PDA

View Full Version : Retroactive: Plummer vs. Shanny



rationalfan
11-12-2010, 07:13 PM
Slate's great, right now. Stafan Fatsis - the NYTimes writer who attended broncos training camp a few years ago - was writing about Shanny benching McNabb and brought up this nugget from Jake Plummer after he was benched for Cutler:

"Yeah, I missed some workouts. And you know what?" Plummer told me a few days after his benching. "Mike Shanahan, you can kiss my ******* ass for being pissed at that. ... But, hey, he felt I crossed him in some way. Once you do that, he'll never let those things go. If you cross him in some way, he'll hold on to that more than the times you've done good by him."

Man, makes me remember why i loved plummer. But it also brings to perspective the role of the head coach. they can be petty. Shanny wasn't any less egotistical or imperfect than McD is. It's worth remembering. And, I'll say it again, I think the Broncos would suck this year is Shanny was still coaching too.

here's the full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2274230/entry/2274415/

LordTrychon
11-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Well, that's a nice little bit o' breaking news...

Ravage!!!
11-12-2010, 07:19 PM
Shanny has never had a team that sucked this bad.... hard to say that. Plummer was kind of a whiney lil bitch, though. Hard to take what he says very seriously.

I mean...didn't we JUST Jump down Marshall's THROAT for being late to a rehab session in his hamstring?? I'm sure Plummer NEVER did anything prior to missing workouts, that causeed him to be in shanahan's watchful eye.

Its like the kid that didn't clean his bedroom

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok


CLEAN YOUR ROOM!!!!!

ok ok.. gawd....

rationalfan
11-12-2010, 07:58 PM
Shanny has never had a team that sucked this bad.....

disagree. the season after elway retired the broncos were horrible. lack of talent. divided locker room. injuries to key players. horrible.

I Eat Staples
11-12-2010, 08:06 PM
disagree. the season after elway retired the broncos were horrible. lack of talent. divided locker room. injuries to key players. horrible.

Sums up our season this year.

Only difference is, we won't be going to the AFC championship game this decade. People don't realize how severely McD has truly screwed us over.

Dreadnought
11-12-2010, 08:33 PM
Slate's great, right now. Stafan Fatsis - the NYTimes writer who attended broncos training camp a few years ago - was writing about Shanny benching McNabb and brought up this nugget from Jake Plummer after he was benched for Cutler:

"Yeah, I missed some workouts. And you know what?" Plummer told me a few days after his benching. "Mike Shanahan, you can kiss my ******* ass for being pissed at that. ... But, hey, he felt I crossed him in some way. Once you do that, he'll never let those things go. If you cross him in some way, he'll hold on to that more than the times you've done good by him."

Man, makes me remember why i loved plummer. But it also brings to perspective the role of the head coach. they can be petty. Shanny wasn't any less egotistical or imperfect than McD is. It's worth remembering. And, I'll say it again, I think the Broncos would suck this year is Shanny was still coaching too.

here's the full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2274230/entry/2274415/

Reminds me why I hated Plummer :lol:

As someone who thinks mcNabb has never been a top tier QB I(above average, , very good for 2-3 years, not more than that), and is on the downside of his career, his benching makes perfect sense to me. If an older QB won't put in the brain work they don't offer that much. I think trading for him was a mistake on Shanny's part. Then again, so was signing Plummer.

Watchthemiddle
11-12-2010, 08:37 PM
Shanny has never had a team that sucked this bad.... hard to say that. Plummer was kind of a whiney lil bitch, though. Hard to take what he says very seriously.

I mean...didn't we JUST Jump down Marshall's THROAT for being late to a rehab session in his hamstring?? I'm sure Plummer NEVER did anything prior to missing workouts, that causeed him to be in shanahan's watchful eye.

Its like the kid that didn't clean his bedroom

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok


CLEAN YOUR ROOM!!!!!

ok ok.. gawd....

Ya the 5-11 2000 team was pretty good..especially following back to back super bowls :rolleyes:

:coffee:

frauschieze
11-12-2010, 08:54 PM
Ya the 5-11 2000 team was pretty good..especially following back to back super bowls :rolleyes:

:coffee:

Wait...what?

The 2000 Broncos were 11-5. The team that followed the back to back Super Bowls were the 6-10 1999 Broncos.

And in that confusion, I don't have the slightest idea what point you are trying to make. Maybe you took the sarcasm a few levels too far?

Watchthemiddle
11-12-2010, 09:44 PM
Wait...what?

The 2000 Broncos were 11-5. The team that followed the back to back Super Bowls were the 6-10 1999 Broncos.

And in that confusion, I don't have the slightest idea what point you are trying to make. Maybe you took the sarcasm a few levels too far?

:whoknows:

-------------

LordTrychon
11-12-2010, 09:57 PM
If this team makes it to 6-10, I will give it credit for being as good as a team that lost several HOF players.

Until then, it's something we're building towards. Does not make it 'better'.

dogfish
11-12-2010, 10:00 PM
Ya the 5-11 2000 team was pretty good..especially following back to back super bowls :rolleyes:

:coffee:

brotha, make no mistake about it-- that '99 team that you were referring to would stomp in mudhole in the 2010 version's ass. . . with that offensive line, olandis gary would easily break off 200 on us. . .

:fear:

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 12:28 AM
brotha, make no mistake about it-- that '99 team that you were referring to would stomp in mudhole in the 2010 version's ass. . . with that offensive line, olandis gary would easily break off 200 on us. . .

:fear:

Agreed. After the shock of the awful 0-4 start, and the loss of Sharpe and TD, that team played reasonably well the rest of the way. Hints of that strange but fun 2000 club. The 2000 team is my favorite "what if" scenario. Griese was one of the top QB's in the league that year, with a healthy McCaffrey and Smith. We played almost no defense except for forcing a crap ton of turnovers (the Greg Robinson plan) Game 1 of 2001 Mccaffrey had that awful injury, and Griese developed the worst case of single minded target lock I've ever seen. He threw to Smith all year, pretty much exclusively. His confidence went down the crapper, and I also think he never recovered from the shoulder injury he suffered in that great 2000 Monday night game against the Raiders. I always liked the guy, but he was finished by the end of 2002. We needed a new QB, no question, but the options were bad (Plummer) and worse (Kordell Stewart)

BeefStew25
11-13-2010, 12:34 AM
Trevor Pyrce kicking Griese's ass didn't help either.

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 12:35 AM
Trevor Pyrce kicking Griese's ass didn't help either.

Griese had some issues :laugh:

Like I said I liked the guy, but he had to go.

dogfish
11-13-2010, 01:40 AM
greasy was toast after the fade ****ed up his shoulder. . . hell of a game, but he was never the same afterwards. . . he started playing scared. . .

Poet
11-13-2010, 03:18 AM
Dreadnought, benching McNabb for Grossman was an awful move.

Trading for McNabb when you have no QB is a good move.

Who cares if he isn't a HoFer (and those stats with those wideouts is actually really good)? He's still a pretty good quarterback.

Grossman is an awful QB. He has nothing that he does better than McNabb except suck. That move blew up in Shanny's face and got him laughed at by pretty much everyone.

Bosco
11-13-2010, 04:35 AM
Agreed. After the shock of the awful 0-4 start, and the loss of Sharpe and TD, that team played reasonably well the rest of the way. Hints of that strange but fun 2000 club. The 2000 team is my favorite "what if" scenario. Griese was one of the top QB's in the league that year, with a healthy McCaffrey and Smith. We played almost no defense except for forcing a crap ton of turnovers (the Greg Robinson plan) Game 1 of 2001 Mccaffrey had that awful injury, and Griese developed the worst case of single minded target lock I've ever seen. He threw to Smith all year, pretty much exclusively. His confidence went down the crapper, and I also think he never recovered from the shoulder injury he suffered in that great 2000 Monday night game against the Raiders. I always liked the guy, but he was finished by the end of 2002. We needed a new QB, no question, but the options were bad (Plummer) and worse (Kordell Stewart)

I've always been of the opinion that if Griese didn't get injured that year we would have won the Super Bowl. Our offense would have been good enough to give the Ravens a real run for their money and we would have walked through the Giants with ease.

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 06:53 AM
I've always been of the opinion that if Griese didn't get injured that year we would have won the Super Bowl. Our offense would have been good enough to give the Ravens a real run for their money and we would have walked through the Giants with ease.

I think you can make a good argument there. The downside of the 2000 team was that when the defense went south it did so in a big way. They gave up a 300 yard game to Ryan Leaf (His only one?) and @ 9,000 yards (it sure looked that way) to Corey Dillon. We would certainly have been the worst defense to ever win a Superbowl. Of course, I would argue the Ratbirds fielded the worst offense ever to win a Superbowl...it would have been a fun matchup. We certainly roasted the Giants first game of 2001 with essentially that same offense, which would support your argument.

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 06:56 AM
Dreadnought, benching McNabb for Grossman was an awful move.

Trading for McNabb when you have no QB is a good move.

Who cares if he isn't a HoFer (and those stats with those wideouts is actually really good)? He's still a pretty good quarterback.

Grossman is an awful QB. He has nothing that he does better than McNabb except suck. That move blew up in Shanny's face and got him laughed at by pretty much everyone.

I'm not trying to argue that Rex Grossman is much of anything buy a dud. I do think bringing in an aging McNabb was an error on Shanny's part though. His play this year hasn't been that much higher than the level of suck itself.

Northman
11-13-2010, 07:59 AM
brotha, make no mistake about it-- that '99 team that you were referring to would stomp in mudhole in the 2010 version's ass. . . with that offensive line, olandis gary would easily break off 200 on us. . .

:fear:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sadly, you are 100% correct.

Northman
11-13-2010, 08:00 AM
Agreed. After the shock of the awful 0-4 start, and the loss of Sharpe and TD, that team played reasonably well the rest of the way. Hints of that strange but fun 2000 club. The 2000 team is my favorite "what if" scenario. Griese was one of the top QB's in the league that year, with a healthy McCaffrey and Smith. We played almost no defense except for forcing a crap ton of turnovers (the Greg Robinson plan) Game 1 of 2001 Mccaffrey had that awful injury, and Griese developed the worst case of single minded target lock I've ever seen. He threw to Smith all year, pretty much exclusively. His confidence went down the crapper, and I also think he never recovered from the shoulder injury he suffered in that great 2000 Monday night game against the Raiders. I always liked the guy, but he was finished by the end of 2002. We needed a new QB, no question, but the options were bad (Plummer) and worse (Kordell Stewart)


And they made it to 6-10 with a rookie QB.

BeefStew25
11-13-2010, 09:04 AM
Real quick, Plummer is a phony and overrated. It is hilarious for him to dog the man who made him relevant and rich.

Nomad
11-13-2010, 09:52 AM
GO PLUMMER!! I liked Plummer though when he played I said 'pucking Flummer' alot!:D

BeefStew25
11-13-2010, 09:56 AM
GO PLUMMER!! I liked Plummer though when he played I said 'pucking Flummer' alot!:D

Nucking Futs!

I Eat Staples
11-13-2010, 11:38 AM
Trading for McNab didn't make sense because the Redskins don't have a good enough team to win now. McNab is a win-now QB, not a long-term solution.

That said, if McNab is on your team, you don't bench him for Rex Grossman. Period.

rationalfan
11-13-2010, 11:46 AM
Real quick, Plummer is a phony and overrated. It is hilarious for him to dog the man who made him relevant and rich.

flipside: it was irrational for shanny to bench the organization's all-time winningest quarterback during a stretch when they were shooting for the playoffs.

Ravage!!!
11-13-2010, 11:50 AM
flipside: it was irrational for shanny to bench the organization's all-time winningest quarterback during a stretch when they were shooting for the playoffs.

other than the fact that he was playing crappy, and the new QB came in and improved the scoring on offense. Irrational? Hardly. He gave Plummer every opportunity to get his act together, and he was stinking it up that season.

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Shanny has never had a team that sucked this bad.... hard to say that. Plummer was kind of a whiney lil bitch, though. Hard to take what he says very seriously.

I mean...didn't we JUST Jump down Marshall's THROAT for being late to a rehab session in his hamstring?? I'm sure Plummer NEVER did anything prior to missing workouts, that causeed him to be in shanahan's watchful eye.

Its like the kid that didn't clean his bedroom

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok

clean your room
ok


CLEAN YOUR ROOM!!!!!

ok ok.. gawd....

And I get called a McD "apologist". :lol::laugh::tsk::rolleyes:

Jr said this in a different thread, but it kinda fits:


In all elite units of the military marines, seals, rangers, submarines, they take above average people and tear them down to nothing and then build them up to become elite members of a great and prideful TEAM.

Just wonder if those players that play for Belicheck might be considered in that same level.

Some times you get some mental midgets you have to work with and they do not make it. Maybe the biggest reason why Josh is bringing in high character players and getting rid of the mental midgets.

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 11:59 AM
Sums up our season this year.

Only difference is, we won't be going to the AFC championship game this decade. People don't realize how severely McD has truly screwed us over.

You don't mind if I save this post for posterity, do you? :coffee:

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 12:03 PM
Reminds me why I hated Plummer :lol:

As someone who thinks mcNabb has never been a top tier QB I(above average, , very good for 2-3 years, not more than that), and is on the downside of his career, his benching makes perfect sense to me. If an older QB won't put in the brain work they don't offer that much. I think trading for him was a mistake on Shanny's part. Then again, so was signing Plummer.

Yep.

I hated those ABOVE .500 seasons (winning, in other words) and playoffs as well.

:coffee:

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 12:12 PM
Yep.

I hated those ABOVE .500 seasons (winning, in other words) and playoffs as well.

:coffee:

Good teams can have bad QB's. Bad teams can have good QB's (see also, the Saints of the 70's). We just happened to have a team saddled with a dud QB from 03-06 - and we won games despite said dud QB. Kinda cool. Good coaching and a good system will do that.

NB - Plummer played lights out in 05. Full credit is due to him. In 06 he put in the worst QB performance in Denver since Steve Ramsey and Pete Liske played there. It was an embarrasment watching him play

I Eat Staples
11-13-2010, 01:24 PM
You don't mind if I save this post for posterity, do you? :coffee:

Feel free. If, somehow, I am wrong, then I'll be much too thrilled about being in the AFC championship game to care.

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 06:05 PM
Real quick, Plummer is a phony and overrated. It is hilarious for him to dog the man who made him relevant and rich.

That's funny....cuz I coulda swore in other threads, W-L matters. And Jake did more than just win, he got the team into the playoffs.
He finally had some coaching, had the best years of his career, and corrected is int problem that ailed him throughout his career.

IMO, Jake was UNDERRATED, and HARDLY a phony.

Just because he was HONEST about Shanny, and backed up pretty much what the fans had said for years, doesn't make make his accomplishments and contribution to this team any less relevant.

And we're called McD apologists? :lol:

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 06:08 PM
other than the fact that he was playing crappy, and the new QB came in and improved the scoring on offense. Irrational? Hardly. He gave Plummer every opportunity to get his act together, and he was stinking it up that season.

7-4, with a bad stretch, which ALL qb's go thru.

Too bad Cutler's "improving the scoring on offense" ALSO came with turning the ball over and improving the scoring of the OTHER TEAM'S offense as well.

rcsodak
11-13-2010, 06:41 PM
Good teams can have bad QB's. Bad teams can have good QB's (see also, the Saints of the 70's). We just happened to have a team saddled with a dud QB from 03-06 - and we won games despite said dud QB. Kinda cool. Good coaching and a good system will do that.

NB - Plummer played lights out in 05. Full credit is due to him. In 06 he put in the worst QB performance in Denver since Steve Ramsey and Pete Liske played there. It was an embarrasment watching him play

71TD's/47INT's, 11000+yds; 7Rshg TD's; 670yds rushing; playoffs every year he started/ended the season.

06? - 11games 55.2% 1,994 yds 11 TD's 13INT's 68.8QBR

Elway
92 - 12 games 55.1% 2,242yds 10 TD's 17INT's 65.7QBR



:coffee:

Dreadnought
11-13-2010, 09:37 PM
I already gave Plummer props for his 2005 season. 2006 was

completion % 55.2
TD's - 11
Ints - 13
YPA - 6.3
QB rating - 68.8 (?!)

Those stats wouldn't even be good in the 70's, before the rules changes to improve passing. In the 21st Century it was simply an awful performance, and there is no way to dodge that one. Griese, Frerotte, Cutler, Orton all significantly outperformed that year, every year they had significant playing time. We opened the season 5-1, notwithstanding an offense that never once broke 20 points.

Whether or not Cutler could have been that guy? Who knows. I suspect so, under Shanahan coaching; others disagree. We'll argue that one the rest of our lives. All that is certain is Plummer needed to be benched, because his head wasn't in it and it was becoming obvious he had quit on his team. I don't care if we had brough in Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, or David Carr - a change had to be made.

BeefStew25
11-13-2010, 09:54 PM
That's funny....cuz I coulda swore in other threads, W-L matters. And Jake did more than just win, he got the team into the playoffs.
He finally had some coaching, had the best years of his career, and corrected is int problem that ailed him throughout his career.

IMO, Jake was UNDERRATED, and HARDLY a phony.

Just because he was HONEST about Shanny, and backed up pretty much what the fans had said for years, doesn't make make his accomplishments and contribution to this team any less relevant.

And we're called McD apologists? :lol:

Maybe. But anytime he has had to compete for his job, he took his ball and went home.

Tells me all I need to know.

He had a prime set up here and did nothing with it.

Tned
11-13-2010, 10:03 PM
I already gave Plummer props for his 2005 season. 2006 was

completion % 55.2
TD's - 11
Ints - 13
YPA - 6.3
QB rating - 68.8 (?!)

Those stats wouldn't even be good in the 70's, before the rules changes to improve passing. In the 21st Century it was simply an awful performance, and there is no way to dodge that one. Griese, Frerotte, Cutler, Orton all significantly outperformed that year, every year they had significant playing time. We opened the season 5-1, notwithstanding an offense that never once broke 20 points.

Whether or not Cutler could have been that guy? Who knows. I suspect so, under Shanahan coaching; others disagree. We'll argue that one the rest of our lives. All that is certain is Plummer needed to be benched, because his head wasn't in it and it was becoming obvious he had quit on his team. I don't care if we had brough in Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, or David Carr - a change had to be made.

Plummer had a crappy 2006, no question. Some of that falls on him, but it also falls on Heimerdinger. Heimerdinger tried to implement a new offensive scheme that didn't fit the Broncos offensive personnel -- Plummer and the O-line.

Watchthemiddle
11-13-2010, 10:14 PM
other than the fact that he was playing crappy, and the new QB came in and improved the scoring on offense. Irrational? Hardly. He gave Plummer every opportunity to get his act together, and he was stinking it up that season.

**COUGH COUGH**** improved the scoring on offense??

But I thought the only thing that matters (not stats remember Rav) is winning.

What was the NEW QB's record when he came in and started??

What was the NEW QB's record as a starter in Denver PERIOD??

Remember now, stats don't matter..only wins and loses...What was Plummers W/L record vs the NEW QB's??

Thanks,

:coffee:

Watchthemiddle
11-13-2010, 10:15 PM
That's funny....cuz I coulda swore in other threads, W-L matters. And Jake did more than just win, he got the team into the playoffs.
He finally had some coaching, had the best years of his career, and corrected is int problem that ailed him throughout his career.

IMO, Jake was UNDERRATED, and HARDLY a phony.

Just because he was HONEST about Shanny, and backed up pretty much what the fans had said for years, doesn't make make his accomplishments and contribution to this team any less relevant.

And we're called McD apologists? :lol:

Ya if it's Orton, stats don't matter but W/L does.

If its Plummer, stats matter but not W/L

If its Cutler..well his stats sucked and his W/L record so not sure if he can even be considered in the equation.

I Eat Staples
11-13-2010, 10:39 PM
Ya if it's Orton, stats don't matter but W/L does.

If its Plummer, stats matter but not W/L

If its Cutler..well his stats sucked and his W/L record so not sure if he can even be considered in the equation.

Cutler's stats didn't suck, so let's just get that out of the way now.

Winning is all that matters, but how do you build a winning team? By replacing the weak points with stronger ones. If you feel QB is a weak point, you replace it and improve it even if you're winning. You don't leave weak areas weak just because you're winning.

Same goes for Orton. He's a strong point on a weak team, so you don't replace him just because you're losing.

Watchthemiddle
11-13-2010, 10:53 PM
Cutler's stats didn't suck, so let's just get that out of the way now.

Winning is all that matters, but how do you build a winning team? By replacing the weak points with stronger ones. If you feel QB is a weak point, you replace it and improve it even if you're winning. You don't leave weak areas weak just because you're winning.

Same goes for Orton. He's a strong point on a weak team, so you don't replace him just because you're losing.

I agree...but why did we replace a winning QB with a losing one? The team was mediocre at best under Cutler and that's a fact in all of the years he was here.

If your winning and have a leader at Qb, you don't replace him with someone no-one has faith in and it showed when they finished 2-3 the year he came in and NEVER made the playoffs not too mention the worse collapse in NFL history his final season.

If you or anyone wants to say Plummer was the weak link (after a 13-3 season, and 7-4 when Cutler came in) then Cutler was clearly a weaker link.

I Eat Staples
11-13-2010, 10:55 PM
I agree...but why did we replace a winning QB with a losing one? The team was mediocre at best under Cutler and that's a fact in all of the years he was here.

If your winning and have a leader at Qb, you don't replace him with someone no-one has faith in and it showed when they finished 2-3 the year he came in and NEVER made the playoffs not too mention the worse collapse in NFL history his final season.

If you or anyone wants to say Plummer was the weak link (after a 13-3 season, and 7-4 when Cutler came in) then Cutler was clearly a weaker link.

I'm not saying Plummer was a weak link, I actually liked him. I was just speaking in general, referring to your post about winning being all that matters.

And this discussion is just headed for another Cutler debate, because we're going to disagree on how good he was. I don't think Cutler was a weak link at all, if we had a good defense he would have made the playoffs easily.

topscribe
11-13-2010, 11:03 PM
Cutler's stats didn't suck, so let's just get that out of the way now.

Winning is all that matters, but how do you build a winning team? By replacing the weak points with stronger ones. If you feel QB is a weak point, you replace it and improve it even if you're winning. You don't leave weak areas weak just because you're winning.

Same goes for Orton. He's a strong point on a weak team, so you don't replace him just because you're losing.

I get your point, except I still don't understand the "weak arm" bit, especially
this season. Orton has completed several passes 50-60 yards in the air on the
money, and some 30-yard frozen ropes, and has shown strong on deep outs.
He has a better QBR on 11+ yard passes than even Peyton Manning. So I just
don't get that . . .

-----

LordTrychon
11-13-2010, 11:21 PM
I just had a revelation.

Perhaps....

Neither Wins.... OR Stats really tell the whole story!

rcsodak
11-14-2010, 01:31 AM
Ya if it's Orton, stats don't matter but W/L does.

If its Plummer, stats matter but not W/L

If its Cutler..well his stats sucked and his W/L record so not sure if he can even be considered in the equation.

But that was the Defenses fault, remember. :coffee:

rcsodak
11-14-2010, 01:33 AM
71TD's/47INT's, 11000+yds; 7Rshg TD's; 670yds rushing; playoffs every year he started/ended the season.

06? - 11games 55.2% 1,994 yds 11 TD's 13INT's 68.8QBR

Elway
92 - 12 games 55.1% 2,242yds 10 TD's 17INT's 65.7QBR



:coffee:


I already gave Plummer props for his 2005 season. 2006 was

completion % 55.2
TD's - 11
Ints - 13
YPA - 6.3
QB rating - 68.8 (?!)

Those stats wouldn't even be good in the 70's, before the rules changes to improve passing. In the 21st Century it was simply an awful performance, and there is no way to dodge that one. Griese, Frerotte, Cutler, Orton all significantly outperformed that year, every year they had significant playing time. We opened the season 5-1, notwithstanding an offense that never once broke 20 points.

Whether or not Cutler could have been that guy? Who knows. I suspect so, under Shanahan coaching; others disagree. We'll argue that one the rest of our lives. All that is certain is Plummer needed to be benched, because his head wasn't in it and it was becoming obvious he had quit on his team. I don't care if we had brough in Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, or David Carr - a change had to be made.

Yes, I listed his 06 season's stats.....but compare that to Elway's '92 season. You really don't have to go back as far as you did in your previous post.

Just showing that it can and DOES happen...even to HoF'ers.

rcsodak
11-14-2010, 02:03 AM
Cutler's stats didn't suck, so let's just get that out of the way now.

Winning is all that matters, but how do you build a winning team? By replacing the weak points with stronger ones. If you feel QB is a weak point, you replace it and improve it even if you're winning. You don't leave weak areas weak just because you're winning.

Same goes for Orton. He's a strong point on a weak team, so you don't replace him just because you're losing.

So you're saying that an unproven rookie is better than a winning vet? That even though said vet has the team at 7-4, you still bring in the vet? That even when said rookie knocks the team OUT of playoff contention that it's STILL "replacing the weak points with stronger ones"?

That's rich. :lol:

He went 2-3;
Pick6 game 1 (lost by 3)
Fumble at Denver's 7, turned into TD the next play, game 2
Pick6 game 5 (lost by 3)

All 3 losses.

Jake had beaten NE/Pitt/Bal/3pts loss to Indy/8pt loss to SD. Cutler led them to the 28pt loss to SD 3wks later.

Shanny wasn't "improving" anything! He was grasping at straws. He grabbed a QB in the 1st rd, was feeling the heat, and threw out an unprepared rook. It cost the team a playoff spot, and split the locker room. Actually no different than him pulling McNabb....grasping at straws.

rcsodak
11-14-2010, 02:08 AM
I'm not saying Plummer was a weak link, I actually liked him. I was just speaking in general, referring to your post about winning being all that matters.

And this discussion is just headed for another Cutler debate, because we're going to disagree on how good he was. I don't think Cutler was a weak link at all, if we had a good defense he would have made the playoffs easily.

But according to people like Rav, the QB should be able to overcome that and put the team on his shoulders. He had, afterall, the "IT" factor. :rolleyes:

And now, cutler HAS a defense, but he STILL throws the dumbass int's. Oh wait....I forgot about his '10 excuse. :laugh:

Just think how good cutler could be if he had a Top Defense, a Top Offensive line, Top Wr's and Top Rb's! Man! He'd be unStoppable!!!!! :rolleyes:

elsid13
11-14-2010, 10:39 AM
Trading for McNab didn't make sense because the Redskins don't have a good enough team to win now. McNab is a win-now QB, not a long-term solution.

That said, if McNab is on your team, you don't bench him for Rex Grossman. Period.

I understand why the Shanahans benched McNabb, he has looked like shit this entire season. Grossman might not be better but McNabb has been killing the skins offense with the number of balls into the dirt and missing wide open receivers. After watching him this season, I now understand why Philly fans love to hate him.

HORSEPOWER 56
11-14-2010, 10:50 AM
**COUGH COUGH**** improved the scoring on offense??

But I thought the only thing that matters (not stats remember Rav) is winning.

What was the NEW QB's record when he came in and started??

What was the NEW QB's record as a starter in Denver PERIOD??

Remember now, stats don't matter..only wins and loses...What was Plummers W/L record vs the NEW QB's??

Thanks,

:coffee:


All of this is true, but rememeber that the defense (the reason we had those 7 wins to begin with) took a NOSE dive right about the time that Cutler took over. Al Wilson and, IIRC, Ian Gold were both lost for the season and that was the year that our LB corps was tops in the league. Nobody could run on us until those guys went down.

The facts are slightly skewed in the fact that the defense was allowing far less than 20 points a game when Plummer was starting to well more than 20 when Cutler took over. So, IMO, the improvement in offensive scoring was directly related to the QB switch.

LordTrychon
11-14-2010, 01:37 PM
So you're saying that an unproven rookie is better than a winning vet? That even though said vet has the team at 7-4, you still bring in the vet? That even when said rookie knocks the team OUT of playoff contention that it's STILL "replacing the weak points with stronger ones"?

That's rich. :lol:

He went 2-3;
Pick6 game 1 (lost by 3)
Fumble at Denver's 7, turned into TD the next play, game 2
Pick6 game 5 (lost by 3)

All 3 losses.

Jake had beaten NE/Pitt/Bal/3pts loss to Indy/8pt loss to SD. Cutler led them to the 28pt loss to SD 3wks later.

Shanny wasn't "improving" anything! He was grasping at straws. He grabbed a QB in the 1st rd, was feeling the heat, and threw out an unprepared rook. It cost the team a playoff spot, and split the locker room. Actually no different than him pulling McNabb....grasping at straws.

And Plummer went 0-2 and a pick in that last loss too.

Dreadnought
11-15-2010, 10:43 AM
I just had a revelation.

Perhaps....

Neither Wins.... OR Stats really tell the whole story!

Correctomundo! Stats tell an accurate but limited story, wins and losses tells an even more limited story.