he did make numerous adjustments" if the adjustments got you the same result. So labeling off the adjustments made, doesn't mean squat. What needs some SERIOUS correcting is the thought process that makes anyone believe along your thought process. Who cares if they don't progress to better results???

They are only GOOD adjustments if they actually accomplish something. Otherwise, you just made yet another point for me.


See, now you're moving the goalposts because you were wrong. You claimed they didn't make adjustments. I gave you specific examples of how they did, and now you're crying that they don't matter because they didn't work.

Why can't you stick with an argument?

You never even had a counter-argument for my statement, just changed the subject to the effectiveness of those adjustments. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as moving the goalposts.

See this, along with the fact that you've apparently been booted off a couple forums for your antics, is why I think you're a Madden playing fanboy. You don't talk about football like someone who has ever played the game in any serious manner, and your love affair with smileys and laughing at your own jokes is a pretty good indication of your age/mindset.

I get that you don't know dick about football. At least that can be learned. The complete lack of intellectual honesty in your debate style though, is a little harder to overlook and sadly most posters never seem to outgrow that.

Just something to consider if you ever want to be taken serious in these discussions. If not, I hope your ready to only have Arapaho and TXBRONC as your allies.

Jagsbch
08-04-2010, 03:26 PM
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2010/0804/20100804__BRONCOS_PRACTICE_AS144~p1.jpg

claymore
08-04-2010, 03:28 PM
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2010/0804/20100804__BRONCOS_PRACTICE_AS144~p1.jpg

Winding up to throw a 4 yard screen.

Jagsbch
08-04-2010, 03:31 PM
Orton hit Royal down the sideline for a long TD after the receiver beat Andre’ Goodman over the top.

Quarterbacks coach Ben McDaniels punched the air in celebration, while Goodman took off on a lap after the lapse.

The defense struck back on the next play when Cox grabbed an INT on an underthrown ball in front of Brandon Lloyd, earning the youngster a congratulatory headbutt from Elvis Dumervil.
http://blog.denverbroncos.com (http://blog.denverbroncos.com/denverbroncos/2010-training-camp-day-3-p-m-blog/)

BroncoWave
08-04-2010, 03:44 PM
Winding up to throw a 4 yard screen.

Don't you mean bubble screen?

TXBRONC
08-04-2010, 03:51 PM
Winding up to throw a 4 yard screen.


Don't you mean bubble screen?

You're both wrong that's Orton's throwing motion for a 5 yard out pattern. :D

claymore
08-04-2010, 03:54 PM
Don't you mean bubble screen?


You're both wrong that's Orton's throwing motion for a 5 yard out pattern. :D

4 yard deep post guys. Sorry.

TXBRONC
08-04-2010, 04:00 PM
4 yard deep post guys. Sorry.

I wonder if he's been working on his 6 yard chuck and duck? :ponder: :lol:

yardog
08-04-2010, 04:27 PM
I wonder if he's been working on his 6 yard chuck and duck? :ponder: :lol:

I hope so I heard from someone we are going to open up the offense this year because we have deep threat receiver now. :tsk:

Northman
08-04-2010, 05:41 PM
You're both wrong that's Orton's throwing motion for a 5 yard out pattern. :D

I thought he was handing the ball off to the RB. :confused:

TXBRONC
08-04-2010, 07:45 PM
I thought he was handing the ball off to the RB. :confused:

Could be, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. :D

SOCALORADO.
08-05-2010, 08:48 AM
4 yard deep post guys. Sorry.

The good news is this pass was completed to the guy sitting in front of him. So hes got that goin for him. Just helping that completion %.

TXBRONC
08-05-2010, 09:02 AM
The good news is this pass was completed to the guy sitting in front of him. So hes got that goin for him. Just helping that completion %.

Oh so he checked down? :D

Jagsbch
08-05-2010, 04:30 PM
http://prod.static.broncos.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/imported/zip/2010/08-August/100804pm_gallery/100804pm_gallery-TC8--nfl_medium_540_360.4_12.JPG

Orton Throwing a TD pass

NorCalBronco7
08-05-2010, 04:38 PM
Is there any chance we could get him to take a pay cut?

Jagsbch
08-07-2010, 08:54 AM
Coach could not not have raved about Kyle Ortons camp any more than he did. I was floored by the way he propped up his starting QB (http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/BTV-Sounds-from-Day-6/b4124188-521b-45be-9504-c467945c8cda#?id=2505cdae-0d7b-4ba0-8d84-fc0aea37d14c)

Check out the video below the ice cream truck Icon in the link.