PDA

View Full Version : Right now who you rather have as the Broncos coach?



sneakers
08-24-2010, 05:17 AM
This is silly, so no one get all carried away...

WARHORSE
08-24-2010, 05:19 AM
Simple.

This team is being built by the coach, for the coach.


McD.

broncophan
08-24-2010, 05:40 AM
I have moved on and ,as always, support our current coach......

GO BRONCOS!!!

Traveler
08-24-2010, 05:57 AM
:salute:JMFMcD!:salute:

MileHighCrew
08-24-2010, 06:19 AM
I am not anti McD and I do support the current coach but there is a soft spot for Shanny that will never go away. Kind of like that girl back in highschool you think about 15 years later

Dirk
08-24-2010, 06:31 AM
The mediocre teams that Shanny built after Elway retired (exluding one very good Plummer year) vs an up and coming young coach rebuilding a team?

I will take McD for at least 2 more years. If he can't get us into the playoffs then it's time to look elsewhere.


Note: I say 2 more years because it takes time to take a team down and rebuild it. Plus it will take 2 years to really see if Tebow will be the answer.

Nomad
08-24-2010, 06:49 AM
McDaniels is our coach, so gotta hope for the best with him. Shanahan had his chance before putting friendship ahead of the BRONCOS, but I thank him for the good years he had here:salute:!! I like/liked Shanahan and looking at him on the sidelines with another team is weird but then again it was weird seeing Reeves with another team and I had no hard feelings against him!

BTW, Happy 58th Birthday to Coach Shanahan today!!

Elevation inc
08-24-2010, 06:59 AM
i am behind fully behind MCD......... but lets be real wins determine how long he stays as our HC......

Tned
08-24-2010, 07:03 AM
McDaniels is the head coach and has turned over 2/3+ of the roster to implement his schemes.

That's just one of the reasons I voted for McDaniels.

GGMoogly
08-24-2010, 07:43 AM
Lombardi, a certain magic still lingers in the very name... :worship:

BroncoSojia
08-24-2010, 08:48 AM
where's the "neither" option?

Northman
08-24-2010, 09:36 AM
Ill let you know in 2012.

hotcarl
08-24-2010, 09:52 AM
cecil sapp :salute:

broncobryce
08-24-2010, 09:56 AM
Clay.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

weazel
08-24-2010, 10:46 AM
I voted Jike McShanahan

claymore
08-24-2010, 10:57 AM
Maurice clarett could have been the other choice and I would have picked him.

nevcraw
08-24-2010, 11:15 AM
Rex Ryan

slim
08-24-2010, 11:16 AM
Sneakers, you so silly.

T.K.O.
08-24-2010, 11:20 AM
romo.............romo.............romo !:D

Bronco Bible
08-24-2010, 11:35 AM
IMHO looks like Shanny needed to get away from Denver..... he seems to have that fire back ,his last couples of years it seemed to be missing.McD!!!!!!!

GGMoogly
08-24-2010, 12:33 PM
I voted Jike McShanahan

But...but...what about Mosh Shanadaniels? Hater. :tsk:

Dreadnought
08-24-2010, 12:49 PM
Maurice clarett could have been the other choice and I would have picked him.

Yeah, EZ for you to say. What about Brady Quinn then?

Buff
08-24-2010, 12:55 PM
Damnit, sneakers.

claymore
08-24-2010, 12:55 PM
Yeah, EZ for you to say. What about Brady Quinn then?

Yes.

slim
08-24-2010, 01:42 PM
Maurice clarett could have been the other choice and I would have picked him.

I hate you.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 01:44 PM
Shanahan. We would have been heading in the right direction with him when he finally addressed our defense. McD's method will not be successful in the NFL. Good OC? Maybe, but a terrible HC.

For those picking McDaniels...any reason other than the fact that he is our HC?

dogfish
08-24-2010, 01:50 PM
Who would you rather have as the Broncos coach?

ME!

dogfish
08-24-2010, 01:50 PM
Shanahan. We would have been heading in the right direction with him when he finally addressed our defense. McD's method will not be successful in the NFL. Good OC? Maybe, but a terrible HC.

For those picking McDaniels...any reason other than the fact that he is our HC?

like crow with your staples?

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 02:36 PM
For those picking McDaniels...any reason other than the fact that he is our HC?


like crow with your staples?

I expected as much.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 03:09 PM
Shanahan. We would have been heading in the right direction with him when he finally addressed our defense.

So the team would have begun turning things around starting in 2045.


McD's method will not be successful in the NFL. Good OC? Maybe, but a terrible HC.

That "terrible HC" switched the defense from 4-3 to 3-4, got rid of his starting QB, had to deal with a headache regarding his WR1 that started before he even arrived on the scene, and still managed to win as many games as Shannahan had the year before, and more games than Shannahan had won the year prior to that. That's certainly "successful" in comparison to recent Shannahan campaigns.


For those picking McDaniels...any reason other than the fact that he is our HC?

He's an excellent X's and O's guy who's demanding of his players and yet still has their trust. He's clearly willing to make the tough decisions if he thinks changes need to be made. Oh, yeah, he did a good job as a rookie HC.

The question to be asked following this poll isn't "Why McDaniels?". The question to be asked is really "What the hell were you thinking when you chose Shannahan, when he was clearly no longer on top of things in Denver?". And, for those who want point to Cutler/Marshall, I'll simply note Haynesworth. :coffee:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 03:17 PM
That "terrible HC" switched the defense from 4-3 to 3-4, got rid of his starting QB, had to deal with a headache regarding his WR1 that started before he even arrived on the scene, and still managed to win as many games as Shannahan had the year before, and more games than Shannahan had won the year prior to that. That's certainly "successful" in comparison to recent Shannahan campaigns.

Getting rid of the starting QB was a dumb move.


He's an excellent X's and O's guy who's demanding of his players and yet still has their trust. He's clearly willing to make the tough decisions if he thinks changes need to be made. Oh, yeah, he did a good job as a rookie HC.

He certainly is willing to make tough decisions if he thinks changes need to be made. The problem is his thinking that changes need to be made. In the NFL, you have to deal with egos. McD can barely handle his own, let alone that of talented NFL players. Shipping away talented players because of their attitude isn't a formula for success in the NFL.


The question to be asked following this poll isn't "Why McDaniels?". The question to be asked is really "What the hell were you thinking when you chose Shannahan, when he was clearly no longer on top of things in Denver?". And, for those who want point to Cutler/Marshall, I'll simply note Haynesworth. :coffee:

Shannahan certainly wasn't on top of things his last few years, but I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt than go to an unproven young coach with an over-inflated view of himself, who lacks the ability to deal with egos other than his own. As for Haynesworth, Shanahan didn't bring him in, Haynesworth just threw a fit when Shanahan changed the defense.

We'll have to agree to disagree. As I've said before, whether or not you like McD comes down to your football philosophy. Yours is the same as McD's, while mine is the complete opposite.

Northman
08-24-2010, 03:21 PM
And, for those who want point to Cutler/Marshall, I'll simply note Haynesworth. :coffee:

Uh, Haynesworth was already there. :lol:

Dreadnought
08-24-2010, 03:26 PM
Uh, Haynesworth was already there. :lol:

And there are very few I'd wish that jackass on other than Dan Snyder. Al Davis and Jerry Jones come to mind, but thats about it.

DenBronx
08-24-2010, 03:27 PM
Right now McDaniels because he has built this to be his team. He got rid of all of Shanahans weapons on offense and made it all his style of offense. You can't tear apart something and not have a plan. Saying that, I do like the direction and players McDaniels is picking for this team.

Now if this was two years ago I'd say Shanahan. We had most of the pieces in place and all we had to do was fix the flippin defense, something Shanny could never get right.

8-8 isn't bad for a first year rookie HC but we must improve. With the Chargers on the decline and trouble with alot of their players, Merriman, Jackson ect. I think the AFC west is up for grabs and Josh just needs to do everything he can to make sure we don't fizzle down the strech.

I'm still sceptical on getting rid of Nolan though.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 03:29 PM
I'm still sceptical on getting rid of Nolan though.

There was no reason to get rid of him. McD chased him out of town like he did to a lot of other people because he hasn't yet learned how to play nice with others.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 03:45 PM
Uh, Haynesworth was already there. :lol:

So were Cutler and Marshall. That's kind of the point. ;)

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 03:56 PM
Getting rid of the starting QB was a dumb move.

It was a brilliant move. It might have been the best move made, by any organization, last season. Cutler was a pain in the ass who hasn't had a winning season since before he went to college, and the team got multiple first round draft picks for him, along with a starting QB.


In the NFL, you have to deal with egos. McD can barely handle his own, let alone that of talented NFL players. Shipping away talented players because of their attitude isn't a formula for success in the NFL.

For someone who was talking disdainfully about ignorance in an earlier post, you sure don't mind displaying your own.

The most successful NFC team of the past decade was Philadelphia. They got rid of Owens.

The third most successful AFC team of the past decade was Pittsburgh. They got rid of Holmes.

The second most successful AFC team of the past decade was Indianapolis. They god rid of Johnson, who was the team's best defensive lineman at the time.

The most successful AFC team of the past decade was the Patriots. They got rid of Thomas.


Shannahan certainly wasn't on top of things his last few years, but I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt than go to an unproven young coach with an over-inflated view of himself, who lacks the ability to deal with egos other than his own. As for Haynesworth, Shanahan didn't bring him in, Haynesworth just threw a fit when Shanahan changed the defense.

You have no understanding of McDaniels' ego. I do note the irony of your eqo being so large that you feel you can judge the ego of McDaniels, though.


We'll have to agree to disagree. As I've said before, whether or not you like McD comes down to your football philosophy. Yours is the same as McD's, while mine is the complete opposite.

My philosophy regarding head coaches is to give them a chance to show their ability, and to defend them if they've done a good job, regardless of what team they are coaching.

You're welcome to have the complete opposite philosophy all you want. :coffee:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 04:12 PM
It was a brilliant move. It might have been the best move made, by any organization, last season. Cutler was a pain in the ass who hasn't had a winning season since before he went to college, and the team got multiple first round draft picks for him, along with a starting QB.

No QB could have had a winning season with our defense in 08. Without Cutler and Marshall we probably would have been 4-12, if not worse.


The most successful NFC team of the past decade was Philadelphia. They got rid of Owens.

How is Philadelphia the most successful NFC team of the decade if they have never won a superbowl? That's the ONLY goal in the NFL.

And by the way, the only year they did make it to the superbowl, they had Owens. They've declined since releasing him. Go figure.


The third most successful AFC team of the past decade was Pittsburgh. They got rid of Holmes.

Holmes was a superbowl MVP. They traded him this off-season, so how in the world is getting rid of him tied to their success? They have yet to play a game since trading him.


The second most successful AFC team of the past decade was Indianapolis. They god rid of Johnson, who was the team's best defensive lineman at the time.

Who? :confused:


The most successful AFC team of the past decade was the Patriots. They got rid of Thomas.

Again, who?


You have no understanding of McDaniels' ego. I do note the irony of your eqo being so large that you feel you can judge the ego of McDaniels, though.

Yes, I do have a rather large ego. But I don't coach an NFL team, so my ego is irrelevant to the Broncos.


My philosophy regarding head coaches is to give them a chance to show their ability, and to defend them if they've done a good job, regardless of what team they are coaching.

You're welcome to have the complete opposite philosophy all you want. :coffee:

I wasn't referring to my philosophy of head coaches. I was referring to my philosophy on how to win games in the NFL, which is obviously what McD wants to do. My philosophy is talent wins championships. McD doesn't think so.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 04:34 PM
No QB could have had a winning season with our defense in 08. Without Cutler and Marshall we probably would have been 4-12, if not worse.

If Captain fantastic had tossed fewer than 18 picks (like that 3 pick gem against Miami that led to 13 Dolphins points in a 26-17 loss), or hadn't gaspiped it against Oakland, the team could easily have had a winning record.


How is Philadelphia the most successful NFC team of the decade if they have never won a superbowl? That's the ONLY goal in the NFL.

There's that ignorance again.


Holmes was a superbowl MVP. They traded him this off-season, so how in the world is getting rid of him tied to their success? They have yet to play a game since trading him.

Successful teams cutting problem players. This shouldn't be a tough one to figure out.




Who? :confused:

Again, who?

Again, the most successful teams in the NFL get rid of problem players, even if they are good/important/high priced.



I wasn't referring to my philosophy of head coaches. I was referring to my philosophy on how to win games in the NFL, which is obviously what McD wants to do. My philosophy is talent wins championships. McD doesn't think so.

1.) To the best of my knowledge, you've never won an NFL game.

2.) Where had McDaniels said that he doesn't want talent?

3.) The most talented teams don't always win. That's not even in question.

Bosco
08-24-2010, 04:59 PM
McDaniels, by far.

Look, I love Shanahan. He brought Super Bowl titles to Denver and for that I will always be grateful. Outside of John Elway and Pat Bowlen, he's arguably the greatest thing to ever happen to Denver. That said, his personnel management had become mind-boggling over the last few years and his penchant for fresh ideas on offense had really dropped off. The Bob Slowik's and Jacob Burney's of the world get old real quick, and he's largely to blame for Cutler's, Marshall's and Scheffler's attitude problems.

In the end, I think he'll go on and have a successful run in Washington, provided he's learned from his mistakes. Even he now seems to recognize that he simply needed to approach the game with a fresh start and a clear head, and while I'm not going to adopt the Redskins as my 2nd team, I'll quietly nod in approval when he gets a win.

As for McDaniels, the guy is simply everything I could want in a coach and that's why he was my #1 pick to replace Shanny. The Patriots are the model for how modern day franchises should be built and Josh spent almost a decade in that environment. His work with Brady, Cassel and now Orton is nothing short of impressive and his NFL incarnation of the spread offense is the most innovative offense we've seen since the Run n' Shoot was in it's heyday back in early and mid 90's. Multiple teams, including our own 2008 Broncos, have tried to copy his offense. Last but not least, his purging of the malcontents and troublemakers is something that sits very well with me.

In short, I think we're watching a great head coach in the making.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 05:05 PM
If Captain fantastic had tossed fewer than 18 picks (like that 3 pick gem against Miami that led to 13 Dolphins points in a 26-17 loss), or hadn't gaspiped it against Oakland, the team could easily have had a winning record.

He did more good than bad for us. How can you even begin to blame a QB for our losses when we had the worst defense I've ever seen?


There's that ignorance again.

So it's ignorant to think that the one and only goal in the NFL is to win a superbowl? 32 coaches, GMs, and owners must be incredibly ignorant then. You obviously don't know anything about football.


Successful teams cutting problem players. This shouldn't be a tough one to figure out.

They were successful with those "problem players". Let's see how successful they are without them. Judgment on the Holmes move would be extremely premature, but Holmes for a 5th round pick does not make your team better. And I already covered Owens. Eagles with Owens - 1 SB appearance in 1 year. Eagles without Owens - 0 SB appearances. Yeah, that was smartttt!


Again, the most successful teams in the NFL get rid of problem players, even if they are good/important/high priced.

I don't know who the Johnson and Thomas that you are referring to are.



1.) To the best of my knowledge, you've never won an NFL game.

So that means I can't have an opinion on how to win games? Do you watch sports without forming your own opinions? If so, you are lacking an important quality of a human being.


2.) Where had McDaniels said that he doesn't want talent?

By trading "talent" for "character". That shouldn't be hard to figure out.


3.) The most talented teams don't always win. That's not even in question.

I agree. But no team has won a superbowl/championship in any sport without being talented.

Bosco
08-24-2010, 05:16 PM
He did more good than bad for us. How can you even begin to blame a QB for our losses when we had the worst defense I've ever seen? Posted this in an older thread.


Jay Cutler's best QB rating in a Broncos win: 105.1, worst performance in a win: 93.3

Jay Cutler's worst QB rating in a Broncos loss: 68.6, best performance in a loss: 77.8

Say what you want about the defense, but all of our losses directly correlate with Jay Cutler playing well below average football, and all of our wins correlate with him playing at an elite level.

Just so happens he ended the season with three straight below average games.

Also, Jacksonville, Miami, Oakland, and Buffalo where all games in which the defense showed up enough to win the game, until Jay Cutler started racking up 3 and out's with horrible completion numbers and started turning the ball over. His completion percentage over those games was 52.1% and he had 8 turnovers.

Just so happens all those games where at home too. In fact, our defense allowed 26.3 points per game at home versus 29.6 on the road. They stepped it up at home, to at least some degree. Meanwhile Jay played in the opposite direction (QB rating of 89.1 on the road, 83.2 at home).

Was the defense horrible? Sure was. But a few blow outs are skewing the numbers on the handful of games in which they actually showed up and did enough for our offense to win with even an average day. Unfortunately for Cutler there was no such thing as an average day last year, it was feast or famine every Sunday, and if it was a home game or a game down the stretch for the playoffs it was famine.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 05:24 PM
There was no reason to get rid of him. McD chased him out of town like he did to a lot of other people because he hasn't yet learned how to play nice with others.

It either that or our run defense, or lack there of, sucked the second half of the season

arapaho2
08-24-2010, 05:25 PM
Getting rid of the starting QB was a dumb move.



He certainly is willing to make tough decisions if he thinks changes need to be made. The problem is his thinking that changes need to be made. In the NFL, you have to deal with egos. McD can barely handle his own, let alone that of talented NFL players. Shipping away talented players because of their attitude isn't a formula for success in the NFL.



Shannahan certainly wasn't on top of things his last few years, but I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt than go to an unproven young coach with an over-inflated view of himself, who lacks the ability to deal with egos other than his own. As for Haynesworth, Shanahan didn't bring him in, Haynesworth just threw a fit when Shanahan changed the defense.

We'll have to agree to disagree. As I've said before, whether or not you like McD comes down to your football philosophy. Yours is the same as McD's, while mine is the complete opposite.


i cant disagree

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 05:25 PM
Posted this in an older thread.

I definitely put some of the blame on Cutler, but you just can't expect to win many games with such a horrid defense. And those games that he played poorly, (our losses) our defense couldn't help him out. You shouldn't have to depend on your QB playing at an elite level every game in order to win. Is it ideal? Sure. But you shouldn't lose every game that your QB has an off-day, so to speak. Look at the Jets last year. Sanchez rarely had a good game, but the defense bailed him out. Of course we'd lose every game that Cutler played badly - it was up to him to singlehandedly win games.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 05:27 PM
It either that or our run defense, or lack there of, sucked the second half of the season

We didn't have a good defense. We overachieved the first half of the year. We're lucky to have gotten 6 good games out of those players. Our defense is improved this year, mainly the line, and I would have liked to see what Nolan would do with it.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 05:27 PM
I definitely put some of the blame on Cutler, but you just can't expect to win many games with such a horrid defense. And those games that he played poorly, (our losses) our defense couldn't help him out. You shouldn't have to depend on your QB playing at an elite level every game in order to win. Is it ideal? Sure. But you shouldn't lose every game that your QB has an off-day, so to speak. Look at the Jets last year. Sanchez rarely had a good game, but the defense bailed him out. Of course we'd lose every game that Cutler played badly - it was up to him to singlehandedly win games.

Get over it already :laugh:

roomemp
08-24-2010, 05:29 PM
We didn't have a good defense. We overachieved the first half of the year. We're lucky to have gotten 6 good games out of those players. Our defense is improved this year, mainly the line, and I would have liked to see what Nolan would do with it.

So who the heck cares who is coaching them. The Broncos D being improved is all I care about.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 05:32 PM
So who the heck cares who is coaching them. The Broncos D being improved is all I care about.

That sounds like you haven't watched much football, or simply don't understand it. Coaching matters in this league, in case you didn't realize.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 05:35 PM
That sounds like you haven't watched much football, or simply don't understand it. Coaching matters in this league, in case you didn't realize.

You admitted that our D has improved.........So what is the point you are trying to make???????? According to you, we are better off this year and I agree.

arapaho2
08-24-2010, 05:41 PM
Posted this in an older thread.

your post proves nothing beyond your a bit biased

for one your giveing all fault to cutler when his defense for the season was hideous..all season

then you agree with the philosophy of ..we lost because the defense couldnt stop anybody in the last games of 09

which is it??...is it a fact a qb has a hard time winning when a defense is weak and bleeding yards and points....or that only covers just orton and other qbs should overcome that or they suck

the fact that if cutler had a bad game generally we lost ONLY PROVES ONE THING....THE TEAM RODE HIM, HE CARRIED THE TEAM..if he was playing well the offense could controll..if he had a bad game...the defense surrendered

a solid team can overcome a qb having a bad day...case in point sandiego and rivers 12.4qbr..94 yards passing, three turnovers...and the bolts still won by double didgits in 06....



in 09 if orton had a off day the defense could still keep us in it specially in the first six games...we didnt have that in 08

then your blaming cutler for games lost like buffalo

a game if i recall cutler led the team despite two t'o's prior to his int...to a 4th qrt lead only to have the defense surrender 2 b2b long TD drives...cutlers int didnt yeild a single point to the bills...never mind the fact he had absalutly zero run game...with less than 5 rush attempts the entire 2nd half and 2 in the entire 4th qrt...


face it our entire 08 season was like the week 17 game in 09...if the offense and orton wasnt clicking the defense couldnt stop anybody...problem is cutler had that problem nearly every week

yeah but if bosco says that one int in the 4th qrt that didnt yeild the bills any points lost the game..it must be true :coffee:

arapaho2
08-24-2010, 05:42 PM
So who the heck cares who is coaching them. The Broncos D being improved is all I care about.


gee i dont care who coaches us

slowick or nolan:lol:

roomemp
08-24-2010, 05:47 PM
gee i dont care who coaches us

slowick or nolan:lol:

Not if the defense is better

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 05:47 PM
You admitted that our D has improved.........So what is the point you are trying to make???????? According to you, we are better off this year and I agree.

My point is that we have better players this year, but you still need a good coach to coach those good players. We had one in Nolan and let him go because McD is selfish and can't get along with anyone.


the fact that if cutler had a bad game generally we lost ONLY PROVES ONE THING....THE TEAM RODE HIM, HE CARRIED THE TEAM..if he was playing well the offense could controll..if he had a bad game...the defense surrendered

Yep this.

pnbronco
08-24-2010, 05:54 PM
I am so grateful for what Coach Shanahan did for Denver. He brought something to the Broncos that we had starved for such a long time and he will always have a very special place in my heart. Plus he is a good, good man.

I don't think most people realize just how hard it was for Mr. Bowlen to fire Coach Shanny. They are really good friends and would go to lunch together all the time. Mr Bowlen broke down in the conference because of their friendship and yet he did what he thought he had to do for the team.

As much as I care for Shanny the man, the Coach and esp GM just seemed to loose focus. Players would say they could repeat word for word his speeches. Also he let Cutler and Marshall get away with stuff that in the old days they would have been nailed to the wall for. So it was time. I saw Shanny in Tahoe this summer and gave him a big hug, he looked better than I had seen him in years, refreshed and I will only wish him the very best.

As for the question I pick Coach McD. He's a pistol, but I've been around a lot of Head Coaches and most head coaches have ego's. They have to do it their way, it's part of the job. Coach McD had a plan and Mr. Bowlen liked what he saw. It's not like Mr. Bowlen didn't have a choice.

He brought back team work to the Broncos. During warm ups he goes around and talks to ALL the players, a different group each day. He interacts, as in showing them the motion when they are not getting what he wants. Of course he yells, but he pats on the back too. He understood that the players are men with young families and let them spend their Christmas am with their children and wives. Many of the players I've heard are amazed at his knowledge of X's and O's. He made mistakes last year that were rookie mistakes, but dang I make them all the time at my job, so I won't throw rocks at that. I'm not sure if he will work out here in Denver, but I have no doubt he will have won a few Championships before he's out of the NFL.

atwater27
08-24-2010, 05:57 PM
Simple.

This team is being built by the coach, for the coach.


McD.

Correction.... Destroyed beyond recognition, then rebuilt.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 06:02 PM
Simple.

This team is being built by the coach, for the coach.


McD.

That's not a good thing.

Bosco
08-24-2010, 06:04 PM
I definitely put some of the blame on Cutler, but you just can't expect to win many games with such a horrid defense. And those games that he played poorly, (our losses) our defense couldn't help him out. You shouldn't have to depend on your QB playing at an elite level every game in order to win. Is it ideal? Sure. But you shouldn't lose every game that your QB has an off-day, so to speak. Look at the Jets last year. Sanchez rarely had a good game, but the defense bailed him out. Of course we'd lose every game that Cutler played badly - it was up to him to singlehandedly win games.

See, this is the kind of Cutler apologist act that just ******* gets old. People love to scapegoat the defense to defend Jay. Sure, the 2008 defense sucked, but the defense wasn't causing Jay to throw interceptions left and right. They weren't the reason Jay was leading constant 3 and out drives and just generally being ineffective.

If Jay Cutler had even played league average in those losses, we almost certainly would have won Jacksonville, Miami Oakland and Buffalo, all games where the defense played well enough for a win despite Jay constantly screwing them. Flipping just a single one of those would have sent us to the playoffs.


the fact that if cutler had a bad game generally we lost ONLY PROVES ONE THING....THE TEAM RODE HIM, HE CARRIED THE TEAM.. You're right about one thing, we did ride him, and despite Mike Shanahan giving him a hell of a lot of playmakers on offense, Jay Cutler folded with the playoffs on the line.

LordTrychon
08-24-2010, 06:05 PM
Right now, with this team? McDaniels.

Taking nothing of the current state into account, who would I rather have as my coach in general? Shanahan.

dogfish
08-24-2010, 06:08 PM
great post, pola!


i think almost everyone here besides JR respected and appreciated shanahan, but it was just time-- past time. . . he wasn't getting it done, he didn't look like he really had any idea how to effectively rebuild the defense, and you could tell his heart wasn't in it any more. . .

sometimes you have to let go of the past, and he needed a fresh start every bit as much as we did. . .

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 06:11 PM
He did more good than bad for us. How can you even begin to blame a QB for our losses when we had the worst defense I've ever seen?

Pretty easily. I gave two easy examples of games that could have been won if Cutler wasn't sucking that day.


So it's ignorant to think that the one and only goal in the NFL is to win a superbowl? 32 coaches, GMs, and owners must be incredibly ignorant then. You obviously don't know anything about football.

1.) Yes, it's ignorant to think that the one and only goal in the NFL is to win a superbowl. Coaches of the 0-16 Lions could verify that for you, as could most coaches of teams with losing records.

2.) You shouldn't be dismissing the football knowledge of others, given what you've demonstrated to this point. The above quote of yours is a great example of why.

3.) The comment was about successful teams cutting problem players. You've now fallen to trying to complain because I called the Eagles the most successful NFC team of the past decade. That's just silly. Whether you rank the Eagles at #1, #2, or #3, the fact is that they were very successful and cut loose from a problem child.


They were successful with those "problem players". Let's see how successful they are without them. Judgment on the Holmes move would be extremely premature, but Holmes for a 5th round pick does not make your team better. And I already covered Owens. Eagles with Owens - 1 SB appearance in 1 year. Eagles without Owens - 0 SB appearances. Yeah, that was smartttt!

The most successful teams in the NFL ship out problem players. You claimed it was not a formula for success. Think hard on that.


I don't know who the Johnson and Thomas that you are referring to are.

Then calling others ignorant is probably not the way for you to go. Adalius Thomas and Ed Johnson, btw....


So that means I can't have an opinion on how to win games? Do you watch sports without forming your own opinions? If so, you are lacking an important quality of a human being.

From you:


I was referring to my philosophy on how to win games in the NFL, which is obviously what McD wants to do.

You've won zero games in the NFL. You're criticizing an approach that won 3 Super Bowls in the 2000s for the Patriots, 1 Super Bowl for the Colts, 1 Super Bowl for the Buccaneers, 2 Super Bowls for the Steelers and got the Eagles to a Super Bowl and multiple NFC championship games and saying it's not an approach that wins games. Why on Earth would anyone take that opinion seriously?


By trading "talent" for "character". That shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Since that's not what he did, you've simply got this wrong. Also, see the above response for more.


I agree. But no team has won a superbowl/championship in any sport without being talented.

Well, given that the Broncos have talent and are continuing to try adding more, you seem to have no point at all now.

T.K.O.
08-24-2010, 06:12 PM
great post, pola!


i think almost everyone here besides JR respected and appreciated shanahan, but it was just time-- past time. . . he wasn't getting it done, he didn't look like he really had any idea how to effectively rebuild the defense, and you could tell his heart wasn't in it any more. . .

sometimes you have to let go of the past, and he needed a fresh start every bit as much as we did. . .

he said so himself a few months after he got his walking papers:salute:

dogfish
08-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Correction.... Destroyed beyond recognition, then rebuilt.

the debate over whether the offense needed changed will never be settled, short of us going on a new england-style run with orton. . .

but there's no question that's exactly what needed to happen with the defense. . . the '08 unit was such an abortion that dismantling it entirely barely seems like enough-- i wish we could burn the record books for that year. . .

arapaho2
08-24-2010, 06:14 PM
Not if the defense is better


dude the defense improved because of the coach...you honestly think the defense would have improved from slows 29th ranked def to nolans 7th ranked def is we kept slowick?

really?:lol::lol:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 06:14 PM
See, this is the kind of Cutler apologist act that just ******* gets old. People love to scapegoat the defense to defend Jay. Sure, the 2008 defense sucked, but the defense wasn't causing Jay to throw interceptions left and right. They weren't the reason Jay was leading constant 3 and out drives and just generally being ineffective.

If Jay Cutler had even played league average in those losses, we almost certainly would have won Jacksonville, Miami Oakland and Buffalo, all games where the defense played well enough for a win despite Jay constantly screwing them. Flipping just a single one of those would have sent us to the playoffs.

You're right about one thing, we did ride him, and despite Mike Shanahan giving him a hell of a lot of playmakers on offense, Jay Cutler folded with the playoffs on the line.

It's not the defense being scapegoated for Cutler's failures, it's the other way around. Favre throws a lot of picks, and he's considered one of the greatest QBs ever. He wins games. Cutler could have too, with even a decent defense.

The defense played horribly in the Jags, Raiders, and Bills games. MJD ran all over us, absolutely abused us. We couldn't get any stops in the second half. JaMarcus Russell played like a star against us (this became a trend!). We gave up 34 points to the Bills.

In the Buffallo game, we scored 30 points, and Stokely dropped a TD pass that could have given us the win. What more could Cutler possibly do? He gave us 30 points and delivered a good pass to Stokely on 4th down, and the otherwise sure-handed Stokely couldn't hold on. (It was a nice play by the defender.) Also, we were playing with basically NO HBs, and the Bills started every drive at about mid-field.

atwater27
08-24-2010, 06:20 PM
the deabte over whther the offense needed changed will never be settled, short of us going on a new england-style run with orton. . .

but there's no question that's exactly what needed to happen with the defense. . . the '08 unit was such an abortion that dismantling it entirely barely seems like enough-- i wish we could burn the record books for that year. . .

Never had an issue with the defense being rebuilt.

TXBRONC
08-24-2010, 06:25 PM
McDaniels', this is his team, not Shanahan's.

I moved on more than a year ago.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 06:34 PM
Pretty easily. I gave two easy examples of games that could have been won if Cutler wasn't sucking that day.

See my post above.


1.) Yes, it's ignorant to think that the one and only goal in the NFL is to win a superbowl. Coaches of the 0-16 Lions could verify that for you, as could most coaches of teams with losing records.

Wonderful example. Using an 0-16 team to make a point about NFL goals? Wow. If your goal is not winning a superbowl, you shouldn't be in the NFL.


2.) You shouldn't be dismissing the football knowledge of others, given what you've demonstrated to this point. The above quote of yours is a great example of why.

So saying that winning the superbowl is the only goal in the NFL means I don't have football knowledge? Yes, I suppose from the perspective of someone like you, I don't. I'm sure everyone locked up in mental hospitals think the rest of the world is crazy. :lol:

If winning the superbowl is not the goal for every team in your mind, then let me ask, what do you propose these players play for? :confused:


3.) The comment was about successful teams cutting problem players. You've now fallen to trying to complain because I called the Eagles the most successful NFC team of the past decade. That's just silly. Whether you rank the Eagles at #1, #2, or #3, the fact is that they were very successful and cut loose from a problem child.

You named teams who had success with "problem players", and then cut them. Most of those teams have declined since cutting those players. You fail to acknowledge what I've repeated about T.O and the Eagles.


The most successful teams in the NFL ship out problem players. You claimed it was not a formula for success. Think hard on that.

See above. They had success, and then shipped them out. You would have a valid point if shipping them out led to their success. It didn't.


Then calling others ignorant is probably not the way for you to go. Adalius Thomas and Ed Johnson, btw....

I don't know who Ed Johnson is, so obviously he's not the caliber of the other players you mentioned. And like I said about Holmes, the Patriots have yet to play without Thomas, so how can you call it a successful move? In fact, I'm pretty damn sure their defense is on the decline. Go figure!


You've won zero games in the NFL. You're criticizing an approach that won 3 Super Bowls in the 2000s for the Patriots, 1 Super Bowl for the Colts, 1 Super Bowl for the Buccaneers, 2 Super Bowls for the Steelers and got the Eagles to a Super Bowl and multiple NFC championship games and saying it's not an approach that wins games. Why on Earth would anyone take that opinion seriously?

I'm struggling to take you seriously at this point. The approach I criticized didn't win those teams anything. All of the examples you listed have yet to show any positive or negative effect. Getting rid of talent very rarely wins you anything.


Since that's not what he did, you've simply got this wrong. Also, see the above response for more.

Dez is more talented than DT, most would agree on. McD chose DT mainly because of his character.

Claussen and McCoy are more talented than Tebow, most (who are not Tebow fanatics) would agree. McD chose Tebow mainly because of his character.

Marshall is very talented. McD traded him because of his character.

Cutler is more talented than Orton, most would agree. At the very least, Cutler had a much better year than Orton before the trade. McD traded Cutler because of his character.

I could probably find more examples, but even from those, how can you claim McD has not chosen character over talent? It's his philosophy, and I don't agree with it.


Well, given that the Broncos have talent and are continuing to try adding more, you seem to have no point at all now.

Every NFL team has talent. Some have more than others. I don't believe we have enough to even make the playoffs, let alone win a superbowl, which is the ultimate goal, despite what you think. :elefant:

NightTrainLayne
08-24-2010, 06:52 PM
great post, pola!


i think almost everyone here besides JR respected and appreciated shanahan, but it was just time-- past time. . . he wasn't getting it done, he didn't look like he really had any idea how to effectively rebuild the defense, and you could tell his heart wasn't in it any more. . .

sometimes you have to let go of the past, and he needed a fresh start every bit as much as we did. . .

Exactly. His arc in Denver just ended. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach, he just reached a point where he couldn't be effective here anymore. Sometimes you have to part ways for both parties to improve.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 07:05 PM
See my post above.

I saw it. It's a lousy argument. 3 picks for 13 points is 3 picks for 13 points. All the "relying on Cutler" in the world won't change the fact that, had he not sucked ass in that game, the Broncos would have had the winning record you said they had no shot of having.


Wonderful example. Using an 0-16 team to make a point about NFL goals? Wow. If your goal is not winning a superbowl, you shouldn't be in the NFL.

31 teams don't win the Super Bowl every year. That doesn't mean that 31 teams failed to reach their goals. A winless team won't be shooting for the Super Bowl, they'll be shooting for some level of improvement, unless every single member of that winless organization is categorically insane. This does not take a MENSA membership to understand. Since you can't even admit to something this obvious, however, further discussion with you will be useless. So, let me say goodbye to you with this anecdote:


Patriots.com has a minute and a half video clip of the draft ‘war room’ being set up at Gillette stadium. The camera pans around the room and two signs in bold lettering caught my eye.

One says “Get it right” and the other, right above the video screen, says, “We are not just collecting talent. We are building a team. Teams win Championships.”

Again.... the most successful team in the 2000s.

And a couple more, from some other guys who knew a bit about winning at the highest levels:


Build for your team a feeling of oneness, of dependence on one another and of strength to be derived by unity.
Vince Lombardi

http://wilderdom.com/teambuilding/Quotes.html


Individual commitment to a group effort, that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.
Vince Lombardi

http://wilderdom.com/teambuilding/Quotes.html


The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.
Babe Ruth

http://wilderdom.com/teambuilding/Quotes.html

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 07:06 PM
Exactly. His arc in Denver just ended. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach, he just reached a point where he couldn't be effective here anymore. Sometimes you have to part ways for both parties to improve.

Brilliantly stated.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 07:20 PM
I saw it. It's a lousy argument. 3 picks for 13 points is 3 picks for 13 points. All the "relying on Cutler" in the world won't change the fact that, had he not sucked ass in that game, the Broncos would have had the winning record you said they had no shot of having.

And if the defense didn't suck ass the entire year, we would have had a winning record.


31 teams don't win the Super Bowl every year. That doesn't mean that 31 teams failed to reach their goals. A winless team won't be shooting for the Super Bowl, they'll be shooting for some level of improvement, unless every single member of that winless organization is categorically insane. This does not take a MENSA membership to understand. Since you can't even admit to something this obvious, however, further discussion with you will be useless. So, let me say goodbye to you with this anecdote:

Yes, they'll be shooting for some level of improvement. But why? Because they hope that small improvements will eventually lead to a superbowl. No one would be in the business of the NFL if they didn't want to eventually win a superbowl. Winning the superbowl is the ultimate goal for every franchise. I'm not saying it has to be in one year. But the superbowl is the goal that every team wishes to reach.


Again.... the most successful team in the 2000s.

They were pretty talented, and had one of the best QBs of the 2000s. Oh, and guess what? They weren't known for their character. Your point is invalid.

Bosco
08-24-2010, 07:24 PM
It's not the defense being scapegoated for Cutler's failures, it's the other way around. Favre throws a lot of picks, and he's considered one of the greatest QBs ever. He wins games. Cutler could have too, with even a decent defense. Apt comparison. I've long said that Jay Cutler is a poor man's Brett Favre (who himself is highly overrated) as they are both boom or bust type players. Certainly not anything I want running my offense.


The defense played horribly in the Jags, Raiders, and Bills games. MJD ran all over us, absolutely abused us. We couldn't get any stops in the second half. JaMarcus Russell played like a star against us (this became a trend!). We gave up 34 points to the Bills.

Wrong again with the revisionist history. In Jacksonville we gave up alot of yards but ultimately held them to just 24 points. Jay Cutler couldn't even break 200 yards passing and turned the ball over twice, one leading to a Jacksonville TD. Had even one of those drives resulted in us scoring a touchdown we go to overtime. Oh and of those 3 turnovers that all happened on consecutive drives, our defense only allowed 10 points despite one of them happening in our territory.

At home against Oakland, Jay gave us the gift of a 43.2% completion percentage, an interception, a fumble, four 3 and outs (technically 3 as a PI gave us a 1st down on the 1st play of the drive) and a 49.8 rating. If Jay Cutler doesn't turn in an abysmal performance, our defense probably doesn't tire down and surrender 14 points in the 4th quarter after only giving up 10 in the previous three. You should also probably have you head examined after claiming that JaFatass "played like a star" against us when he put up a whopping 152 yards on our defense, 51 of which came on a single play.


In the Buffallo game, we scored 30 points, and Stokely dropped a TD pass that could have given us the win. What more could Cutler possibly do? He gave us 30 points and delivered a good pass to Stokely on 4th down, and the otherwise sure-handed Stokely couldn't hold on. (It was a nice play by the defender.) Also, we were playing with basically NO HBs, and the Bills started every drive at about mid-field.

What more could Cutler have done?

Well for one he could have converted any of those 4 field goal drives into a touchdown. Failing that, not throwing an interception on Buffalo's 2 yard line late in the 4th quarter would have been nice. Even failing that, when our defense bailed him out by forcing a 3 and out, it would have been nice had he not chosen to throw a pass off his back foot on 3rd and 5 so he could have hit a wide open Stokley in stride, in the endzone, with no one within 5 yards of him, thus negating the need for the 4th down lob into the back of the end zone.


Dez is more talented than DT, most would agree on. McD chose DT mainly because of his character. How so? Demaryius Thomas is bigger and significantly faster than Bryant.

In the end though, it had less to do with character and just about everything to do with the fact that Thomas is a prototypical X receiver in McDaniel's offense, while Bryant's skillset is ideally suited to the Y receiver role. Obviously, Josh probably wasn't real high on the thought of spending a 1st for a guy who would play the position which is generally the 3rd progression in the offense.


Claussen and McCoy are more talented than Tebow, most (who are not Tebow fanatics) would agree. McD chose Tebow mainly because of his character. Again, how so? Tebow is bigger, faster, and stronger than either of them. He also had a vastly superior collegiate career and comes from the offense that McDaniels based his system off of.


Marshall is very talented. McD traded him because of his character. After attempting to sign him to a sizeable contract extension.


Cutler is more talented than Orton, most would agree. At the very least, Cutler had a much better year than Orton before the trade. McD traded Cutler because of his character. Cutler has more physical talent than about 99% of NFL quarterbacks. So did Jeff George.


I could probably find more examples, but even from those, how can you claim McD has not chosen character over talent? It's his philosophy, and I don't agree with it. Probably because it's not the case. He's just replaced talented malcontents with talented good character guys.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 07:36 PM
And if the defense didn't suck ass the entire year, we would have had a winning record.



Yes, they'll be shooting for some level of improvement. But why? Because they hope that small improvements will eventually lead to a superbowl. No one would be in the business of the NFL if they didn't want to eventually win a superbowl. Winning the superbowl is the ultimate goal for every franchise. I'm not saying it has to be in one year. But the superbowl is the goal that every team wishes to reach.



They were pretty talented, and had one of the best QBs of the 2000s. Oh, and guess what? They weren't known for their character. Your point is invalid.

Thanks. This bit of absolute ignorance on your part makes it easy to just put you on ignore in advance of your eventual banning.

dogfish
08-24-2010, 07:36 PM
Claussen and McCoy are more talented than Tebow, most (who are not Tebow fanatics) would agree.

good lord, what are you mumbling about now?

most people would agree that mccoy and claussen are more POLISHED than tebow, but he quite clearly has far superior physical gifts to either of them. . . some of you just can't get past the fact that the guy has a funky throwing motion. . .

he has far more raw talent than either of those players. . .

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 07:45 PM
Apt comparison. I've long said that Jay Cutler is a poor man's Brett Favre (who himself is highly overrated) as they are both boom or bust type players. Certainly not anything I want running my offense.

I do agree Favre is overrated. But he's had success.


Wrong again with the revisionist history. In Jacksonville we gave up alot of yards but ultimately held them to just 24 points. Jay Cutler couldn't even break 200 yards passing and turned the ball over twice, one leading to a Jacksonville TD. Had even one of those drives resulted in us scoring a touchdown we go to overtime. Oh and of those 3 turnovers that all happened on consecutive drives, our defense only allowed 10 points despite one of them happening in our territory.

24 points is not a great game by our defense by any means. Yes, Cutler could have played better in that game, but it doesn't change the fact that our defense sucked the entire year, including that game.


At home against Oakland, Jay gave us the gift of a 43.2% completion percentage, an interception, a fumble, four 3 and outs (technically 3 as a PI gave us a 1st down on the 1st play of the drive) and a 49.8 rating. If Jay Cutler doesn't turn in an abysmal performance, our defense probably doesn't tire down and surrender 14 points in the 4th quarter after only giving up 10 in the previous three. You should also probably have you head examined after claiming that JaFatass "played like a star" against us when he put up a whopping 152 yards on our defense, 51 of which came on a single play.

Cutler did play terrible in the Oakland game. JaMarcus Russell also played like a star. It's not just about his yards. His completion percentage was almost perfect and he didn't make any mistakes.


What more could Cutler have done?

Well for one he could have converted any of those 4 field goal drives into a touchdown. Failing that, not throwing an interception on Buffalo's 2 yard line late in the 4th quarter would have been nice. Even failing that, when our defense bailed him out by forcing a 3 and out, it would have been nice had he not chosen to throw a pass off his back foot on 3rd and 5 so he could have hit a wide open Stokley in stride, in the endzone, with no one within 5 yards of him, thus negating the need for the 4th down lob into the back of the end zone.

See, you're reaching for little things simply because of your anti-Cutler bias. Cutler gave us 30 points. The defense gave up 34. It was the defense's fault, not Cutler's. You're expecting Cutler to play perfect in order for us to have a chance to win that game. That's not fair at all, he's not a one man team. You need a defense to win, and Cutler didn't have that. He plays a part on a team. He did his part well enough in the Bills game. The defense didn't.


How so? Demaryius Thomas is bigger and significantly faster than Bryant.

But Bryant has better hands, runs better routes, is more explosive and more consistent, and more NFL ready.


In the end though, it had less to do with character and just about everything to do with the fact that Thomas is a prototypical X receiver in McDaniel's offense, while Bryant's skillset is ideally suited to the Y receiver role. Obviously, Josh probably wasn't real high on the thought of spending a 1st for a guy who would play the position which is generally the 3rd progression in the offense.

You're probably right about that, but I still disagree with McD's thinking, and his system in general really.


Again, how so? Tebow is bigger, faster, and stronger than either of them. He also had a vastly superior collegiate career and comes from the offense that McDaniels based his system off of.

This is probably a personal opinion, and mine is different than your's and McD's. I feel Jimmy Claussen will be the best QB from this draft. He came from a pro-style offense, which is his best quality. I don't think he'll be a star, but this was a weak QB class, and I think Claussen will be the best from it. Tebow, and even Bradford and maybe McCoy, can't read defenses. As for McCoy, I don't like his prospects much more than Tebow, but a lot of people do so I mentioned him.


After attempting to sign him to a sizeable contract extension.

The Marshall trade actually made sense to me, despite him being my favorite player. But it was still based on character.


Cutler has more physical talent than about 99% of NFL quarterbacks. So did Jeff George.

You can teach what Cutler lacks. You can't teach what he has. I'd take my chances with him.


Probably because it's not the case. He's just replaced talented malcontents with talented good character guys.

The good character guys were less talented than the malcontents. The only people who disagree with that, are people who support everything McD does no matter what. You certainly seem like one of those.

Dreadnought
08-24-2010, 07:47 PM
It's not the defense being scapegoated for Cutler's failures, it's the other way around. Favre throws a lot of picks, and he's considered one of the greatest QBs ever. He wins games. Cutler could have too, with even a decent defense.

The defense played horribly in the Jags, Raiders, and Bills games. MJD ran all over us, absolutely abused us. We couldn't get any stops in the second half. JaMarcus Russell played like a star against us (this became a trend!). We gave up 34 points to the Bills.

In the Buffallo game, we scored 30 points, and Stokely dropped a TD pass that could have given us the win. What more could Cutler possibly do? He gave us 30 points and delivered a good pass to Stokely on 4th down, and the otherwise sure-handed Stokely couldn't hold on. (It was a nice play by the defender.) Also, we were playing with basically NO HBs, and the Bills started every drive at about mid-field.

Pretty much my thinking.

Look, I loved Shanahan. I suspect I'll never see a Bronco coach for the remainder of my time on Earth as good/great as he was...but I understood his firing at the time. Allowing Bob Slowick to pull down a paycheck for even 5 minutes after the 2008 Season ended was inexcusable however. Why? because the defense that stiff fielded betrayed what I think may have been an Offense which was about to almost rival the 97/98 outfit, and remain that good for a long time.

The offense was sometimes rough but the brilliance was freakin there. Anyone telling themselves, or trying to convince anybody else, that it wasn't is frankly kidding themselves. Not to mention that we as fans always have a model in mind for how they would construct an offense or defense if they ever had a chance. With me I would base it on a balanced deception based attack that ran often using a stable of complementary backs, but doing its main damage on an effective 15 to 25 yards intermediate passing game - keyed off of a fast pass catching TE. The ideas of "featured backs) and using dink n' dunk passing to substitute for a running attack would be banished, and I would banish the damned bubble screen to the lowest pits of Hell. Yes, I know, that part is my problem, not anyone elses :D

One area I disagree with I Eat Staples; I also rate character > physical tools. I also don't think we upgraded our character under McD, except in unloading Brandon Marshall. I would agree that knucklehead was flat out of chances. As far as the rest of our guys we dumped for alleged "Character" issues? Please spare me. Character issues are Albert Haynesworth. Pacman Jones. Terrell Owens. Not any of the guys we unloaded come even close to being selfish or me-first guys. Perhaps young guys thinking they were being shafted by a new dishonest boss; most of us have been there in real life. Not fun to think of Bronco leadership being like that, given we have been a league benchmark as a classy organization, but I think facts is facts. That is why it is comfortable for us to try and think McD was justified now, and look hard to cobble together evidence, but it doesn't make it true.

So, in short I get the Shanahan firing, though I regret it. McD was even the guy I wanted hired to replace him, since it had come to that. I abhor most all of the stuff McD has since done with the team, though I'll admit that this is strongly colored by the fact that I detest his personal style. He has made good FA aquisitions. His draft this year was a marked improvement over his first. And I will be surprised if we win as many as six games this year. This team is in reverse. The second half of last season was I suspect a preview of this.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 07:50 PM
good lord, what are you mumbling about now?

most people would agree that mccoy and claussen are more POLISHED than tebow, but he quite clearly has far superior physical gifts to either of them. . . some of you just can't get past the fact that the guy has a funky throwing motion. . .

he has far more raw talent than either of those players. . .

Tebow doesn't have a great arm. He's not that accurate. His size is only a disadvantage for a QB. So he's definitely more physically gifted, and that would be great...if he was a FB.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 07:54 PM
Pretty much my thinking.

Look, I loved Shanahan. I suspect I'll never see a Bronco coach for the remainder of my time on Earth as good/great as he was...but I understood his firing at the time. Allowing Bob Slowick to pull down a paycheck for even 5 minutes after the 2008 Season ended was inexcusable however. Why? because the defense that stiff fielded betrayed what I think may have been an Offense which was about to almost rival the 97/98 outfit, and remain that good for a long time.

The offense was sometimes rough but the brilliance was freakin there. Anyone telling themselves, or trying to convince anybody else, that it wasn't is frankly kidding themselves. Not to mention that we as fans always have a model in mind for how they would construct an offense or defense if they ever had a chance. With me I would base it on a balanced deception based attack that ran often using a stable of complementary backs, but doing its main damage on an effective 15 to 25 yards intermediate passing game - keyed off of a fast pass catching TE. The ideas of "featured backs) and using dink n' dunk passing to substitute for a running attack would be banished, and I would banish the damned bubble screen to the lowest pits of Hell. Yes, I know, that part is my problem, not anyone elses :D

One area I disagree with I Eat Staples; I also rate character > physical tools. I also don't think we upgraded our character under McD, except in unloading Brandon Marshall. I would agree that knucklehead was flat out of chances. As far as the rest of our guys we dumped for alleged "Character" issues? Please spare me. Character issues are Albert Haynesworth. Pacman Jones. Terrell Owens. Not any of the guys we unloaded come even close to being selfish or me-first guys. Perhaps young guys thinking they were being shafted by a new dishonest boss; most of us have been there in real life. Not fun to think of Bronco leadership being like that, given we have been a league benchmark as a classy organization, but I think facts is facts. That is why it is comfortable for us to try and think McD was justified now, and look hard to cobble together evidence, but it doesn't make it true.

So, in short I get the Shanahan firing, though I regret it. McD was even the guy I wanted hired to replace him, since it had come to that. I abhor most all of the stuff McD has since done with the team, though I'll admit that this is strongly colored by the fact that I detest his personal style. He has made good FA aquisitions. His draft this year was a marked improvement over his first. And I will be surprised if we win as many as six games this year. This team is in reverse. The second half of last season was I suspect a preview of this.

I agree with just about all of that.

I value talent over character, but I agree that Marshall was the only player we had lacking in character. The other guys just didn't like McD. If anything, it's him lacking in character. Not liking a young, sneaky, egoistical coach doesn't mean you have bad character. It means you don't like the coach.

I think we'll go 8-8 this year, but 6 wins wouldn't entirely surprise me.

EMB6903
08-24-2010, 07:57 PM
But Bryant has better hands, runs better routes, is more explosive and more consistent, and more NFL ready.

Says who?




This is probably a personal opinion, and mine is different than your's and McD's. I feel Jimmy Claussen will be the best QB from this draft. He came from a pro-style offense, which is his best quality. I don't think he'll be a star, but this was a weak QB class, and I think Claussen will be the best from it. Tebow, and even Bradford and maybe McCoy, can't read defenses. As for McCoy, I don't like his prospects much more than Tebow, but a lot of people do so I mentioned him.

Oh my goodness talk about nonsense. To say Tebow, Mccoy, or Bradford cant read defenses because of the certain schemes they were in is stupidity at its finest.

heres a tip my man... Try judging a player by how they play on the field instead of crediting/discrediting them over what scheme they are in.




You can teach what Cutler lacks. You can't teach what he has. I'd take my chances with him.



The good character guys were less talented than the malcontents. The only people who disagree with that, are people who support everything McD does no matter what. You certainly seem like one of those.

Leadership is something that anybody can taught?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

EMB6903
08-24-2010, 08:01 PM
Tebow doesn't have a great arm. He's not that accurate. His size is only a disadvantage for a QB. So he's definitely more physically gifted, and that would be great...if he was a FB.

His size is only a disadvantage for a QB?

what in the hell are you talking about?

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 08:05 PM
Says who?

Me, as you can tell from my post, and 95% of NFL scouts if you pay attention to anything other than your beloved coach.


Oh my goodness talk about nonsense. To say Tebow, Mccoy, or Bradford cant read defenses because of the certain schemes they were in is stupidity at its finest.

Can you read defenses? No you can't, because you've never done it before. Neither have they.


heres a tip my man... Try judging a player by how they play on the field instead of crediting/discrediting them over what scheme they are in.

Why isn't Colt Brennan the best QB in the NFL? He threw for the most TDs in one year in college history. If all that matters is play on the field in college, explain to me why he isn't a good NFL QB. Why wasn't Ty Detmer a good NFL QB? Why wasn't Leftwich? Why wasn't Russell? They all played good in college. Damn, watch some NFL football before you post.




Leadership is something that anybody can taught?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Leadership is something that you develop personally. No one is born a leader. You don't develop a cannon arm or excellent athletic ability. Cutler has those things.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 08:06 PM
dude the defense improved because of the coach...you honestly think the defense would have improved from slows 29th ranked def to nolans 7th ranked def is we kept slowick?

really?:lol::lol:

Slow is an exception to the rule.......

If you want to give credit to a coach for improving the D it was McDaniels....He brought the scheme and brought in quality talent that actually fit it.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 08:06 PM
His size is only a disadvantage for a QB?

what in the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that he had to jump to throw TD passes in the redzone. Watch some football, man. He's not built like Peyton Manning. More like Peyton Hillis.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 08:08 PM
Tebow doesn't have a great arm. He's not that accurate. His size is only a disadvantage for a QB. So he's definitely more physically gifted, and that would be great...if he was a FB.

The guy wins games......Enough said

roomemp
08-24-2010, 08:09 PM
I'm talking about the fact that he had to jump to throw TD passes in the redzone. Watch some football, man. He's not built like Peyton Manning. More like Peyton Hillis.

Nonsense :tsk:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 08:11 PM
The guy wins games......Enough said

In college. Winning games in college means nothing in the NFL.


Nonsense :tsk:

How so?

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:24 PM
The guy wins games......Enough said

Who cares about winning games when you have a stronger arm than John Elway.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:25 PM
In college. Winning games in college means nothing in the NFL.




Vince Young says whattup!?!?!?!

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 08:28 PM
Vince Young says whattup!?!?!?!

For someone who perpetually disagrees with me, you do a damn good job of proving my points.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:28 PM
Shanahan. We would have been heading in the right direction with him when he finally addressed our defense. McD's method will not be successful in the NFL. Good OC? Maybe, but a terrible HC.

For those picking McDaniels...any reason other than the fact that he is our HC?

Sorry I'm late to the party, but it only took Shanahan 8 years to...not figure out the defense, and you actually thought he would at some point? Sorry, coaches don't deserve 8 years to "almost" figure it out.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 08:29 PM
In college. Winning games in college means nothing in the NFL.

So you are saying you would draft a QB in the first round that went 0-40 in college?



How so?

Simple.....You basically said he is not Peyton Manning so he is no good

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:30 PM
For someone who perpetually disagrees with me, you do a damn good job of proving my points.

Your point is what exactly on this? That Vince Young is a great NFL QB, or that Vince Young is someone who just won at the college level, and then translated it into the NFL level?

dogfish
08-24-2010, 08:32 PM
His size is only a disadvantage for a QB.

your bias against tebow is laughable. . . he has prototypical size for the position, and you try to spin it as a weakness or disadvantage? yea, nice try. . . i challenge you to find a scouting report anywhere that agrees with you. . . you just pulled that from a place which no info should ever come from. . .

also, you just sound silly with that "he's a fullback" crap when NFL minds like mike mayock, mike shanahan, jon gruden etc have all said that he's a legitimate quarterback. . .

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:33 PM
How in the hell did this thread go here?

Is someone still hurt that McDaniels traded away a system QB who had a losing record? How did Jay Cutler get in this thread?

Shazam!
08-24-2010, 08:44 PM
First, thank you Sneak for producing this wonderful Thread that is just primed to bring chaos that we havent seen in awhile. :tsk:

This team was going nowhere under Shanahan.

I have a soft spot for Shanahan... In the Elway years. But post-Elway he hasn't done a damned thing. It was always the same, 'we're one or two players away.'

He stayed too long and needed a fresh environment. Players don't necessarily respond to the same thing year after year.

Those who said 'Josh is just an offensive coordinator', he came into Denver just as Shanahan did, an OC from a successful team and Coach (then SF) with a superstar QB. Denver was much, much better when Shanahan arrived than the mess McDaniels inherited, with the worst defense we've ever seen in Denver for starters.

Don't even go to 'He had Cutler like Shanny had Elway'. Please.

Josh was one of the few HCs I wanted and Im glad Denver has him. I'll give him two more Seasons before I call for him to be removed. But I see success before that, SD is due to fall and the odds of them winning the AFC West for the ______ consecutive year are against them.

Go McBroncos :defense:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 08:45 PM
Simple.....You basically said he is not Peyton Manning so he is no good

It's called making a comparison. In fact, he's not built like any NFL QB.


You're point is what exactly on this? That Vince Young is a great NFL QB, or that Vince Young is someone who just won at the college level, and then translated it into the NFL level?

lolwut? My point is that Vince Young won at the college level but is a below-average NFL QB.


your bias against tebow is laughable. . . he has prototypical size for the position, and you try to spin it as a weakness or disadvantage? yea, nice try. . . i challenege you to find a scouting report anywhere that agrees with you. . . you just pulled that from a place which no info should ever come from. . .

also, you just sound silly with that "he's a fullback" crap when NFL minds like mike mayock, mike shanahan, jon gruden etc have all said that he's a legitimate quarterback. . .

I challenge you to find one scouting report that says he has prototypical size for his position. Also, I'm certainly not biased against him. I already said I like him a lot as a person and as a college QB. I just don't think his skillset will translate to NFL success. It doesn't mean I don't like him, at all. I love my brother, but does that mean I think he'd succeed in the NFL? It's you who's biased.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 08:49 PM
lolwut? My point is that Vince Young won at the college level but is a below-average NFL QB.


Who does nothing but win. But then again, if you're more concerned about prototypical looking QB's, you can have Jeff George, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, and the countless other "prototypical" looking QB's who couldn't cut it in the NFL, along with their losing records year, after year, after year, after year.

I'm one of the most anti-Tebow people on this site, but I care about actually winning more.

Is Drew Brees a "prototypical" looking QB? No.....AND he won in college!

roomemp
08-24-2010, 08:50 PM
It's called making a comparison. In fact, he's not built like any NFL QB.



lolwut? My point is that Vince Young won at the college level but is a below-average NFL QB.



I challenge you to find one scouting report that says he has prototypical size for his position. Also, I'm certainly not biased against him. I already said I like him a lot as a person and as a college QB. I just don't think his skillset will translate to NFL success. It doesn't mean I don't like him, at all. I love my brother, but does that mean I think he'd succeed in the NFL? It's you who's biased.


Okay first.......What is a prototypical QB then....Then get that out there first.

......And explain why you don't think he will suceed in the NFL.....

Here is your chance to explain your points

Shazam!
08-24-2010, 08:54 PM
I challenge you to find one scouting report that says he has prototypical size for his position.

Are you ******* kidding me?!?!

Tebow's size was never the issue it was his throwing motion and mechanics.

6'3" 240 isn't built for a QB?

Who gives a shit what the scouts say either. Those 'experts and analysts'? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Please dont turn this into a Tebow thread either.

Back to Broncos coaching please.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 08:54 PM
Set this guy up in a "cage" match with Jagsbch (Close enough, I think), put them both on ignore, and let them have at it.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 09:00 PM
Are you ******* kidding me?!?!

Tebow's size was never the issue it was his throwing motion and mechanics.

6'3" 240 isn't built for a QB?

Tim Tebow - 6'3" 240
Jay Cutler - 6'3" 235

What am I missing here?

Dam....now I'm sticking up for Tim Tebow.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:01 PM
Tim Tebow - 6'3" 240
Jay Cutler - 6'3" 235

What am I missing here?

Dam....now I'm sticking up for Tim Tebow.

Well played sir :salute:

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:04 PM
Who does nothing but win. But then again, if you're more concerned about prototypical looking QB's, you can have Jeff George, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, and the countless other "prototypical" looking QB's who couldn't cut it in the NFL, along with their losing records year, after year, after year, after year.

I'm one of the most anti-Tebow people on this site, but I care about actually winning more.

Is Drew Brees a "prototypical" looking QB? No.....AND he won in college!

All I care about is winning. Same as you. We just disagree on how to get there. Bringing in players who won in the past makes no difference to me. It's about winning on the Broncos.

As for Vince Young, he had a decent rookie year, got benched the next year, and missed the playoffs this year. Although to his credit, he was digging his team out of Collins' hole. But he's not a good QB.


Okay first.......What is a prototypical QB then....Then get that out there first.

......And explain why you don't think he will suceed in the NFL.....

Here is your chance to explain your points

Oh my, I've done this many times. Prototypical QB is Peyton Manning. Of course not everyone has to look or play like him, but that's prototypical, taking your question as literally as it was asked.

Reasons why Tebow won't succeed:

Has never read defenses in college
Extremely slow throwing motion
Holds the ball too low; easy for defenders to strip it
Relies too much on his ability to run, running QBs rarely succeed in the NFL
Has rarely taken snaps under center
Looked awful in the senior bowl (I think that's what it was, where he was shut down by the defensive coordinator who supposedly figured him out)

You may not agree with me, but I can back up what I say. I'm called biased for thinking Tebow won't succeed. I'd like to hear you tell me why you think he will succeed. That goes for everyone who disagrees with me, and acts as if I'm biased and have no clue what I'm talking about.

Tempus Fugit
08-24-2010, 09:04 PM
Tim Tebow - 6'3" 240
Jay Cutler - 6'3" 235

What am I missing here?

Dam....now I'm sticking up for Tim Tebow.

It's the 5 pounds.

Tebow's too fat for the position.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:06 PM
Set this guy up in a "cage" match with Jagsbch (Close enough, I think), put them both on ignore, and let them have at it.

Yet I know much more about football than you do, you're just too ignorant to discuss with someone who disagrees with you and McDaniels. You're biased and narrow-minded, and lacking in football knowledge. Go take up a new hobby, sports isn't right for you. And you do a horrible job backing up any of your pitiful arguments.

EMB6903
08-24-2010, 09:07 PM
Me, as you can tell from my post, and 95% of NFL scouts if you pay attention to anything other than your beloved coach.

What scouts have compared the two stating Bryant was more explosive, with better hands? I'd love for you to post the link...


Can you read defenses? No you can't, because you've never done it before. Neither have they.

Bradford, Mccoy, or Tebow have never read defenses?

Youre telling me a college QB with the success of those 3 havent had to read and adjust to a defense that was thrown at them at some point in their career?

Hell highschool QB's are asked to read defenses to a certain extend, please quit talking out of your ass.




Why isn't Colt Brennan the best QB in the NFL? He threw for the most TDs in one year in college history. If all that matters is play on the field in college, explain to me why he isn't a good NFL QB. Why wasn't Ty Detmer a good NFL QB? Why wasn't Leftwich? Why wasn't Russell? They all played good in college. Damn, watch some NFL football before you post.

Brennan threw the ball 60 times a game in the WAC

Tebow played in a spread system in the SEC, Huge difference.

Basing whether a prospect is going to succeed at the next level or not over the college scheme they were in is as ignorant as it gets.

Leadership is something that you develop personally. No one is born a leader. You don't develop a cannon arm or excellent athletic ability. Cutler has those things.[/QUOTE]

again.... NONSENSE!

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2010, 09:11 PM
All I care about is winning. Same as you. We just disagree on how to get there. Bringing in players who won in the past makes no difference to me. It's about winning on the Broncos.

As for Vince Young, he had a decent rookie year, got benched the next year, and missed the playoffs this year. Although to his credit, he was digging his team out of Collins' hole. But he's not a good QB.




My apologies. I thought I saw somewhere in this thread that you were actually mad that McDaniels traded away that loser QB Cutler who isn't very good.

All is good then.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:16 PM
What scouts have compared the two stating Bryant was more explosive, with better hands? I'd love for you to post the link...

None of them have compared them. But scouts say Bryant is the most explosive WR in the draft. They say DT's weaknesses are his hands and his route running. He played in a triple option offense...


Bradford, Mccoy, or Tebow have never read defenses?

No, they haven't. Do the research. Bradford's coaches made reads for him from the sidelines.


Youre telling me a college QB with the success of those 3 havent had to read and adjust to a defense that was thrown at them at some point in their career?

Yep. Their systems required no reads, or the coaches did it for them.


Hell highschool QB's are asked to read defenses to a certain extend, please quit talking out of your ass.

No, actually most of them aren't. And certainly not any in a spread offense, which requires no reads.




Brennan certainly had great statistics... In a gimmick offense against the WAC.

How was his system any more of a gimmick than McD and Meyer's spread? They're both gimmick systems in my mind. Brennan didn't succeed in the NFL, and I don't think Tebow will either.


Tebow played in a spread system in the SEC, Huge difference.

Same thing. He played against better defenses, the system was almost the same. He didn't need to make reads.


Basing whether a prospect is going to succeed at the next level or not over the college scheme they were in is as ignorant as it gets.

It's actually quite accurate. It's not the only thing, but it matters. You just used Brennan's system as a reason for his lack of success. I'm making the same argument about a different player. What don't you get? How in the world is that ignorant?


again.... NONSENSE!

Your arguments are about as good as your quoting skills.

EMB6903
08-24-2010, 09:18 PM
June Jones system and Urban Meyers system is pretty much the same?

how cute.....


CLICK

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:18 PM
My apologies. I thought I saw somewhere in this thread that you were actually mad that McDaniels traded away that loser QB Cutler who isn't very good.

All is good then.

I was furious at the time, but I'm over it. And I like Orton now, so I'm not too upset with our current QB situation. But I do think the trade was dumb.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:21 PM
June Jones system and Urban Meyers system is pretty much the same?

how cute.....


CLICK

How are they different? Educate me if you know so much about college systems.

And you said judging a QB based on their college system is "as ignorant as it gets". Yet you did just that with Brennan. Typical hypocrite.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:29 PM
How are they different? Educate me if you know so much about college systems.

And you said judging a QB based on their college system is "as ignorant as it gets". Yet you did just that with Brennan. Typical hypocrite.

I am from PA but I read the Denver Post every day. You must have missed this one

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15678251

A good friend of mine is a college football coach who recently went to a clinic held by former Florida Gators offensive coordinator Dan Mullen. He said Tim Tebow is a great leader, a great physical talent, but just can't process information quickly. That doesn't sound too good — seeing that the NFL is all about reading defenses and processing information very quickly. Do you have any inside info regarding Tebow's ability to read defenses at the snap of the ball?

— Alex, St. George, Utah

Woody Paige: Thanks, Alex. Great question. Josh McDaniels told me months ago that one of the major attributes Tebow possessed that impressed the coach was his ability to read defensive linemen and linebackers. Scott Loeffler, the quarterbacks coach at Florida (who formerly was in the NFL), agreed with that assessment.

McDaniels said he questioned Tebow about various alignments and defenses, and Tebow unquestionably knew how to read defenses. The coach also said he had quizzed another famous quarterback (drafted by another team this year), and he had no clue about reading defenses.

"When I asked him why, he said the coaches at (his college) never taught him how to read defenses," McDaniels said.

When McDaniels asked why, on his own or with help, he hadn't studied defenses between the end of the season and before the draft and gotten a better understanding of defenses, the quarterback replied that he intended to do that once he got to the pros.

I genuinely believe McDaniels in this case. He wouldn't have put so much stock in Tebow if he didn't believe the rookie was capable of recognizing defenses at the snap of the ball.

After Mullen left Florida to become the

Tim Tebow. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)Mississippi State head coach, he was quoted as saying that Tebow was the best in the country at moving the ball "but won't beat you with the big play" after the loss of Percy Harvin and a couple of other Gators who left the previous year.
I have gone back and studied the statistics, and the Gators had the 10th-most sacks allowed in the Southeastern Conference during the regular season. I think most people remember the big sack in the Kentucky game that resulted in a Tebow concussion, but the defender was on top of him from the blind side before he could react. Honestly, he didn't get much pass protection last year at Florida and ended up much of the time just taking off and running.

I'm certain that Tebow doesn't comprehend defenses like Peyton Manning, but he has a natural ability to escape, and Mullen and others said he was the toughest back (running or quarter) in the league to tackle.

I will tell you this story: One night long ago, I went out with then-Broncos coach Dan Reeves and then-Nuggets coach Doug Moe for a relaxing dinner at the old Marriott on Hampden in Denver. During the course of the evening, Reeves said Elway couldn't read defenses, and the coaching staff had to anticipate what the defensive alignment would be on a certain play and make a call they thought would take advantage of the situation. I thought Elway got better at (and took more interest in) reading defenses later in his career. Terry Bradshaw never read defenses.

Tebow is smart. He

Woody Paige
Pose your question for Woody's Mailbag.
Browse Woody Paige's archive of recent sports columns.
studies the playbook more closely than anybody else. If there is a flaw (other than what everybody thinks is his flawed passing motion), it would be that Tebow checks his primary receiver, then takes off running rather than running through his progression of available receivers.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:33 PM
I am from PA but I read the Denver Post every day. You must have missed this one

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15678251

I did see it. I just don't agree with it. That's just Woody and McD's opinions, both of whom I don't care for. Tebow can't read defenses. The person McD was referring to was Bradford. I was called ignorant earlier for saying Bradford can't read defenses. I hope the person who made that claim reads this article.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:35 PM
McDaniels said he questioned Tebow about various alignments and defenses, and Tebow unquestionably knew how to read defenses. The coach also said he had quizzed another famous quarterback (drafted by another team this year), and he had no clue about reading defenses.

"When I asked him why, he said the coaches at (his college) never taught him how to read defenses," McDaniels said.

When McDaniels asked why, on his own or with help, he hadn't studied defenses between the end of the season and before the draft and gotten a better understanding of defenses, the quarterback replied that he intended to do that once he got to the pros.

This is about Bradford. EMB6903, read that and take your foot out of your mouth.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:36 PM
I did see it. I just don't agree with it. That's just Woody and McD's opinions, both of whom I don't care for. Tebow can't read defenses. The person McD was referring to was Bradford. I was called ignorant earlier for saying Bradford can't read defenses. I hope the imbecile who made that claim reads this article.

McD was the offensive coordinator for one of the best offenses this league has ever seen. If his word isn't enough for you, who's is???? Jaime Dukes maybe??

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:37 PM
McD was the offensive coordinator for one of the best offenses this league has ever seen. If his word isn't enough for you, who's is???? Jaime Dukes maybe??

No one's word. When I see Tebow reading NFL defenses, I'll believe it. I know the system he came from. I watched him play in college. He didn't read defenses.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:39 PM
This is about Bradford. EMB6903, read that and take your foot out of your mouth.

Didn't you just say that McDaniels opinion doesn't mean anything to you????
Why would McDaniels opinion matter in this case......Because it is convient to you?

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:40 PM
No one's word. When I see Tebow reading NFL defenses, I'll believe it. I know the system he came from. I watched him play in college. He didn't read defenses.

NFL coaches are saying he did.......You are saying he didn't.....Hmmmmmm wonder who I am going to believe

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:40 PM
Didn't you just say that McDaniels opinion doesn't mean anything to you????
Why would McDaniels opinion matter in this case......Because it is convient to you?

That wasn't his opinion. It was a fact, that the player he spoke to (Bradford) admitted he couldn't read defenses.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:41 PM
NFL coaches are saying he did.......You are saying he didn't.....Hmmmmmm wonder who I am going to believe

Watch him in college. Watch him when he gets a chance in the NFL. Form your own opinion. You're capable of that, aren't you? With the way the drafts have gone lately, scouts and coaches opinions aren't any better than mine or yours.

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:44 PM
That wasn't his opinion. It was a fact, that the player he spoke to (Bradford) admitted he couldn't read defenses.

Thats because McDaniels (an NFL offensive guru) can tell if a player can read defenses or not correct?

roomemp
08-24-2010, 09:45 PM
Watch him in college. Watch him when he gets a chance in the NFL. Form your own opinion. You're capable of that, aren't you? With the way the drafts have gone lately, scouts and coaches opinions aren't any better than mine or yours.

There is no reasoning with this statement :tsk:

pnbronco
08-24-2010, 09:45 PM
Tim Tebow - 6'3" 240
Jay Cutler - 6'3" 235

What am I missing here?

Dam....now I'm sticking up for Tim Tebow.

:laugh:...more than once I think......:laugh:

Hey Silk do you feel dirty, do you need to wash your mouth out? Dog would say go have a drink and move on....speaking of which....:confused:

Was this thread about which Coach I would rather have????????????

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:47 PM
Thats because McDaniels (an NFL offensive guru) can tell if a player can read defenses or not correct?

For the most part, I'd say so. But in this case of Tebow, I think he's wrong. How can someone who never read defenses be able to read them? That doesn't make sense.

And Bradford admitted he can't read defenses. Just because it was McDaniels he admitted it to, doesn't mean I have to value McD's opinion to acknowledge that a player just admitted he can't do something...

And offensive guru is very subjective. I find McD horrible at adjusting during a game. He couldn't do it in the superbowl, and the Giants beat a much more talented Pats team. McD's fault.

TXBRONC
08-24-2010, 09:48 PM
:laugh:...more than once I think......:laugh:

Hey Silk do you feel dirty, do you need to wash your mouth out? Dog would say go have a drink and move on....speaking of which....:confused:

Was this thread about which Coach I would rather have????????????

Something like that darlin. ;)

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 09:48 PM
There is no reasoning with this statement :tsk:

Yeah, you're right. I gave you too much credit. All you do is listen to what McD says. You are unable to form your own opinion. I'm sorry for discussing football with someone with no opinion.

BroncoWave
08-24-2010, 10:04 PM
Wow, I can't believe I just wasted about 30 minutes of my life reading Staples' drivel. Too bad I'll never get that time back. I think you'd fit in much better on Broncos Country.

I Eat Staples
08-24-2010, 10:11 PM
Wow, I can't believe I just wasted about 30 minutes of my life reading Staples' drivel. Too bad I'll never get that time back. I think you'd fit in much better on Broncos Country.

I considered responding to alot of your posts but I think this video covers them all:

0MRmxfLuNto

Just looking at your title, you're biased in favor of Tebow to the point where you can't accept contrary opinions. You insult me, but you can't argue any of my points. To you, anyone who is critical of Tebow and McD are idiots. Continue being an uneducated homer, but you can't keep up with me in a football debate. You obviously know nothing, as you can't even discuss something you disagree with.

Oh, and your post added nothing to the discussion. You're only interested in talking up Tebow and the Broncos, you're not interested in discussing football with any manner of intelligence. Why are you here? Go be a cheerleader, you want to cheer, not discuss.

BroncoWave
08-24-2010, 10:20 PM
Just looking at your title, you're biased in favor of Tebow to the point where you can't accept contrary opinions. You insult me, but you can't argue any of my points. To you, anyone who is critical of Tebow and McD are idiots. Continue being an uneducated homer, but you can't keep up with me in a football debate. You obviously know nothing, as you can't even discuss something you disagree with.

Oh, and your post added nothing to the discussion. You're only interested in talking up Tebow and the Broncos, you're not interested in discussing football with any manner of intelligence. Why are you here? Go be a cheerleader, you want to cheer, not discuss.

Son, I've been a Broncos fan since before Tim Tebow even stepped on a high school football field and I will be one long after he his gone.

I have also been a Broncos fan since well before Josh McDaniels ever coached an NFL game and will be one long after.

My posts have nothing to do with defending Tebow or McD. There are plenty of intelligent posters on here who i have alot of respect for who aren't pro-McD or pro-Tebow. It appears that almost everyone in this thread shares that sentiment. When basically everyone is saying you are wrong, regardless of what side they are on, that is usually the case.

You even brought Silk (who is by no means pro Tebow) to defending him which says alot.

Basically everything you have said in this thread has been throughly discredited already so there's really no need for me to rehash it. It would be a huge waste of my time, which I have already wasted enough of by reading your posts and responding to you.

I've been posting on various sports message boards for over 5 years and have never put a single person on ignore but you are a prime candidate for #1.

horsepig
08-24-2010, 10:54 PM
As far as the Shanny/Cutler/no defense, and the offense carrying the team goes- any head coach in the NFL who got knocked out by a freak hailstone just before the game, then wakes up later to learn his QB just threw for 437 yards-is gonna say, " Oh, shit, we just got beat.".

Shazam!
08-24-2010, 11:46 PM
Just looking at your title, you're biased in favor of Tebow to the point where you can't accept contrary opinions. You insult me, but you can't argue any of my points. To you, anyone who is critical of Tebow and McD are idiots. Continue being an uneducated homer, but you can't keep up with me in a football debate. You obviously know nothing, as you can't even discuss something you disagree with.

Oh, and your post added nothing to the discussion. You're only interested in talking up Tebow and the Broncos, you're not interested in discussing football with any manner of intelligence. Why are you here? Go be a cheerleader, you want to cheer, not discuss.

Man WTF is WRONG with you?

BTB is a longtime great standup poster here, we agree on just about everything (except political/world stuff), yet you attack him like that for nothing?

By going on your 'Scouts say Tebow isn't the prototypical size for a QB' nonsense (which is totally FALSE) I don't know how anyone could take you seriously after that.


First, thank you Sneak for producing this wonderful Thread that is just primed to bring chaos that we havent seen in awhile.

I knew this thread was doomed in one way or the other to turn into a flame-fest. Thanks a million.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-24-2010, 11:52 PM
To try to keep this thread somewhat on target, McDaniels. Shanahan was here and gave us a lot of exciting years, but I feel he had gotten just a little too comfortable with his kingdom. He did a TON of great things for this organization and I'll always like him, but sometimes you need a fresh start and that's what we have. If nothing else, McDaniels has been anything but predictable and that keeps me interested.

Hmm, one other thing I should mention that I like... I haven't seen any Broncos player's names on the Police blotter lately. If for no other reason, it's an improvement.

TXBRONC
08-25-2010, 12:06 AM
To try to keep this thread somewhat on target, McDaniels. Shanahan was here and gave us a lot of exciting years, but I feel he had gotten just a little too comfortable with his kingdom. He did a TON of great things for this organization and I'll always like him, but sometimes you need a fresh start and that's what we have. If nothing else, McDaniels has been anything but predictable and that keeps me interested.

Hmm, one other thing I should mention that I like... I haven't seen any Broncos player's names on the Police blotter lately. If for no other reason, it's an improvement.

When you've coached one team as long as Shanahan did the Broncos it's easy to lose your edge. If McDaniels is so fortunate to last as long as Shanahan did the samething could happen to him as well.

sneakers
08-25-2010, 12:35 AM
:tomato:


I know I made a trolling Bronco thread, but why blame me for it getting carried away...I stated in the beginning not to get carried away because it is just sillyness to begin with. Might as well support the coach you got because you have no other option (or you could be like some posters (let's say someone like Broken12) who just bitches and moans and doesn't look like he/she is enjoying being a bronco fan, and that is no fun.

Bosco
08-25-2010, 01:10 AM
See, you're reaching for little things simply because of your anti-Cutler bias. Cutler gave us 30 points. The defense gave up 34. It was the defense's fault, not Cutler's. You're expecting Cutler to play perfect in order for us to have a chance to win that game. That's not fair at all, he's not a one man team. You need a defense to win, and Cutler didn't have that. He plays a part on a team. He did his part well enough in the Bills game. The defense didn't.

No touchdown passes, a late 4th quarter interception in the redzone and missing a wide open receiver with seconds left aren't "little things". They're major **** ups that cost us the game. Eliminating a single one of those **** ups practically ensures us a win.


But Bryant has better hands, runs better routes, is more explosive and more consistent, and more NFL ready. Hands? Maybe. Hard to measure that from player to player. Better routes? They both have a ways to go there. Explosive? That one definitely goes to Thomas (25.1 YPC). Consistency? Toss up.


You're probably right about that, but I still disagree with McD's thinking, and his system in general really. How do you disagree with McD's system? With the exception of last year his system has been a top 10 offense every year he called the plays and currently holds the crown for greatest offense in NFL history.


This is probably a personal opinion, and mine is different than your's and McD's. I feel Jimmy Claussen will be the best QB from this draft. He came from a pro-style offense, which is his best quality. I don't think he'll be a star, but this was a weak QB class, and I think Claussen will be the best from it. Tebow, and even Bradford and maybe McCoy, can't read defenses. As for McCoy, I don't like his prospects much more than Tebow, but a lot of people do so I mentioned him. Clausen comes from Charlie Weis version of the Earhart-Perkins offense, elements of which are still evident in McD's spread offense. Tebow, however, came from Urban Meyer's spread option, which has had the heaviest influence on McD's system.

I'd say that qualifies as "a pro style" offense.


You can teach what Cutler lacks. You can't teach what he has. I'd take my chances with him. I agree, that's why I was extremely eager to see Cutler work with McDaniels. Looking at what Josh did with far less physically talented quarterbacks, I figured Jay would become an unstoppable force in short time. Sadly he doesn't appear to deal well with people who don't feel he's God's gift to football and forced his way out of town.


The good character guys were less talented than the malcontents. Besides Cutler, where is this true?

Bosco
08-25-2010, 01:26 AM
Man WTF is WRONG with you?

BTB is a longtime great standup poster here, we agree on just about everything (except political/world stuff), yet you attack him like that for nothing?

By going on your 'Scouts say Tebow isn't the prototypical size for a QB' nonsense (which is totally FALSE) I don't know how anyone could take you seriously after that.

I now understand what he meant when he admitted to getting suspended from another forum for his "posting style". The only thing people like less than a know it all is a blowhard know it all who really doesn't know jack shit.

JDL
08-25-2010, 01:27 AM
The mediocre teams that Shanny built after Elway retired (exluding one very good Plummer year) vs an up and coming young coach rebuilding a team?

I will take McD for at least 2 more years. If he can't get us into the playoffs then it's time to look elsewhere.


Note: I say 2 more years because it takes time to take a team down and rebuild it. Plus it will take 2 years to really see if Tebow will be the answer.

No it doesn't and I have listed the many coaches who've had immense success very quickly with their new teams (particularly in comparison to improvement in record.) It is total fallacy and BS.

Shanahan never went 2-8 over any 10 game stretch with the Broncos. He did go 3-7 to start a season after Elway left (and lost all-pros in Sharpe and Davis to boot, along with Mobley I believe.) But, he still went 6-6 down the stretch after the 0-4 start, so there was improvement.

McDaniels lost all 3 home division games, Shanahan never lost all 3 to my knowledge (and quite frankly was to my recollection superior against the division at home.)

You say give McDaniels 2 more years basically regardless of what he does, I simply and respectfully call BS. The league does not require it, good coaches do not need it and fans should not tolerate 3 years of terrible play. If the Broncos go say 5-11 or 6-10, that would be 7-19 or 8-18 over more than a season and a half and would be ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and cause for immediate firing. 7-9 or 8-8 depending upon how they finish and if there were significant strides would determine the course of action then.

I bring this comparison up simply to make clear that I would choose Shanahan because he has proven far more even in his down years than McDaniels did in year 1. That is all the evidence we have to go off of and it weighs COMPLETELY in Shanahan's favor in most every respect. Shanahan and the Broncos needed to part ways (I firmly believe that), but McD has to date done nothing to show he provides a better chance at winning than Shanahan did and that is even Shanahan's most recent teams.

dogfish
08-25-2010, 02:09 AM
I challenge you to find one scouting report that says he has prototypical size for his position. Also, I'm certainly not biased against him. I already said I like him a lot as a person and as a college QB. I just don't think his skillset will translate to NFL success. It doesn't mean I don't like him, at all. I love my brother, but does that mean I think he'd succeed in the NFL? It's you who's biased.

here you go. . .


Strengths:
Prototypical size for an NFL quarterback. All the intangibles you look for in a starter. Arm strength and accuracy are adequate to above average. Good athlete. Can make plays with his feet.

http://draftace.com/profiles/2010/tim_tebow.htm

first one i could find-- the site i typically use is down, and i'm not digging for more. . .

also, i don't care if you like him or not-- i'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. . . however, if you make ridiculous claims, expect them to be ridiculed. . . again, saying his size is a "disadvantage" is utterly absurd. . .

drew brees - 6'0" 209

matt schaub - 6'5" 240
peyton manning - 6'5" 230
tony romo - 6'2" 223
aaron rodgers - 6'2" 225
tom brady - 6'4" 225
ben roethlisberger - 6'5 241
philip rivers - 6'5" 228
brett favre - 6'2" 222
eli manning - 6'5" 225
donovan mcnabb - 6'2 240


notice a trend there? :huh: with the lone exception of brees, all of the NFL's best quarterbacks fall into a fairly narrow range between 6'2" - 6'5", and between 225-240. . . if that range doesn't define prototypical size for an NFL QB, then i don't know what you're going to use. . . do you want to call peyton "the prototype," and insist that any QB who doesn't share his exact measureables doesn't have prototypical size?

:doh:

i'm not even going to waste time arguing semantics if you're not satisfied with that-- i'd rather split the difference and just call it "excellent size," aka. size that compares well to the best in the profession. . . if you want to be tediously picky i suppose you could insist that he's an inch or so shorter than IDEAL height, but how much do you want to split hairs?

the idea that his size is some kind of disadvantage is about as far out of left field as something you'd hear from jesse jackson or the flat-earthers. . . seriously, what are you talking about??

[/BOGGLE]

broncobro4
08-25-2010, 02:23 AM
Hello all I dont come on here very much so i'm just gonna join the debate. I chose Shanahan. McDaniels ruined the image of our broncos!!!

Shanahan almost remade a team to have a Great QB in the span of less 10 years...Think about this for a second... How many Elway's Bradshaw's Brady's Aikmen's have there been????

Lets break this down: After Aikmen had to retire how long before the cowboys were relevant? what 10+ years. I think Romo is good but Great. Na

Now Bradshaw to roethlisberger. Almost 40 years it might be more. How many losing years? how many coach's?

My point is you just dont replace An Elway with an Elway. It takes time.think about that TIME. And shanahan would have done it in a 10 year time span now it's going to take at least 14 years and that's IF.... i SAY IF... Tebow is a great one. if not were are mediocre. and all talent is gone or still growing.

Remember Cutler was a Baby... Yes a Baby... If he would have been in yr 5 or 6 going 8-8 then i would say he was a bust. BUT the fact is he was in year 2 of PLAYING(actually 21 games plummer went 7-4 before Cutler replace him) in the league going 8-8... Shanahan needed one more year to get these broncos to the playoffs and win the afc west and domain the afc west until cutler retire. 2-3 for a superbowl. NOW...idk

The only team to have the successful back to back QB's are the niners Montana and Young. And now look at them still waiting. how many years 12+?

All im saying is Shanahan finally had his QB again it took a little time to get Griese, plummer, out of the way. But not as long as the cowboys (13+) or Steelers (40+). And he kept us(without fans NFL doesnt exist thats why i say us) respectable. In those years with plummer and griese bruster not going 1-15 or 3-13. Na the worse was 6-10.

The Broncos had a Great coach. And that a hard thing to have. NOW.... Maybe a Good one. He has to check him self in the mirror....and win a superbowl in order to get my GREAT title.

Bosco
08-25-2010, 02:41 AM
Here's another one Dogfish. Courtesy of NFL Draft Scout, probably the highest respected analysis available to fans from anyone not named Mike Mayock. Relevant points that directly refute Staples are in bold.


Analysis

Accuracy: A bit inconsistent on intermediate throws that require zip. Throws some beautiful passes in tight windows, but also has a tendency for "wobbly" throws, making his passes a tougher catch than pure spirals. Typically leads his receivers, but still too often forces them to alter their routes.

Arm Strength: Prototypical arm strength. Can make every NFL throw. Can zip short and intermediate passes and flashes touch and trajectory on deeper throws. Only occasionally asked to throw true deep balls in this offense, but has the arm strength to do so.

Setup/Release: Some real concerns in this area. Takes snaps in the shotgun, meaning he'll need significant refinement in his drop-back at the next level. Quick, active feet necessary to eventually excel in this area. Drops the ball to his hip before winding up to release the pass. Struggled with pass rushers knocking the ball out of his hands, as well as tipping off defensive backs who can read where he's going with the long wind-up.

Reading Defenses: Only asked to make a few reads in this offense before having the green light to run. Seems to be a cerebral player who understands defenses and will scan the field to locate the open receiver.

On the Move: At his best as a runner and has rare vision with the ball in his hands from the quarterback position. Can anticipate holes in the defense and shows the burst to get past the initial wave of defenders to gain yards in chunks.

Intangibles: Perfectly suited to Urban Meyer's system, but there are some questions as to how Tebow's skills translate to the NFL. Good size and strength for the position. Rare toughness. Natural and charismatic leader.

dogfish
08-25-2010, 03:20 AM
thanks, that's actually the site i wanted earlier that was down. . .

Bosco
08-25-2010, 03:59 AM
thanks, that's actually the site i wanted earlier that was down. . .

Since NFL Draft Scout merged with CBS Sports, it can be a little finicky trying to find their stuff. I've found that putting "(player name) NFL draft scout" into Google will usually get me right to the page I'm looking for.

Dirk
08-25-2010, 07:10 AM
No it doesn't and I have listed the many coaches who've had immense success very quickly with their new teams (particularly in comparison to improvement in record.) It is total fallacy and BS.

If a new coach doesn't come in and change the philosophy and 80% of the players then I can agree. But this was like it or not a complete overhaul of a team and a completely new philosophy. That takes time.
Shanahan never went 2-8 over any 10 game stretch with the Broncos. He did go 3-7 to start a season after Elway left (and lost all-pros in Sharpe and Davis to boot, along with Mobley I believe.) But, he still went 6-6 down the stretch after the 0-4 start, so there was improvement.

Again, Shanahan never made so many changes to the overall scheme of things. The pieces were still there and he was plugging in people to try and keep it the way it was.

McDaniels lost all 3 home division games, Shanahan never lost all 3 to my knowledge (and quite frankly was to my recollection superior against the division at home.)

No argument.

You say give McDaniels 2 more years basically regardless of what he does, I simply and respectfully call BS. The league does not require it, good coaches do not need it and fans should not tolerate 3 years of terrible play. If the Broncos go say 5-11 or 6-10, that would be 7-19 or 8-18 over more than a season and a half and would be ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and cause for immediate firing. 7-9 or 8-8 depending upon how they finish and if there were significant strides would determine the course of action then.

How many coaches have the Lions and Browns went through over the last decade or 2? There are other teams also that do the HC shuffle ever 2 years. This disrupts the chemistry of the team and changes the scheme yet again and that is why they are always in the cellar looking out. A coach needs time to implement their scheme and get the players they believe will execute the scheme. 2 years is not enough time for that and Success can't happen that way. Unless they come in and don't change many of the players and keep the basic philosophy of the scheme they hardly ever have success. There are those exceptions but they are far and few.

I bring this comparison up simply to make clear that I would choose Shanahan because he has proven far more even in his down years than McDaniels did in year 1. That is all the evidence we have to go off of and it weighs COMPLETELY in Shanahan's favor in most every respect. Shanahan and the Broncos needed to part ways (I firmly believe that), but McD has to date done nothing to show he provides a better chance at winning than Shanahan did and that is even Shanahan's most recent teams.

That right there is the point. He has had 1 year. ONE. The man needs at least 3 years minimum to get the pieces together to be successful. I am willing to give him 3 years minimum and 4 maximum. If the Broncos suck the 4th year of his reign, then he needs to go.






Don't get me wrong. I love Shanny and think he is one of the brightest head coaches this league has ever seen. He was burning out and his complete control over all football operations was his downfall. I hope that he is recharged and will make Washington a beast that will take out Dallas every time they meet!

Tned
08-25-2010, 07:34 AM
:laugh:...more than once I think......:laugh:

Hey Silk do you feel dirty, do you need to wash your mouth out? Dog would say go have a drink and move on....speaking of which....:confused:

Was this thread about which Coach I would rather have????????????

Come on, you know the thread title is just a 'suggestion' about what should be talked about.....

Speaking of head coaches, I think we need to seriously consider trading Bailey before the season starts. Let's get something for him. If we can get a 5th or 6th rounder, it's better than letting him walk.

On the head coach front, I'm changing my vote, I want Wade Phillips. I wonder if Dallas would trade Bailey for Phillips.

Tned
08-25-2010, 07:37 AM
Don't get me wrong. I love Shanny and think he is one of the brightest head coaches this league has ever seen. He was burning out and his complete control over all football operations was his downfall. I hope that he is recharged and will make Washington a beast that will take out Dallas every time they meet!

I think the "complete control of football operations" thing is overblown. It's not much different than McDaniels has, based on numerous reports, and similar to many other coaches around the country.

That said, I think there is an argument that his message was stale, and he wasn't getting the job done. Was the team ready to turn the corner? We'll never know, but the fact is there were three seasons of .500 ball, and not crystal clear signs that that pattern was going to change.

atwater27
08-25-2010, 08:12 AM
I now understand what he meant when he admitted to getting suspended from another forum for his "posting style". The only thing people like less than a know it all is a blowhard know it all who really doesn't know jack shit.

Speak for yourself.:salute:

TXBRONC
08-25-2010, 09:30 AM
:tomato:


I know I made a trolling Bronco thread, but why blame me for it getting carried away...I stated in the beginning not to get carried away because it is just sillyness to begin with. Might as well support the coach you got because you have no other option (or you could be like some posters (let's say someone like Broken12) who just bitches and moans and doesn't look like he/she is enjoying being a bronco fan, and that is no fun.

I honestly don't see it as a trolling thread.

You have point at the same time we've have posters who have pissed and moaned about Shanahan for years and still are complaining even though Shanahan hasn't been here for over a year. I don't say that to bait anyone into an argument but that I've seen for several years now.

hotcarl
08-25-2010, 10:18 AM
steve spagnolo

pnbronco
08-25-2010, 10:42 AM
Come on, you know the thread title is just a 'suggestion' about what should be talked about.....

Speaking of head coaches, I think we need to seriously consider trading Bailey before the season starts. Let's get something for him. If we can get a 5th or 6th rounder, it's better than letting him walk.

On the head coach front, I'm changing my vote, I want Wade Phillips. I wonder if Dallas would trade Bailey for Phillips.

well then I guess for over a year now it's been just suggestions....:motz:

The funny thing is I remember someone started a thread of something like everything Jay Cutler and it hardly had any posts in it.

So Tned really drinking this early already and BTW......:focus: or :canada:...I miss hockey....if you can't beat them join them but about what I want to talk about.................;)

arapaho2
08-25-2010, 11:19 AM
See, this is the kind of Cutler apologist act that just ******* gets old. People love to scapegoat the defense to defend Jay. Sure, the 2008 defense sucked, but the defense wasn't causing Jay to throw interceptions left and right. They weren't the reason Jay was leading constant 3 and out drives and just generally being ineffective.

If Jay Cutler had even played league average in those losses, we almost certainly would have won Jacksonville, Miami Oakland and Buffalo, all games where the defense played well enough for a win despite Jay constantly screwing them. Flipping just a single one of those would have sent us to the playoffs.

You're right about one thing, we did ride him, and despite Mike Shanahan giving him a hell of a lot of playmakers on offense, Jay Cutler folded with the playoffs on the line.

cutler apologist?...is that anything like a mcd nutthugger?

weird again how the current aurgument is in 09 the defense caused the broncos to lose....yet in 08 cutler was supposed to overcome a dreadful defense?

cutler had 18 ints..playing on a team that required him to force the issue..he needed to pass to keep in games because of the defense...he had a defense that couldnt stop anyone from scoreing...his defense allowed 28 ppg on the season...9 out of 16 games the defense allowed 30 or more points..get that over 50% of the games played his defense allowed 30 or more points

orton had 12 playing on a team that allowed him to play it safe...kept teams scoreles in second halfs...prevented teams from converting a single third down in entire second halfs of games...what happened when the defense started to faulter? thats right his ints went up:eek:

in 08 cutler had 9 games the def allowed over 30 and had ten games where the defense surrenderd 25 or more points...3-7 record

in 09 orton had a mere 4 games where the defense allowed 30 or more points...0-4...and 7 games where the defense allowed 25 or more points
his record or overcomeing, playing it safe....0-7...impressive indeed!!

orton couldt win one single game where the defense surrendered 25 or more points

what should that tell you if you were smart...in 08 the team relied on cutler to win games because the defense couldnt ...in 09 the team relied on the defense to win games because orton couldnt

then lets move to the games mentioned...after all football is a one man sport right?

in the jags game cutlers fumble and int that yeilded 3 points between them made us lose....yet marshalls redzone fumble which then was conveted to 7 points...in a 7 point defeat...didnt :coffee:..lets not look at the 2 td passes at all:lol:

miami you could give to cutler...despite the 300+ passing yards...2 tds...despite the fact the score was 16-10 when cutler had a 77 yard td pass called back for OPI...sure it was all on cutler

raiders...sure its all cutlers fault for allowing jamarcus russell to score 30 points on us..:lol:..he had a bad game...but unlike ortons defense his did nothing ...
boy if you can call the def allowing the worst qb in the entire league to look like a probowler " them playing well enough to win" id hate to see your opinion of a bad defense

gee buffalo was on cutler too?..despite his 356 yards passing...his one int that yeilded zero points caused us to lose...never mind the fact he had to pass the ball 45 times, and other then himself the entire team had a mere 19 rush attempts...never mind his 2 rushing TDS...never mind the fact he drove down and took a forth qrt lead...only to watch the defense allow b2b tds from the bills

i guess with your philosophy you should have no trouble putting the KC, phil,colts,sd,pitt games on orton huh...i mean seeing his low 3rd down %...i mean he was tossing ints left and right....right?
gee with the playoffs on the line ...

orton folded with the playoffs on the line...right?

arapaho2
08-25-2010, 11:31 AM
never mind the fact the defense surrendering points results in a qb having to force it to keep up

in games in 09 where the defense allowed fewer than 25 points
orton threw only 3 ints

in games in 08 where the defense allowed less than 25 points
cutler threw 3 ints

Lonestar
08-25-2010, 11:31 AM
seems clear to me that 1/3 of the forum has not moved on.

Time to let it go.

he is nto coming back much to teh delight of the other 2/3 of our members

LTC Pain
08-25-2010, 11:37 AM
seems clear to me that 1/3 of the forum has not moved on.

Time to let it go.

he is nto coming back much to teh delight of the other 2/3 of our members

I agree. Trying to cheer on the Broncos while a herd on this board still want to piss and moan about the past gets tiresome. What did Gene Hackman say in Hoosiers - "This is your team".

arapaho2
08-25-2010, 11:38 AM
seems clear to me that 1/3 of the forum has not moved on.

Time to let it go.

he is nto coming back much to teh delight of the other 2/3 of our members


excuse me...im not the one pulling out old games to prove or former qb sucked...talk to bosco


wierd though how you guys all bring up the past...then soon as somebody responds...its

" we cant let go"

:lol:

Lonestar
08-25-2010, 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by Bosco View Post
See, this is the kind of Cutler apologist act that just ******* gets old. People love to scapegoat the defense to defend Jay. Sure, the 2008 defense sucked, but the defense wasn't causing Jay to throw interceptions left and right. They weren't the reason Jay was leading constant 3 and out drives and just generally being ineffective.

If Jay Cutler had even played league average in those losses, we almost certainly would have won Jacksonville, Miami Oakland and Buffalo, all games where the defense played well enough for a win despite Jay constantly screwing them. Flipping just a single one of those would have sent us to the playoffs.

You're right about one thing, we did ride him, and despite Mike Shanahan giving him a hell of a lot of playmakers on offense, Jay Cutler folded with the playoffs on the line.
:salute::salute:
Just noticed this post I suppose the nut huggers will unite over it. :laugh::laugh:

I Eat Staples
08-25-2010, 11:46 AM
Son, I've been a Broncos fan since before Tim Tebow even stepped on a high school football field and I will be one long after he his gone.

I have also been a Broncos fan since well before Josh McDaniels ever coached an NFL game and will be one long after.

My posts have nothing to do with defending Tebow or McD. There are plenty of intelligent posters on here who i have alot of respect for who aren't pro-McD or pro-Tebow. It appears that almost everyone in this thread shares that sentiment. When basically everyone is saying you are wrong, regardless of what side they are on, that is usually the case.

You even brought Silk (who is by no means pro Tebow) to defending him which says alot.

Basically everything you have said in this thread has been throughly discredited already so there's really no need for me to rehash it. It would be a huge waste of my time, which I have already wasted enough of by reading your posts and responding to you.

I've been posting on various sports message boards for over 5 years and have never put a single person on ignore but you are a prime candidate for #1.

The only thing I've said that has been "discredited" by factual information is Tebow's size, which I'll get to later. Everything else is difference in opinion.


No touchdown passes, a late 4th quarter interception in the redzone and missing a wide open receiver with seconds left aren't "little things". They're major **** ups that cost us the game. Eliminating a single one of those **** ups practically ensures us a win.

But I could name several **** ups from the defense that would have ensured us a win if eliminated. You see where this is going? In every game, there are many plays that could completely change the game if they were eliminated/reversed. The fact is, which statistics prove, that Cutler sucked in our losses, and the defense sucked the entire year. We depended on Cutler to win us every game because the defense couldn't tackle anything.


Hands? Maybe. Hard to measure that from player to player. Better routes? They both have a ways to go there. Explosive? That one definitely goes to Thomas (25.1 YPC). Consistency? Toss up.

Every rookie has a way to go in route running, but you have to acknowledge that a WR from a triple option offense that had very few routes, has a much further way to go. As for explosive, DT is more explosive after the catch, where Dez is more explosive before/while making the catch. Think Brandon Marshall/Reggie Wayne. For consistency, I'd take Dez because of the issue about being polished. Dez is far more NFL ready.


How do you disagree with McD's system? With the exception of last year his system has been a top 10 offense every year he called the plays and currently holds the crown for greatest offense in NFL history.

I believe McD was the Patriots OC for 2 years, if I'm not mistaken? Correct me if I'm wrong. But I do know the Patriots were an established offensive powerhouse before McD became OC. He gets some credit for their record-breaking year, as well as some blame for them losing the superbowl that year.

I'll certainly give him credit for getting that much production out of Cassell. It's the claims that McD is a "QB guru" that are completely false. If they were true, Cassell would be a good QB. He's not, but McD got production out of him in his QB-friendly system.


Clausen comes from Charlie Weis version of the Earhart-Perkins offense, elements of which are still evident in McD's spread offense. Tebow, however, came from Urban Meyer's spread option, which has had the heaviest influence on McD's system.

I'd say that qualifies as "a pro style" offense.

A spread offense is not considered a pro-style offense. NFL teams have been implementing aspects of the spread, but no NFL team is a completely spread offense. Even McD's system isn't.


I agree, that's why I was extremely eager to see Cutler work with McDaniels. Looking at what Josh did with far less physically talented quarterbacks, I figured Jay would become an unstoppable force in short time. Sadly he doesn't appear to deal well with people who don't feel he's God's gift to football and forced his way out of town.

Very little argument here. I was excited for the duo at first. But I blame McD as much as Cutler. McD tried to trade Cutler for Cassell, a much worse QB. I've detested McD ever since. I also blame Cutler for acting like a baby and putting his house up for sale. Both of these grown men acted like kids and ruined what could have been a great team for years to come. But obviously McD had no interest in working with Cutler from the start. I find that disappointing, and downright stupid. It just doesn't make sense to bring in Cassell over Cutler.


Besides Cutler, where is this true?

You might disagree, but most people who watch football and aren't complete McD supporters will agree. Dez is more talented than DT. Marshall was very talented and McD traded him for picks. Tebow was considered by many to be the 4th best QB in the draft. McD gave up several picks to trade up and make him the 2nd QB taken.


I now understand what he meant when he admitted to getting suspended from another forum for his "posting style". The only thing people like less than a know it all is a blowhard know it all who really doesn't know jack shit.

I was just going to commend you for engaging in an intelligent debate with me, and then you post this garbage...


here you go. . .



http://draftace.com/profiles/2010/tim_tebow.htm

first one i could find-- the site i typically use is down, and i'm not digging for more. . .

also, i don't care if you like him or not-- i'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. . . however, if you make ridiculous claims, expect them to be ridiculed. . . again, saying his size is a "disadvantage" is utterly absurd. . .

drew brees - 6'0" 209

matt schaub - 6'5" 240
peyton manning - 6'5" 230
tony romo - 6'2" 223
aaron rodgers - 6'2" 225
tom brady - 6'4" 225
ben roethlisberger - 6'5 241
philip rivers - 6'5" 228
brett favre - 6'2" 222
eli manning - 6'5" 225
donovan mcnabb - 6'2 240


notice a trend there? :huh: with the lone exception of brees, all of the NFL's best quarterbacks fall into a fairly narrow range between 6'2" - 6'5", and between 225-240. . . if that range doesn't define prototypical size for an NFL QB, then i don't know what you're going to use. . . do you want to call peyton "the prototype," and insist that any QB who doesn't share his exact measureables doesn't have prototypical size?

:doh:

i'm not even going to waste time arguing semantics if you're not satisfied with that-- i'd rather split the difference and just call it "excellent size," aka. size that compares well to the best in the profession. . . if you want to be tediously picky i suppose you could insist that he's an inch or so shorter than IDEAL height, but how much do you want to split hairs?

the idea that his size is some kind of disadvantage is about as far out of left field as something you'd hear from jesse jackson or the flat-earthers. . . seriously, what are you talking about??

[/BOGGLE]

Ok, I stand corrected on the issue of his size. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It doesn't change the fact that I don't think he'll be successful. Him being 6-3 is surprising though, he looked shorter...:confused:

Northman
08-25-2010, 12:08 PM
excuse me...im not the one pulling out old games to prove or former qb sucked...talk to bosco


wierd though how you guys all bring up the past...then soon as somebody responds...its

" we cant let go"

:lol:


:lol:

So dead on.

Lonestar
08-25-2010, 01:04 PM
To try to keep this thread somewhat on target, McDaniels. Shanahan was here and gave us a lot of exciting years, but I feel he had gotten just a little too comfortable with his kingdom. He did a TON of great things for this organization and I'll always like him, but sometimes you need a fresh start and that's what we have. If nothing else, McDaniels has been anything but predictable and that keeps me interested.

Hmm, one other thing I should mention that I like... I haven't seen any Broncos player's names on the Police blotter lately. If for no other reason, it's an improvement.

Not to mention none of our current players save one (white) should be visiting the commish like past players did.

Not sure of the LW moved but if he learned a lesson and it is seen by the other players the right way then giving an "excon" a second chance can be very good for us.

But I also supect he will not get a 3rd chance if he screws up.

Josh seems to be A tough love kind of guy.

We have several "questionalable" character types that did something in the past but seem to have learned from it and have applied themselves and have move on on in a positive manner.

Baker and Cox seem to be players and should apprieciate given that chance. I do not think they will screw the pooch.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
08-25-2010, 04:37 PM
But I could name several **** ups from the defense that would have ensured us a win if eliminated. You see where this is going? In every game, there are many plays that could completely change the game if they were eliminated/reversed. The fact is, which statistics prove, that Cutler sucked in our losses, and the defense sucked the entire year. We depended on Cutler to win us every game because the defense couldn't tackle anything. Yes, and it just so happened that Cutler's two biggest **** ups in that game came in back to back clutch situations.

Look, if you want to dismiss those **** ups, fine, be my guest. Just don't sit there and in the same breath try to tell me he was some great quarterback. Great quarterbacks make those plays and do their best with the game or playoffs on the line. Cutler isn't, and he didn't.


Every rookie has a way to go in route running, but you have to acknowledge that a WR from a triple option offense that had very few routes, has a much further way to go. As for explosive, DT is more explosive after the catch, where Dez is more explosive before/while making the catch. Think Brandon Marshall/Reggie Wayne. For consistency, I'd take Dez because of the issue about being polished. Dez is far more NFL ready. Demaryius coming from that triple option is not that big of a problem. His role in this offense is primarily to be the deep threat, which is exactly what he did in college. We'll likely bring him along just like the Vikings did with Randy Moss. Give him a handful of deep routes to learn and let him use his immense physical gifts to beat people. Over the season, you can expand his workload.

Your analysis of their after the catch abilities is absolutely backwards too. It's Bryant that has the better run after the catch ability. Thomas is the downfield burner.

Regardless though, it's a moot point. As I explained earlier, Thomas fits the X receiver role that we badly needed to fill and Bryant doesn't. Bryant would have had to play Y spot and it would have been beyond stupid to spend a 1st round pick on him when A) the Y receiver is the 3rd progression is the offense, B) you already have a very good Y receiver on the team and C) you were planning to pick up another one (Decker) in the 3rd round.


I believe McD was the Patriots OC for 2 years, if I'm not mistaken? Correct me if I'm wrong. But I do know the Patriots were an established offensive powerhouse before McD became OC. He gets some credit for their record-breaking year, as well as some blame for them losing the superbowl that year. 4 years. He called the plays as QB coach in 2005 (the Pats didn't have an official OC that year) and then was officially promoted to OC in 2006 until he left after 2008.

And no, the Patriots were not an established offensive powerhouse. They had some pretty solid offenses, but only twice were they top 10 offense under Charlie Weis. They were top 10 every single year Josh was there even as he was completely overhauling their offensive system in the process.


I'll certainly give him credit for getting that much production out of Cassell. It's the claims that McD is a "QB guru" that are completely false. If they were true, Cassell would be a good QB. He's not, but McD got production out of him in his QB-friendly system. Wrong again.

See, Josh already made Matt Cassel "good". He took a guy who hadn't started a game since high school (about a decade back) and coached a near Pro Bowl level performance out of him on the way to an 11-5 record.

I'm also not sure where you're getting this idea that McD's offense is QB friendly, but that is incorrect. It's no more quarterback friendly than any other offense and in fact puts quite a bit of emphasis on the QB's ability to make pre-snap reads.


A spread offense is not considered a pro-style offense. NFL teams have been implementing aspects of the spread, but no NFL team is a completely spread offense. Even McD's system isn't. Here's a little secret for you. No NFL offense is completely pure to it's roots. Coaches are always taking little tidbits from other teams and working them into their own offenses

That said, these days the spread variants are as prevalent at the NFL level as the Erhardt-Perkins and West Coast offenses.


Very little argument here. I was excited for the duo at first. But I blame McD as much as Cutler. McD tried to trade Cutler for Cassell, a much worse QB. I've detested McD ever since. I also blame Cutler for acting like a baby and putting his house up for sale. Both of these grown men acted like kids and ruined what could have been a great team for years to come. But obviously McD had no interest in working with Cutler from the start. I find that disappointing, and downright stupid. It just doesn't make sense to bring in Cassell over Cutler I really don't want to rehash the "he tried to trade Jay!" fight that's been played out a thousand times on this forum, so I'll just remind you that to date, no one who would have knowledge of the situation has supported the Bus Cook/Jay Cutler side of the story and it's now known that Jay "informally" requested a trade after Bates left. I'll leave it at that.


You might disagree, but most people who watch football and aren't complete McD supporters will agree. Dez is more talented than DT. Marshall was very talented and McD traded him for picks. Tebow was considered by many to be the 4th best QB in the draft. McD gave up several picks to trade up and make him the 2nd QB taken. See here is your problem. You see talent as a matter of opinion. It's not. Talent is a quantifiable measurement that really isn't subject to interpretation. Unfortunately probably 95% of casual fans don't get that.

Case in point, Richard Quinn. Ask most people and they will quickly state that Tony Scheffler is far more talented. This is not true though. They are both extremely talented players, except one has that talent as a blocker and one as a receiver. You cannot unilaterally compare the two because they are not alike. This would be like comparing a Jeep Wrangler to a Mustang GT. You may have your opinion which influences your desire for one, but that doesn't make the other one an inferior product.

Same goes for the Thomas/Bryant debate. The difference is less pronounced than in the previous example, but they're still very different players with very different roles that cannot be directly compared.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2010, 04:59 PM
Really? :lol: then how can one 'quantify' picking Alphonso Smith with a first round pick?

Its absurd to say that talent is not subject to interpretation. The ONLY person that would say that, are those arrogant enough to believe their interpretation is greater than everyone else's :lol: wow... unbelievable.

atwater27
08-25-2010, 06:05 PM
excuse me...im not the one pulling out old games to prove or former qb sucked...talk to bosco


wierd though how you guys all bring up the past...then soon as somebody responds...its

" we cant let go"

:lol:

LMAO.... So true... post of the week.

Tempus Fugit
08-25-2010, 06:12 PM
Really? :lol: then how can one 'quantify' picking Alphonso Smith with a first round pick?

Its absurd to say that talent is not subject to interpretation. The ONLY person that would say that, are those arrogant enough to believe their interpretation is greater than everyone else's :lol: wow... unbelievable.

Well, let's be honest here. "Talent" is a generalized term that people warp to suit their purposes. However, we do have combine numbers, which are factual as opposed to interpreted. I don't know how people here are trying to use the word "talent", but it's clear that many of the raw abilities are, indeed, quantifiable.

Bosco
08-25-2010, 08:23 PM
Really? :lol: then how can one 'quantify' picking Alphonso Smith with a first round pick? We did not draft him with a first round pick. We drafted him with a second round pick (37th overall to be exact) that we acquired by trading a future first round pick. Huge difference.

Secondly, pull out NFL Draft Scout, Mike Mayock's 2009 draft pieces, or any other respected source of draft opinion. They're all pretty much in consensus that Alphonso should go anywhere from the last 1st to early 2nd rounds. We picked him in that range. That's means a whole lot of people who have a pretty good idea what they're talking about had his value set at that level.


Its absurd to say that talent is not subject to interpretation. The ONLY person that would say that, are those arrogant enough to believe their interpretation is greater than everyone else's :lol: wow... unbelievable. How so? Things like speed, size, strength, agility, arm strength, hand size and production are all measurable by cold hard numbers. Even things that can't be measured with cold hard numbers (route running, ball carrying vision, etc) can be reliably graded out by those who are qualified.

Softskull
08-25-2010, 08:35 PM
Things like speed, size, strength, agility, arm strength, hand size and production are all measurable by cold hard numbers. Even things that can't be measured with cold hard numbers (route running, ball carrying vision, etc) can be reliably graded out by those who are qualified.

And mental aptitude? Nevermind. You poopoo'd those cold hard numbers. Wrong thread.

I Eat Staples
08-25-2010, 08:52 PM
Yes, and it just so happened that Cutler's two biggest **** ups in that game came in back to back clutch situations.

Look, if you want to dismiss those **** ups, fine, be my guest. Just don't sit there and in the same breath try to tell me he was some great quarterback. Great quarterbacks make those plays and do their best with the game or playoffs on the line. Cutler isn't, and he didn't.

I'm not dismissing them, but you want to put all of the blame on Cutler when in reality the defense made many more **** ups than Jay did. Anyone who watched the 08 season and isn't a blind Cutler hater can tell you it was our defense that kept us out of the playoffs. You're pointing out Cutler's failures just to justify McD's sneaky attempt to trade him. Look at the big picture. Cutler made more good plays than bad ones. Our defense rarely ever made a good play. My point is that our offense was fine in 08. Our defense was awful. No amount of Cutler's mishaps that you bring up can dismiss that point. Just go back and watch highlights or simply look at the stats.

And I think Cutler is an above average QB. He has all the potential in the world to be a top 5 QB, although at this point it's not looking very likely that he'll reach it.


Demaryius coming from that triple option is not that big of a problem. His role in this offense is primarily to be the deep threat, which is exactly what he did in college. We'll likely bring him along just like the Vikings did with Randy Moss. Give him a handful of deep routes to learn and let him use his immense physical gifts to beat people. Over the season, you can expand his workload.

A deep threat is hardly useful when your QB can't complete deep passes, but that is an entirely different discussion of course.

And a quick note about route running, I was looking up some scouting reports and some suggest Dez is a sub-par route runner as well.


Your analysis of their after the catch abilities is absolutely backwards too. It's Bryant that has the better run after the catch ability. Thomas is the downfield burner.

I'd take Thomas over Bryant after the catch because of his size and speed. Thomas is comparable to Marshall, who makes his money primarily after the catch. Most scouting reports have YAC as one of Thomas' main pros, this is not the case for Dez Bryant.


Regardless though, it's a moot point. As I explained earlier, Thomas fits the X receiver role that we badly needed to fill and Bryant doesn't. Bryant would have had to play Y spot and it would have been beyond stupid to spend a 1st round pick on him when A) the Y receiver is the 3rd progression is the offense, B) you already have a very good Y receiver on the team and C) you were planning to pick up another one (Decker) in the 3rd round.

I understand the thinking, but personally I would have gone with Bryant because he was the best receiver available. And we don't have a "very good Y receiver". We don't have a "very good" receiver of any kind.


4 years. He called the plays as QB coach in 2005 (the Pats didn't have an official OC that year) and then was officially promoted to OC in 2006 until he left after 2008.

So 3 as the OC, 4 calling plays. I can't argue with that, other than the fact that he had a top 3 QB and elite WRs to work with. Patriots were stacked during their 16-0 season, and were good before then, but never really took off.


And no, the Patriots were not an established offensive powerhouse. They had some pretty solid offenses, but only twice were they top 10 offense under Charlie Weis. They were top 10 every single year Josh was there even as he was completely overhauling their offensive system in the process.

No argument here.


Wrong again.

See, Josh already made Matt Cassel "good". He took a guy who hadn't started a game since high school (about a decade back) and coached a near Pro Bowl level performance out of him on the way to an 11-5 record.


No, you're wrong. He didn't make Cassell a good QB. He got good play out of a bad player. If he made Cassell good, he wouldn't have played terribly in KC last year. Cassell had a great team around him in NE, as well as a system that pads QB stats. Cassell is a fraud, he downright sucks.


I'm also not sure where you're getting this idea that McD's offense is QB friendly, but that is incorrect. It's no more quarterback friendly than any other offense and in fact puts quite a bit of emphasis on the QB's ability to make pre-snap reads.

I disagree. It makes the pre-snap reads easier (one of the main reasons teams use spread offenses at any level), and the short throws that Orton made last year could be made by most college QBs. It also pads the QBs stats.


Here's a little secret for you. No NFL offense is completely pure to it's roots. Coaches are always taking little tidbits from other teams and working them into their own offenses

This is true, but I'm sure you can see a glaring difference between McD's offense and the offense of the Ravens or Jets, for example. I'm not saying one is any better than another, per say, it's just a style really. As I've said, I'm not a fan of McD's offense. I feel that if the defense recognizes it and adjusts, it's easy to take away the short patterns and shut the offense down, which was evident in the Steelers game last year. Having a QB unable to stretch the field makes this even more of a handicap.


I really don't want to rehash the "he tried to trade Jay!" fight that's been played out a thousand times on this forum, so I'll just remind you that to date, no one who would have knowledge of the situation has supported the Bus Cook/Jay Cutler side of the story and it's now known that Jay "informally" requested a trade after Bates left. I'll leave it at that.

I concede that I don't know all of the facts, and not many can claim to. But McD did try to trade Cutler to bring in Cassell without Cutler knowing about it. Ethics aside, that trade would have pissed me off from a football standpoint. Once Cutler decided to throw a tantrum, he had no choice but to trade him for Orton. And I have to say, the value we received in the trade wasn't half bad, and Orton has impressed me.


See here is your problem. You see talent as a matter of opinion. It's not.

It most certainly is. There's smart opinions, dumb opinions, normal opinions, well-received opinions, highly-valued opinions, but opinions nonetheless.


Talent is a quantifiable measurement that really isn't subject to interpretation. Unfortunately probably 95% of casual fans don't get that.

Ok, want to play a game? I'll name 5 NFL players and you give me a measurable number representing their talent. That's how they make Madden games. :elefant:


Case in point, Richard Quinn. Ask most people and they will quickly state that Tony Scheffler is far more talented. This is not true though. They are both extremely talented players, except one has that talent as a blocker and one as a receiver. You cannot unilaterally compare the two because they are not alike. This would be like comparing a Jeep Wrangler to a Mustang GT. You may have your opinion which influences your desire for one, but that doesn't make the other one an inferior product.

No argument here, but that talent still isn't measurable.


Same goes for the Thomas/Bryant debate. The difference is less pronounced than in the previous example, but they're still very different players with very different roles that cannot be directly compared.

Again, I agree. But you can't give me a numerical digit to quantify their talent capacity.

Dean
08-25-2010, 08:58 PM
We did not draft him with a first round pick. We drafted him with a second round pick (37th overall to be exact) that we acquired by trading a future first round pick. Huge difference.

That's ridiculous! We had a first round pick. Once we drafted the 37th pick we no longer had a first round pick. We gave up a first round pick to obtain a short slow corner.


Secondly, pull out NFL Draft Scout, Mike Mayock's 2009 draft pieces, or any other respected source of draft opinion. They're all pretty much in consensus that Alphonso should go anywhere from the last 1st to early 2nd rounds. We picked him in that range. That's means a whole lot of people who have a pretty good idea what they're talking about had his value set at that level.

What part of his production to date indicates that those people knew what they were talking about?


How so? Things like speed, size, strength, agility, arm strength, hand size and production are all measurable by cold hard numbers. Even things that can't be measured with cold hard numbers (route running, ball carrying vision, etc) can be reliably graded out by those who are qualified.

. . .reliably graded???? Why are there so many bust if those numbers are reliable?:confused:

Ravage!!!
08-25-2010, 09:13 PM
We did not draft him with a first round pick. We drafted him with a second round pick (37th overall to be exact) that we acquired by trading a future first round pick. Huge difference.
No.. we once had a first round pick and used that first round pick to acquire a player... then we didn't have that first round pick anymore. We USED a first round pick to get the 37th pick and used THAT pick on a player. The only HUGE difference, in reality, is the payscale. Other than that, you blindly trying to hide that we used a 1st round pick on Smith is just that... blind.


Secondly, pull out NFL Draft Scout, Mike Mayock's 2009 draft pieces, or any other respected source of draft opinion. They're all pretty much in consensus that Alphonso should go anywhere from the last 1st to early 2nd rounds. We picked him in that range. That's means a whole lot of people who have a pretty good idea what they're talking about had his value set at that level.

Mmmmmm k. I also know that most of the smartest people in the world once thought the earth was flat. They too were proved wrong. So what if these guys graded him as a pick that goes in that range? What about this "rating" has proved correct? So what you are telling me, is that all those guys were wrong right along with McD for using a 1st round pick on him.


How so? Things like speed, size, strength, agility, arm strength, hand size and production are all measurable by cold hard numbers. Even things that can't be measured with cold hard numbers (route running, ball carrying vision, etc) can be reliably graded out by those who are qualified.

Reliably graded by those who are qualified.... like you? :lol:

If this is true, and there is some magical formula that can be "reliably" measured... as you claim.... EVERY NFL scout/team would know the formula, and every draft board would be the same. If this were the case, teams would no longer have to draft a play by name, they would just simply put the position of the player they wanted on the paper to hand to the commissioner, and the commissioner would then simply take the highest rated player at that position still on the board.

Its absurd ... ABSURD.. to suggest that grading talent is not opinion. Its pure opinion.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2010, 09:35 PM
Well, let's be honest here. "Talent" is a generalized term that people warp to suit their purposes. However, we do have combine numbers, which are factual as opposed to interpreted. I don't know how people here are trying to use the word "talent", but it's clear that many of the raw abilities are, indeed, quantifiable.

A 40 yrd dash has a number, but that doesn't really show talent.

Same with height, weight, and vertical jump. All have numbers, but none will give me a quantifiable number that "proves" talent. They are skills or abilities. He has the ability to leap 33 inches into the air. One has the ability to run a 4.4 second forty yard dash.... but we both know that doesn't define talent.

"Talent" is not quantifiable.. its an opinion. Whether that opinion is based on the numbers for the 40 yrd dash and vertical jump is up to the one offering up the opinion.

"Raw" abilities are something that doesn't have a definition, but is interpreted by the one doing the evaluation. To one, a player may have "raw" ability, and to another that same "lack" of abilities is considered a liability.

Even the numbers themselves in 'measurable' skill tests have to watched with the eye instead of read on paper, because those can be interpreted with yet a whole new set of "opinions" based on what is seen during the exhibition of such skillset.

Dreadnought
08-25-2010, 09:46 PM
A 40 yrd dash has a number, but that doesn't really show talent.

Same with height, weight, and vertical jump. All have numbers, but none will give me a quantifiable number that "proves" talent. They are skills or abilities. He has the ability to leap 33 inches into the air. One has the ability to run a 4.4 second forty yard dash.... but we both know that doesn't define talent.

"Talent" is not quantifiable.. its an opinion. Whether that opinion is based on the numbers for the 40 yrd dash and vertical jump is up to the one offering up the opinion.

"Raw" abilities are something that doesn't have a definition, but is interpreted by the one doing the evaluation. To one, a player may have "raw" ability, and to another that same "lack" of abilities is considered a liability.

Even the numbers themselves in 'measurable' skill tests have to watched with the eye instead of read on paper, because those can be interpreted with yet a whole new set of "opinions" based on what is seen during the exhibition of such skillset.

Some idiot at Georgia didn't think Terrell Davis had all that much talent, and neither his size, bench press, or 40 times gave much of a hint as to what he would become in the NFL. Its why we got him in the 6th.

I really could give a Rat's Ass about "measurables." I think an over focus on that stuff leads a lot of teams to drafting bad football players year after year. I want to know if a guy can play football, and only time will tell about that.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2010, 10:08 PM
I really could give a Rat's Ass about "measurables." I think an over focus on that stuff leads a lot of teams to drafting bad football players year after year. I want to know if a guy can play football, and only time will tell about that.

I think the Raiders prove this point each and every year.

Bosco
08-26-2010, 12:38 AM
And I think Cutler is an above average QB. He has all the potential in the world to be a top 5 QB, although at this point it's not looking very likely that he'll reach it. We both agree that Jay Cutler isn't a franchise quarterback. I don't see what more there is to debate there then.


A deep threat is hardly useful when your QB can't complete deep passes, but that is an entirely different discussion of course. I doubt it'll be a problem for us. Orton showed more improvement on his deep ball in 2009 than he ever had in his career and looks to have taken another big step forward from what I've seen this preseason.


I'd take Thomas over Bryant after the catch because of his size and speed. Thomas is comparable to Marshall, who makes his money primarily after the catch. Most scouting reports have YAC as one of Thomas' main pros, this is not the case for Dez Bryant. Outside of their size, Marshall and Thomas aren't real comparable at all. Marshall isn't fast enough to be a deep threat, and Thomas doesn't have the strength to go plowing through linebackers and safeties. Any YAC you get out of Thomas will come as the result of him outrunning people.


I understand the thinking, but personally I would have gone with Bryant because he was the best receiver available. Again, different skill sets. You don't over pick players and then try to pound square pegs into round holes. You do what McDaniels did. You identify the players who fit your needs and if required, move back into the range they're projected to go in and acquire more resources in the process.

The "best player available" drafting philosophy only works if you make sure the players fit.


And we don't have a "very good Y receiver". We don't have a "very good" receiver of any kind. We do. His name is Jabar Gaffney. As the #3 receiver he's very tough to beat and his performance last year was superior to about half of the #2 receivers in the league.


So 3 as the OC, 4 calling plays. I can't argue with that, other than the fact that he had a top 3 QB and elite WRs to work with. Patriots were stacked during their 16-0 season, and were good before then, but never really took off. Ok, but his 2006 offense was ranked 7th. His receivers that year were Reche Caldwell (out of the league), Ben Watson, a 35 year old Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk and Doug Gabriel.

He's done a very good job with talent depleted teams (2005/2006) and then took a talented team and made them a record setting offense. That's pretty damn impressive.


No, you're wrong. He didn't make Cassell a good QB. He got good play out of a bad player. If he made Cassell good, he wouldn't have played terribly in KC last year. Cassell had a great team around him in NE, as well as a system that pads QB stats. Cassell is a fraud, he downright sucks. Josh isn't coaching Cassel anymore though. I do agree with your premise though. Josh made Cassel look alot better than he really was, which resulted in a team (luckily, a division rival) paying a premium price for a guy who now looks like the slightly above average starter he really is without Josh holding his hand.


I disagree. It makes the pre-snap reads easier (one of the main reasons teams use spread offenses at any level), and the short throws that Orton made last year could be made by most college QBs. It also pads the QBs stats. You know that just about every iteration of the West Coast Offense uses the same short routes? The only difference is that it's typically run out of the I Formation instead of single back, 3 and 4 wide sets that the spread relies on.


This is true, but I'm sure you can see a glaring difference between McD's offense and the offense of the Ravens or Jets, for example. I'm not saying one is any better than another, per say, it's just a style really. As I've said, I'm not a fan of McD's offense. I feel that if the defense recognizes it and adjusts, it's easy to take away the short patterns and shut the offense down, which was evident in the Steelers game last year. Having a QB unable to stretch the field makes this even more of a handicap. You're right, and this is a problem I've discussed repeatedly on here. On offense was not working the way Josh wants it to. We had a prototypical Z receiver (Royal) but had to play him out at the X spot because he was the only guy we had with the speed to get deep. Unfortunately he's too short to out-jump the defenders and his effectiveness was extremely limited. That left us channeling the entire passing game through Marshall at the Y receiver spot while Gaffney took up slack where needed and Stokley provided a little relief at the Z spot.

Hence why our offseason moves were meant to elevate this problem. Drafting Demaryius Thomas gave us the perfect tall, speedy deep threat to take over the X spot, bumping Royal back to the Z where he becomes a more talented Wes Welker while Gaffney moves back to the Y spot, freshly relegated to duty as the #3 guy while he tutors Decker to take over for him.


I concede that I don't know all of the facts, and not many can claim to. But McD did try to trade Cutler to bring in Cassell without Cutler knowing about it. Ethics aside, that trade would have pissed me off from a football standpoint. Once Cutler decided to throw a tantrum, he had no choice but to trade him for Orton. And I have to say, the value we received in the trade wasn't half bad, and Orton has impressed me. You concede you don't know the facts but make a declaration anyway?

Ok.


No.. we once had a first round pick and used that first round pick to acquire a player... then we didn't have that first round pick anymore. We USED a first round pick to get the 37th pick and used THAT pick on a player. The only HUGE difference, in reality, is the payscale. Other than that, you blindly trying to hide that we used a 1st round pick on Smith is just that... blind. I'm not trying to hide it at all. At the end of the day it isn't my ass on the line if the draft picks don't pan out, so it doesn't benefit me to hide anything.

All I'm saying is that the player needs to be judge relative to where he was actually picked, not based on what was used to acquire the pick spent on him. The resources used to acquire picks is something you hold the coaches accountable for, not the player.



Some idiot at Georgia didn't think Terrell Davis had all that much talent, and neither his size, bench press, or 40 times gave much of a hint as to what he would become in the NFL. Its why we got him in the 6th. You're confusing talent with production. We could spend all day rattling off players who outperformed their vastly more talented peers (TD, Rod Smith, Eddie Mac, Brian Griese in 2000...etc) usually because they simply wanted it more and worked harder. That said, premium talent usually comes with a premium price tag, especially in the draft.


I really could give a Rat's Ass about "measurables." I think an over focus on that stuff leads a lot of teams to drafting bad football players year after year. I want to know if a guy can play football, and only time will tell about that. Agreed, 100%.

Tempus Fugit
08-26-2010, 12:47 AM
A 40 yrd dash has a number, but that doesn't really show talent.

Same with height, weight, and vertical jump. All have numbers, but none will give me a quantifiable number that "proves" talent. They are skills or abilities. He has the ability to leap 33 inches into the air. One has the ability to run a 4.4 second forty yard dash.... but we both know that doesn't define talent.

"Talent" is not quantifiable.. its an opinion. Whether that opinion is based on the numbers for the 40 yrd dash and vertical jump is up to the one offering up the opinion.

"Raw" abilities are something that doesn't have a definition, but is interpreted by the one doing the evaluation. To one, a player may have "raw" ability, and to another that same "lack" of abilities is considered a liability.

Even the numbers themselves in 'measurable' skill tests have to watched with the eye instead of read on paper, because those can be interpreted with yet a whole new set of "opinions" based on what is seen during the exhibition of such skillset.

Of course those measurables show talent. You're dealing with a sport that relies on speed, quickness, agility, explosion and power, and the drills measure those qualities. The fact that they aren't everything doesn't somehow make them nothing.

I Eat Staples
08-26-2010, 01:40 PM
We both agree that Jay Cutler isn't a franchise quarterback. I don't see what more there is to debate there then.

I think he could have been our franchise QB. I don't think he's the Bears franchise QB.


I doubt it'll be a problem for us. Orton showed more improvement on his deep ball in 2009 than he ever had in his career and looks to have taken another big step forward from what I've seen this preseason.

We must not be seeing the same things, but there's already two threads full of Orton debates.


Outside of their size, Marshall and Thomas aren't real comparable at all. Marshall isn't fast enough to be a deep threat, and Thomas doesn't have the strength to go plowing through linebackers and safeties. Any YAC you get out of Thomas will come as the result of him outrunning people.

Thomas is big. He's not going to run over LBs and safeties, but small CBs will have to work to take him down. And regardless of how he gets his YAC, I still think he's better after the catch than Dez.


Again, different skill sets. You don't over pick players and then try to pound square pegs into round holes. You do what McDaniels did. You identify the players who fit your needs and if required, move back into the range they're projected to go in and acquire more resources in the process.

I agree. But trading up 2 picks to get DT was a waste. I wouldn't take a player projected to go in the 2nd round in the first. Trading up to get Tebow in the first was also a monumental overpaying.


We do. His name is Jabar Gaffney. As the #3 receiver he's very tough to beat and his performance last year was superior to about half of the #2 receivers in the league.

I think Gaffney is good, not "very good" or "great".


Ok, but his 2006 offense was ranked 7th. His receivers that year were Reche Caldwell (out of the league), Ben Watson, a 35 year old Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk and Doug Gabriel.

He's done a very good job with talent depleted teams (2005/2006) and then took a talented team and made them a record setting offense. That's pretty damn impressive.

No argument here. Despite being a perpetual pessimist about the guy, I have to give credit where it is due.


Josh isn't coaching Cassel anymore though. I do agree with your premise though. Josh made Cassel look alot better than he really was, which resulted in a team (luckily, a division rival) paying a premium price for a guy who now looks like the slightly above average starter he really is without Josh holding his hand.

I think we pretty much agree on Cassell, except I think he sucks and is a complete fraud.


You know that just about every iteration of the West Coast Offense uses the same short routes? The only difference is that it's typically run out of the I Formation instead of single back, 3 and 4 wide sets that the spread relies on.

Yeah, this is true. The deep routes were there in McD's offense, Orton just didn't hit them. Hopefully this will be an area of improvement this year.


You concede you don't know the facts but make a declaration anyway?

Ok.

I said I don't know all of the facts. No one here does. I do know McD attempted to trade Cutler to bring in Cassell. That was an awful decision, in my opinion.