PDA

View Full Version : Jake Plummer - nice article...! :-)



Pages : [1] 2

JakeGirl
07-26-2008, 03:20 PM
JAKE RULES!

Plummer content in his own private Idaho
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Article Launched: 07/26/2008 12:30:00 AM MDT


It took some nerve for Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden to call Jake Plummer.

This was after the Buccaneers took Plummer to a league arbitrator, who ruled the retired quarterback had to pay $3.5 million to a team for which he never played. Yet, not long afterward, who would call but Gruden.

Come on, Jake. Let bygones be bygones. Come play.

"That was pretty funny," Plummer said. "He was still bugging me to come down there. But I don't think Tampa is in my horizon any time soon, unless I decide to drive through on my way to Disney World."

Nothing against the Bucs or Gruden, who stockpiles quarterbacks (five on his roster) like a vagrant gathers cans. It's just that after Plummer was stripped of his job as the Broncos' starting quarterback with five games remaining in the 2006 season, he decided enough was enough.

About the only way Plummer would still be playing is if the Broncos had allowed him to join Gary Kubiak and the Houston Texans. It didn't work out that way. Plummer retired at 32, was traded to Tampa Bay, anyway, and wound up having to pay back a significant portion of the signing bonus he had already collected from his contract with the Broncos.

He handed the Bucs a check for $3.5 million, and went back to Idaho where he has been resuming his charity efforts, traveling with his wife, Kollette, and playing in handball tournaments with his brother.

Content with a life of privacy far away from the business of football, Plummer was motivated to return a call last week only by the retirement of his former Broncos teammate and receiver Rod Smith.

"He's the best player I played the game with," Plummer said. "There's been a few others like him: Aeneas Williams, Larry Centers, Champ Bailey, Al Wilson. Rod, I only got to play with him when he was old and slow and he still dominated. It's hard to pick between them, but Rod and Larry Centers had the two best sets of hands I've ever seen."

Funny how people are better appreciated after they're gone. Plummer took his share of flak here, but his 39-15 record as a starting quarterback sure looks good now. Jay Cutler may be a superior passer, yet he'd have to go on a 30-3 run just to match the man he replaced.

This isn't to knock Cutler, whose best years are ahead of him. This is only to look back and realize there was something about Jake. He had a way of uniting teammates. His offensive linemen loved him, which is why Gruden keeps calling. And for those who think the Broncos had more talent in Plummer's day, ask this: Which is the better set of receivers — Smith, Ashley Lelie and Charlie Adams of 2005, or Javon Walker, Brandon Marshall and Brandon Stokley of 2007?

Granted, Plummer was backed by a defense that ranked second against the run in 2005 (still think the Browncos were a bust?), while Cutler spent way too much time watching his 30th-ranked run defense from the sideline.

But that doesn't change the fact that at game's end, Good Jake/Bad Jake was usually Good Enough Jake. As he travels through the hills and trees in Idaho, Plummer is at peace knowing that in a previous life, he was foremost a winner. It's a serenity he's not about to disrupt by coming back.

"To play?" he said. "No. I had a good talk with a friend the other night, and to my family and friends, in their eyes, I'm the best quarterback they know. That's enough for me. I don't need to validate to some writers, or some GM by coming back. I played a good, solid 10 years. My body feels great. I can go out and run 3 1/2 miles and not even have pain afterwards."

Hmm. Not to stir up a restful soul in Idaho or anything, but think Kubiak would be interested in knowing Plummer is staying in shape?

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-26-2008, 03:37 PM
I really dont care what Houston does. If they was a team in the NFC then i could root for them consistantly because of Kubes. But there just another step in the Broncos way

BroncoWave
07-26-2008, 04:05 PM
Who?

MOtorboat
07-26-2008, 04:07 PM
:2thumbs:

He's property of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Northman
07-26-2008, 04:13 PM
Jake was adequate, hope he is happy in retirement. Just glad we got a better Qb behind center now. Go Bronco's!

Watchthemiddle
07-26-2008, 05:47 PM
Jake was a great teamate and a great leader. No one can deny that. Another player we have lost in the past couple of years with those qualities. I think its obvious that since he has left, this team has not been the same. Now with Rod gone also, a few people need to step up in a big way on the offensive side of the ball.

I think in this offseason, we have seen glimpses of becoming a leader with Cutler and for all of our sake that needs to continue.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-26-2008, 05:53 PM
Jake Plummer was a douchebag. That's all.

Tned
07-26-2008, 05:56 PM
Jake Plummer was a douchebag. That's all.

Impressive, classless contribution to the discussion... :tsk:

Requiem / The Dagda
07-26-2008, 06:06 PM
Jake played hard, but the way he handled himself post the drafting of Cutler and his walk away from football (just everything) left a real bad taste in my mouth. That's Jake though, even back to the Sun Devil days. Can't say I'm a fan of the guy.

WARHORSE
07-26-2008, 06:22 PM
Jake Plummer didnt know how to be the layed back person he was when he played for Shanahan. I dont think Jake understood just what Mike did for him as a quarterback. Shanahan was the best thing that happened to him in his entire career when it came to helping the man play to the best of his abilities. Jakes problem was imo he couldnt deal with the intensity that was Mike Shanahan. You cant be non-chalant after sitting down and having your game picked apart by a master like Shanny. I think that bothered Jake. Jake began to dislike his time around MS and there began his downfall.

Jake just wanted to play the game of football like a kid. You know......have fun.

But this is big business, and he wasnt able to navigate being himself while learning to be a professional businessman in the football world.

Jake was a commodity and he hated it.


While I really liked Jake initially, I must agree with Dream.

His bitterness towards the business end of football made him play terrible, terrible pop warner like football in his last season. And imo, I think he felt like the Broncos betrayed him by drafting Cutler.

I think Shanny would have been plenty content to play Jake and sit Jay as long as Jake got it done........but Jake hurried himself out the door with a poor attitude and a poor performance that was even worse.

Nevertheless............Im glad Jake got out on his own terms. Cause a man can live with that much easier. I think in the end, that very move to retire probably helped him to have a much more peaceful after football life.

Good luck Jake. God bless.

ktrain
07-26-2008, 06:51 PM
Jake Plummer didnt know how to be as layed back a person as he was when he played for Shanahan. I dont think Jake understood just what Mike did for him as a quarterback. Shanahan was the best thing that happened to him in his entire career when it came to helping the man play to the best of his abilities. Jakes problem was imo he couldnt deal with the intensity that was Mike Shanahan. You cant be non-chalant after sitting down and having your game picked apart by a master like Shanny. I think that bothered Jake. Jake began to dislike his time around MS and there began his downfall.

Jake just wanted to play the game of football like a kid. You know......have fun.

But this is big business, and he wasnt able to navigate being himself while learning to be a professional businessman in the football world.

Jake was a commodity and he hated it.


While I really liked Jake initially, I must agree with Dream.

His bitterness towards the business end of football made him play terrible, terrible pop warner like football in his last season. And imo, I think he felt like the Broncos betrayed him by drafting Cutler.

I think Shanny would have been plenty content to play Jake and sit Jay as long as Jake got it done........but Jake hurried himself out the door with a poor attitude and a poor performance that was even worse.

Nevertheless............Im glad Jake got out on his own terms. Cause a man can live with that much easier. I think in the end, that very move to retire probably helped him to have a much more peaceful after football life.

Good luck Jake. God bless.

Ding ding ding! Awesome post warhorse

Broncos Mtnman
07-26-2008, 07:40 PM
http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1-14-05/special.jpg

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Mods, please move to the Other NFL Team Discussion forum. Bucs fans can read about this turd over there.

claymore
07-26-2008, 07:58 PM
Jake Plummer was a douchebag. That's all.

Is a Douchebag........... Is..............

Watchthemiddle
07-26-2008, 08:02 PM
Bronco fans once again bashing a former player.

It sure would be nice to win some games and make the playoffs.

:coffee:

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:04 PM
Bronco fans once again bashing a former player.

It sure would be nice to win some games and make the playoffs.

:coffee:

Embrace the guys who run from competition.

Watchthemiddle
07-26-2008, 08:06 PM
Embrace the guys who run from competition.

Where was the competition? Cutler was handed the job. There was NO competition.

Embrace the success the Broncos HAD while he was under center. Oh how I long to win games again.

Tned
07-26-2008, 08:09 PM
Jake played hard, but the way he handled himself post the drafting of Cutler and his walk away from football (just everything) left a real bad taste in my mouth. That's Jake though, even back to the Sun Devil days. Can't say I'm a fan of the guy.

Rather ironic that none of his team mates seem to have the same opinion as you. I know it is unlikely they are as insightful as you. They were just in the locker room and actually know what they are talking about, but I'm sure 'you' are right, as opposed to them.

We have all seen players spill their guts to the media about team mates who were locker room cancers, who didn't work hard, who 'mailed it in' as some of you accuse Jake of doing.

If that happened with Jake, then why to a man did his team mates (including Cutler), say nothing but great things about him?

Oh yea, I forgot, those guys actually IN the locker room don't know crap, unlike you. :rolleyes:

omac
07-26-2008, 08:09 PM
I really dont care what Houston does. If they was a team in the NFC then i could root for them consistantly because of Kubes. But there just another step in the Broncos way

Well if he was in Houston, he'd be backing up Matt Schaub; no way he can win the starting job against him, even if he was willing to compete for it. He'd actually be valuable to Chicago, Minnesota, and the Jets.

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:10 PM
Where was the competition? Cutler was handed the job. There was NO competition.

Embrace the success the Broncos HAD while he was under center. Oh how I long to win games again.

Had to compete in Arizona, he left. Had to compete in Denver, retired. Only reason he wanted Houston is that there was no one on his level. And Kubiak.

omac
07-26-2008, 08:15 PM
Had to compete in Arizona, he left. Had to compete in Denver, retired. Only reason he wanted Houston is that there was no one on his level. And Kubiak.

Actually, I don't think he had to compete in Denver; the starting job was given to Cutler because of Jake's poor play. But he had to compete in Tampa Bay for the starting job, but he didn't want any of that. In one of the games ... I think the 49ers one, the sportscasters mentioned that he told his teammates when he made his goodbyes to them that he believes he can still be a starting QB. I guess he just doesn't want to compete for it.

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:17 PM
Actually, I don't think he had to compete in Denver; the starting job was given to Cutler because of Jake's poor play. But he had to compete in Tampa Bay for the starting job, but he didn't want any of that. In one of the games ... I think the 49ers one, the sportscasters mentioned that he told his teammates when he made his goodbyes to them that he believes he can still be a starting QB. I guess he just doesn't want to compete for it.

If Jake had played well, Cutty would have still been on the pine.

Basically Jake wilted under the pressure.

Watchthemiddle
07-26-2008, 08:17 PM
Had to compete in Arizona, he left. Had to compete in Denver, retired. Only reason he wanted Houston is that there was no one on his level. And Kubiak.

Who did he have to compete with in AZ? I thought he just wanted away from the dreadful cards.

I was just watching local cbs 4 here on a sports special. A writer was being interviewed that was in camp with the Broncos 2 years ago and followed the team everywhere. When he was asked about the drafting of Cutler the year after the Broncos went to the AFCCG...he said Shanahan told him that he didn't get the feeling Jake wanted to play anymore so they took Cutler who could play for the next 15 years. So if that is true, and from what we have seen out of Jake since he retired, I think its unfair to say he didn't want to compete for a job, he just didn't want to play football anymore

Tned
07-26-2008, 08:21 PM
Who did he have to compete with in AZ? I thought he just wanted away from the dreadful cards.

I was just watching local cbs 4 here on a sports special. A writer was being interviewed that was in camp with the Broncos 2 years ago and followed the team everywhere. When he was asked about the drafting of Cutler the year after the Broncos went to the AFCCG...he said Shanahan told him that he didn't get the feeling Jake wanted to play anymore so they took Cutler who could play for the next 15 years. So if that is true, and from what we have seen out of Jake since he retired, I think its unfair to say he didn't want to compete for a job, he just didn't want to play football anymore

Which is completely consistant with what his teamates would say about him. They made it clear that unlike most people playing, football and MONEY were not the most important things to Jake, especially not the money.

Considering the number of wins Jake put up, I have never understood the bitterness and distorted realities so many Broncos fans have in regards to Jake.

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:37 PM
Who did he have to compete with in AZ? I thought he just wanted away from the dreadful cards.



He was going to be a free agent, and was talking to the Cards about a contract extension. The Cards stated he was going to have to compete for the starting job against whomever the other rag arms the Cards had.

Of course, if I was Jake, I would have walked also.

My point being, when the going gets tough, Jake gets pine needles in his beaver.

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:38 PM
Considering the number of wins Jake put up, I have never understood the bitterness and distorted realities so many Broncos fans have in regards to Jake.

Well, lets sign Kyle Orton. He has a nice win/loss record. :rolleyes:

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:43 PM
Is it as good as Cutler's?

Oh, it is better. Seriously, lets trade for him. All he does is win games.

MOtorboat
07-26-2008, 08:44 PM
Anyone else remember that pathetic game on Thanksgiving Night?

Yeah, me too.

claymore
07-26-2008, 08:46 PM
I will stay out of this for the most part, but Jake had all world talent, and a flaky brain. Jake had a very good team, and the team won games with Jake........ But he wasnt the guy that you want the ball in his hands during a crucial moment.

We gave him a shot.......... we came close to the big game,,,,,,,,,, and it didnt work out....... And Im glad its over............ Cutler is on pace to be 10 times what jake was.

Watchthemiddle
07-26-2008, 08:47 PM
Anyone remember how we used to go to the playoffs?

Ya me too.

Now I am done.

Time to support Cutler.

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 08:57 PM
Anyone remember how we used to go to the playoffs?



Yeah, I remember when we had a decent defense.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-26-2008, 09:05 PM
Im not going to bash Jake because Jake is a thing of the past. Fans make me laugh with this so called HATE they have towards players when they leave the team. Jake played aswell as he could but however Jake was a average QB who accelled in a systeam that only demanded that he used half the field. At some point your going to have to sit in the pocket and make throws and he could not do it. Teams caught on to this and stopped the boots. End of Plummers career in Denver. But hes not our problem anymore. Proceed.

MOtorboat
07-26-2008, 09:20 PM
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5654/highhorse2qo.jpg

BroncoWave
07-26-2008, 09:23 PM
Jay/Jake threads make my soul happy! Dem were the days!

Tned
07-26-2008, 10:58 PM
Im not going to bash Jake because Jake is a thing of the past. Fans make me laugh with this so called HATE they have towards players when they leave the team. Jake played aswell as he could but however Jake was a average QB who accelled in a systeam that only demanded that he used half the field. At some point your going to have to sit in the pocket and make throws and he could not do it. Teams caught on to this and stopped the boots. End of Plummers career in Denver. But hes not our problem anymore. Proceed.

Most of what you stated was 'relatively' accurate, except for one thing. "Teams" did not take away the boot, Heimerdinger did from the very first game he was Assistant Head Coach - Offense.

Unlike Kubiak, Heimerdinger (and Bates for that matter) tried to force the players to play within their one-trick-pony schemes, regardless of whether the talent on the field was capable of doing so. That is why they are both now gone.

Nobody took the boot away except the Broncos coaching staff. Whether that was done in anticipation of Cutler, a better pocket passer, taking over in the future, or simply because it was Heimerdinger's philosiphy, we will probably never know.

topscribe
07-26-2008, 11:05 PM
Jake played hard, but the way he handled himself post the drafting of Cutler and his walk away from football (just everything) left a real bad taste in my mouth. That's Jake though, even back to the Sun Devil days. Can't say I'm a fan of the guy.

That is obvious. However, you are making too many assumptions as to Jake's
motives. You don't know why he did anything that he did. If you want to
judge him over your impressions, fine. But understand you are not impressing
anybody here, that I know of.

-----

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 11:07 PM
That is obvious. However, you are making too many assumptions as to Jake's
motives. You don't know why he did anything that he did. If you want to
judge him over your impressions, fine. But understand you are not impressing
anybody here, that I know of.

-----

I think Dream is spot on.

topscribe
07-26-2008, 11:12 PM
Who did he have to compete with in AZ? I thought he just wanted away from the dreadful cards.

I was just watching local cbs 4 here on a sports special. A writer was being interviewed that was in camp with the Broncos 2 years ago and followed the team everywhere. When he was asked about the drafting of Cutler the year after the Broncos went to the AFCCG...he said Shanahan told him that he didn't get the feeling Jake wanted to play anymore so they took Cutler who could play for the next 15 years. So if that is true, and from what we have seen out of Jake since he retired, I think its unfair to say he didn't want to compete for a job, he just didn't want to play football anymore


Which is completely consistant with what his teamates would say about him. They made it clear that unlike most people playing, football and MONEY were not the most important things to Jake, especially not the money.

Considering the number of wins Jake put up, I have never understood the bitterness and distorted realities so many Broncos fans have in regards to Jake.

I understand Jake.

But, just as you, I do not understand some of these fans. :tsk:

-----

topscribe
07-26-2008, 11:13 PM
I think Dream is spot on.

I noticed that.

I think you and Dream are spot off.

And I have observed Jake ever since his freshman year just 90 miles up the road.

-----

topscribe
07-26-2008, 11:16 PM
You know, some of you people just can't lay off. Your hatred just consumes
you. Why can't you just let a complimentary article about a former player go
instead of hijacking the thread by trashing him?

-----

BeefStew25
07-26-2008, 11:17 PM
I noticed that.

I think you and Dream are spot off.

And I have observed Jake ever since his freshman year just 90 miles up the road.

-----

Congrats on living in the same time zone.

Admit it. When push came to shove, Jake wilts. It is okay. He can deal with it.

slim
07-26-2008, 11:33 PM
Jake was an average NFL QB...and this is coming from an ASU alumnus and a die hard Sun Devil fan. Bottom line, he just isn't special.

LoyalSoldier
07-26-2008, 11:36 PM
I actually talked with him the other day. I got off work and went over to the grocery store and saw him there. He was also with his girlfriend. I didn't say anything about the Broncos because I knew his Brother from the gym I worked out at.

omac
07-26-2008, 11:42 PM
That's the problem with posting a Jake thread puff piece in the main forums. The topic is just way too polarizing, because a lot of people liked the way Jake played for the team, and a lot of people hated the way he played.

Puff piece starts, someone makes a compliment that some don't agree with. The rebuttal comes, then it just starts getting ugly. It goes back to the same old arguments, and with Jake, some people will take it personally because they like him so much, even though the comment wasn't an attack against any poster.

We can say Ian Gold sucked, or criticize Foxy as much as we want, even Marshall, but criticizing Jake becomes a personal thing.

What I will add to this has nothing to do with Jake.

I'm glad Shanny's been more decisive in pulling the trigger on the new QB than Green Bay had been. Favre hadn't been playing well for quite a few years, and that's why last season was such a surprise. Because they were at the mercy of Favre's last minute decisions on whether to retire or not, they've stunted the development of Rodgers; he could've already been a pretty solid QB. Shanny never puts any player above the team, no matter how beloved to the organization.

Broncos Mtnman
07-26-2008, 11:42 PM
He was going to be a free agent, and was talking to the Cards about a contract extension. The Cards stated he was going to have to compete for the starting job against whomever the other rag arms the Cards had.

Of course, if I was Jake, I would have walked also.

My point being, when the going gets tough, Jake gets pine needles in his beaver.

Not to mention that the only other FA QB available when we took rag arm was Kordell Stewart.

Talk about being the lesser of two evils.

:coffee:

Broncos Mtnman
07-26-2008, 11:44 PM
Anyone remember how we used to go to the playoffs?

Ya me too.

Now I am done.

Time to support Cutler.

Anyone remember what happened once we got there?

Ya, me too.

I was done from the day he arrived.

It's past time to support Cutler.

Broncos Mtnman
07-26-2008, 11:55 PM
Anyone remember how the defense disappeared once we got there, year
after year?

Yeah, me too.

Having the decency to allow others to be complimetary toward Jake does
not constitute a failure to support Cutler.

-----

I just love how the Jakesters pull the "defense" card for the playoff games, but want to credit Jake for EVERY win and EVERY playoff appearance.

:coffee:

omac
07-27-2008, 12:04 AM
Request that the mods lock this thread up and put it in the other teams forums.

Jake threads are obviously way too polarizing, and have nothing to do with the Broncos this coming season.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 12:09 AM
Request that the mods lock this thread up and put it in the other teams forums.

Jake threads are obviously way too polarizing, and have nothing to do with the Broncos this coming season.

This thread is about a former Bronco. It isn't going anywhere.

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 12:27 AM
Okay, I've tried to clean up back to where this thread started to get out of control.

Disagree, but let's all keep it civil. And I know I speak as a hypocrite.

-----

Lonestar
07-27-2008, 01:51 AM
Wow after almost two years and the Jake wars are still alive..

Lets leave it at Jake played her now its Jays team and frankly I do not see anyone that is debating that fact..

We all hope and pray that Jay is everything Jake was not and can win like John did and have a hell of a career in DEN..

To those that do not like Jake stay the hell out of the Jake threads.
To those that do not like Jay stay out of his threads..

Seems pretty simple..

Remember folks it is almost preseason.. find some thing positive or negative for the current players to talk about..

At last count most of us like each other here..

pnbronco
07-27-2008, 03:48 AM
He handed the Bucs a check for $3.5 million, and went back to Idaho where he has been resuming his charity efforts, traveling with his wife, Kollette, and playing in handball tournaments with his brother.

I am so glad for Jake. He is 33 years old, has his health and seems really happy. It was great to hear he contacted Rod. I'm so glad he's gotten back into his charity work. I only wish him the best.

Northman
07-27-2008, 09:18 AM
Where was the competition? Cutler was handed the job. There was NO competition.

Embrace the success the Broncos HAD while he was under center. Oh how I long to win games again.

Your right, there was no competition because Jake just gave up. Shame really.

Northman
07-27-2008, 09:23 AM
Im not going to bash Jake because Jake is a thing of the past. Fans make me laugh with this so called HATE they have towards players when they leave the team. Jake played aswell as he could but however Jake was a average QB who accelled in a systeam that only demanded that he used half the field. At some point your going to have to sit in the pocket and make throws and he could not do it. Teams caught on to this and stopped the boots. End of Plummers career in Denver. But hes not our problem anymore. Proceed.

Wow, this is the best post you've ever put up. Totally agree.

Northman
07-27-2008, 09:27 AM
That's the problem with posting a Jake thread puff piece in the main forums. The topic is just way too polarizing, because a lot of people liked the way Jake played for the team, and a lot of people hated the way he played.

Puff piece starts, someone makes a compliment that some don't agree with. The rebuttal comes, then it just starts getting ugly. It goes back to the same old arguments, and with Jake, some people will take it personally because they like him so much, even though the comment wasn't an attack against any poster.

We can say Ian Gold sucked, or criticize Foxy as much as we want, even Marshall, but criticizing Jake becomes a personal thing.

What I will add to this has nothing to do with Jake.

I'm glad Shanny's been more decisive in pulling the trigger on the new QB than Green Bay had been. Favre hadn't been playing well for quite a few years, and that's why last season was such a surprise. Because they were at the mercy of Favre's last minute decisions on whether to retire or not, they've stunted the development of Rodgers; he could've already been a pretty solid QB. Shanny never puts any player above the team, no matter how beloved to the organization.


EXCELLENT POST. Right on the money.

Nomad
07-27-2008, 10:33 AM
I know I've had my share of Jake bashing after some of his bad games but he was a BRONCO, a good teammate and person, and I enjoyed watching him most of the time. I know I make my fair share of mistakes at work sometimes (bending pipe, reading the blueprints wrong, making the wrong measurements), but I've never claimed to be perfect and Jake never has either. Oh well, glad to see him recognizing Rod for what he is/was!

topscribe
07-27-2008, 12:08 PM
Your right, there was no competition because Jake just gave up. Shame really.

There comes a time we all give up. It's called retirement.

Jake didn't want to play football anymore. It's obvious. Even a trip to Idaho
by Mr. Gruden did not sway Jake. I can't envision Gruden going to all that
trouble if he saw Jake as one-of-five in camp. But that doesn't matter.

Jake was through. He wanted to do other things in his life. His values
exceeded football and money. I understand in this society where football and
money are gods that he would get flak for it. But I admire him for his decision.

I am grateful to Jake for three straight playoff years, for his charity work
that he never bothered to publicize, and now I am happy he is home, loving
life. He doesn't have to be here where he has to hear all the crap he never
deserved.

Via con dios, Jake. :wave:

-----

WARHORSE
07-27-2008, 12:17 PM
Rather ironic that none of his team mates seem to have the same opinion as you. I know it is unlikely they are as insightful as you. They were just in the locker room and actually know what they are talking about, but I'm sure 'you' are right, as opposed to them.

We have all seen players spill their guts to the media about team mates who were locker room cancers, who didn't work hard, who 'mailed it in' as some of you accuse Jake of doing.

If that happened with Jake, then why to a man did his team mates (including Cutler), say nothing but great things about him?

Oh yea, I forgot, those guys actually IN the locker room don't know crap, unlike you. :rolleyes:


While this is totally accurate, I think its also accurate to say that the same guy that was happy go lucky, totally supportive and ready to go to war with his teamates wasnt the same guy towards the coaching staff.......mainly......Shanahan. He also wasnt the same man towards fans that criticized his play when it was bad, as well as the media.

Simply said, Jake could not take the off the field pressure that came with playing the quarterback position in Denver. He hated it, instead of learning how to deal with it.

The good ones learn to deal with it.

The not so lucky ones crumble under the pressure of it.

Jake could deal with you being upset at him for playing badly.

What he couldnt deal with is you not supporting him.


People from Jakes walk of the woods arent like that, and Jake didnt want to be any different. People from small towns like his support one another, good and bad.

Problem is, he didnt understand that he didnt have to be different. The non-supportive peoples actions and words spoke of them..........not him.
He could have still been the supportive guy to the fans, etc, regardless of how they were to him, and still held on to his own inner peace.

I just think it hurt Jake inside to see the ugliness of life in some people played out in a game where he thought that stuff should have been taboo.


I like Jake.
I liked his game.
I liked his style.
I hope hes happy, cause thats whats important.

But if you play bad......youre going to get the hook.

Thats the way it is here in Broncoland.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 12:32 PM
While this is totally accurate, I think its also accurate to say that the same guy that was happy go lucky, totally supportive and ready to go to war with his teamates wasnt the same guy towards the coaching staff.......mainly......Shanahan. He also wasnt the same man towards fans that criticized his play when it was bad, as well as the media.

Simply said, Jake could not take the off the field pressure that came with playing the quarterback position in Denver. He hated it, instead of learning how to deal with it.

The good ones learn to deal with it.

The not so lucky ones crumble under the pressure of it.

Jake could deal with you being upset at him for playing badly.

What he couldnt deal with is you not supporting him.


People from Jakes walk of the woods arent like that, and Jake didnt want to be any different. People from small towns like his support one another, good and bad.

Problem is, he didnt understand that he didnt have to be different. The non-supportive peoples actions and words spoke of them..........not him.
He could have still been the supportive guy to the fans, etc, regardless of how they were to him, and still held on to his own inner peace.

I just think it hurt Jake inside to see the ugliness of life in some people played out in a game where he thought that stuff should have been taboo.


I like Jake.
I liked his game.
I liked his style.
I hope hes happy, cause thats whats important.

But if you play bad......youre going to get the hook.

Thats the way it is here in Broncoland.

So what you are saying is that Jake should have made himself what he was
not, and become one of us? Maybe he didn't want to do that because he
is a "good one." He's back in his small town, leading his small town life,
doing small town things.

Believe me, life is much different there. Maybe he just wanted to get back
to that different life. I can see why. I grew up on a farm outside a small
town . . . Grover, Colo., about 125, if you count the horse. If I had my own
choice, you could come around to where I live now and find everything here
except me.

I would already be back in Grover. :coffee:

-----

Den21vsBal19
07-27-2008, 12:32 PM
While this is totally accurate, I think its also accurate to say that the same guy that was happy go lucky, totally supportive and ready to go to war with his teamates wasnt the same guy towards the coaching staff.......mainly......Shanahan. He also wasnt the same man towards fans that criticized his play when it was bad, as well as the media.

Don't forget though that Shanahan often had to play the buffer between Elway & Reeves................

For whatever reason, the combination of Plummer - Kubiak - Shanahan worked a darned sight better than the unholy trilogy of Plummer - Hermdinger - Shanahan.

Tned
07-27-2008, 01:30 PM
Don't forget though that Shanahan often had to play the buffer between Elway & Reeves................

For whatever reason, the combination of Plummer - Kubiak - Shanahan worked a darned sight better than the unholy trilogy of Plummer - Hermdinger - Shanahan.

Apparently even the Cutler - Heimerdinger - Shanahan combo didn't work too well, considering Dinger and his non-Broncos' schemes were shown the door.


While this is totally accurate, I think its also accurate to say that the same guy that was happy go lucky, totally supportive and ready to go to war with his teamates wasnt the same guy towards the coaching staff.......mainly......Shanahan. He also wasnt the same man towards fans that criticized his play when it was bad, as well as the media.

Simply said, Jake could not take the off the field pressure that came with playing the quarterback position in Denver. He hated it, instead of learning how to deal with it.

The good ones learn to deal with it.

The not so lucky ones crumble under the pressure of it.

Jake could deal with you being upset at him for playing badly.

What he couldnt deal with is you not supporting him.


People from Jakes walk of the woods arent like that, and Jake didnt want to be any different. People from small towns like his support one another, good and bad.

Problem is, he didnt understand that he didnt have to be different. The non-supportive peoples actions and words spoke of them..........not him.
He could have still been the supportive guy to the fans, etc, regardless of how they were to him, and still held on to his own inner peace.

I just think it hurt Jake inside to see the ugliness of life in some people played out in a game where he thought that stuff should have been taboo.


I like Jake.
I liked his game.
I liked his style.
I hope hes happy, cause thats whats important.

But if you play bad......youre going to get the hook.

Thats the way it is here in Broncoland.

I guess I am different than some. I don't care if the player flips heckling fans off. I don't care if the player shows disdain to the press. I don't care if the player calls up and screams and a talk show host who talks about his girlfriend. I don't care if the player takes shots at the fans (as Denver fans we deserve it, this thread is just a tiny bit of proof).

All I care about is whether or not the player plays his ass off on the field.

Denver is a hostile environment, especially for QBs. Elway was talking about retiring while in the prime of his career, due to the pressure of playing QB in Denver, especially the press and fans. The articles about giving out cheap halloween candy, etc.

The point I was trying to make is that many people claim that Plummer mailed it in, didn't work hard was 'visibly' giving up in games, and other similar statements.

That is just complete BS. Anyone that has watched the NFL for any period of time knows that most players want to win (although some are just in it for the money). Players that put money before the team, or other things before the team, are trashed by their teammates. Players that take plays off; don't work hard in practice; are not giving it their all, are trashed by their teammates.

I'm curious why the Jake trashers never consider why ONLY the fans, and some media, trashed Jake, while his team mates backed him to the end, INCLUDING his retirement.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-27-2008, 01:30 PM
Most of what you stated was 'relatively' accurate, except for one thing. "Teams" did not take away the boot, Heimerdinger did from the very first game he was Assistant Head Coach - Offense.

Unlike Kubiak, Heimerdinger (and Bates for that matter) tried to force the players to play within their one-trick-pony schemes, regardless of whether the talent on the field was capable of doing so. That is why they are both now gone.

Nobody took the boot away except the Broncos coaching staff. Whether that was done in anticipation of Cutler, a better pocket passer, taking over in the future, or simply because it was Heimerdinger's philosiphy, we will probably never know.

Nah i recall opening day actually that teams started to take away the boot. Like the first game vs the Rams. Everytime he would turn out of the boot the DEs would be right in his face. There were no longer worrying about the run using an 8th man in the box and sometimes 9 because you only have to cover half the field with plummer.

Tned
07-27-2008, 01:40 PM
Nah i recall opening day actually that teams started to take away the boot. Like the first game vs the Rams. Everytime he would turn out of the boot the DEs would be right in his face. There were no longer worrying about the run using an 8th man in the box and sometimes 9 because you only have to cover half the field with plummer.

No, you are 100% wrong. This is a message board misconception that has been forwarded on and on.

I have documented, via play by play breakdowns of the Rams game how incorrect you are. The Broncos came out game 1 of the Heimerdinger offense with a pocket passing game plan. They did not attempt to bootleg and have it taken away. I suggest you rewatch the game, or read one of my play by play breakdowns of that game.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 01:42 PM
Jake wanted to play hard on game day. The rest of the week he was disinterested.

Shanny mentioned this. Of course, Shanny may have a minor ax to grind, but rarely does he badmouth former players.

Tned
07-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Jake wanted to play hard on game day. The rest of the week he was disinterested.

Shanny mentioned this. Of course, Shanny may have a minor ax to grind, but rarely does he badmouth former players.

I don't recall Shanny saying this, but it is possible.

However, if Plummer wasn't doing ALL the work necessary to win, don't you think at least ONE player would have broken ranks and talked to the press about it? They have an all world receiver in Marshall and they have no problem talking to the press about what he is doing wrong and how he is huring the team.


Nah i recall opening day actually that teams started to take away the boot. Like the first game vs the Rams. Everytime he would turn out of the boot the DEs would be right in his face. There were no longer worrying about the run using an 8th man in the box and sometimes 9 because you only have to cover half the field with plummer.

Further to my previous post, here is the play by play of the first game of '06, which discounts your "they took it away" theory.

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232032#post232032

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 01:50 PM
I don't recall Shanny saying this, but it is possible.

However, if Plummer wasn't doing ALL the work necessary to win, don't you think at least ONE player would have broken ranks and talked to the press about it? They have an all world receiver in Marshall and they have no problem talking to the press about what he is doing wrong and how he is huring the team.



Further to my previous post, here is the play by play of the first game of '06, which discounts your "they took it away" theory.

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232032#post232032

Well, by just looking at the end result tells you Jake was not doing all he could do to perform. He mailed it in. Maybe drafting Cutler was just the catalyst.

Tned
07-27-2008, 01:55 PM
Well, by just looking at the end result tells you Jake was not doing all he could do to perform. He mailed it in. Maybe drafting Cutler was just the catalyst.

Ok, so 57 or so team mates all support him, even though many of their pay checks (incentive contracts), chance to win a SB at the end of their career, and just their competitive nature was sabotaged by Jake 'mailing it in', yet NONE of them break ranks and talk about how Plummer isn't doing EVERYTHING necessary to win. Quite the opposite, they are all publically stating the opposite. Talking about the mistakes up and down the lineup that contributed to the rough start to '06.

It boggles my mind when people completely discount the facts, when man crushes or player hatred are involved.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 01:57 PM
I don't recall Shanny saying this, but it is possible.

However, if Plummer wasn't doing ALL the work necessary to win, don't you think at least ONE player would have broken ranks and talked to the press about it? They have an all world receiver in Marshall and they have no problem talking to the press about what he is doing wrong and how he is huring the team.



Further to my previous post, here is the play by play of the first game of '06, which discounts your "they took it away" theory.

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232032#post232032

In all fairness, Tned, Shanny did talk about that some. Kubes managed to
get Jake into the film room all offseason before the 2005 season, and we
saw the results. But Jake just did not dedicate himself during the week, as
does Manning or even Cutler. I do have to admit that.

Which is all the more reason Jake made the right choice to retire. He just
was not enjoying it any more. But, you're right, the fact he had the loyalty,
devotion, and admiration of his teammates speaks volumes about him.

And he certainly did not "mail it in."

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 02:10 PM
In all fairness, Tned, Shanny did talk about that some. Kubes managed to
get Jake into the film room all offseason before the 2005 season, and we
saw the results. But Jake just did not dedicate himself during the week, as
does Manning or even Cutler. I do have to admit that.

Which is all the more reason Jake made the right choice to retire. He just
was not enjoying it any more. But, you're right, the fact he had the loyalty,
devotion, and admiration of his teammates speaks volumes about him.

And he certainly did not "mail it in."

-----

As I said, I don't recall that. Could Shanny have made a passing remark? Maybe.

I go back to his team mates. You see Champ and Cutler calling Marshall out for not doing what it takes to win. We constantly saw Rod call players out throughout his career. Yet, nobody called Jake out.

Was he the J. Edgar Hoover of the NFL? Jake had a dossier on every player on the Broncos that kept them from calling him out for not doing EVERYTHING it takes to win?

I listen to NFL radio all the time. During the '06 season, I heard a bunch of Broncos interviewed, before and after Cutler took over, and NOBODY said that Jake was the problem -- nobody said Jake wasn't doing everything it took to win. That level of loyalty is very rare in the NFL, and if Jake was sabotaging the teams chance of winning, other players chance of reaching incentives in their contracts, then players would have talked about it. Yet, we heard none of that.

Did Jake have a bad year in '06? Sure. He isn't the only one, but as QB he is the MOST important player and the one that is going to be under the microscope. Did he have a bad year due to the pressure of Cutler? Did he have a bad year because of the shaky line? Did he have a bad year because Heimerdinger changed the offense and put in a scheme that Jake wasn't suited for (pocket passing/shotgun formations)?

Who knows. What anyone that removes emotion from the equation knows is that if Jake 'mailed it in' or 'gave up' then the other players on the team would have been calling for Cutler to take over, would have been talking to the press about how Plummer wasn't doing what it takes to win, that he was hurting the team.

Den21vsBal19
07-27-2008, 02:15 PM
Apparently even the Cutler - Heimerdinger - Shanahan combo didn't work too well, considering Dinger and his non-Broncos' schemes were shown the door.

I hate to be overly fair ;), but looking at the offence overall that season, only Walker was a true threat at reciever (Smith struggling with his hip most of the season), Alexander was used purely as auxiliary tackle, and more often than not at least one of the backs was kept to block after we were embarrased by the Steelers.............

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-27-2008, 02:20 PM
No, you are 100% wrong. This is a message board misconception that has been forwarded on and on.

I have documented, via play by play breakdowns of the Rams game how incorrect you are. The Broncos came out game 1 of the Heimerdinger offense with a pocket passing game plan. They did not attempt to bootleg and have it taken away. I suggest you rewatch the game, or read one of my play by play breakdowns of that game.

So your telling me we didnt start the game running boots? I dont need a play by play breakdown when i seen it with my own eyes. We were forced to sit Plummer in the pocket because we had to prove he could do it. I hope you got a play by play of the whole year he was in the games also. Teams took away all boots. Forced us to sit him in the pocket. There is noway in hell SHANNY the GENERAL would let Hiemerdinger come in and just take away everything we did well the year before. Shanny is a control freak he would not allow that to happen. If you think so then you dont know Shanny well my friend.

Tned
07-27-2008, 02:28 PM
So your telling me we didnt start the game running boots? I dont need a play by play breakdown when i seen it with my own eyes. We were forced to sit Plummer in the pocket because we had to prove he could do it. I hope you got a play by play of the whole year he was in the games also. Teams took away all boots. Forced us to sit him in the pocket. There is noway in hell SHANNY the GENERAL would let Hiemerdinger come in and just take away everything we did well the year before. Shanny is a control freak he would not allow that to happen. If you think so then you dont know Shanny well my friend.

Well, I can't tell you if it is your eyesight or memory, but I can definitively tell you that the Broncos DID NOT start off that game running boots. There was ONE boot in the first half, and it was around halfway through the half, give or take. It was a sack, but it was an overload blitz where a DB was on the LOS clearly blitzing, but nobody was there to pick him up.

Regardless of 'why' that clear blitz wasn't picked up, there is zero doubt about the fact that the Broncos DID NOT start the game or season attempting to boot and have it taken away. The fact is that quite the opposite was true.

I know it is easy to 'remember' things the way you want to support your feelings about a player or team, which is why I do things like actually review the game when conversations like this come up so I can talk about fact and reality, rather than emotion and fantasy.

Each to their own, though.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Ok, so 57 or so team mates all support him, even though many of their pay checks (incentive contracts), chance to win a SB at the end of their career, and just their competitive nature was sabotaged by Jake 'mailing it in', yet NONE of them break ranks and talk about how Plummer isn't doing EVERYTHING necessary to win. Quite the opposite, they are all publically stating the opposite. Talking about the mistakes up and down the lineup that contributed to the rough start to '06.

It boggles my mind when people completely discount the facts, when man crushes or player hatred are involved.

Good point. Moving forward, lets pick the roster with the players that get the best support from their teammates.

Maybe you haven't played sports. Selling out your teammates is a no-no. It is not their job to worry about the QB.

BroncoWave
07-27-2008, 02:32 PM
So your telling me we didnt start the game running boots? I dont need a play by play breakdown when i seen it with my own eyes. We were forced to sit Plummer in the pocket because we had to prove he could do it. I hope you got a play by play of the whole year he was in the games also. Teams took away all boots. Forced us to sit him in the pocket. There is noway in hell SHANNY the GENERAL would let Hiemerdinger come in and just take away everything we did well the year before. Shanny is a control freak he would not allow that to happen. If you think so then you dont know Shanny well my friend.

Did you even read the play-by-play he posted? I think you've confabulated some memories from that game.

Tned
07-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Ok, as I have said before, I am willing to agree to disagree on this subject. It all really means nothing, considering Jake is long gone and Cutler is now the QB.

Tned
07-27-2008, 02:33 PM
Good point. Moving forward, lets pick the roster with the players that get the best support from their teammates.

Maybe you haven't played sports. Selling out your teammates is a no-no. It is not their job to worry about the QB.

None of that made sense, but as I said, let's agree to disagree.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 02:33 PM
Ok, as I have said before, I am willing to agree to disagree on this subject. It all really means nothing, considering Jake is long gone and Cutler is now the QB.

And that in itself proves my point.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 02:34 PM
None of that made sense, but as I said, let's agree to disagree.

Good retort. Players play, coaches coach, Jake mails it in.

Tned
07-27-2008, 02:39 PM
And that in itself proves my point.

Bief, I try to stay on the topic, rather than the poster, but I have to say that you have not proven any point.


Good retort. Players play, coaches coach, Jake mails it in.

Glad you base your comments based on your fantasies, rather than facts.

I try and agree to disagree, and you still have to take shots after I raise the truce flag.

Go figure.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Well, I can't tell you if it is your eyesight or memory, but I can definitively tell you that the Broncos DID NOT start off that game running boots. There was ONE boot in the first half, and it was around halfway through the half, give or take. It was a sack, but it was an overload blitz where a DB was on the LOS clearly blitzing, but nobody was there to pick him up.

Regardless of 'why' that clear blitz wasn't picked up, there is zero doubt about the fact that the Broncos DID NOT start the game or season attempting to boot and have it taken away. The fact is that quite the opposite was true.

I know it is easy to 'remember' things the way you want to support your feelings about a player or team, which is why I do things like actually review the game when conversations like this come up so I can talk about fact and reality, rather than emotion and fantasy.

Each to their own, though.

I dont hate plummer or dislike plummer...

Northman
07-27-2008, 02:46 PM
There comes a time we all give up. It's called retirement.

Jake didn't want to play football anymore. It's obvious. Even a trip to Idaho
by Mr. Gruden did not sway Jake. I can't envision Gruden going to all that
trouble if he saw Jake as one-of-five in camp. But that doesn't matter.

Jake was through. He wanted to do other things in his life. His values
exceeded football and money. I understand in this society where football and
money are gods that he would get flak for it. But I admire him for his decision.

I am grateful to Jake for three straight playoff years, for his charity work
that he never bothered to publicize, and now I am happy he is home, loving
life. He doesn't have to be here where he has to hear all the crap he never
deserved.

Via con dios, Jake. :wave:

-----

What Jake did after he got traded from Denver doesnt bother me. He didnt want to compete for a starting job and decided to retire. Great for him and im glad he's happy. Im more concerned with what happened on the field in 2006 and how he just plummeted and gave up. It was clear his heart wasnt in the game anymore and he really should of just retired before the season started. Deserve has nothing to do with it Top and you know it. Griese didnt deserve all the garbage that got thrown at him, Elway didnt deserve the crap people gave him. Player criticism is part of this game and people are going to have their opinions on said players no matter who they are.

Northman
07-27-2008, 02:48 PM
Jake wanted to play hard on game day. The rest of the week he was disinterested.

Shanny mentioned this. Of course, Shanny may have a minor ax to grind, but rarely does he badmouth former players.

No, it is quite true. Jake was not one to sit and study the playbook. That was not his nature.

Northman
07-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Good point. Moving forward, lets pick the roster with the players that get the best support from their teammates.

Maybe you haven't played sports. Selling out your teammates is a no-no. It is not their job to worry about the QB.


Not only that but think about the type of players one would have to be in order to call out another player? Its pretty common knowledge that Jake was a likeable guy in the locker room and off the field. But you cant tell me if we had a Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens on this team in 2006 that there wouldnt be any fireworks thrown at Jake when the offense was absolutely anemic with him in there. For the most part that team stands by one another just like they are with Jay and like they were with Jake. Just because the team isnt calling him out does not mean that Jake didnt do the extra things that would of helped him succeed more.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 02:59 PM
What Jake did after he got traded from Denver doesnt bother me. He didnt want to compete for a starting job and decided to retire. Great for him and im glad he's happy. Im more concerned with what happened on the field in 2006 and how he just plummeted and gave up. It was clear his heart wasnt in the game anymore and he really should of just retired before the season started. Deserve has nothing to do with it Top and you know it. Griese didnt deserve all the garbage that got thrown at him, Elway didnt deserve the crap people gave him. Player criticism is part of this game and people are going to have their opinions on said players no matter who they are.

I don't know why you all insist on this "Jake didn't want to compete so he
quit" business. You don't know that, so why insist on it?

And "deserve" has everything to do with it in this thread. Go back and read
the initial post, Post #1. If a fan is trashing a player who does not deserve
that trashing, I will speak up and express my own opinion. I'm not going to
just sit back meekly and let it all go on, just because others want me to.
If anyone thinks that of me, they are in for a rude awakening.

Jake had an overwhelmingly winning record. He led the Broncos to the
playoff three years in a row. Only one other time during the last ten years
have the Broncos been to the playoffs. One.

We have Cutler now. Check. Cutler is a better quarterback. Check. But
Jake is still being trashed. I will speak up. Check.

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Not only that but think about the type of players one would have to be in order to call out another player? Its pretty common knowledge that Jake was a likeable guy in the locker room and off the field. But you cant tell me if we had a Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens on this team in 2006 that there wouldnt be any fireworks thrown at Jake when the offense was absolutely anemic with him in there. For the most part that team stands by one another just like they are with Jay and like they were with Jake. Just because the team isnt calling him out does not mean that Jake didnt do the extra things that would of helped him succeed more.

You can't tell me there would be fireworks. You don't know that.

That is hypothetical, and I don't know how that possibly could be considered.

The important thing is what is, not what might have been.

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:02 PM
Not only that but think about the type of players one would have to be in order to call out another player? Its pretty common knowledge that Jake was a likeable guy in the locker room and off the field. But you cant tell me if we had a Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens on this team in 2006 that there wouldnt be any fireworks thrown at Jake when the offense was absolutely anemic with him in there. For the most part that team stands by one another just like they are with Jay and like they were with Jake. Just because the team isnt calling him out does not mean that Jake didnt do the extra things that would of helped him succeed more.

I don't know, how about a player like Marshall, Smith or Cutler. All of them have called out Marshall or other players for not doing what it takes to win, needing to grow up, etc.

Ironic how they ONLY had loyalty to Jake... :confused:

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:02 PM
I don't know why you all insist on this "Jake didn't want to compete so he
quit" business. You don't know that, so why insist on it?

And "deserve" has everything to do with it in this thread. Go back and read
the initial post, Post #1. If a fan is trashing a player who does not deserve
that trashing, I will speak up and express my own opinion. I'm not going to
just sit back meekly and let it all go on, just because others want me to.
If anyone thinks that of me, they are in for a rude awakening.

Jake had an overwhelmingly winning record. He led the Broncos to the
playoff three years in a row. Only one other time during the last ten years
have the Broncos been to the playoffs. One.

We have Cutler now. Check. Cutler is a better quarterback. Check. But
Jake is still being trashed. I will speak up. Check.

-----


All fine and well top, but people like me who thought he was average at best and quit on the team are entitled to their opinion. Players get trashed everyday on this forum man, Jake's no exception. You will speak your mind as will i.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:09 PM
As I said, I don't recall that. Could Shanny have made a passing remark? Maybe.

I go back to his team mates. You see Champ and Cutler calling Marshall out for not doing what it takes to win. We constantly saw Rod call players out throughout his career. Yet, nobody called Jake out.

Was he the J. Edgar Hoover of the NFL? Jake had a dossier on every player on the Broncos that kept them from calling him out for not doing EVERYTHING it takes to win?

I listen to NFL radio all the time. During the '06 season, I heard a bunch of Broncos interviewed, before and after Cutler took over, and NOBODY said that Jake was the problem -- nobody said Jake wasn't doing everything it took to win. That level of loyalty is very rare in the NFL, and if Jake was sabotaging the teams chance of winning, other players chance of reaching incentives in their contracts, then players would have talked about it. Yet, we heard none of that.

Did Jake have a bad year in '06? Sure. He isn't the only one, but as QB he is the MOST important player and the one that is going to be under the microscope. Did he have a bad year due to the pressure of Cutler? Did he have a bad year because of the shaky line? Did he have a bad year because Heimerdinger changed the offense and put in a scheme that Jake wasn't suited for (pocket passing/shotgun formations)?

Who knows. What anyone that removes emotion from the equation knows is that if Jake 'mailed it in' or 'gave up' then the other players on the team would have been calling for Cutler to take over, would have been talking to the press about how Plummer wasn't doing what it takes to win, that he was hurting the team.

I agree, except that Jake didn't have a bad year. He had a bad ½ year.

I have talked before about job fit. Any experienced supervisor knows what
I am talking about. When Heimerdinger tried to make a strictly pocket-passer
out of Jake, he (Jake) no longer fit the job. Jake was effective in the pocket
when the threat of rollout and bootleg was there. So they were keeping
him in the pocket, and the running game was not what it had been.

As you implied, we will never know just how much those circumstances
factored into Jake's performance during that stretch. But I will tell you one
thing: Whether or not Jake was replaced at that time, I would have fired
Dinger. That guy knew nothing about job fit.

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:11 PM
All fine and well top, but people like me who thought he was average at best and quit on the team are entitled to their opinion. Players get trashed everyday on this forum man, Jake's no exception. You will speak your mind as will i.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. Did I say different?

Just because I express my opinion does not mean I am suppressing yours.

I respect your opinion. I'm just giving mine, is all.

-----

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:15 PM
I don't know, how about a player like Marshall, Smith or Cutler. All of them have called out Marshall or other players for not doing what it takes to win, needing to grow up, etc.

Ironic how they ONLY had loyalty to Jake... :confused:


Cutler called out Marshall because of his off field transgressions. Did Jake constantly get into off field problems to be called out?

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:17 PM
You can't tell me there would be fireworks. You don't know that.

That is hypothetical, and I don't know how that possibly could be considered.

The important thing is what is, not what might have been.

-----

Its a hypothetical based off a pattern of said players. Owens and Johnson have a track record of doing that with their teams. I dont think thats a huge stretch on my part.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:23 PM
Its a hypothetical based off a pattern of said players. Owens and Johnson have a track record of doing that with their teams. I dont think thats a huge stretch on my part.

It is hypothetical. Entirely.

Owens and Johnson could get open. Whom did we have who could get open
as they could? Walker had just joined the team, yes, but he was still getting
orientated to the offense and testing his knee. Besides, he was volatile, too.
At what time did you hear Walker complain?

Jake never had a problem hitting an open receiver. So there might not have
been any "fireworks" at all, had T.O. or Chad been playing. Moreover, there
might have been less offensive problems.

But then, that's all hypothetical, too.

Let's get back to the facts, what'ya say?

-----

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Jake never had a problem hitting an open receiver.

-----

Left handed or right handed?

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:25 PM
Left handed or right handed?

Bief, did you have something intelligent to say?

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:25 PM
I'm not sure why there's disbelievers to the statement that Jake Plummer wasn't someone who was willing to put in the extra effort during the week to study the playbook and game film. I think the numerous poor mistakes he made on the field, as well as the statements made by Mike Shanahan, were pretty evident of this. I don't necessarily think that's Mike bashing Jake, but just telling the truth. If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's probably a good reason for it. The aforementioned would be a huge part of it.

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:25 PM
It is hypothetical. Entirely.

Owens and Johnson could get open. Whom did we have who could get open
as they could? Walker had just joined the team, yes, but he was still getting
orientated to the offense and testing his knee. Besides, he was volatile, too.
At what time did you hear Walker complain?

Jake never had a problem hitting an open receiver. So there might not have
been any "fireworks" at all, had T.O. or Chad been playing. Moreover, there
might have been less offensive problems.

But then, that's all hypothetical, too.

Let's get back to the facts, what'ya say?

-----

Wow, that entirely incorrect. Ive seen Jake miss receivers 5 yds down the field. His accuracy as a Qb was nowhere near guys like Jay, Peyton, or Brady. Keep in mind, when Jay took over the offense in 06' not only did we score more points but the Qb's rating went up by 20%. And that was with the same players that Jake had.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:27 PM
I just loved seeing Jake throw those 40 yard bombs that Lelie had to run back for due to how poorly thrown they were.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 03:27 PM
Bief, did you have something intelligent to say?

-----

Sorry, I just laugh when you mention Jake's arm. Just put me on ignore and commence with ASU love.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 03:28 PM
I just loved seeing Jake throw those 40 yard bombs that Lelie had to run back for due to how poorly thrown they were.

A-**edit** amen.

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:31 PM
Cutler called out Marshall because of his off field transgressions. Did Jake constantly get into off field problems to be called out?

According to the Broncos fans posting on Mania, yes. Flipping the bird, running over fellow motorists, walking out on press conferences, yelling at talk show hosts and trashing Denver fans publicly.

See, I don't have an issue with someone who thinks Jake was an 'average' QB. I may or may not agree, but that isn't the issue.

What I don't like, and never have, is when people twist the truth/reality to 'fit' their opinions, such as has happened in this thread.

You sure seem like someone that has followed football and the Broncos for a while. If so, you realize that players that don't pull their weight get called out. On the Broncos and on other Teams. At 'minimum', the team mates are VERY careful in what they say, and dance around the issue, but talk glowingly about the replacement.

In Jake's case, while everyone did talk about Cutler's cannon arm and they also talked glowingly about Jake. They talked about the mistakes OTHER people on the team were making, such as the TE's, RB's, missed assignments by the OL, etc. So, these team mates were getting on Sirius and other NFL programs and talking about how other players on the team were screwing the pooch in '06, but NOT saying the same about Jake. Why do you think that was?

Don't you think that if the guy was mailing it in and had given up, then the other players would have been talking about his play, rather than the play of the OL, RB's, WRs running wrong routes, etc.?

I do believe that Kubiak, running the Shanny system, had a system perfectly suited to get the most out of Jake and that the system elevated his game. Ths made Jake a bit of a one trick pony. Then, Shanny brings in Dinger, who was also a one trick pony, wanting to run a pocket passing game, with no boots, multiple WRs, etc. This was not a scheme that suited either the QB or the OL. There was an OL that couldn't stand up to pass rushes when they had to do drop back passing play after play, and couldn't effectively open up running lanes when the passing game dissapeared.

There is a reason that Shanny's good friend Dinger was kicked out of town after two seasons. He implemented an offense that didn't suit the personell, both QB (when Jake was in there) and the OL.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:31 PM
A-edit-men.

Yeah, Cutler to Lelie would have been a real treat. Power arm, good accuracy and a guy who could flat out fly and catch the deep bomb. Well, we got Eddie Royal to be that deep dude now, plus a pretty good corps with him. That'll be good enough for me.

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm not sure why there's disbelievers to the statement that Jake Plummer wasn't someone who was willing to put in the extra effort during the week to study the playbook and game film. I think the numerous poor mistakes he made on the field, as well as the statements made by Mike Shanahan, were pretty evident of this. I don't necessarily think that's Mike bashing Jake, but just telling the truth. If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's probably a good reason for it. The aforementioned would be a huge part of it.

I think it just boils down to because Jake had a lot of good character and fire (at one point) on gameday that people just cant handle any negativity that others bring upon him. At the end of the day, Jake was a average Qb who TRULY benefitted coming to a much stronger organization and who allowed him to play in a certain scheme to be successful.

Its naive for anyone to think that Denver Broncos were going to win a Super Bowl with a guy who cannot pass from the pocket to save his life. And yes, Shanahan did make a statement that Jake was not as studious as Jay is when it comes to studying the playbook. Taking the extra time to study the playbook is what makes guys like Elway, Manning, etc better Qb's because they make the extra effort. Jake had all the heart in the world to play but thats about where it ended.

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:33 PM
According to the Broncos fans posting on Mania, yes. Flipping the bird, running over fellow motorists, walking out on press conferences, yelling at talk show hosts and trashing Denver fans publicly.

See, I don't have an issue with someone who thinks Jake was an 'average' QB. I may or may not agree, but that isn't the issue.

What I don't like, and never have, is when people twist the truth/reality to 'fit' their opinions, such as has happened in this thread.

You sure seem like someone that has followed football and the Broncos for a while. If so, you realize that players that don't pull their weight get called out. On the Broncos and on other Teams. At 'minimum', the team mates are VERY careful in what they say, and dance around the issue, but talk glowingly about the replacement.

In Jake's case, while everyone did talk about Cutler's cannon arm and they also talked glowingly about Jake. They talked about the mistakes OTHER people on the team were making, such as the TE's, RB's, missed assignments by the OL, etc. So, these team mates were getting on Sirius and other NFL programs and talking about how other players on the team were screwing the pooch in '06, but NOT saying the same about Jake. Why do you think that was?

Don't you think that if the guy was mailing it in and had given up, then the other players would have been talking about his play, rather than the play of the OL, RB's, WRs running wrong routes, etc.?

I do believe that Kubiak, running the Shanny system, had a system perfectly suited to get the most out of Jake and that the system elevated his game. Ths made Jake a bit of a one trick pony. Then, Shanny brings in Dinger, who was also a one trick pony, wanting to run a pocket passing game, with no boots, multiple WRs, etc. This was not a scheme that suited either the QB or the OL. There was an OL that couldn't stand up to pass rushes when they had to do drop back passing play after play, and couldn't effectively open up running lanes when the passing game dissapeared.

There is a reason that Shanny's good friend Dinger was kicked out of town after two seasons. He implemented an offense that didn't suit the personell, both QB (when Jake was in there) and the OL.


Good post.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:33 PM
I think it just boils down to because Jake had a lot of good character and fire (at one point) on gameday that people just cant handle any negativity that others bring upon him. At the end of the day, Jake was a average Qb who TRULY benefitted coming to a much stronger organization and who allowed him to play in a certain scheme to be successful.

Its naive for anyone to think that Denver Broncos were going to win a Super Bowl with a guy who cannot pass from the pocket to save his life. And yes, Shanahan did make a statement that Jake was not as studious as Jay is when it comes to studying the playbook. Taking the extra time to study the playbook is what makes guys like Elway, Manning, etc better Qb's because they make the extra effort. Jake had all the heart in the world to play but thats about where it ended.

Finally, a reasonable post from you. :D

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:35 PM
Sorry, I just laugh when you mention Jake's arm. Just put me on ignore and commence with ASU love.

Jake's arm? :confused:


And I am a UA fan. I hate ASU. And I hated Jake (the player, not the person)
when he was there. He kept beating us . . .

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:35 PM
Wow, that entirely incorrect. Ive seen Jake miss receivers 5 yds down the field. His accuracy as a Qb was nowhere near guys like Jay, Peyton, or Brady. Keep in mind, when Jay took over the offense in 06' not only did we score more points but the Qb's rating went up by 20%. And that was with the same players that Jake had.

Scheffler was barely in the offense during Jake's time in '06 (wasn't he recovering from a broken foot)? Marshall was slowly worked into the offense and got better as the year went on. So, the personell wasn't completely the same.

However, that is a minor part of it. Jake had a horrible year in '06. Very possibly due to the fact that Dinger ran an offense that was completely unsuited for the QB and OL, possibly due to the fact Jake couldn't handle the pressure (as some contend), it is impossible to know 'why' Jake had a bad year. What can be pretty well established is that he didn't 'give up' and stop caring about winning, because the NFL is a business and his team mates would have had major issue with that and before or after he left we would have hear that.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:35 PM
Jake Plummer was a one-trick pony. He couldn't throw in the pocket to save his life. As a quarterback, you're expected to do that in the NFL. Defenses eventually caught up with Denver's play action, bootlegs and roll outs and it showed in Jake's final year in Denver. You have to have a quarterback who can do it all, and Denver had the balls to give up a lot of ammo to land Jay Cutler. A prospect, and player who has shown the ability to do it all.

Let's not try and blame Mike Heimerdinger's offensive philosophy for Jake's lack of offensive success in his final year. Heimerdinger didn't have to change his philosophy just to fit the strengths of Jake Plummer. You acquire players who have the ability to fit in with the philosophy you're going for, and with Cutler you have the ability to pass in the pocket and roll out. Thank God for that.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:40 PM
Wow, that entirely incorrect. Ive seen Jake miss receivers 5 yds down the field. His accuracy as a Qb was nowhere near guys like Jay, Peyton, or Brady. Keep in mind, when Jay took over the offense in 06' not only did we score more points but the Qb's rating went up by 20%. And that was with the same players that Jake had.

At what point did I compare Jake to Jay, Peyton, or Brady? :confused:

Oh yes, I did compare Jake's study habits to Jay's and Peyton's. Unfavorably.

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:43 PM
Jake Plummer was a one-trick pony. He couldn't throw in the pocket to save his life. As a quarterback, you're expected to do that in the NFL. Defenses eventually caught up with Denver's play action, bootlegs and roll outs and it showed in Jake's final year in Denver. You have to have a quarterback who can do it all, and Denver had the balls to give up a lot of ammo to land Jay Cutler. A prospect, and player who has shown the ability to do it all.

Let's not try and blame Mike Heimerdinger's offensive philosophy for Jake's lack of offensive success in his final year. Heimerdinger didn't have to change his philosophy just to fit the strengths of Jake Plummer. You acquire players who have the ability to fit in with the philosophy you're going for, and with Cutler you have the ability to pass in the pocket and roll out. Thank God for that.

When you become an experienced supervisor, you will understand that you
change the circumstances to fit a person's strengths. Period. If you have
poor job fit, you have poor performance. This is especially true of a coach.
Players have strengths, and they have weaknesses. Any coach that is not
willing to accommodate a player's strengths needs to get the hell out of
coaching. Period.

*sheesh*

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:43 PM
Jake Plummer was a one-trick pony. He couldn't throw in the pocket to save his life. As a quarterback, you're expected to do that in the NFL. Defenses eventually caught up with Denver's play action, bootlegs and roll outs and it showed in Jake's final year in Denver. You have to have a quarterback who can do it all, and Denver had the balls to give up a lot of ammo to land Jay Cutler. A prospect, and player who has shown the ability to do it all.

Let's not try and blame Mike Heimerdinger's offensive philosophy for Jake's lack of offensive success in his final year. Heimerdinger didn't have to change his philosophy just to fit the strengths of Jake Plummer. You acquire players who have the ability to fit in with the philosophy you're going for, and with Cutler you have the ability to pass in the pocket and roll out. Thank God for that.

Dream, you are WAY off base here. Coaches HAVE to alter their philosiphies to the players on the field, whether it be the QB, RB, OL, defensive players, etc.

Dinger and Bates are both gone becase they didn't alter their schemes to suit the talent on the field. That's clear to anyone that watched the broncos the last two seasons.

Now, if an organization thinks that they don't have the talent on the field to play the scheme they want to move to, then you get the players and THEN change the scheme ONCE YOU HAVE the players that can succeed in that scheme.

Bates failed in this regard, Dinger failed in this regard.

Jake was best on the move, no question about that. Our small O-line couldn't handle straight, drop back pass blocking. Dinger modified the scheme from DAY ONE of '06 and put the OL and QB in a situation where they couldn't succeed, just like Bates did with the offense last year.

They doesn't mean Jake was a 'great' QB, it just means the coaching staff has to take a large part of the blame for the failures of '06 and '07.

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:44 PM
Scheffler was barely in the offense during Jake's time in '06 (wasn't he recovering from a broken foot)? Marshall was slowly worked into the offense and got better as the year went on. So, the personell wasn't completely the same.

However, that is a minor part of it. Jake had a horrible year in '06. Very possibly due to the fact that Dinger ran an offense that was completely unsuited for the QB and OL, possibly due to the fact Jake couldn't handle the pressure (as some contend), it is impossible to know 'why' Jake had a bad year. What can be pretty well established is that he didn't 'give up' and stop caring about winning, because the NFL is a business and his team mates would have had major issue with that and before or after he left we would have hear that.


Whether he quit on the team is debatable ill give you that. But im not going to use Dinger/Kubes as the scapegoat for Jake's issues as a QB. Inconsistency has plagued Jake since his days in Arizona. It only improved because he moved on to a better organization and coach. Good Qb's in my opinion dont lose their "edge" or "talent" just because of a assistant coach here and there.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:47 PM
Whether he quit on the team is debatable ill give you that. But im not going to use Dinger/Kubes as the scapegoat for Jake's issues as a QB. Inconsistency has plagued Jake since his days in Arizona. It only improved because he moved on to a better organization and coach. Good Qb's in my opinion dont lose their "edge" or "talent" just because of a assistant coach here and there.

I believe Tned and I are mentioning possible factors. Is that scapegoat?

And why wouldn't a player's consistency improve with a better team?

Would that fall into the "duh" category?

And I don't care how good a player is. You give him poor job fit, and he is
not going to perform as well as if you use him according to his talents and
strengths. That is also a no-brainer.

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:48 PM
When you become an experienced supervisor, you will understand that you
change the circumstances to fit a person's strengths. Period. If you have
poor job fit, you have poor performance. This is especially true of a coach.
Players have strengths, and they have weaknesses. Any coach that is not
willing to accommodate a player's strengths needs to get the hell out of
coaching. Period.

*sheesh*

-----

Exactly. If Kubiak and Shanahan tried to call plays exactly the same with Griese as they did with Elway, they would not be doing their job, because Griese couldn't throw the long ball or move the way Elway could.

A HUGE part of coaching is getting the best out of the players. If you don't have shut down corners, you don't run a ton of man on man hanging the corners out to dry on their own, setting them up for failure. Instead, you play more zone, and give them other protection to make up for their weaknesses. When you have someone like Champ, you can leave him one on one, and roll supporting coverage to the other side.

It's ALL about getting the most out of the players on the field, not failing to spite yourself by putting a scheme in, regardless of whether it fits the personell on the field.

Tned
07-27-2008, 03:50 PM
Whether he quit on the team is debatable ill give you that. But im not going to use Dinger/Kubes as the scapegoat for Jake's issues as a QB. Inconsistency has plagued Jake since his days in Arizona. It only improved because he moved on to a better organization and coach. Good Qb's in my opinion dont lose their "edge" or "talent" just because of a assistant coach here and there.

If Dinger wasn't a problem, then why didn't he survive Jake by more than one season. A second failed season, I might add?

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:50 PM
Exactly. If Kubiak and Shanahan tried to call plays exactly the same with Griese as they did with Elway, they would not be doing their job, because Griese couldn't throw the long ball or move the way Elway could.

A HUGE part of coaching is getting the best out of the players. If you don't have shut down corners, you don't run a ton of man on man hanging the corners out to dry on their own, setting them up for failure. Instead, you play more zone, and give them other protection to make up for their weaknesses. When you have someone like Champ, you can leave him one on one, and roll supporting coverage to the other side.

It's ALL about getting the most out of the players on the field, not failing to spite yourself by putting a scheme in, regardless of whether it fits the personell on the field.

Sounds as if you are someone who has experience at supervising. ;)

-----

LordTrychon
07-27-2008, 03:50 PM
I believe Tned and I are mentioning possible factors. Is that scapegoat?

And why wouldn't a player's consistency improve with a better team?

Would that fall into the "duh" category?

And I don't care how good a player is. You give him poor job fit, and he is
not going to perform as well as if you use him according to his talents and
strengths. That is also a no-brainer.

-----

Go Robertson! :salute:

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:50 PM
If you're coaching a team, you go with your philosophy and you get players who fit your respective philosophy and scheme and move forward. Alteration will occur, especially if you have players with given strengths that benefit in certain areas more than others, but to say that the Broncos (Heimerdinger, let's go with that offensively) had to accomodate and alter the way they view football to accomodate to Jake Plummer is assinine. Of course you need to make game changes and game plans to help accomodate, but you don't dump everything just because of one player.

A lack of success was evident with both Heimerdinger and Bates, but I'm a firm believer that's due in part to not having adequate personnel to fit those schemes, rather than any other possible explanation.

The Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of this. They have had a pretty successful defense lately due to drafting players and getting UDFA's who fit into their scheme and buy into the philosophy they're going with. You don't alter the philosophy of your team to fit the players you currently have. You get the correct players to fit into how you want to run things and then go off with it.

It's exactly what this team is doing now. Getting players that buy into what they're doing now, instead of changing things up on a constant basis. (Anyone care to take a stab at how many defensive variations we ran with our personnel over the past 3-4 years?) It is way more beneficial in the long-run. And a lack of success with these team over the past few years can definitely be pointed to the constant changing of schemes (especially defensively) because we didn't have the proper personnel to run them.

You find an identity and you grow into it. You get pieces (players) that work with the puzzle (philosophy). It's not the other way around.

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:51 PM
I believe Tned and I are mentioning possible factors. Is that scapegoat?

And why wouldn't a player's consistency improve with a better team?

Would that fall into the "duh" category?

And I don't care how good a player is. You give him poor job fit, and he is
not going to perform as well as if you use him according to his talents and
strengths. That is also a no-brainer.

-----


Well, actually you guys have been coming across as claiming those to be facts. And thats where my problem lies with your arguement.

LordTrychon
07-27-2008, 03:52 PM
If you're coaching a team, you go with your philosophy and you get players who fit your respective philosophy and scheme and move forward. Alteration will occur, especially if you have players with given strengths that benefit in certain areas more than others, but to say that the Broncos (Heimerdinger, let's go with that offensively) had to accomodate and alter the way they view football to accomodate to Jake Plummer is assinine.

A lack of success was evident with both Heimerdinger and Bates, but I'm a firm believer that's due in part to not having adequate personnel to fit those schemes, rather than any other possible explanation.

The Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of this. They have had a pretty successful defense lately due to drafting players and getting UDFA's who fit into their scheme and buy into the philosophy they're going with. You don't alter the philosophy of your team to fit the players you currently have. You get the correct players to fit into how you want to run things and then go off with it.

It's exactly what this team is doing now.

Actually, didn't we get rid of the guys with the scheme that didn't fit the players we had? :confused:

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:52 PM
If Dinger wasn't a problem, then why didn't he survive Jake by more than one season. A second failed season, I might add?

Hard to say, dealing with a 10 year veteran Qb as opposed to a Rookie? Hard to say at this point.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:55 PM
Well, actually you guys have been coming across as claiming those to be facts. And thats where my problem lies with your arguement.

Go back and read my posts again. I was offering hypotheses.

In fact, a couple times I have had to tell you that you don't know that. ;)

But when it comes to the job-fit factor, that is a fact. I know from years of
supervising and studying business management.

-----

Northman
07-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Go back and read my posts again. I was offering hypotheses.

In fact, a couple times I have had to tell you that you don't know that. ;)

-----


Yea, but dude. I know everything. :beer::D

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 03:58 PM
Actually, didn't we get rid of the guys with the scheme that didn't fit the players we had? :confused:

Yep, we sure did. I wouldn't have expected Jim Bates to have done well here given the pathetic talent we had on the defense. It's quite obvious that we drafting players (Crowder, Thomas, Moss) that were prototypes (and acquired Bly) to do what he envisioned on defense, but things don't click together that easily. Especially with the given inexperience.

I don't see how anyone would try and argue against acquiring players that fit the scheme and philosophy your team has. I don't see it at all.

It didn't take long for defenses and opposing teams to finally realize that all Jake Plummer could do was pass outside of the pocket. Obviously things needed to be changed, and change definitely came.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 03:59 PM
Yea, but dude. I know everything. :beer::D

That's why I love you, Anubis. :elefant:

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:03 PM
If you're coaching a team, you go with your philosophy and you get players who fit your respective philosophy and scheme and move forward. Alteration will occur, especially if you have players with given strengths that benefit in certain areas more than others, but to say that the Broncos (Heimerdinger, let's go with that offensively) had to accomodate and alter the way they view football to accomodate to Jake Plummer is assinine. Of course you need to make game changes and game plans to help accomodate, but you don't dump everything just because of one player.

A lack of success was evident with both Heimerdinger and Bates, but I'm a firm believer that's due in part to not having adequate personnel to fit those schemes, rather than any other possible explanation.

The Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of this. They have had a pretty successful defense lately due to drafting players and getting UDFA's who fit into their scheme and buy into the philosophy they're going with. You don't alter the philosophy of your team to fit the players you currently have. You get the correct players to fit into how you want to run things and then go off with it.

It's exactly what this team is doing now. Getting players that buy into what they're doing now, instead of changing things up on a constant basis. (Anyone care to take a stab at how many defensive variations we ran with our personnel over the past 3-4 years?) It is way more beneficial in the long-run.

There are two problems with your argument.

First, teams ALWAYS alter their schemes to their players, especially at key positions like QB. If a team ran a heavy, vertical offense, because they had a strong armed QB and fast receivers, and then when they get their new QB he is accurate, but doesn't have great arm strength, and they no longer have burners at the WR spots, they will modify their scheme to suit the new personell on the field. Not keep running the same plays, that the current personell cannot properly execute.

Second, the Broncos didn't have a philosiphy that all of a sudden the defensive and offensive personell couldn't succeed in, so therefore they had to get personell that fit it. Instead, Dinger and Bates brought in new schemes, without FIRST bringing in the personell that could properly execute the philosiphy.

I'm all for a shift in the offensive philosiphy. The difference between you and me is that you seem to support what Dinger did. Bring in a new scheme that neither the Oline or QB could succeed in, and then simply fail as a team for as long as it took to get personell that could actually succeed in that scheme. Since I know you love the draft, and have actually said you wouldn't mind some horrible seasons (record wise) to get good picks to restock the team, I can kind of understand why you have this point of view, but it simply doesn't make good football sense.

Instead, what SHOULD have happened, and I believe this is why Dinger and Bates are both gone, is that the team should have drafted and otherwise aquired personell that would fit the scheme the team wanted to 'move' to, and when enough pieces were in place (new linemen, new QB, etc.), then change the schemes and play calling.

Change is great, but you have to have a plan for how you are going to successfully implement that change.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:04 PM
Hard to say, dealing with a 10 year veteran Qb as opposed to a Rookie? Hard to say at this point.

Maybe he didn't work hard during the week and study playbook. Maybe Dinger only brought it n game day... ;)

LordTrychon
07-27-2008, 04:06 PM
Maybe he didn't work hard during the week and study playbook. Maybe Dinger only brought it n game day... ;)

I wish Dinger would've brought it better. :tsk:

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:10 PM
First, teams ALWAYS alter their schemes to their players, especially at key positions like QB.

Of course teams make alterations, but it's better long-term to get a philosophy (which this team hasn't had on defense for about 5 years) and get players who fit that scheme rather than having to make the correct alterations.


Second, the Broncos didn't have a philosiphy that all of a sudden the defensive and offensive personell couldn't succeed in, so therefore they had to get personell that fit it. Instead, Dinger and Bates brought in new schemes, without FIRST bringing in the personell that could properly execute the philosiphy.

Um? You get the philosophy and you move forward. That's the point. After Bates was brought in, Denver drafted three defensive lineman who fit his scheme perfectly, along with getting Bly to help on the defensive side even more. It's something that takes time to do. It doesn't happen overnight. Denver has also drafted more offensive lineman who are adept to pass blocking in a more traditional passing scheme. All evidence that points, you get your philosophy and then you draft players who grow into it. (Indianapolis, New England, Green Bay, etc. are all great examples of this -- Baltimore too, especially defensively.)

It didn't seem like Mike or Pat had the patience to go with the growing pains that were bound to happen with a change in coaching philosophy, and they ended up getting rid of the coaches due in part. We've also gotten rid of a lot of players, because it seems like they finally get that you draft and acquire talent to fit the philosophy of your team instead of doing otherwise, like we had done for quite some time.


I'm all for a shift in the offensive philosiphy. The difference between you and me is that you seem to support what Dinger did. Bring in a new scheme that neither the Oline or QB could succeed in, and then simply fail as a team for as long as it took to get personell that could actually succeed in that scheme. Since I know you love the draft, and have actually said you wouldn't mind some horrible seasons (record wise) to get good picks to restock the team, I can kind of understand why you have this point of view, but it simply doesn't make good football sense.

Instead, what SHOULD have happened, and I believe this is why Dinger and Bates are both gone, is that the team should have drafted and otherwise aquired personell that would fit the scheme the team wanted to 'move' to, and when enough pieces were in place (new linemen, new QB, etc.), then change the schemes and play calling.

Denver did draft players that fit Bates' scheme and acquired players to do it as well. Even with Heimerdinger gone, the Broncos are drafting bigger offensive lineman that are better suited for drop back pass blocking. That hasn't changed. This team is starting to finally get that you acquire talent that fits the scheme you want to go with, instead of changing the schemes to fit the players you have. It's way better long term, and the stability cannot be argued.


Change is great, but you have to have a plan for how you are going to successfully implement that change.

Yeah, I never argued that.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:11 PM
I don't see how anyone would try and argue against acquiring players that fit the scheme and philosophy your team has. I don't see it at all.


This is a point you simply keep missing. The Broncos didn't have any philosiphy where the personell didn't fit, instead the two assistant head coaches brought in a NEW philosiphy that didn't fit the existing players, and didn't have any type of adequate transition plan.

Even Shanny, while throwing Bates under the bus after the season talked about how Bates got away from the philosiphy that worked so well for the Broncos for so long, and how the Broncos would be going back to it this year.

Did he say the same about his good friend and ex-room mate, Dinger? No. He didn't throw his friend under the bus, he simply kicked him out of town.

However, on offense, it was clear that Shanny wanted the team to 'move' to a new offensive philosiphy. Where the failure occurred, and likely why Dinger was shown the door, is that Dinger didn't continue to get the most out of the players on the field, while the team acquired the necessary talent to move to a new offensive philosiphy.



It didn't take long for defenses and opposing teams to finally realize that all Jake Plummer could do was pass outside of the pocket. Obviously things needed to be changed, and change definitely came.

For three years teams didn't seem to be able to 'figure it out'. It's a popular misconception among those that bashed Jake during his playing time here that ther teams 'took away' the bootleg, when in reality the Broncos 'new' coaching genius, Heimerdinger, did that all on his own.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 04:13 PM
Of course teams make alterations, but it's better long-term to get a philosophy (which this team hasn't had on defense for about 5 years) and get players who fit that scheme rather than having to make the correct alterations.

In the NFL, alterations are necessary every single year. There is tremendous
attrition among teams. It is a very dynamic situation. If a coach cannot
adapt yearly to his personnel, then he should find some other form of work. :noidea:

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:14 PM
Denver did draft players that fit Bates' scheme and acquired players to do it as well. Even with Heimerdinger gone, the Broncos are drafting bigger offensive lineman that are better suited for drop back pass blocking. That hasn't changed. This team is starting to finally get that you acquire talent that fits the scheme you want to go with, instead of changing the schemes to fit the players you have. It's way better long term, and the stability cannot be argued.


You bring up other teams, but the part you keep skipping over is that the Broncos didn't have a philosiphy in place, Dinger (and Bates) brought in NEW philosiphies, which didn't suit the personell on the field.

The only place you and I differ on this is that the coaches have to get the most out of the talent on the field, WHILE they are acquiring new talent to eventually replace those currently playing the game.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:16 PM
This is a point you simply keep missing. The Broncos didn't have any philosiphy where the personell didn't fit, instead the two assistant head coaches brought in a NEW philosiphy that didn't fit the existing players, and didn't have any type of adequate transition plan.

Even Shanny, while throwing Bates under the bus after the season talked about how Bates got away from the philosiphy that worked so well for the Broncos for so long, and how the Broncos would be going back to it this year.

Did he say the same about his good friend and ex-room mate, Dinger? No. He didn't throw his friend under the bus, he simply kicked him out of town.

However, on offense, it was clear that Shanny wanted the team to 'move' to a new offensive philosiphy. Where the failure occurred, and likely why Dinger was shown the door, is that Dinger didn't continue to get the most out of the players on the field, while the team acquired the necessary talent to move to a new offensive philosiphy.

Denver hasn't had a defensive philosophy on this team for YEARS. They've ran damn near a dozen different type of defenses since Larry Coyer was defensive coordinator here. That's one of the reasons why this team has stunk the past several years in this regard.


For three years teams didn't seem to be able to 'figure it out'. It's a popular misconception among those that bashed Jake during his playing time here that ther teams 'took away' the bootleg, when in reality the Broncos 'new' coaching genius, Heimerdinger, did that all on his own.

It seemed like the Steelers sure understood how to shut down the bootleg, right?

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:19 PM
You bring up other teams, but the part you keep skipping over is that the Broncos didn't have a philosiphy in place, Dinger (and Bates) brought in NEW philosiphies, which didn't suit the personell on the field.

Yeah, I'm well aware that we didn't have a philosophy in place on the defensive side of the ball. It's part of the reason we've sucked balls for the past several years in that regard.


The only place you and I differ on this is that the coaches have to get the most out of the talent on the field, WHILE they are acquiring new talent to eventually replace those currently playing the game.

I never said you didn't need to make changes. Of course you make changes. Game planning is essential in football. It's an absolute must. I said I was a proponent of getting a philosophy and acquiring the appropriate personnel. You do your best to accomodate with those who you have, but you don't alter the vision you have on a particular side of the ball just because of one player in particular, like Jake Plummer.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 04:20 PM
It seemed like the Steelers sure understood how to shut down the bootleg, right?

Yes, they understood an elementary principle: stop the run, stop the bootleg.

-----

LordTrychon
07-27-2008, 04:23 PM
Denver hasn't had a defensive philosophy on this team for YEARS. They've ran damn near a dozen different type of defenses since Larry Coyer was defensive coordinator here. That's one of the reasons why this team has stunk the past several years in this regard.



It seemed like the Steelers sure understood how to shut down the bootleg, right?

They destroyed the line.

Thanks for bringing that lovely memory up. :mad:

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:25 PM
Denver hasn't had a defensive philosophy on this team for YEARS. They've ran damn near a dozen different type of defenses since Larry Coyer was defensive coordinator here. That's one of the reasons why this team has stunk the past several years in this regard.


Ahh, so once again a person that uses Shanny's statements when convenient, but not otherwise. Shanny stated that Bates took the Broncos away from their philosiphy of 8 men in the box and using blitzes to get pressure, and that he had to take back control at the bye week and get rid of him so the team could get back to what had worked for them.


It seemed like the Steelers sure understood how to shut down the bootleg, right?

Another 'convenience' on your part. What DIDN'T the steelers shut down? Big Ben made a mockery of our pass defense, setting records on third down conversions.

The Steelers completely shut down the running game, which of course shuts down play action, boot or otherwise.

Using the Steelers as your 'proof' that the boot was taken away is laughable. The Steelers were a great defense that year, that even made Peyton Manning and the Colt's offense look bad.

This subject (AFCCG) has been discussed at length. The entire team failed on that day, on both sides of the ball, and the coaching staff.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:28 PM
I never said you didn't need to make changes. Of course you make changes. Game planning is essential in football. It's an absolute must. I said I was a proponent of getting a philosophy and acquiring the appropriate personnel. You do your best to accomodate with those who you have, but you don't alter the vision you have on a particular side of the ball just because of one player in particular, like Jake Plummer.

It wasn't one player, it was both the QB and offensive line. That unit was suited for Kubiak's (learned from Shanahan) misdirection offense, that relied heavily on cut back runs, play actions (including many bootlegs), basically doing anything and everything to get the 'most' out of the small, athletic line that COULD NOT stand up in a drop back passing offense.

You and I both know that Jake was not the ONLY player that couldn't handle the drop back passing game as the season started in '06.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:31 PM
Ahh, so once again a person that uses Shanny's statements when convenient, but not otherwise.

No, that's not it at all.


Shanny stated that Bates took the Broncos away from their philosiphy of 8 men in the box and using blitzes to get pressure, and that he had to take back control at the bye week and get rid of him so the team could get back to what had worked for them.

Yeah, no shit? Obviously that was going to happen in a Jim Bates defense. You rely on pressure from your defensive lineman to succeed in that regard (check his Dolphins and Packers defenses) -- so of course he was going to try and bring what worked for him elsewhere here, and the Broncos even drafted and acquired players in hopes to do that.

Furthermore, 8-men in the box and using blitzes isn't really a philosophy. That's just scheme alterations and different plays within a defense. If you ever dabble onto the Orange Mane, hit up Mediator and he'll be able to explain the different defensive variations we've ran over the past four of five years. This team hasn't had an identity for a LONG time. I don't see how that can even be argued against? How many DC have we gone through in five years? I think I've lost count.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 04:32 PM
It wasn't one player, it was both the QB and offensive line. That unit was suited for Kubiak's (learned from Shanahan) misdirection offense, that relied heavily on cut back runs, play actions (including many bootlegs), basically doing anything and everything to get the 'most' out of the small, athletic line that COULD NOT stand up in a drop back passing offense.

You and I both know that Jake was not the ONLY player that couldn't handle the drop back passing game as the season started in '06.

You wouldn't be referring to an OL filled with flyweights, would you?

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:32 PM
You and I both know that Jake was not the ONLY player that couldn't handle the drop back passing game as the season started in '06.

Have the Broncos not acquired players in recent drafts and free agency periods to help out a quarterback and a scheme right now that will be based on drop back passing?

topscribe
07-27-2008, 04:35 PM
Have the Broncos not acquired players in recent drafts and free agency periods to help out a quarterback and a scheme right now that will be based on drop back passing?

Right. Holland, Kuper, Pears, Clady . . . when did they join the team, BTW?

-----

Kaylore
07-27-2008, 04:38 PM
Jay Culter was the first QB in '06 to scare the safeties off the line. The defenses would birng the safeties into the box, have the ends play contain and force Jake to beat them and he couldn't. Jake couldn't complete passes over the middle of the field. People say "we never ran the bootleg in '06 and it hurt us and Jake!" Hey geniuses: The run needs to work for the bootleg to work, and if they are playing contain then Jake is going to get killed on a boot.

Now part of the run game woes were a result of offensive line injuries. In those cases you need to be able to make plays from the pocket and Plummer sucks at that. Basically we had a pretty good QB whose weaknesses we hid with a gimmicky scheme. When the gimmick broke, Jake was exposed. Had Jake cared enough about football to put extra time into it and be a student of the game, he could have had a much more successful career. Unfortunately Jake did what Jake wanted to do and that meant not studying or trying during the week.

Cutler is already a better QB than Jake ever was.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:38 PM
Right. Holland, Kuper, Pears, Clady . . . when did they join the team, BTW?

-----

When they got rid of a quarterback who wasn't suited for drop back passing scheme, and went through with a new mindset and philsophy because they finally acquired a player who was worthy of building a team around. Obviously, my point.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:40 PM
Have the Broncos not acquired players in recent drafts and free agency periods to help out a quarterback and a scheme right now that will be based on drop back passing?

Yep, and as I have stated in this thread. I didn't have a problem with the team moving in a new direction, in fact I was thrilled with the Cutler, Scheffler, Walker, Marshall acquisitions.

My issue is not moving in a new direction, but not properly transitioning into the new scheme/philosiphy. We would have had a much better than .500 record the last two years if we continued to get the most out of the players ON the field, while acquiring the players we needed to move to a drop back passing philosiphy.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:40 PM
Jay Culter was the first QB in '06 to scare the safeties off the line. The defenses would birng the safeties into the box, have the ends play contain and force Jake to beat them and he couldn't. Jake couldn't complete passes over the middle of the field. People say "we never ran the bootleg in '06 and it hurt us and Jake!" Hey geniuses: The run needs to work for the bootleg to work, and if they are playing contain then Jake is going to get killed on a boot.

Now part of the run game woes were a result of offensive line injuries. In those cases you need to be able to make plays from the pocket and Plummer sucks at that. Basically we had a pretty good QB whose weaknesses we hid with a gimmicky scheme. When the gimmick broke, Jake was exposed. Had Jake cared enough about football to put extra time into it and be a student of the game, he could have had a much more successful career. Unfortunately Jake did what Jake wanted to do and that meant not studying or trying during the week.

Cutler is already a better QB than Jake ever was.

Thanks Kaylore. JMFW wouldn't even mess with this post. Please try and get to a few more camps before it's all over. XOXO.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:44 PM
Infact I was thrilled with the Cutler, Scheffler, Walker, Marshall acquisitions.

Me and you both, brother. The best part of it all is we got rid of a quarterback who loved throwing left-handed interceptions and put more effort into flipping off fans as opposed to studying the playbook and watching game film.

Slick
07-27-2008, 04:47 PM
Funny...basically two years removed and we still debate Jake/Jay like it was yesterday.

I'm over it.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:47 PM
Jay Culter was the first QB in '06 to scare the safeties off the line. The defenses would birng the safeties into the box, have the ends play contain and force Jake to beat them and he couldn't. Jake couldn't complete passes over the middle of the field. People say "we never ran the bootleg in '06 and it hurt us and Jake!" Hey geniuses: The run needs to work for the bootleg to work, and if they are playing contain then Jake is going to get killed on a boot.

I'm more 'gifted' than a genius, FWIW.

That out of the way, the simple fact is that from the first game of the '06 season, Dinger/Dennison called a completely different game than Kubes had called the year before. That play calling effected the run and pass game.

Were they 'forced' into it? That's a tough one, since they started the season that way. So, the best you can say is they were 'anticipating' defenses to keep Jake in the pocket, so in order to 'beat them to the punch' the Broncos were going to change their approach.


Cutler is already a better QB than Jake ever was.

He certainly has more talent, and hopefully with another year of experience, another training camp, and some insulin, he will be even better this year. More importantly, hopefully we have a D that gives up less than 26 points a year.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 04:48 PM
Funny...basically two years removed and we still debate Jake/Jay like it was yesterday.

I'm over it.

Once camp starts, I am sure we will all forget this stuff.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:48 PM
Once camp starts, I am sure we will all forget this stuff.

Wait, what? :lol:

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 04:49 PM
Wait, what? :lol:

Once camp starts next week. Then we call talk about the present.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:50 PM
Me and you both, brother. The best part of it all is we got rid of a quarterback who loved throwing left-handed interceptions and put more effort into flipping off fans as opposed to studying the playbook and watching game film.

Now if he can just lift us beyond being a .500 team, we will have a lot more to cheer about.

BroncoWave
07-27-2008, 04:50 PM
Once camp starts, I am sure we will all forget this stuff.

Camp has already started! :lol:

LordTrychon
07-27-2008, 04:50 PM
Funny...basically two years removed and we still debate Jake/Jay like it was yesterday.

I'm over it.

:offtopic:

You know the rule...

If you don't have something polarizing to say, don't say anything at all.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Now if he can just lift us beyond being a .500 team, we will have a lot more to cheer about.

Yep, you know it must have been real easy given all the injuries, low talent level and the growing pains that come along with scheme changes to have gotten over that .500 mark. I forgot that Jake Plummer was the reason we made it to the AFCCG.

BeefStew25
07-27-2008, 04:55 PM
Camp has already started! :lol:

Whatever dude.

Tned
07-27-2008, 04:56 PM
Yep, you know it must have been real easy given all the injuries, low talent level and the growing pains that come along with scheme changes to have gotten over that .500 mark. I forgot that Jake Plummer was the reason we made it to the AFCCG.

Wait, I thought you just said that players were supposed to adapt and excel with any and all scheme changes. Hmmm, I have trouble keeping up as the weather vane swings around and changes directions so often depending on 'which' point some people are trying to prove.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:00 PM
Wait, I thought you just said that players were supposed to adapt and excel with any and all scheme changes. Hmmm, I have trouble keeping up as the weather vane swings around and changes directions so often depending on 'which' point some people are trying to prove.

I'm not sure where I said "players are supposed to excel" -- especially since I said there are an extreme amount of growing pains (numerous times) when changing schemes. Could you point me in that direction? But hey, I get bonus points for knowing how to spell philosophy.

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:04 PM
But hey, I get bonus points for knowing how to spell philosophy.

I work for a living, I no longer have to care about whether or not I can spell philosophy or even bother using a spell checker.

But, hey, at least 53 player contributed more to each Broncos win than Plummer did each week he was the starter. Right? ;)

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:07 PM
But, hey, at least 53 player contributed more to each Broncos win than Plummer did each week he was the starter. Right? ;)

For sure, 'cause that's the philosophy I was goin' with.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:09 PM
Now if he can just lift us beyond being a .500 team, we will have a lot more to cheer about.

That comment would of had some merit if one truly expected a rookie to come out and play and be in total command of this team like an all pro.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:12 PM
That comment would of had some merit if one truly expected a rookie to come out and play and be in total command of this team like an all pro.

In comparison to talent and dedication to the game, Cutler is already an All-Pro in comparison to Jake Plummer, who instead of suiting up on Sunday's playing in the NFL is on a path for domination in handball tournaments across America. Given such, it begs me to ask the question as to what hand he favors: left or right? Do you think he'd flip off some kids if he lost to them in handball? Is there a handball playbook he studies?

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:14 PM
For sure, 'cause that's the philosophy I was goin' with.

Dream, you have been so biased on the Plummer issue, it is laughable (spelling ok -- I'm not a college kid). You were so biased that you claimed that one game, after a Broncos win, that there were 53 other guys on the field that day that contributed more to the win than Plummer.

Considering the fact that the NFL teams have a 53 man roster, and then declare eight inactive on game day, leaving 45 players on the field, not all of which even play. Then, you take Plummer out of that, and that leaves 44, but you claimed 53 guys contributed more to the win than Plummer.

I guess you are an ace at spelling, but might struggle a bit with math. :laugh:

Aren't you the one that always brings up logical falacies? Do you really think attacking me for my spelling, is the 'proper' way to debate/discuss a topic?

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:18 PM
Funny...basically two years removed and we still debate Jake/Jay like it was yesterday.

I'm over it.

Where is the Jake/Jay debate taking place? :confused:


In comparison to talent and dedication to the game, Cutler is already an All-Pro in comparison to Jake Plummer, who instead of suiting up on Sunday's playing in the NFL is on a path for domination in handball tournaments across America. Given such, it begs me to ask the question as to what hand he favors: left or right? Do you think he'd flip off some kids if he lost to them in handball? Is there a handball playbook he studies?

Oh, I see . . . well, I believe Jay is a better QB, too. But that isn't the topic, is it?


-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:18 PM
Do you really think attacking me for my spelling, is the 'proper' way to debate/discuss a topic?

I sort of thought that if we were going to talk about defensive philosophy we'd have to be on the right page.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:18 PM
In comparison to talent and dedication to the game, Cutler is already an All-Pro in comparison to Jake Plummer, who instead of suiting up on Sunday's playing in the NFL is on a path for domination in handball tournaments across America. Given such, it begs me to ask the question as to what hand he favors: left or right? Do you think he'd flip off some kids if he lost to them in handball? Is there a handball playbook he studies?

Sure, there are some things that Jay has already proven he can do much better than Jake. But at the same time he is till learning as well (throwing off his back foot etc).

Slick
07-27-2008, 05:19 PM
Where is the Jake/Jay debate taking place? :confused:

-----

A poor choice of words... ...:deadhorse:

Lonestar
07-27-2008, 05:20 PM
Now this might have been missed in this thread but I want everyone to think about how much Bigger this year the OLINE is going to be vs what we had going in 2006. When Mikey asked Dinger to make us more vertical..

almost all of them over 305 let alone the 295 average we had in 2006.
With a couple over 320.. we should finally be able to protect the QB a bit better than in 2006 and 2007


We are moving from a quick smart smaller ZBS OLINE to a much bigger just as fast and smart (perhaps excluding clady) to a Pass protect OLINE than can still ZBS..

We are finally getting decent WR's as well as experienced TE's and a FB that is designed to lead block instead of a piece meal convert .

Once again JAKE is retired time for the haters to forget him and allow him to be in piece. Some folks do not hate him and wish him well..

If you do not have anything positive to say go post in a Jay thread it is OK. Let those that do, remember him as Jake.

As heated as it got one would think we were asking him to come back to DEN to be Jays back up.. Let it rest folks ..

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:21 PM
Oh, I see . . . well, I believe Jay is a better QB, too. But that isn't the topic, is it?

I forgot what the topic of this thread was. That there was a nice article written about Jake Plummer. . . or was it the possibility he could land in Houston and reunite with Gary Kubiak. Either way, it seems like we haven't been on topic for a while.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:22 PM
But at the same time he is till learning as well (throwing off his back foot etc).

He learned that from Jake. It takes a while to shake a nasty habit if you're surrounded by it for a while. He'll learn. Keep the faith. :beer:

Lonestar
07-27-2008, 05:22 PM
Sure, there are some things that Jay has already proven he can do much better than Jake. But at the same time he is till learning as well (throwing off his back foot etc).

I also noticed in a Marshall hi-lite utube that Jay was doing a lot of bootlegs more than I remembered him doing..

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:23 PM
I sort of thought that if we were going to talk about defensive philosophy we'd have to be on the right page.

I just kicked a poster's butt for correcting another on grammar/spelling.

And you're doing it to Admin?? http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/BIGrofl2-1.gif

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:23 PM
I just kicked a poster's butt for correcting another on grammar/spelling.

Did you use your left or right foot?

BroncoWave
07-27-2008, 05:25 PM
Did you use your left or right foot?

:lol: You're on a roll today Dream!

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:25 PM
I sort of thought that if we were going to talk about defensive philosophy we'd have to be on the right page.

I'm sure there are 53 posters on this message board that 'contribute' more than me, due to their ability to spell philosiphy, just like those inactives contributed more to the Broncos wins than Plummer, according to you. :lol:

Anyway, any time you would like to stop attacking my spelling and just discuss the issue, I am all for it. If you would like to focus on each other's mistakes and faux pas, then I am definately up for that. You have always been good sport in that regard. Kind of like fox hunting. You feel sorry for the fox, but it's still fun to chase him down and then flay the fox.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Now this might have been missed in this thread but I want everyone to think about how much Bigger this year the OLINE is going to be vs what we had going in 2006. When Mikey asked Dinger to make us more vertical..

almost all of them over 305 let alone the 295 average we had in 2006.
With a couple over 320.. we should finally be able to protect the QB a bit better than in 2006 and 2007


We are moving from a quick smart smaller ZBS OLINE to a much bigger just as fast and smart (perhaps excluding clady) to a Pass protect OLINE than can still ZBS..

We are finally getting decent WR's as well as experienced TE's and a FB that is designed to lead block instead of a piece meal convert .

Once again JAKE is retired time for the haters to forget him and allow him to be in piece. Some folks do not hate him and wish him well..

If you do not have anything positive to say go post in a Jay thread it is OK. Let those that do, remember him as Jake.

As heated as it got one would think we were asking him to come back to DEN to be Jays back up.. Let it rest folks ..


To be fair Jr, Jake doesnt pay attention to message boards and has shown in the past to not care what fans think so i think his feelings are ok on this issue. I cant really buy into the idea that it is ok to post only Pro/Positive Jake threads without people voicing their opposing opinions on the guy. Quite frankly, as some have pointed out this issue has been hashed and rehashed already so there really was no "need" for the original poster to post this article. It has nothing to do with the Broncos anymore but if you are going to allow someone to continue to bring in new articles on the guy than we need to respect everyone's opinion on him, not just the ones that are flattering.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Did you use your left or right foot?

I give discounts on bulk demonstrations . . .

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:26 PM
:lol: You're on a roll today Dream!

Figuratively or literally? 'Cause I know a guy who can get in contact with it.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:27 PM
I also noticed in a Marshall hi-lite utube that Jay was doing a lot of bootlegs more than I remembered him doing..

You remember the Bills game last year? The option run he ran with Henry? That was awesome. :cool:

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:27 PM
I give discounts on bulk demonstrations . . .

-----

So, you're kind of the Wal-Mart of kicking butt? That's cool. How much do the Malaysians get per hour making your butt kicking boots?

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:28 PM
:lol: You're on a roll today Dream!

Yep, gotta love it when all a poster has left is to go after spelling and grammar errors.

Especially pickin on us lit'l 'ole Arkies that don't get that gud book learning, like up north and in da west....

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:29 PM
To be fair Jr, Jake doesnt pay attention to message boards and has shown in the past to not care what fans think so i think his feelings are ok on this issue. I cant really buy into the idea that it is ok to post only Pro/Positive Jake threads without people voicing their opposing opinions on the guy. Quite frankly, as some have pointed out this issue has been hashed and rehashed already so there really was no "need" for the original poster to post this article. It has nothing to do with the Broncos anymore but if you are going to allow someone to continue to bring in new articles on the guy than we need to respect everyone's opinion on him, not just the ones that are flattering.

Well, if there is no need to post this article, then there was no need for the
writer to write it. However, since the writer wrote it, then it makes just as
much sense to post it. :noidea:

But you're right: A discussion board is mainly for opinions. We must expect
that.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:30 PM
Anyway, any time you would like to stop attacking my spelling and just discuss the issue, I am all for it. If you would like to focus on each other's mistakes and faux pas, then I am definately up for that.

I'm definitely up for discussing how bad Jake Plummer sucks.


You have always been good sport in that regard. Kind of like fox hunting. You feel sorry for the fox, but it's still fun to chase him down and then flay the fox.

I'm the best sport. One time I intentionally threw at eight batters in a row and got kicked out of a Little League playoff game when I was 11 because half the kids were overweight and losers. Coach Smith wasn't very happy with me.

Onto the Plummer debates though!

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:30 PM
Well, if there is no need to post this article, then there was no need for the
writer to write it. However, since the writer wrote it, then it makes just as
much sense to post it. :noidea:

But you're right: A discussion board is mainly for opinions. We must expect
that.

-----

Yea, i understand that and that is ok. This whole thing just seems like a bait job to me. Thats all.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:30 PM
So, you're kind of the Wal-Mart of kicking butt? That's cool. How much do the Malaysians get per hour making your butt kicking boots?

Home-made, baby. ;)

My specialty is waking people up from their . . . um, Dreams . . .

-----

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:31 PM
Yea, i understand that and that is ok. This whole thing just seems like a bait job to me. Thats all.

Are you baiting me, Anubis?

-----

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:32 PM
Are you baiting me, Anubis?

-----

:lol:

No, i was referring to the original post. :lol:

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:32 PM
I'm definitely up for discussing how bad Jake Plummer sucks.


Hmmm . . . you put that in the present tense.

You know something I don't?

-----

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:32 PM
I'm definitely up for discussing how bad Jake Plummer sucks.



I'm the best sport. One time I intentionally threw at eight batters in a row and got kicked out of a Little League playoff game when I was 11 because half the kids were overweight and losers. Coach Smith wasn't very happy with me.

Onto the Plummer debates though!


Would you like to address your "53 men contributing more to wins on Sunday than Plummer" statement. I forgot the logic you used on that one. I just remember you begging me to take that quote of yours out of my sig. :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:34 PM
Hmmm . . . you put that in the present tense.

You know something I don't?

-----

Oh man, and I was just about to eat dinner. Plummer and Dream. Hmmm, that might explain a lot...

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:36 PM
You know something I don't?

There was a handball tournament in St. Paul a few weekends ago and he happened to show up. He lost to a Scandanavian kid named Lars after a ball deflected poorly off his left hand. Deja vu, if I've ever seen it. Ironically that's where he ended up a few hours later in a drunken rage, talking about his Arizona State days and how Joe Germaine was a way better quarterback than he was. Felt sorry for the guy. A few buddies of mine tried to help him off the floor after he fell down, but he just flipped us off instead.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:38 PM
There was a handball tournament in St. Paul a few weekends ago and he happened to show up. He lost to a Scandanavian kid named Lars after a ball deflected poorly off his left hand. Deja vu, if I've ever seen it. Ironically that's where he ended up a few hours later in a drunken rage, talking about his Arizona State days and how Joe Germaine was a way better quarterback than he was. Felt sorry for the guy. A few buddies of mine tried to help him off the floor after he fell down, but he just flipped us off instead.

:lol::lol:

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:39 PM
Would you like to address your "53 men contributing more to wins on Sunday than Plummer" statement.

Was that an imperative statement or a question? I respond a lot better to demands.

BroncoWave
07-27-2008, 05:39 PM
There was a handball tournament in St. Paul a few weekends ago and he happened to show up. He lost to a Scandanavian kid named Lars after a ball deflected poorly off his left hand. Deja vu, if I've ever seen it. Ironically that's where he ended up a few hours later in a drunken rage, talking about his Arizona State days and how Joe Germaine was a way better quarterback than he was. Felt sorry for the guy. A few buddies of mine tried to help him off the floor after he fell down, but he just flipped us off instead.

Did he call a radio station and complain afterward? :D

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:40 PM
There was a handball tournament in St. Paul a few weekends ago and he happened to show up. He lost to a Scandanavian kid named Lars after a ball deflected poorly off his left hand. Deja vu, if I've ever seen it. Ironically that's where he ended up a few hours later in a drunken rage, talking about his Arizona State days and how Joe Germaine was a way better quarterback than he was. Felt sorry for the guy. A few buddies of mine tried to help him off the floor after he fell down, but he just flipped us off instead.

I'm sorry, did you say you were majoring in philosophy or creative writing, with an emphasis on fiction?

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:40 PM
:lol::lol:

Yeah, it was pretty awesome. :smile:

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:43 PM
Was that an imperative statement or a question? I respond a lot better to demands.

Here's your question mark, grammar boy:

Would you like to address your "53 men contributing more to wins on Sunday than Plummer" statement?

Nice dodge of the actual question.

I'm willing to admit that I can't keep up with you on the book learning, I am too busy making a living and paying the taxes that help support your student loans and other government hand outs and have been out of school for 20 years.

So, with the ? in place, would you care to address the question?

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:45 PM
Did he call a radio station and complain afterward? :D

Well, we left at about 2:00 AM and he was still on the floor, passed out and drowning in his own puke. A couple in the know told me he kept screaming, "Antonio Pierce!" for about a half and hour and then went on to rant in a stupor state how awesome he was for having just as many TD's as INT's, and a quarterback rating of 74.6 -- which ironically translates into his collective football IQ, but much higher than his IQ for reading defenses and coverage schemes.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:46 PM
So, with the ? in place, would you care to address the question?

Ah, um. *bites fingers* I suffer from amnesia. What was the question?

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:47 PM
:lol:

No, i was referring to the original post. :lol:

So you're baiting the whole thread?? :shocked:



We need to talk, Anubis . . . :sad:



-----

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:47 PM
Well, we left at about 2:00 AM and he was still on the floor, passed out and drowning in his own puke. A couple in the know told me he kept screaming, "Antonio Pierce!" for about a half and hour and then went on to rant in a stupor state how awesome he was for having just as many TD's as INT's, and a quarterback rating of 74.6 -- which ironically translates into his collective football IQ, but much higher than his IQ for reading defenses and coverage schemes.


Ok, i think i just spit water on myself with that one. :lol:

Tned
07-27-2008, 05:47 PM
Well, we left at about 2:00 AM and he was still on the floor, passed out and drowning in his own puke. A couple in the know told me he kept screaming, "Antonio Pierce!" for about a half and hour and then went on to rant in a stupor state how awesome he was for having just as many TD's as INT's, and a quarterback rating of 74.6 -- which ironically translates into his collective football IQ, but much higher than his IQ for reading defenses and coverage schemes.

Dream, you are so full of it. Let me guess, you were also standing next to Forest Gump drinking Coca-Cola with Kennedy? :confused:

Anyway, before I really put the mods in a tough position, I'll stop playing with little boy Dream, since he won't answer any questions anyway, and just makes up BS stories.

Sad, so sad.

Northman
07-27-2008, 05:48 PM
So you're baiting the whole thread?? :shocked:



We need to talk, Anubis . . . :sad:



-----

:lol:

Ok, the very first post which was not mine.

topscribe
07-27-2008, 05:50 PM
Dream, you are so full of it. Let me guess, you were also standing next to Forest Gump drinking Coca-Cola with Kennedy? :confused:

Anyway, before I really put the mods in a tough position, I'll stop playing with little boy Dream, since he won't answer any questions anyway, and just makes up BS stories.

Sad, so sad.


Yes, we've all had our fun (me, too).

:focus:

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
07-27-2008, 05:51 PM
Dream, you are so full of it. Let me guess, you were also standing next to Forest Gump drinking Coca-Cola with Kennedy? :confused:

No, I'm being serious. I even saw Tupac at the movies last night with Biggie Smalls. And dude, it was a Pepsi.

Now my fun is over. :smile:

Watchthemiddle
07-27-2008, 06:18 PM
No, I'm being serious. I even saw Tupac at the movies last night with Biggie Smalls. And dude, it was a Pepsi.

Now my fun is over. :smile:

No, actually it was Dr. Pepper....now we all know you are lying. :listen:

weazel
07-27-2008, 11:26 PM
Jake Plummer was a douchebag. That's all.

you stay classy!

topscribe
07-27-2008, 11:32 PM
I just love how the Jakesters pull the "defense" card for the playoff games, but want to credit Jake for EVERY win and EVERY playoff appearance.

:coffee:

Mmmm-hmmm . . . well, if you are attributing that to me, you are doing it
inaccurately. From our history, Mtnman, you ought to know that I consider
Jake contributing to every win and contributing to every loss since it is a
team game both ways.

However, if one didn't know better, one might infer that you credit Jake with
every loss while claiming the team produces every win for him. :coffee:

-----

sneakers
07-28-2008, 01:33 AM
Let me guess, you were also standing next to Forest Gump drinking Coca-Cola with Kennedy? :confused:


I thought forest's favorite beverage was Dr. Pepper? I am 95% sure of it.

BeefStew25
07-28-2008, 01:36 PM
you stay classy!

Your sig hypocrites you.

JakeGirl
07-28-2008, 02:59 PM
Mmmm-hmmm . . . well, if you are attributing that to me, you are doing it
inaccurately. From our history, Mtnman, you ought to know that I consider
Jake contributing to every win and contributing to every loss since it is a
team game both ways.

However, if one didn't know better, one might infer that you credit Jake with
every loss while claiming the team produces every win for him. :coffee:

-----

Guess MtnMan has no answer for that one (LOL!). Good response there, topscribe!!! :-)

I gotta say, it is fascinating how many reactions JAKE gets from both fans and non-fans. I don't think the Broncos have ever had a player who caused so much emotion in people! Goodness....but hey, I think it's great! I miss that EMOTION - we need it back!!!! Hopefully the Broncos will inspire folks this season...we can only hope that they stir as much emotion in fans as Jake Plummer did....!!!!

PS: I wish Jake all the best! (Darn, he was good-looking too...gals are missing the Jake eye-candy...:-( Yes,I can hear mtn-man yelling right now!!! LOL!) I think Jake will never get the credit he deserves because of the Broncos fans bitterness about the AFC Championship game (I know! I was there!). Many an 'average' QB has won a Superbowl - I think it's a shame that Shanny didn't build the team around Jake's strengths - we probably could have gone back and won in 2006! But without Kubes, the whole thing fell apart. Look for good ole Shanny himself to be gone soon if this season's a wreck...

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 04:45 PM
Bronco fans once again bashing a former player.

It sure would be nice to win some games and make the playoffs.

:coffee:

Please tell me you are not blaming that on Cutler.

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 04:48 PM
However, if one didn't know better, one might infer that you credit Jake with
every loss while claiming the team produces every win for him. :coffee:

-----

At the end of the day, some average Quarterbacks are around a great team. On the other side, you get some good Quarterbacks on a poor team. I'm sorry, but Jake had a great team at his disposal and he came up short each time. If the team plays well and they win, then it's a team game. If the Quarterback ****s things up whilst the team plays well, then it's the Quarterbacks fault. There are times when certain players just mess things up.

Den21vsBal19
07-28-2008, 04:58 PM
At the end of the day, some average Quarterbacks are around a great team. On the other side, you get some good Quarterbacks on a poor team. I'm sorry, but Jake had a great team at his disposal and he came up short each time. If the team plays well and they win, then it's a team game. If the Quarterback ****s things up whilst the team plays well, then it's the Quarterbacks fault. There are times when certain players just mess things up.
I would distinctly argue that point in 06..........

1 Fit reciever (Walker)
Starting TE who was primarily a blocker (Alexander)
RBC
New OC who didn't play to either his QB's or his OL's strengths
Special Teams that were worse than aneamic (other than Elam)
A Defense that was exceedingly inconsistent.

Personally, whilst I enjoyed the ride, Shanny achieved a lot with smoke and mirrors in 05, getting us to the AFCCG...........luck, injuries and bad decisions (both on & off the field) caught up in 06.

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 05:01 PM
I would distinctly argue that point in 06..........

1 Fit reciever (Walker)
Starting TE who was primarily a blocker (Alexander)
RBC
New OC who didn't play to either his QB's or his OL's strengths
Special Teams that were worse than aneamic (other than Elam)
A Defense that was exceedingly inconsistent.

Personally, whilst I enjoyed the ride, Shanny achieved a lot with smoke and mirrors in 05, getting us to the AFCCG...........luck, injuries and bad decisions (both on & off the field) caught up in 06.

Inconsistent defense? The defense broke records in the first half of the year. It was PLUMMER'S inconsistency that wore out the defense. The defense spent alot more time on the field than the offense thanks to offensive turnovers.

He was on a poor offense, but it was partly his fault. How come the rookie, Cutler, managed to do a fairly decent job on arguably a worse team?

topscribe
07-28-2008, 05:14 PM
At the end of the day, some average Quarterbacks are around a great team. On the other side, you get some good Quarterbacks on a poor team. I'm sorry, but Jake had a great team at his disposal and he came up short each time. If the team plays well and they win, then it's a team game. If the Quarterback ****s things up whilst the team plays well, then it's the Quarterbacks fault. There are times when certain players just mess things up.

Seems to me you are throwing around the term "great" pretty loosely.

Jake didn't come up short with a "great" team. A fairly good team came up
short. For instance, when Peyton Manning passed the Broncos dizzy in a
49-24 mauling, how is it that Jake's 250 some yards wasn't enough to keep
us in the game? Jake is blamed for allllll of the playoff losses. Why? The
only playoff he played a bad game was the Pittsburgh one.

I believe much of this fanbase has been ungrateful for a QB who helped to
give us the best W-L record in Broncos history and quarterbacked the
Broncos to three straight playoff years.

I don't understand the seething hatred some here have for Jake. I can
understand someone such as Eddie Quitterson. But Jake? Did he seduce
their kid sisters or what? :confused:

-----

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 05:21 PM
Seems to me you are throwing around the term "great" pretty loosely.

Jake didn't come up short with a "great" team. A fairly good team came up
short. For instance, when Peyton Manning passed the Broncos dizzy in a
49-24 mauling, how is it that Jake's 250 some yards wasn't enough to keep
us in the game? Jake is blamed for allllll of the playoff losses. Why? The
only playoff he played a bad game was the Pittsburgh one.

I believe much of this fanbase has been ungrateful for a QB who helped to
give us the best W-L record in Broncos history and quarterbacked the
Broncos to three straight playoff years.

I don't understand the seething hatred some here have for Jake. I can
understand someone such as Eddie Quitterson. But Jake? Did he seduce
their kid sisters or what? :confused:

-----

So the 2005 team wasn't great? Are you saying, that if Peyton Manning had that team, he wouldn't have won a Super Bowl?

Even the 2006 season, he messed up. I'm sorry, he did. I don't buy the, "He didn't have a good team" line. He threw the ball poorly and made bad decisions. When he's got time, and when he's got a receiver open and he STILL messes things up, then the rest of the team cannot be blamed, it's Jakes fault.

I don't mean to sound like an ungrateful SOB, but he was an average Quarterback who was a product of a good/great team. I could give Jake credit for whenever he had a good game (Indy game he was superb), but he wasn't good enough for the full season.

As for why the fans are hard on him and any Broncos QB, is because they wish they still had #7. Now Cutler is here, and people know his talents, they are easier on him.

Den21vsBal19
07-28-2008, 05:31 PM
Inconsistent defense? The defense broke records in the first half of the year. It was PLUMMER'S inconsistency that wore out the defense. The defense spent alot more time on the field than the offense thanks to offensive turnovers.

He was on a poor offense, but it was partly his fault. How come the rookie, Cutler, managed to do a fairly decent job on arguably a worse team?
And why was the defense breaking records? Because Champ Bailey took it as a personal affront that anyone scored on him..............what was it, 7/8 picks inside the 5? We gave up huge chunks of yardage all season, we got very lucky to start.

As for Jay doing better last year............well maybe Marshall's 100 catches, and Stokely consistency had something to do with that. Maybe the defenses that we played weren't as good.................yes, Jay is potentially a very good QB, but without a consistent running game (very boom or bust), defense and special teams to back him up, he won the same number of games as Jake did in 11 games the year before :noidea:

I'm not saying I'd take Jake in place of Jay, all I'm saying is that IMO Jake is made a convenient scapegoat for all of our ills from the AFCCG going forwards, when that is blatantly not the case................

topscribe
07-28-2008, 05:34 PM
So the 2005 team wasn't great? Are you saying, that if Peyton Manning had that team, he wouldn't have won a Super Bowl?

Even the 2006 season, he messed up. I'm sorry, he did. I don't buy the, "He didn't have a good team" line. He threw the ball poorly and made bad decisions. When he's got time, and when he's got a receiver open and he STILL messes things up, then the rest of the team cannot be blamed, it's Jakes fault.

I don't mean to sound like an ungrateful SOB, but he was an average Quarterback who was a product of a good/great team. I could give Jake credit for whenever he had a good game (Indy game he was superb), but he wasn't good enough for the full season.

As for why the fans are hard on him and any Broncos QB, is because they wish they still had #7. Now Cutler is here, and people know his talents, they are easier on him.

How is it the Steelers destroyed that "great" offensive line?

How is it that Roethlisberger passed that "great" defense silly?

"Great" is the Steelers of the '70s, 49ers of the '80s, Packers of the '60s,
even the Broncos of 1997-98. That's "great." A team that almost gets into
the Super Bowl is not "great." The 2005 Broncos were good during the
season, but their greatness was left in ashes after Pittsburgh came to
town. And I never saw #16 out there trying to defend against Big Ben's
passes. Nor did I see him trying to block for Anderson & co. Jake didn't play
a good game then. The key is, almost no one did, at least among those in
blue uniforms.

So if we're going to throw Jake under the bus for that Pittsburgh game, I
insist we throw most everyone else there, too. Meanwhile, they managed a
13-3 record that year. Jake was part of that.

-----

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 05:38 PM
And why was the defense breaking records? Because Champ Bailey took it as a personal affront that anyone scored on him..............what was it, 7/8 picks inside the 5? We gave up huge chunks of yardage all season, we got very lucky to start.

As for Jay doing better last year............well maybe Marshall's 100 catches, and Stokely consistency had something to do with that. Maybe the defenses that we played weren't as good.................yes, Jay is potentially a very good QB, but without a consistent running game (very boom or bust), defense and special teams to back him up, he won the same number of games as Jake did in 11 games the year before :noidea:

I'm not saying I'd take Jake in place of Jay, all I'm saying is that IMO Jake is made a convenient scapegoat for all of our ills from the AFCCG going forwards, when that is blatantly not the case................

Wasn't our run defense one of the best for the first quarter of the season? In fact, most of Champ's INT's came in the last quarter of the season. Meaning that the defense was playing well even before Champ went into INT overdrive. So pretty much, the defense played well on their own.

The difference is this, Jake Plummer was making rookie mistakes at 31, whilst Jay Cutler was making less mistakes in his first starting season.

Broncos Mtnman
07-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Seems to me you are throwing around the term "great" pretty loosely.

Jake didn't come up short with a "great" team. A fairly good team came up
short. For instance, when Peyton Manning passed the Broncos dizzy in a
49-24 mauling, how is it that Jake's 250 some yards wasn't enough to keep
us in the game? Jake is blamed for allllll of the playoff losses. Why? The
only playoff he played a bad game was the Pittsburgh one.

And yet, many in the Jakefest side of things say that game wasn't his fault. By the way, he was bad in the NE game that year too. He was the benificiary of great defensive play.

Just a little recap of Jake's "incredible" leadership in that game....

First touchdown drive: One play, one yard.

First field goal drive: Four plays, seven yards.

Second touchdown drive: One play, one yard.

Third touchdown drive: Three plays, 15 yards.

Sorry, but Brian Griese, Bubby Brister, Gus Frerotte, etc... could lead those scoring drives.

In addition, Shanny was mic'd up on that game. Jake got an earful many times for not following his progressions. Here he is in year three as the QB and Shanny is STILL telling him to follow his reads?

But hey, at least he was unshaven and uncut, assuring himself of some of that publicity he "never" wanted.


I believe much of this fanbase has been ungrateful for a QB who helped to give us the best W-L record in Broncos history and quarterbacked the Broncos to three straight playoff years.

Best in Broncos history? Give me a break. What was 1996-1998? That's just more Jake hype.

I believe much of this fanbase has been ungrateful for a DEFENSE that made our W-L record while Jake was here pretty good.

#9 in 2003 / #9 in 2004 / #3 in 2005

For the record, our defense was an "incredible" #28 in Jay's first full season. Dammit Jay, start playing better defense.


I don't understand the seething hatred some here have for Jake. I can
understand someone such as Eddie Quitterson. But Jake? Did he seduce
their kid sisters or what? :confused:

-----

I love the "what did Jake ever do to you?" question whenever someone simply feels that Jake was an average QB who benefitted from playing with one of the greatest offensive minds in football in Mike Shanahan.

I don't understand the orgasmic infatuation some here have for Jake. I can understand someone like Rod Smith. But Jake?

:coffee:

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 05:44 PM
How is it the Steelers destroyed that "great" offensive line?

How is it that Roethlisberger passed that "great" defense silly?

"Great" is the Steelers of the '70s, 49ers of the '80s, Packers of the '60s,
even the Broncos of 1997-98. That's "great." A team that almost gets into
the Super Bowl is not "great." The 2005 Broncos were good during the
season, but their greatness was left in ashes after Pittsburgh came to
town.

-----

I meant great in the league, not great as in "Greatest of all time". We were a top 3 team back then. It was the last time we could go into KEY games, KNOWING we would win somehow



And I never saw #16 out there trying to defend against Big Ben's
passes. Nor did I see him trying to block for Anderson & co. Jake didn't play
a good game then. The key is, almost no one did, at least among those in
blue uniforms.

So the 5 turnovers had nothing to do with the loss?


Meanwhile, they managed a
13-3 record that year. Jake was part of that.

As how Trent Dilfer was part of Baltimore's Super Bowl victory. :coffee:

topscribe
07-28-2008, 06:01 PM
I meant great in the league, not great as in "Greatest of all time". We were a top 3 team back then. It was the last time we could go into KEY games, KNOWING we would win somehow

And Jake played QB during those games, didn't he?



So the 5 turnovers had nothing to do with the loss?So you are going to insist on isolating Jake to blame for that loss? The
whole team played a putrid game, but Jake is the one to shoulder it all?
Don't start coming across as if I am trying to take Jake's part off him for
that. That would be dishonest because I never even implied that. Stop
being so stubborn about it. The team shares in victories, and it shares in
losses. Don't make one player your sacrificial lamb.



As how Trent Dilfer was part of Baltimore's Super Bowl victory. :coffee:Well, that shows what a bum Elway was . . . :whoknows:

-----

topscribe
07-28-2008, 06:03 PM
And yet, many in the Jakefest side of things say that game wasn't his fault. By the way, he was bad in the NE game that year too. He was the benificiary of great defensive play.

Just a little recap of Jake's "incredible" leadership in that game....

First touchdown drive: One play, one yard.

First field goal drive: Four plays, seven yards.

Second touchdown drive: One play, one yard.

Third touchdown drive: Three plays, 15 yards.

Sorry, but Brian Griese, Bubby Brister, Gus Frerotte, etc... could lead those scoring drives.

In addition, Shanny was mic'd up on that game. Jake got an earful many times for not following his progressions. Here he is in year three as the QB and Shanny is STILL telling him to follow his reads?

But hey, at least he was unshaven and uncut, assuring himself of some of that publicity he "never" wanted.



Best in Broncos history? Give me a break. What was 1996-1998? That's just more Jake hype.

I believe much of this fanbase has been ungrateful for a DEFENSE that made our W-L record while Jake was here pretty good.

#9 in 2003 / #9 in 2004 / #3 in 2005

For the record, our defense was an "incredible" #28 in Jay's first full season. Dammit Jay, start playing better defense.



I love the "what did Jake ever do to you?" question whenever someone simply feels that Jake was an average QB who benefitted from playing with one of the greatest offensive minds in football in Mike Shanahan.

I don't understand the orgasmic infatuation some here have for Jake. I can understand someone like Rod Smith. But Jake?

:coffee:

Remove your earplugs, Mtnman.

Then maybe we can reason together . . .

-----

Retired_Member_001
07-28-2008, 06:10 PM
And Jake played QB during those games, didn't he?

Well, that shows what a bum Elway was . . . :whoknows:

These two lines are related.

Jake played QB, but the bigger effect was from Champ at CB, Al Wilson at ILB, Rod Smith at WR, Matt Lepsis at LT, Tom Nalen at C and John Lynch at S.

As for Trent, he is the perfect example of a pathetic Quarterback suceeding on a good team. Exactly what Plummer did. Well actually, Dilfer actually won a Super Bowl.




So you are going to insist on isolating Jake to blame for that loss? The
whole team played a putrid game, but Jake is the one to shoulder it all?
Don't start coming across as if I am trying to take Jake's part off him for
that. That would be dishonest because I never even implied that. Stop
being so stubborn about it. The team shares in victories, and it shares in
losses. Don't make one player your sacrificial lamb.

Look, Jake Plummer played horribly that game. Part of being a good Quarterback is pulling your team through struggles. That's just part of the position. Jake messed up. So did the team of course. But as the Quarterback, Jake has the responsibility of trying to motivate his team and to get them to play better.

I guess part of the Jake hate is because people defend him with vigor. I can admit Jake had good games, but Plummer fans rarely willl blame a loss on him. I know you are not one of those people, but I'm just explaining.

topscribe
07-28-2008, 06:22 PM
These two lines are related.

Jake played QB, but the bigger effect was from Champ at CB, Al Wilson at ILB, Rod Smith at WR, Matt Lepsis at LT, Tom Nalen at C and John Lynch at S.

As for Trent, he is the perfect example of a pathetic Quarterback suceeding on a good team. Exactly what Plummer did. Well actually, Dilfer actually won a Super Bowl.



Look, Jake Plummer played horribly that game. Part of being a good Quarterback is pulling your team through struggles. That's just part of the position. Jake messed up. So did the team of course. But as the Quarterback, Jake has the responsibility of trying to motivate his team and to get them to play better.

I guess part of the Jake hate is because people defend him with vigor. I can admit Jake had good games, but Plummer fans rarely willl blame a loss on him. I know you are not one of those people, but I'm just explaining.

I'm not trying to "defend" Jake. I'm just trying to get people to be fair about
it. If you can't be fair, that is your problem.

Take the Pittsburgh game. I said Jake played a bad game. I said also most
of the rest of the team was badly outplayed. I said it was a team loss.

You said, or appeared to say, that Jake lost that game.

That's the difference between us.

Cutler is our quarterback today. I was ecstatic when the Broncos drafted
him. I wanted Cutler before Young and Leinart ever left the board. I am
now a big fan of Cutler's.

At the same time, I am grateful to Jake for three straight playoff years
because only one other time in the last ten years have the Broncos played
a postseason game.

If you can't be grateful for that, that is your problem. I really don't believe
Jake gives a shit.

I'm out of here.

-----

weazel
07-28-2008, 06:52 PM
Your sig hypocrites you.

I guess I should just make fun of people using my avatar to mask it, like you do.

who's the hypocrite?

I forgot how much we love Javon, I should change it...

broncosfanscott
07-28-2008, 07:49 PM
That is a nice article and I understand why Gruden is trying so hard, however Jake is happy where he is. He is fortunate to be able to walk away from the game on his own terms and be totally ok with it.

Thanks Jake. :salute:

Northman
07-28-2008, 09:16 PM
And the Jake saga continues.......

omac
07-29-2008, 07:16 AM
Like I keep saying, Jake has a polarizing effect, and when he's criticized, some posters will take it personaly. Not their fault, they just have an affinity to him.

Dean
07-29-2008, 07:43 AM
Like I keep saying, Jake has a polarizing effect, and when he's criticized, some posters will take it personaly. Not their fault, they just have an affinity to him.


Like I keep saying, when an attempt at unreal or imagined criticism is continually coated as truth, some posters will attempt to set the record straight. Not their fault, they just have an aversion to BS.

omac
07-29-2008, 07:57 AM
Like I keep saying, when an attempt at unreal or imagined criticism is continually coated as truth, some posters will attempt to set the record straight. Not their fault, they just have an aversion to BS.

That's fine, but no need to take things personaly. Some people think he was good, others think he sucked. Just opinions. No need for you to be sarcastic either. :coffee:

topscribe
07-29-2008, 01:02 PM
That's fine, but no need to take things personaly. Some people think he was good, others think he sucked. Just opinions. No need for you to be sarcastic either. :coffee:

I didn't see any sarcasm in that. In fact, Dean described me perfectly. I am
not in any more agreement with those who seem to deify Jake than those
who seem to villify him. He did some good things, and he made some
significant mistakes.

I don't know . . . I guess I just tend to forget one's drawbacks over time and
become grateful for the good things he did.

Except Quitterson . . .

-----

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm just glad he's gone.............Now, on 3rd downs, i have a sense of hope.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 01:27 PM
I guess I should just make fun of people using my avatar to mask it, like you do.

who's the hypocrite?

I forgot how much we love Javon, I should change it...

I don't know what you are talking about. I love Madonna to death. And airplanes have cut our travel time down considerably. Something I think we all need to think about.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 01:46 PM
I'm just glad he's gone.............Now, on 3rd downs, i have a sense of hope.

just looked at that.

While John was in the 42 44 and 36% range for the 97 98 & 99 years with HOF caliber RB TE and Zimmerman not to mention a great FB and rest of the OLINE.
Jake was in the 39, 38, 36, 37 while here.
Jay had 40% last year..

..

Wonder how much it is the QB or the supporting cast.. We will see over the next few years..How much having a real OLINE almost NFL size in front of Jay will help those stats.?.

Mike
07-30-2008, 01:49 PM
just looked at that.

While John was in the 42 44 and 36% range for the 97 98 & 99 years with HOF caliber RB TE and Zimmerman not to mention a great FB and rest of the OLINE.
Jake was in the 39, 38, 36, 37 while here.
Jay had 40% last year..

..

Wonder how much it is the QB or the supporting cast.. We will see over the next few years..How much having a real OLINE almost NFL size in front of Jay will help those stats.?.

Don't rule out playcalling. Playcalling has gone to balls the last few years...getting noticeably worse the last two IMO.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 01:50 PM
just looked at that.

While John was in the 42 44 and 36% range for the 97 98 & 99 years with HOF caliber RB TE and Zimmerman not to mention a great FB and rest of the OLINE.
Jake was in the 39, 38, 36, 37 while here.
Jay had 40% last year..

..

Wonder how much it is the QB or the supporting cast.. We will see over the next few years..How much having a real OLINE almost NFL size in front of Jay will help those stats.?.

Jake was not nearly as bad of a 3rd down QB as some like to say.

I will admit, however, I do now feel more comfortable on 3rd downs with Jay.

-----

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 01:54 PM
Don't rule out playcalling. Playcalling has gone to balls the last few years...getting noticeably worse the last two IMO.

I call that The Kubiak Effect.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 01:58 PM
Don't rule out playcalling. Playcalling has gone to balls the last few years...getting noticeably worse the last two IMO.

That equates to lack of other players Besides the QB.. No option but to air it out then the defense will eventually take the away same goes for no passing game then the running game slows down.

One of the reasons the t while we like to think DEN is a run first team the palsy are almost evenly split run pass ..

We have suck donkey balls that past couple of years..

Gone are the days of HOF TD, Sharpe ZIM and most importantly John.. And maybe even Gary being gone has been an issue that few want to believe.

I see alot of potential out there if we can keep them healthy and out of Goodell jail..

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 01:58 PM
I call that The Kubiak Effect.

or the mastermind EGO

Northman
07-30-2008, 02:01 PM
That equates to lack of other players Besides the QB.. No option but to air it out then the defense will eventually take the away same goes for no passing game then the running game slows down.

One of the reasons the t while we like to think DEN is a run first team the palsy are almost evenly split run pass ..

We have suck donkey balls that past couple of years..

Gone are the days of HOF TD, Sharpe ZIM and most importantly John.. And maybe even Gary being gone has been an issue that few want to believe.

I see alot of potential out there if we can keep them healthy and out of Goodell jail..

It also has to do with the ability of your Qb. Jay can make throws that Jake simply could not. Jay studies the playbook and probably has a greater grasp on it than Jake did. With Jay we arent limited to what he can do and i think the last two years had some to do with how young he is and as you have pointed out some of the surrounding talent.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 02:07 PM
It also has to do with the ability of your Qb. Jay can make throws that Jake simply could not. Jay studies the playbook and probably has a greater grasp on it than Jake did. With Jay we arent limited to what he can do and i think the last two years had some to do with how young he is and as you have pointed out some of the surrounding talent.

we simply do not know what Jake knew of the playbook.

THE ONLY references to opening up then play book anyone can say for sure is Jake could not throw the long ball like Jay can and now that we seem to have a real OLINE we can hopefully use the drop back pass more effectively than we could with Jake here OR even last year with Jay.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:11 PM
It also has to do with the ability of your Qb. Jay can make throws that Jake simply could not. Jay studies the playbook and probably has a greater grasp on it than Jake did. With Jay we arent limited to what he can do and i think the last two years had some to do with how young he is and as you have pointed out some of the surrounding talent.

Yes, Jay is a better QB, no denying it.

Jay can make throws no other QB now playing can. :whoknows:

And I understand he has a Manning-esque work ethic.

Jake helped to bring us three playoff years.

Jay will help to bring us Super Bowls.

IMHO.

-----

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 02:16 PM
we simply do not know what Jake knew of the playbook.

THE ONLY references to opening up then play book anyone can say for sure is Jake could not throw the long ball like Jay can and now that we seem to have a real OLINE we can hopefully use the drop back pass more effectively than we could with Jake here OR even last year with Jay.

Jake knew a few running plays and 3 or 4 passing plays...........And the sprint right option. But I think that was about it. He sometimes also lost track of what down it was, throwing the ball up for grabs on 2nd and goal.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:18 PM
Jake knew a few running plays and 3 or 4 passing plays...........And the sprint right option. But I think that was about it. He sometimes also lost track of what down it was, throwing the ball up for grabs on 2nd and goal.

I think JR is correct: We don't know what Jake knew of the playbook. Period.

Unless one of us is Shanny's confidant . . .

-----

Northman
07-30-2008, 02:20 PM
I think JR is correct: We don't know what Jake knew of the playbook. Period.

Unless one of us is Shanny's confidant . . .

-----

Ill ask Shanny about this afternoon at camp. He and I are tight. :listen:

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 02:20 PM
I think JR is correct: We don't know what Jake knew of the playbook. Period.

Unless one of us is Shanny's confidant . . .

-----

True, we don't know FOR SURE. But, I think alot of us have a pretty good guess.............LMAO

Requiem / The Dagda
07-30-2008, 02:46 PM
For Bief Stue:


Dream, don't you love the ol' "Snake was trying to make something happen" excuse? Well, he certainly did.

It's completely unforgivable.

I don't know where the left-handed pass ranks in all-time lowlight performances in his time with Denver.

Opening Day 2006 against St. Louis (four turnovers) was horrendous. Oh, against Miami in 2005 (opening day) again was pretty awful. Two picks and a lost fumble. Oh, 2003 was golden too against the Bengals. Three picks and no touchdowns in his first game as a Bronco. Definitely awesome. His QB rating of 24.8 against San Diego in 2004 probably ranks up there with some of his most awesome follies ever. I mean that's just sad.

Remember when he threw for 499 yards against Atlanta and a lot of people thought he was awesome, despite the fact that their worst players on defense were playing the final 15 minutes of the game? He had three picks that game too.

I was pleased with his Philadelphia and New England games in 2005 though. He deserves credit for those, otherwise -- nah.

Watchthemiddle
07-30-2008, 11:29 PM
17 pages later and I still don't understand the hatred of Jake as the QB when he was here. :whoknows:

Better yet, the hatred after he has been gone for 2 1/2 years.

People want to say the offense was "dumbed down" for Jake, but all I have seen since Jake is an offense who can't score, can't win games, and can't run the ball as effective and a team who hasn't been in the playoffs since.

I guess some are content to be 7-9, not be competitive, and have San Diego continue to beat us. :whoknows:

I also love the "bad game" stats...what 3 whole bad games...LOL...why not post the win lose record and playoff appearances at the starter at QB? After all, if you ain't winning, the what stat really matters? :whoknows: