PDA

View Full Version : Mike Silver about to talk about Tebow article on PFT live



Tned
08-25-2011, 11:06 AM
Might want to check it out if you can.


RT @ProFootballTalk: Fun PFT Live is on: Falcons G.M. Thomas Dimitroff and @MikeSilver talks Tebow article http://is.gd/tqpElo

EDIT: See summary of Silver interview and his doubling down on Tebow/Broncos criticisms in post #6 below.

Buff
08-25-2011, 11:07 AM
I can't stand Mike Silver.

Good writer - insanely arrogant and smarmy. Embodies all that I hate about sensationalistic headline grabbing national sportswriters.

Tned
08-25-2011, 11:08 AM
I can't stand Mike Silver.

Good writer - insanely arrogant and smarmy. Embodies all that I hate about sensationalistic headline grabbing national sportswriters.

I'm curious if he counters Fox's comments.

Buff
08-25-2011, 11:10 AM
I'm curious if he counters Fox's comments.

He will stand by his anonymous source, just like he does with all of his muckraking stories.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 11:19 AM
I'm curious if he counters Fox's comments.


He will stand by his anonymous source, just like he does with all of his muckraking stories.

Exactly. Thats what these guys do. They pretend that "protecting their sources" is some higher cause but it really, more often than not, is just tom curtain behind which they can operate as a muckraker, as you said. It's not really a higher cause as much as it's cover for them to act irresponsibly for the sake of generating headlines and remaining "relevant".

Tned
08-25-2011, 11:31 AM
Should have typed notes as I was listening, but didn't, but will summarize the best I can. Not necessarily in the order he said it.

First, he makes the point that he believes that Fox and Elway got a rude awakening after the lockout ended and found out how bad Tebow actually was. He says that while it's hard to believe, they were ready to trade Orton and start Tebow, but once they got a chance to actually see him in action (because they didn't have the offseason), that they realized how much better the other guy, which extends from Orton to Weber, were than Tebow.

Second, he said he's not sure why Saccomano is upset, because he made a number of people from the organization (not specific as to whether they were players, coaches, etc.) available to him for interviews. He thinks that if Sacco had a problem with his article, rather than his comment about reporters only wanting clicks/page views, he should have picked up the phone and called Silver.

Third, he said that he ate lunch across the street at lots of noodles (or something like that), and so he never met the chef.

Fourth, further to Fox's comments, he said Fox is a diplomatic coach, and that's why he made the comments he did yesterday.

Fifth, on why the organization hasn't tried to counter all the Tebow criticism (Silver, Hodge, etc.), Elway is new, not a jaded exec, and as such doesn't believe in spinning a story to try and cover up the truth. Implied that since the criticism is correct, and Elway and Fox were surprised by how bad Tebow is, that they haven't tried to counter all the negative.

Sixth, said he isn't sure why the Broncos are upset about the Tebow coverage, because if people weren't reporting on Tebow, nobody would care about the Broncos. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that Florio made this comment.

Seventh, he didn't go into Denver planning on writing a critical piece on Tebow, but after he interviewed the people Sacco lined up, that he went where the story lead him, as any good reporter would do.

Anyway, that's a rough paraphrase, but I think pretty well sums it up.

MasterShake
08-25-2011, 11:42 AM
Seventh, he didn't go into Denver planning on writing a critical piece on Tebow, but after he interviewed the people Sacco lined up, that he went where the story lead him, as any good reporter would do.

Anyway, that's a rough paraphrase, but I think pretty well sums it up.

Thanks for the summary, but this is BS. You think he was coming to Denver to write about how good our Oline is gelling? If you go to report on a fire as a newscaster, you talk about the burning bodies not the burning building. Tebow is a lightning rod for news, and this guy garnered tons of readership by throwing the red meat to the wolves.

Buff
08-25-2011, 11:54 AM
Sixth, said he isn't sure why the Broncos are upset about the Tebow coverage, because if people weren't reporting on Tebow, nobody would care about the Broncos.

This is exactly the type of shit I'm talking about... He thinks he's doing us a favor with his bullshit anonymous source-citing hit pieces.

Go back to California and stay there you ******* arrogant *****.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 11:58 AM
This is exactly the type of shit I'm talking about... He thinks he's doing us a favor with his bullshit anonymous source-citing hit pieces.

Go back to California and stay there you ******* arrogant *****.

Buff, you are really cracking me up with this rant... wish I could tell you why, but just know that you're giving me a chuckle today.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 11:59 AM
Buff, you are really cracking me up with this rant... wish I could tell you why, but just know that you're giving me a chuckle today.

Don't be one of the media apologists. There are already enough of those.

Mike
08-25-2011, 12:00 PM
Sounds like another asshat who is looking to get more clicks for his crappy sports coverage site. In other words, another typical media blowhard.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:00 PM
Sixth, said he isn't sure why the Broncos are upset about the Tebow coverage, because if people weren't reporting on Tebow, nobody would care about the Broncos.



In fairness, I believe it was Florio who said nobody would care about the Broncos if there were no Tebow reporting...

Buff
08-25-2011, 12:02 PM
Buff, you are really cracking me up with this rant... wish I could tell you why, but just know that you're giving me a chuckle today.

Like, funny ha-ha... Or funny, I'm laughing at you? Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of your sincerity.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:03 PM
Like, funny ha-ha... Or funny, I'm laughing at you? Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of your sincerity.

Joe Pesci much?

Buff
08-25-2011, 12:04 PM
Joe Pesci much?

So you think I'm a clown?

At least tell me why you're laughing at me.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:06 PM
So you think I'm a clown?

At least tell me why you're laughing at me.

Not laughing "at" you. Amused at the kerfuffle the article caused.

Buff
08-25-2011, 12:08 PM
Not laughing "at" you. Amused at the kerfuffle the article caused.

This goes back to his hit piece on McDaniels last year, and his writing on the NFL lockout for me. It wasn't this one Tebow piece.

I just think he's a dick... He's a smart dick, but sometimes those are the worst kind.

jhildebrand
08-25-2011, 12:08 PM
It is a complete cop out to insist he was coming here to write on anything BUT Tebow and the "reporting just kept coming back to it!"

He is the reporter. He is the author of his story. He is the one asking the questions. Color me skeptical but something tells me that the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION would love to talk about anything OTHER than Tebow at this point. So I don't believe for one second the organization was out to feed Silver a bunch of negative crap about Tebow when just 24 hours earlier CBS was reporting that they were considering trading or cutting him.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2011, 12:09 PM
Exactly. Thats what these guys do. They pretend that "protecting their sources" is some higher cause but it really, more often than not, is just tom curtain behind which they can operate as a muckraker, as you said. It's not really a higher cause as much as it's cover for them to act irresponsibly for the sake of generating headlines and remaining "relevant".

protecting your sources is the base of reporting. WHo would come out and give you information at all if they felt you simply would call them out and name them? No one. You would NEVER hear of a teammate/coach/executive/employee EVER come out and say something because it woudl mean their job would be in jeapordy.

So many here try and complain about the anonamous source, when in reality its the anonamous source that breaking news derives from. Its an absolute MUST have!

chazoe60
08-25-2011, 12:14 PM
He contradicts himself pretty badly. He essentially said "I wasnt there to cover Tebow and if it weren't for Tebow there'd be no reason to cover the Broncos"

Then why did you come in the first place you tool?

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:17 PM
This goes back to his hit piece on McDaniels last year, and his writing on the NFL lockout for me. It wasn't this one Tebow piece.

I just think he's a dick... He's a smart dick, but sometimes those are the worst kind.

He's also a flaming liberal - doesn't make his sports writing wrong. There are some (Dan Patrick, Rich Eisen) who thought Silver's reporting on the lockout was excellent. I'm not trying to change your thinking on him, you just happened to be the one who's post I picked to comment on this whole silliness from. Carry on my friend.

Tned
08-25-2011, 12:18 PM
In fairness, I believe it was Florio who said nobody would care about the Broncos if there were no Tebow reporting...

You might be right, because it was after Florio said Tebow was the new Favre - gets the most comments on Tebow stories on PFT. Will update my notes to say it might have been Florio.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 12:19 PM
He contradicts himself pretty badly. He essentially said "I wasnt there to cover Tebow and if it weren't for Tebow there'd be no reason to cover the Broncos"

Then why did you come in the first place you tool?

You make a pretty damning point. Every one talking about how smart he is should really make note of this.

Buff
08-25-2011, 12:19 PM
He's also a flaming liberal - doesn't make his sports writing wrong. There are some (Dan Patrick, Rich Eisen) who thought Silver's reporting on the lockout was excellent. I'm not trying to change your thinking on him, you just happened to be the one who's post I picked to comment on this whole silliness from. Carry on my friend.

Ah, now I'm following what you're laying down... There is a certain bit of irony in me disliking a Berkley lib so strongly... Again, I don't question his writing acumen, just the way he conducts himself via columns and interviews.

BroncoStud
08-25-2011, 12:23 PM
Adam Weber is the next Joe Montana... He's amazing.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 12:24 PM
protecting your sources is the base of reporting. WHo would come out and give you information at all if they felt you simply would call them out and name them? No one. You would NEVER hear of a teammate/coach/executive/employee EVER come out and say something because it woudl mean their job would be in jeapordy.

So many here try and complain about the anonamous source, when in reality its the anonamous source that breaking news derives from. Its an absolute MUST have!

No, it's not the base of reporting. The base of "reporting" is generating buzz. It's a business. News used to be a loss leader (do you even know what that is?) but now it's a profit center like practically everything else. Journalism has become a casualty of this. It's all about creating attention and everything after that is tailored around justifications (most of them are outdated and bogus) for trying to create attention. Because it's the creating attention issue that is more prevalent in the reality of it being a business.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-25-2011, 12:26 PM
IMO, his TOTAL reason for coming to Denver was because of Tebow. If NOT, there are other aspects he could have covered - i.e. talk to Coach Fox, as this is his 1st year with the Broncos, talk to Elvis in regards to how he is feeling, what he did during the lockout to continue his rehab, etc., talk to Von, the highest draft pick the Broncos have ever had, etc., etc., etc.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:27 PM
Ah, now I'm following what you're laying down... There is a certain bit of irony in me disliking a Berkley lib so strongly... Again, I don't question his writing acumen, just the way he conducts himself via columns and interviews.

He's also a Raider fan...

Ravage!!!
08-25-2011, 12:29 PM
No, it's not the base of reporting. The base of "reporting" is generating buzz. It's a business. News used to be a loss leader (do you even know what that is?) but now it's a profit center like practically everything else. Journalism has become a casualty of this. It's all about creating attention and everything after that is tailored around justifications (most of them are outdated and bogus) for trying to create attention. Because it's the creating attention issue that is more prevalent in the reality of it being a business.

Yes, AoO, I'm quite capable of keeping up with your intellect, but I appreciate you stopping to check.

Anonamous sources, and protecting those sources, are PARAMOUNT (do you know what that word means?) to reporting. Period. Reporters named their sources, and you wouldn't have any sources that would/could give you information that everyone could/would already have. The more news sources that are available, the more important having inside sources are. Protecting those sources are the only way to have information that isn't common knowledge.

You have to have inside information that can give you something no one else has... thus having something that creates interest. Protecting those sources is the only way you have that edge.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:29 PM
He contradicts himself pretty badly. He essentially said "I wasnt there to cover Tebow and if it weren't for Tebow there'd be no reason to cover the Broncos"

Then why did you come in the first place you tool?

He said he didn't go there to write a negative piece on Tebow. That is very different from saying he didn't go there to cover Tebow. No contradiction.

Northman
08-25-2011, 12:31 PM
So basically Silver is saying that there is a higher up (allegedly) who is working against the Broncos by giving negative comments to the media yet doesnt want to be named. What a coward.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 12:32 PM
So basically Silver is saying that there is a higher up (allegedly) who is working against the Broncos by giving negative comments to the media yet doesnt want to be named. What a coward.

Either that or this is coming from someone like Lloyd "off the record" and Silver is providing cover by attributing it to an executive.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2011, 12:32 PM
So basically Silver is saying that there is a higher up (allegedly) who is working against the Broncos by giving negative comments to the media yet doesnt want to be named. What a coward.

or doesn't want to lose his job? :lol:

why would any inside source want to be named?

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 12:33 PM
Yes, AoO, I'm quite capable of keeping up with your intellect, but I appreciate you stopping to check.

Anonamous sources, and protecting those sources, are PARAMOUNT (do you know what that word means?) to reporting. Period. Reporters named their sources, and you wouldn't have any sources that would/could give you information that everyone could/would already have. The more news sources that are available, the more important having inside sources are. Protecting those sources are the only way to have information that isn't common knowledge.

You have to have inside information that can give you something no one else has... thus having something that creates interest. Protecting those sources is the only way you have that edge.

No they're not and I just explained why. Stop living in the 70s.

Also, I doubt it.

Northman
08-25-2011, 12:34 PM
or doesn't want to lose his job? :lol:

why would any inside source want to be named?


He deserves to be fired. He is working against his own company by saying this shit. You think that Elway and Fox enjoy dealing with this bullshit? Really? :lol:

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:34 PM
So basically Silver is saying that there is a higher up (allegedly) who is working against the Broncos by giving negative comments to the media yet doesnt want to be named. What a coward.

Naming names would have caused exponentially more harm to the organization than the comments themselves.

Northman
08-25-2011, 12:35 PM
Naming names would have caused exponentially more harm to the organization than the comments themselves.

Nah, i dont think so. You clear out the bad seed/seeds and move on.

Nomad
08-25-2011, 12:36 PM
or doesn't want to lose his job? :lol:

why would any inside source want to be named?

It's that damn administative assistant who was told 'no you can't go out on the field', so he stirring the pot.

I believe Silver won't be invited to Buff's next party!:D

Buff
08-25-2011, 12:37 PM
Naming names would have caused exponentially more harm to the organization than the comments themselves.

Or it would have completely discredited his story and exposed his source as low ranking and not as knowledgeable as he claims. It would have gone one of two ways.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 12:38 PM
Naming names would have caused exponentially more harm to the organization than the comments themselves.

In this case, it would be an exponent of 1. That's assuming what Silver says is actually true, which can not be assumed.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Nah, i dont think so. You clear out the bad seed/seeds and move on.

That was done at the end of last season.

Ravage!!!
08-25-2011, 12:42 PM
No they're not and I just explained why. Stop living in the 70s.

Also, I doubt it.

You gave your opinion, doesn't make it fact. Not to mention, your opinion SUPPORTED my statement and the FACT that reporters and reporting RELIES on inside anonamous sources. I'm sorry you don't see that, or dont' agree with it, but its true.

The fact that more internet reports and news sources are available for people to read, just makes those inside sources and inside information that muchmore important.

Why do you suppose that Adam Schefter is paid such a good salary and people around here listen to what he has to say? Because he's saying what everyone else has been saying or because he has inside sources that share information with him? Adam ALWAYS states that he has "inside sources...."

LawDog
08-25-2011, 12:43 PM
You guys are all missing the important point... which is if Noodles & Co. is going to give Silver a spif for the free publicity?

Edit: http://www.noodles.com/locations/CO/

Northman
08-25-2011, 12:43 PM
That was done at the end of last season.

True, however if you have an employee who is poisoning the franchise right now that is unacceptable. Even if the employee feels the way they do they should not be speaking about in publically when they know its going to do the franchise harm.

NightTerror218
08-25-2011, 12:48 PM
Time for Elway to do some in-house cleaning....was it Ellis?

Tned
08-25-2011, 01:00 PM
Either that or this is coming from someone like Lloyd "off the record" and Silver is providing cover by attributing it to an executive.

I don't believe he ever said it was an executive.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:00 PM
You gave your opinion, doesn't make it fact. Not to mention, your opinion SUPPORTED my statement and the FACT that reporters and reporting RELIES on inside anonamous sources. I'm sorry you don't see that, or dont' agree with it, but its true.

This makes no sense. You've failed to comprehend the most basic things that I've explained to you. Either that, or you simply feel like you've gone too far and now that someone has exposed your thinking as flawed, you're too embarrassed to admit there were things you were oblivious to. And now you resort to this common practice of presenting BS arguments that involve circular reasoning.



The fact that more internet reports and news sources are available for people to read, just makes those inside sources and inside information that muchmore important.

Again, you're not seeing a larger picture. I really thought that I presented you with enough information so that you would see the bigger picture.


Why do you suppose that Adam Schefter is paid such a good salary and people around here listen to what he has to say? Because he's saying what everyone else has been saying or because he has inside sources that share information with him? Adam ALWAYS states that he has "inside sources...."

I wouldnt compare Silver to Schefter. Schefter is usually one of the first to get information. Silver is some guy who writes from a lofty perch in California who is jumping on the gravy train. Why is it that you fail to see that?


Once again, Im going to explain something to you so that you understand it. Back in the day (as recently as the 80s or early 90s), news departments at major networks were loss leaders. In other words, they weren't expected to make money. Removing the profit motive allowed them to function with greater legitimacy because you could not question whether they're reporting according to profit incentive. The "anonymous sources" thing that you're talking about fit that day and time because there was an expectation of legitimacy.

Now news departments (sports included) are expected to make a profit. This undermines the legitmacy (note the explanation above). And because there is already a profit motive in "journalism" or "reporting", the whole idea of "anonymous sources" loses validity. The reason it now lacks the same validity is because now you can question why a reporter is following a story. And because that is now in question, there is a very distinct possibility that "anonymous sources" is now just a vehicle for the media to hide behind and contrive stories that are profit driven.

I've explained this twice now. Please stop with the lame rebuttals. Also, everything I've told you above is fact.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't believe he ever said it was an executive.

Maybe he didn't. If he did, there is the possibility that Silver is lying to cover for Lloyd.

jhildebrand
08-25-2011, 01:10 PM
or doesn't want to lose his job? :lol:

why would any inside source want to be named?

If that is your conviction and you feel so strongly to offer that up, you put your name to it DESPITE the consequences. Otherwise, you are simply selling out for a paycheck! As north said, its cowardly.

LawDog
08-25-2011, 01:10 PM
Maybe he didn't. If he did, there is the possibility that Silver is lying to cover for Lloyd.

What in the world are you talking about? Covering for Lloyd for what, saying something bad about Tebow? Lloyd is quoted in the article talking about Webster so that's pretty horrible covering up. What then is Silver lying about, he made up the stuff about how poorly Tebow is performing right now?

And that whole mess about newsroom integrity and profit motives? Wow, just wow...

LawDog
08-25-2011, 01:11 PM
If that is your conviction and you feel so strongly to offer that up, you put your name to it DESPITE the consequences. Otherwise, you are simply selling out for a paycheck! As north said, its cowardly.

Selling out for a paycheck? So now Silver is paying his sources?

jhildebrand
08-25-2011, 01:12 PM
I don't believe he ever said it was an executive.

He didn't. I quoted the exact words in the Fox talks to 9 news thread.

BroncoWave
08-25-2011, 01:15 PM
Selling out for a paycheck? So now Silver is paying his sources?

That's not even close to what he said.

jhildebrand
08-25-2011, 01:15 PM
Selling out for a paycheck? So now Silver is paying his sources?

No you didn't follow me.

Whomever offered up this quote is selling out for a paycheck with the Broncos. Silver just did his job. The speculation is that it was an executive. That word wasn't used. If you look at the quote it seems pretty clear it is a player not an official, executive or FO type.

Many are saying it was an executive and Silver should protect that person. If that WERE the case, I was simply stating, that the person offering up such a strong claim should put their name to it. But by hiding behind a reporter and creating more division is selling out. Other coaches have offered up similar statements or support for a player/coach in the past and had no problem LOSING their job because of it!

Lancane
08-25-2011, 01:16 PM
Can I ask a valid question for all those blasting Silver and buying wholly into Fox's statement to local media like it's the gospel truth?

Those stating that Silver is lying or at least insinuating that as a fact, then where is the proof? Pretty much all I am hearing is that he's covering up to protect a lowly source; that he likely made it up; that it's probably an executive within trying to poison the organization...and more or less is nothing but what is a lot of hateful based opinions. Basically we have a whole boards of overly excited posters defaming his character, the character of his possible source and not one iota of proof to continue doing such. I am not saying it's truth or not, but I can say that there is a very old saying, "Where there is smoke, there is usually fire", we've heard more then just one take on this, and Fox's own statement could be construed as vague. The Broncos' haven't filed a media injunction against Silver and ESPN like the Raiders did against Williamson and ESPN when he reported a false story that effected the organization.

Posters are arguing like this is all factual, but we have no clue if it is or not, if it is a lie, based on the statement of one insider or more. The organization took the right stance without calling him a liar or themselves or making a promise to the fans that may be untrue.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:18 PM
What in the world are you talking about? Covering for Lloyd for what, saying something bad about Tebow? Lloyd is quoted in the article talking about Webster so that's pretty horrible covering up. What then is Silver lying about, he made up the stuff about how poorly Tebow is performing right now?
Lloyd is a staunch Orton zealot. He's made various comments that indicate as much. But he only want's to go so far publically but he's willing to make comments, provided they're not attributed to him. So, he tells Silver that it has to be off the record. Silver wants his comments so he concedes that he'll not attribute them to Lloyd. Silver does this knowing that he has this "anonymous sources" vehicle at his disposal to provide cover. With this, he can attribute the comments to someone else and shield Brandon Lloyd.

Understand, that Brandon Lloyd has made the most pro-Orton comments of anyone in the organization. So to casually dismiss it is folly.


And that whole mess about newsroom integrity and profit motives? Wow, just wow...

No, what's wow is that you don't know this. Ill say the same thing to you. It's not the 1970s anymore. Stop pretending like the media functions with the same legitimacy. As a matter of fact, if you're a lawyer, you should understand the concept of profit as motive.

Buff
08-25-2011, 01:20 PM
Can I ask a valid question for all those blasting Silver and buying wholly into Fox's statement to local media like it's the gospel truth?

Those stating that Silver is lying or at least insinuating that as a fact, then where is the proof? Pretty much all I am hearing is that he's covering up to protect a lowly source; that he likely made it up; that it's probably an executive within trying to poison the organization...and more or less is nothing but what is a lot of hateful based opinions. Basically we have a whole boards of overly excited posters defaming his character, the character of his possible source and not one iota of proof to continue doing such. I am not saying it's truth or not, but I can say that there is a very old saying, "Where there is smoke, there is usually fire", we've heard more then just one take on this, and Fox's own statement could be construed as vague. The Broncos' haven't filed a media injunction against Silver and ESPN like the Raiders did against Williamson and ESPN when he reported a false story that effected the organization.

Posters are arguing like this is all factual, but we have no clue if it is or not, if it is a lie, based on the statement of one insider or more. The organization took the right stance without calling him a liar or themselves or making a promise to the fans that may be untrue.

I can only speak for myself - I am just saying that it's equally as likely that it came from a lower source as it is a higher-up source. It's anonymous, so we have no idea. And Silver has a history of propping up his pieces with anonymous sources.

Not saying it's correct or incorrect, just that I don't like his brand of journalism or the way he comes off as a know-it-all gift to sports writing.

jhildebrand
08-25-2011, 01:29 PM
Silver said: "As one highly knowledgeable member of the organization "

Not a highly placed source.

A highly knowledgeable member could be just about ANYBODY from Player, to secretary, to Pat Bowlen himself.

Again, look at the quotes and it is clear it is a player speaking.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:31 PM
Can I ask a valid question for all those blasting Silver and buying wholly into Fox's statement to local media like it's the gospel truth?

Those stating that Silver is lying or at least insinuating that as a fact, then where is the proof? Pretty much all I am hearing is that he's covering up to protect a lowly source; that he likely made it up; that it's probably an executive within trying to poison the organization...and more or less is nothing but what is a lot of hateful based opinions. Basically we have a whole boards of overly excited posters defaming his character, the character of his possible source and not one iota of proof to continue doing such. I am not saying it's truth or not, but I can say that there is a very old saying, "Where there is smoke, there is usually fire", we've heard more then just one take on this, and Fox's own statement could be construed as vague. The Broncos' haven't filed a media injunction against Silver and ESPN like the Raiders did against Williamson and ESPN when he reported a false story that effected the organization.

Posters are arguing like this is all factual, but we have no clue if it is or not, if it is a lie, based on the statement of one insider or more. The organization took the right stance without calling him a liar or themselves or making a promise to the fans that may be untrue.

Im at the top of the list of those questioning Silver's motive(s). First of all, Im not speakign in absolutes. Im addressing the distinct possibility that Silver could be lying. Many seem to think that just because he's in the media, thats impossible. Thats far from the truth.

Secondly, your characterization that those questioning Silver as accepting Fox's comments as "gospel truth" is also not really strongly correlated. Fox could be lying. Im not denying that. Anything is possible. But I think there is a lot of naievete when it comes to the media. It's obvious to me that people think its the 1970s and Woodward and Bernstein are covering Watergate. Things are a lot different now. The media has a greater profit motive now. It's now inherent and it wasn't always that way. People need to grasp this.

You can't simply assume that Silver is any more forthright than Fox.

But like I said to you, in your generalization about never believing coaches, here, in this specific circumstance, Fox would be undemining the (a commonly believed) goal of dissipating the backlash from the fanbase. Another chink in the armor of your generalization is, that there is a recent history with the Broncos of a coach going after someone in the media and winning. Do you remember when Jason Cole got nailed for falsely reporting that Shanahan taped practices of the Chargers? That's a very distinct example of you you're generalization can't be applied absolutely. It's also an example of how reckless the media is/can be. The problem is that you're seeing the world through the eyes of the media and they know this. They know they can simply sweep it under the carpet with relative ease if they get nailed, or in most cases, they know they can hide behind "anonymous sources". These guys are vultures. You shouldnt assume they have any more virtue than a vulture.

Nomad
08-25-2011, 01:33 PM
Silver said: "As one highly knowledgeable member of the organization "

Not a highly placed source.

A highly knowledgeable member could be just about ANYBODY from Player, to secretary, to Pat Bowlen himself.

Again, look at the quotes and it is clear it is a player speaking.

That's my vote......a disgruntled admin assistant!:)

LawDog
08-25-2011, 01:37 PM
No, what's wow is that you don't know this. Ill say the same thing to you. It's not the 1970s anymore. Stop pretending like the media functions with the same legitimacy. As a matter of fact, if you're a lawyer, you should understand the concept of profit as motive.

Whether I'm a lawyer or not is irrelevant.

Newspaper X has a well-regarded newsroom that is perceived to not only report on the important issues but also does so accurately and fairly. Consumers buy Newspaper X to get that quality of reporting. Circulation increases because of it. The increase in circulation drives an increase in ad rates which drives profits.

The separation you are looking for is the separation between the news department and the editorial staff. That is to try and protect the journalistic integrity of the news department which is at its core a very important profit motive.

The fact that the editorial departments have now permeated the news departments and what should be news reporting has become tainted with bias and opinion is the reason that print media is dying due to lack of circulation and thus profit.

You really do not have a very good grasp of either business or journalism.

Tned
08-25-2011, 01:45 PM
Open question:

Why is it whenever a reporter says or writes something critical of a Bronco player of the Broncos organization, that it gets written off as "hate" against said player of the team? That ulterior motives are assumed? :confused:

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:49 PM
Whether I'm a lawyer or not is irrelevant.

Newspaper X has a well-regarded newsroom that is perceived to not only report on the important issues but also does so accurately and fairly. Consumers buy Newspaper X to get that quality of reporting. Circulation increases because of it. The increase in circulation drives an increase in ad rates which drives profits.

"Well regarded" is just fluff language that means little. If there's a profit motive, the possibility can never be dismissed.

Also this talk of "circulation" just makes me realize why the thinking is so dated. It's not even about circulation anymore as much as it's about web hits. The print industry is dying and everyone knows it. Back when the print industry was more significant and circulation was more important, there were much greater barriers to entry as far as reporting goes. Now, all you need to have is a web site...practically any website, and you can break a story. So now the barriers to entry are practically nil and this is what outlets like SI has to compete with.



The separation you are looking for is the separation between the news department and the editorial staff. That is to try and protect the journalistic integrity of the news department which is at its core a very important profit motive.

It doesnt matter. The bigger issue is what I said above (in the case of outlets like SI) and also news departments (which includes sports) at networks no longer making their news departments loss leaders. Once something is a profit center, all bets are off, where "reporting" and "journalism" is concerned.



The fact that the editorial departments have now permeated the news departments and what should be news reporting has become tainted with bias and opinion is the reason that print media is dying due to lack of circulation and thus profit.

See above.



You really do not have a very good grasp of either business or journalism.

I very much do...which is why I find your characterization overly simplistic and comical.

Buff
08-25-2011, 01:49 PM
Open question:

Why is it whenever a reporter says or writes something critical of a Bronco player of the Broncos organization, that it gets written off as "hate" against said player of the team? That ulterior motives are assumed? :confused:

Personally, Silver and Burger Bill Williamson are really the only two national sportswriters I dislike.

I dislike Williamson because he is lazy and his pieces very seldom offer up any real insights... This dates back to his days with the Denver Post.

I think my dislike of Silver is well documented in this thread...

So, at least for me, it doesn't stem directly from Broncos criticisms but more just because I don't respect their journalistic styles.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 01:50 PM
Open question:

Why is it whenever a reporter says or writes something critical of a Bronco player of the Broncos organization, that it gets written off as "hate" against said player of the team? That ulterior motives are assumed? :confused:

Im not sure if this is addressed to me. I'll assume it might be since Ive been one questioning Silver.

I've always questioned the media and their motives. It's only front and center now because it involves the Broncos where I'm concerned.

Tned
08-25-2011, 01:55 PM
Personally, Silver and Burger Bill Williamson are really the only two national sportswriters I dislike.

I dislike Williamson because he is lazy and his pieces very seldom offer up any real insights... This dates back to his days with the Denver Post.

I think my dislike of Silver is well documented in this thread...

So, at least for me, it doesn't stem directly from Broncos criticisms but more just because I don't respect their journalistic styles.

In terms of Williamson, he had an uphill battle replacing Schefter. We had a great beat reporter in Scheffter. Not saying our current ones aren't real good, but Schefter was great.


Im not sure if this is addressed to me. I'll assume it might be since Ive been one questioning Silver.

I've always questioned the media and their motives. It's only front and center now because it involves the Broncos where I'm concerned.

Nope, wasn't aimed at you, or anyone. It goes much beyond this one article, this thread. There is a near non-stop accusation of ESPN being unfair to the Broncos, national media being overly critical, or not giving enough coverage, etc.

Ziggy
08-25-2011, 02:00 PM
I refuse to start another Tebow thread, so I'll put this in here. Has any 3rd string QB in the history of the league ever created this much media frenzy? I understand that he was a first round pick, but even #1 overall pick Jamarcus Russell wouldn't have gotten this much attention from the national media if he were the #3 QB somewhere in the league. People can say that his religion doesn't factor in here, but I'm not buying it.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 02:02 PM
Nope, wasn't aimed at you, or anyone. It goes much beyond this one article, this thread. There is a near non-stop accusation of ESPN being unfair to the Broncos, national media being overly critical, or not giving enough coverage, etc.

Where ESPN is concerned, I think there valid suspicion that they are biased in their coverage. ESPN always seems to let regional issues and regional points of view specific to the northeast dictate how they present issues. Connecticut is a virtual suburb of NYC. It's also sandwiched amost directly in the middle of Boston and NYC. There are also a lot of well respected colleges in northeast. All of these things add up to ESPN having a lot of employees being influenced by either living in or being from that region.

I think you can see a clear bias in a number of ways and link it to various reasons.

One of the reasons you see a bias is that the Broncos have had a lot of success against the Patriots and so there's a lot of bitterness coming from those that work at the network.

Another way you can see this is in how they always prop up Belichick. If you take away Brady from Belichick, he's actually accomplished a lot less than Shanahan. But yet, the mantra from ESPN is always to emphasize a period of time that Belichick has had Brady and Shanahan has been without Elway. How convenient.


Edit-- Before someone says something like "Trent Dilfer's not from there or didn't go to school there", Ill just point out that Trent Dilfer isn't the only one that has input on what is discussed. There are other people involved like production managers. Also, even though someone like Trent Dilfer might not be someone who is from that region, a lot of these guys currently live there and so when they watch local TV or radio, they're seeing issues from a regional perspective. So they're often not immune to this regional bias themselves.

Nomad
08-25-2011, 02:02 PM
I refuse to start another Tebow thread, so I'll put this in here. Has any 3rd string QB in the history of the league ever created this much media frenzy? I understand that he was a first round pick, but even #1 overall pick Jamarcus Russell wouldn't have gotten this much attention from the national media if he were the #3 QB somewhere in the league. People can say that his religion doesn't factor in here, but I'm not buying it.

Randy Cross agrees!

Tebow has been a media phenomenon since HS.......signed Skip bayless

Denver Native (Carol)
08-25-2011, 02:06 PM
Let's go back to Silver's original article:


If you’re wondering about the plight of that other inexperienced passer on the Broncos’ roster – how far and fast he has fallen in the eyes of his bosses – consider that at least some people in the organization believe that Tim Tebow is the fourth-best quarterback on the roster.

As one highly knowledgeable member of the organization told me Monday: “If everything was totally equal, and this were a competition based only on performance at this camp, Tebow would probably be the fourth-string guy. Kyle [Orton] is far and away the best, and Tebow’s way behind [Brady] Quinn too. And I’m telling you, Adam Weber is flat-out better right now.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ArhOaKnMH9rm0N2_1o9U8z5DubYF?slug=ms-silver_denver_broncos_quarterbacks_082311

In the first paragraph I posted, he states - "consider that at least some people in the organization believe that Tim Tebow is the fourth-best quarterback on the roster.

Some equals HOW MANY??????

Then his second paragraph concentrates on the same thing - but this time he states one highly knowledgeable member of the organization

SO - was it some, was it one??????

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 02:12 PM
Let's go back to Silver's original article:



http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ArhOaKnMH9rm0N2_1o9U8z5DubYF?slug=ms-silver_denver_broncos_quarterbacks_082311

In the first paragraph I posted, he states - "consider that at least some people in the organization believe that Tim Tebow is the fourth-best quarterback on the roster.

Some equals HOW MANY??????

Then his second paragraph concentrates on the same thing - but this time he states one highly knowledgeable member of the organization

SO - was it some, was it one??????

Carol, thanks for re-focusing the discussion. But I think you also cant ignore that he said Tebow's bosses. It doesnt seem like some of the people that Saccomano made available would really be what one would call "Tebow's bosses". I see Tebows chain of command being something along the lines of: position coach-offensive coordinator-head coach-GM-Elway-Ellis-Bowlen.

Can we assume that's who Silver was talking to?

Ravage!!!
08-25-2011, 02:41 PM
If that is your conviction and you feel so strongly to offer that up, you put your name to it DESPITE the consequences. Otherwise, you are simply selling out for a paycheck! As north said, its cowardly.

People all the time relinguish inside facts about a companies happenings without wishing to lose their job. I don't think its fair to believe that a person should be named or should name themselves.

rationalfan
08-25-2011, 02:48 PM
it's funny how people here complain reporters wake up with the intent to write attacks on tebow or the broncos; yet some of the people here basically post on this board with the expressed intent on ripping apart reporters.

gotta love hypocrisy. and, for the record, i admit to being a total hypocrite.

Buff
08-25-2011, 02:50 PM
it's funny how people here complain reporters wake up with the intent to write attacks on tebow or the broncos; yet some of the people here basically post on this board with the expressed intent on ripping apart reporters.

gotta love hypocrisy. and, for the record, i admit to being a total hypocrite.

I don't think you understand hypocrisy.

Agent of Orange
08-25-2011, 02:55 PM
it's funny how people here complain reporters wake up with the intent to write attacks on tebow or the broncos; yet some of the people here basically post on this board with the expressed intent on ripping apart reporters.

gotta love hypocrisy. and, for the record, i admit to being a total hypocrite.

This makes no sense. If you had said that it's hypocritical for people to criticize reporters for having an axe to grind against Tebow but then those same fans bad mouth Orton, you might have been in the ballpark of having a point. But even that would be flawed since fans on a message board don't nor should they share they same burden of objectivity that one should respect from reporters.


Also, along these lines, you could say that it's ironic that someone would post this while calling themselves "rational" fan.

BroncoWave
08-25-2011, 02:56 PM
Tebow has been a media phenomenon since HS.......signed Skip bayless

I'm not sure what you're getting at here but you do realize Bayless is Tebow's biggest supporter on ESPN?

Nomad
08-25-2011, 03:00 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at here but you do realize Bayless is Tebow's biggest supporter on ESPN?

He's been Tebow's biggest supporter for years now, so to Skip the Tebow talk is nothing new.

Slick
08-25-2011, 03:37 PM
I read the articles but i dont take them seriously. Helps me mantain a mellow carribean vibe.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Buff
08-25-2011, 03:49 PM
I read the articles but i dont take them seriously. Helps me mantain a mellow carribean vibe.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

This opens up a debate, Slick... It's one of those chicken vs. the egg sort of things.

I'd argue that if I were in the Carribean then my vibe would be much more mellow to start with. And therefore easier to maintain.

So, I guess my point is that it's not my fault I'm an *******. I live in Aurora and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours every day of my life.

Tned
08-25-2011, 03:51 PM
I read the articles but i dont take them seriously. Helps me mantain a mellow carribean vibe.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I thought you were on the Pacific side for some reason. Not sure why.

Tned
08-25-2011, 03:53 PM
This opens up a debate, Slick... It's one of those chicken vs. the egg sort of things.

I'd argue that if I were in the Carribean then my vibe would be much more mellow to start with. And therefore easier to maintain.

So, I guess my point is that it's not my fault I'm an *******. I live in Aurora and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours every day of my life.

I know what you mean. In recent years, with traffic congestion getting worse, I've gone from a 7 minute commute to 11-13 minutes each way, and I can tell you that there is no question I am not as happy go lucky as I used to be.

Buff
08-25-2011, 03:54 PM
I know what you mean. In recent years, with traffic congestion getting worse, I've gone from a 7 minute commute to 11-13 minutes each way, and I can tell you that there is no question I am not as happy go lucky as I used to be.

You sound like my friend from the Western Slope whose idea of rush hour is having to wait two cycles for a left turn at one stop light - adding 2 minutes to his 5 minute commute.

TXBRONC
08-25-2011, 03:57 PM
This opens up a debate, Slick... It's one of those chicken vs. the egg sort of things.

I'd argue that if I were in the Carribean then my vibe would be much more mellow to start with. And therefore easier to maintain.

So, I guess my point is that it's not my fault I'm an *******. I live in Aurora and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours every day of my life.

So you're saying it's genetic? :heh:

I'm just kidding Buff. :D

Tned
08-25-2011, 04:00 PM
You sound like my friend from the Western Slope whose idea of rush hour is having to wait two cycles for a left turn at one stop light - adding 2 minutes to his 5 minute commute.

Well, are you trying to say that isn't a bad thing? Or, catching two red lights in a row. Or worse, Friday afternoon traffic when the town gets flooded by shoppers on payday, that adds another minute or two. You seem to be diminishing my serious congestion related commute problems. :tsK:

rationalfan
08-25-2011, 04:01 PM
This makes no sense. If you had said that it's hypocritical for people to criticize reporters for having an axe to grind against Tebow but then those same fans bad mouth Orton, you might have been in the ballpark of having a point. But even that would be flawed since fans on a message board don't nor should they share they same burden of objectivity that one should respect from reporters.


Also, along these lines, you could say that it's ironic that someone would post this while calling themselves "rational" fan.

you proved my point when you dove into the murky realm of "objectivity."

hey, i just think it's funny reading people rip into reporters for not giving tebow a chance, then not giving the reporters a chance - at all. it is what it is.

as for objectivity, it's irrelevant in this discussion. most of the media reports that blast tebow aren't trying to be objective. they're opinion pieces from people who present themselves as being opinionated. huge difference between the editorials and objective reporting.

and nice example of irony. too many people misuse it (alanis morisette is one of the bigger offenders).

LawDog
08-25-2011, 04:18 PM
"Well regarded" is just fluff language that means little. If there's a profit motive, the possibility can never be dismissed.

Also this talk of "circulation" just makes me realize why the thinking is so dated. It's not even about circulation anymore as much as it's about web hits. The print industry is dying and everyone knows it. Back when the print industry was more significant and circulation was more important, there were much greater barriers to entry as far as reporting goes. Now, all you need to have is a web site...practically any website, and you can break a story. So now the barriers to entry are practically nil and this is what outlets like SI has to compete with.

It doesnt matter. The bigger issue is what I said above (in the case of outlets like SI) and also news departments (which includes sports) at networks no longer making their news departments loss leaders. Once something is a profit center, all bets are off, where "reporting" and "journalism" is concerned.

See above.

I very much do...which is why I find your characterization overly simplistic and comical.

I chose newspaper (and thus circulation) intentionally because you keep pointing to the 70's and saying things have changed. No argument there, but your assertion is incorrect in claiming that the reason for the change in reporting techniques (and credibility) is due to a change in what constitutes a profit center for the news company. Profit has absolutely nothing to do with it, you just choose not to admit it.

Print is dead for two reasons. 1) It is way too slow for dispensing "news" and electronic media does a much better job at getting information out broadly and quickly. 2) The stalwarts of print media have completely abandoned any pretense of reporting straight news without a slant. The first has made the second even worse because - as you noted above - anyone can easily put information out on the net. That makes it very easy for the average joe staring at his computer screen in his pajamas to get several sources for the same story and wade through the particular biases and determine what is the truth to whatever level of satisfaction he desires. The big news outlets can no longer manipulate the news, but instead of correcting the problem they are getting even worse.

A side effect of instant media is that the rush to get stuff out there causes a lot of inaccurate reporting, as well as the fact that a lot of people posting information as news have no business doing so, and a lot of what is written gets some traction without having any truth to it at all.

But, as you say, you "very much do" understand all this so you must work in the field. Personally, I doubt it.

Northman
08-25-2011, 04:30 PM
This opens up a debate, Slick... It's one of those chicken vs. the egg sort of things.

I'd argue that if I were in the Carribean then my vibe would be much more mellow to start with. And therefore easier to maintain.

So, I guess my point is that it's not my fault I'm an *******. I live in Aurora and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours every day of my life.

Are you falling down?

JaxBroncoGirl
08-25-2011, 04:36 PM
Common sense tells me there is a little bit of truth to the article and a little bit of truth from Fox. Both views are so extreme, I would bet 2.00 that Tebow is in the middle. Not as good as what Fox is use to and not as poor as the sports writer claims.

They are too extreme views so we really should be looking in the middle. Fox must put a positive spin on just about everything being said from the teams point of view and the writer wants shock value.

My guess is the writer is keeping the Broncos is the news which the Broncos should really be grateful. I know, I would rather read something like our OL is much better this year. It is what it is.

Jsteve01
08-25-2011, 04:37 PM
Should have typed notes as I was listening, but didn't, but will summarize the best I can. Not necessarily in the order he said it.

First, he makes the point that he believes that Fox and Elway got a rude awakening after the lockout ended and found out how bad Tebow actually was. He says that while it's hard to believe, they were ready to trade Orton and start Tebow, but once they got a chance to actually see him in action (because they didn't have the offseason), that they realized how much better the other guy, which extends from Orton to Weber, were than Tebow.

Second, he said he's not sure why Saccomano is upset, because he made a number of people from the organization (not specific as to whether they were players, coaches, etc.) available to him for interviews. He thinks that if Sacco had a problem with his article, rather than his comment about reporters only wanting clicks/page views, he should have picked up the phone and called Silver.

Third, he said that he ate lunch across the street at lots of noodles (or something like that), and so he never met the chef.

Fourth, further to Fox's comments, he said Fox is a diplomatic coach, and that's why he made the comments he did yesterday.

Fifth, on why the organization hasn't tried to counter all the Tebow criticism (Silver, Hodge, etc.), Elway is new, not a jaded exec, and as such doesn't believe in spinning a story to try and cover up the truth. Implied that since the criticism is correct, and Elway and Fox were surprised by how bad Tebow is, that they haven't tried to counter all the negative.

Sixth, said he isn't sure why the Broncos are upset about the Tebow coverage, because if people weren't reporting on Tebow, nobody would care about the Broncos. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that Florio made this comment.

Seventh, he didn't go into Denver planning on writing a critical piece on Tebow, but after he interviewed the people Sacco lined up, that he went where the story lead him, as any good reporter would do.

Anyway, that's a rough paraphrase, but I think pretty well sums it up.

Silver is a self fellating hack.

Jsteve01
08-25-2011, 04:38 PM
This opens up a debate, Slick... It's one of those chicken vs. the egg sort of things.

I'd argue that if I were in the Carribean then my vibe would be much more mellow to start with. And therefore easier to maintain.

So, I guess my point is that it's not my fault I'm an *******. I live in Aurora and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours every day of my life.

what happened to Vegas buff? last i talked to you on outsiders you were still out there

Buff
08-25-2011, 04:48 PM
what happened to Vegas buff? last i talked to you on outsiders you were still out there

Worked the 2010 WSOP - got offered to come back and work the 2011 WSOP, but it's only a 3-month contract position running May-August every year. Decided I'd rather get something full time in CO instead of trying to scrape by as a freelance writer.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-25-2011, 05:01 PM
For anyone who wants to hear what Silver said today:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/25/pft-live-segment-2-yahoo-sports-mike-silver/

Jsteve01
08-25-2011, 05:02 PM
wow, so it's been a year...wtf have I been doing? lol

Jsteve01
08-25-2011, 05:05 PM
Well, are you trying to say that isn't a bad thing? Or, catching two red lights in a row. Or worse, Friday afternoon traffic when the town gets flooded by shoppers on payday, that adds another minute or two. You seem to be diminishing my serious congestion related commute problems. :tsK:


I used to live in Philly and my total commute on Mondays was almost 4 hours...2 hrs to Delaware, 1 to my afternoon site and 1 home. I told my wife when we moved back to the Western slope that if I ever complained about traffic, she had my permission to kick me in the balls.

Rex
08-25-2011, 05:06 PM
I used to live in Philly and my total commute on Mondays was almost 4 hours...2 hrs to Delaware, 1 to my afternoon site and 1 home. I told my wife when we moved back to the Western slope that if I ever complained about traffic, she had my permission to kick me in the balls.


Hey JSteve.

Go stuff yourself

Jsteve01
08-25-2011, 05:40 PM
Hey JSteve.

Go stuff yourself

Oh good....I really missed you

hamrob
08-25-2011, 07:06 PM
IMO, his TOTAL reason for coming to Denver was because of Tebow. If NOT, there are other aspects he could have covered - i.e. talk to Coach Fox, as this is his 1st year with the Broncos, talk to Elvis in regards to how he is feeling, what he did during the lockout to continue his rehab, etc., talk to Von, the highest draft pick the Broncos have ever had, etc., etc., etc.What's interesting to me...about Silver (what a tool), is that he comes to Denver, writes this crap of an article about Tebow...and doesn't even seem to have spoken with Tebow himself.

I mean...did he even try to get another perspective on the story? Did he talk to any teammates that might have given him another angle. NO.

MY guess, he had the story written prior to ever talking with anyone!

Tned
08-25-2011, 07:14 PM
What's interesting to me...about Silver (what a tool), is that he comes to Denver, writes this crap of an article about Tebow...and doesn't even seem to have spoken with Tebow himself.

I mean...did he even try to get another perspective on the story? Did he talk to any teammates that might have given him another angle. NO.

MY guess, he had the story written prior to ever talking with anyone!

What's to say he didn't talk to multiple players/staffers? What's to say he didn't talk to Tebow? I certainly haven't seen anything that states such.

hamrob
08-25-2011, 08:11 PM
What's to say he didn't talk to multiple players/staffers? What's to say he didn't talk to Tebow? I certainly haven't seen anything that states such.I think its obvious that the article was slanted one way...and gave zero effort to consider the other side of the coin.

Why? Because a lot of idiots simply don't like Tim Tebow. They don't like him, because they don't like the idea of someone getting so much attention. When idiots start bringing religion into a conversation and talking out their asses, about the kids play, it says alot about that person or writer.

Tim Tebow's play on the football field:

The best college QB to ever play the game
Played very well in 2010 preseason competition
Played well when utilized in the redzone in 2010
Played well during his 3 starts, winning one game, and keeping the other 2 close, while inspiring his teammates
Played well (7-9 for 91yds) in limited preseason play in 2011

What I can't understand, is how any analyst worth a crap would say this kid can't play.

Tned
08-25-2011, 08:17 PM
I think its obvious that the article was slanted one way...and gave zero effort to consider the other side of the coin.

Why? Because a lot of idiots simply don't like Tim Tebow. They don't like him, because they don't like the idea of someone getting so much attention. When idiots start bringing religion into a conversation and talking out their asses, about the kids play, it says alot about that person or writer.

Tim Tebow's play on the football field:

The best college QB to ever play the game
Played very well in 2010 preseason competition
Played well when utilized in the redzone in 2010
Played well during his 3 starts, winning one game, and keeping the other 2 close, while inspiring his teammates
Played well (7-9 for 91yds) in limited preseason play in 2011

What I can't understand, is how any analyst worth a crap would say this kid can't play.

Pat Kirwan, who I have never heard "hate on a player," who was among those that thought that maybe Tebow should be played, refersed his opinion after Sirius did their camp tour stop in Denver. He said he watched Tebow throw at least 50 passes, and that there was NO way he was ready to start.

Broncos Mtnman
08-25-2011, 08:49 PM
Yes, AoO, I'm quite capable of keeping up with your intellect, but I appreciate you stopping to check.

Anonamous sources, and protecting those sources, are PARAMOUNT (do you know what that word means?) to reporting. Period. Reporters named their sources, and you wouldn't have any sources that would/could give you information that everyone could/would already have. The more news sources that are available, the more important having inside sources are. Protecting those sources are the only way to have information that isn't common knowledge.

You have to have inside information that can give you something no one else has... thus having something that creates interest. Protecting those sources is the only way you have that edge.

Adam Shefter is proof of what you say. He is constantly siting "inside sources" with his breaking news and he's usually right.

Tned
08-25-2011, 08:51 PM
Adam Shefter is proof of what you say. He is constantly siting "inside sources" with his breaking news and he's usually right.

Good example, there are plenty of reporters like that.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-25-2011, 08:59 PM
Adam Shefter is proof of what you say. He is constantly siting "inside sources" with his breaking news and he's usually right.

Since Adam covered the Broncos locally at one time, it is probably easier for people to believe/accept what he says - just a thought.

broncobryce
08-25-2011, 09:44 PM
Schefter is proven right time and time again. These other clowns, not so much. Comparing him to almost anyone is off base at best.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
08-25-2011, 10:06 PM
Schefter is proven right time and time again. These other clowns, not so much. Comparing him to almost anyone is off base at best.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


My thoughts exactly.

Its one thing when news gets thrown around regarding possible trades, players in trouble with the law, or injuries. But this tripe that Silver is dishing is so over the top its just hard to even take seriously.

Lancane
08-25-2011, 10:28 PM
What's interesting to me...about Silver (what a tool), is that he comes to Denver, writes this crap of an article about Tebow...and doesn't even seem to have spoken with Tebow himself.

I mean...did he even try to get another perspective on the story? Did he talk to any teammates that might have given him another angle. NO.

MY guess, he had the story written prior to ever talking with anyone!

We know that Joe Soccomano set up numerous interviews for Silver on site, so he had a fair number of people who could be the source. We know from his wording that he has 'one' source whom could be confirmed as the leak, or he wouldn't mention such, reporters may not announce their sources to the world, especially the law, but usually their editors want to know and the journalist has to tell them and reporters don't exactly keep to the mantra of no longer revealing such things - if forced. We can also gander from his report, that it's the 'one' source who told him a general opinion, a viewpoint that the source felt was open among several within the organization. What we can not figure is if he brought it up with others interviewed and what, if any was their own responses or their own angles on the situation.

Why would he ask Tebow? I am really sure that asking Tebow such would have caused tremendous issues, one allowing for the Broncos to get a media injunction against ESPN, banning them from the facility or from reporting on the Broncos as Oakland did to ESPN two years ago.

Could he have had the story prior to any interviews? There is a possibility. Did he write the story after his interviews? There is likewise a possibility of this. So again what we have is an assumptive fan base, trying to discredit a jackass journalist because we don't happen to like his story!

hamrob
08-25-2011, 11:48 PM
We know that Joe Soccomano set up numerous interviews for Silver on site, so he had a fair number of people who could be the source. We know from his wording that he has 'one' source whom could be confirmed as the leak, or he wouldn't mention such, reporters may not announce their sources to the world, especially the law, but usually their editors want to know and the journalist has to tell them and reporters don't exactly keep to the mantra of no longer revealing such things - if forced. We can also gander from his report, that it's the 'one' source who told him a general opinion, a viewpoint that the source felt was open among several within the organization. What we can not figure is if he brought it up with others interviewed and what, if any was their own responses or their own angles on the situation.

Why would he ask Tebow? I am really sure that asking Tebow such would have caused tremendous issues, one allowing for the Broncos to get a media injunction against ESPN, banning them from the facility or from reporting on the Broncos as Oakland did to ESPN two years ago.

Could he have had the story prior to any interviews? There is a possibility. Did he write the story after his interviews? There is likewise a possibility of this. So again what we have is an assumptive fan base, trying to discredit a jackass journalist because we don't happen to like his story!Here is my point.

Tebow has done nothing to warrant this barrage of criticism. If anything he has performed extremely well, given his oppurtunities and his experience. Far better than many HOF'ers at this point in his career. Crazy? Yes. True, absolutely. Look at his stats compared to most HOF'ers and compare their first 3 games.

Is Tebow destined? Maybe not, but why the critisism given his good performance thus far?

If a writer is worth their salt...and they see that the performance has been pretty good despite what the pudents may say. Then, they investigate. So, people are bashing Tebow, but his performance doesn't mesh with the backlash. Why wouldn't the reader expect for the writer to interview the source or those close to the source to see what their take is? Didn't happen. Why? Because...that's not what the writer wanted to be the result. He accomplished the goal...which was publicity for him.

Tebow's production should have fans inspired. In fact, if you look at the polls before the season started, the fans were inspired to see Tebow start.

Then, the media crucifies him, and all of a sudden, he's a terrible prospect who will never amount to a hill of beans.

What happened between then and now? Tebow has played one preseason game...in which he went 6-7 for 91yds. That's 13yds an attempt for you mathematically challenge folks. Oh, yeah..he played or 4:00 minutes in the 2nd preseason game and went 1-2 for 10yds. The one incompletion was a 30yd fly route to the TE down the right hash...in which the TE had a chance on the ball. Tebow in the 2011 preseason...is 7-9 for 101yds folks. That's over 11yds per pass play.

How anyone, let alone a hack writer would be allowed to criticise that type of production is beyond me.

That so many fools on this board jump on that band wagon....doesn't surprise me!

jhildebrand
08-26-2011, 12:01 AM
Here is my point.

Tebow has done nothing to warrant this barrage of criticism. If anything he has performed extremely well, given his oppurtunities and his experience. Far better than many HOF'ers at this point in his career. Crazy? Yes. True, absolutely. Look at his stats compared to most HOF'ers and compare their first 3 games.

Is Tebow destined? Maybe not, but why the critisism given his good performance thus far?

If a writer is worth their salt...and they see that the performance has been pretty good despite what the pudents may say. Then, they investigate. So, people are bashing Tebow, but his performance doesn't mesh with the backlash. Why wouldn't the reader expect for the writer to interview the source or those close to the source to see what their take is? Didn't happen. Why? Because...that's not what the writer wanted to be the result. He accomplished the goal...which was publicity for him.

Tebow's production should have fans inspired. In fact, if you look at the polls before the season started, the fans were inspired to see Tebow start.

Then, the media crucifies him, and all of a sudden, he's a terrible prospect who will never amount to a hill of beans.

What happened between then and now? Tebow has played one preseason game...in which he went 6-7 for 91yds. That's 13yds an attempt for you mathematically challenge folks. Oh, yeah..he played or 4:00 minutes in the 2nd preseason game and went 1-2 for 10yds. The one incompletion was a 30yd fly route to the TE down the right hash...in which the TE had a chance on the ball. Tebow in the 2011 preseason...is 7-9 for 101yds folks. That's over 11yds per pass play.

How anyone, let alone a hack writer would be allowed to criticise that type of production is beyond me.

That so many fools on this board jump on that band wagon....doesn't surprise me!

EXCELLENT POST.

I think you very sunccinctly explained what has me so upset and I have failed to express. Well done :salute:

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 12:17 AM
Frank Reich has the greatest come-back of any QB in history. Better than any HoF QB.

Lancane
08-26-2011, 12:22 AM
Here is my point.

Tebow has done nothing to warrant this barrage of criticism. If anything he has performed extremely well, given his oppurtunities and his experience. Far better than many HOF'ers at this point in his career. Crazy? Yes. True, absolutely. Look at his stats compared to most HOF'ers and compare their first 3 games.

Is Tebow destined? Maybe not, but why the critisism given his good performance thus far?

If a writer is worth their salt...and they see that the performance has been pretty good despite what the pudents may say. Then, they investigate. So, people are bashing Tebow, but his performance doesn't mesh with the backlash. Why wouldn't the reader expect for the writer to interview the source or those close to the source to see what their take is? Didn't happen. Why? Because...that's not what the writer wanted to be the result. He accomplished the goal...which was publicity for him.

Tebow's production should have fans inspired. In fact, if you look at the polls before the season started, the fans were inspired to see Tebow start.

Then, the media crucifies him, and all of a sudden, he's a terrible prospect who will never amount to a hill of beans.

What happened between then and now? Tebow has played one preseason game...in which he went 6-7 for 91yds. That's 13yds an attempt for you mathematically challenge folks. Oh, yeah..he played or 4:00 minutes in the 2nd preseason game and went 1-2 for 10yds. The one incompletion was a 30yd fly route to the TE down the right hash...in which the TE had a chance on the ball. Tebow in the 2011 preseason...is 7-9 for 101yds folks. That's over 11yds per pass play.

How anyone, let alone a hack writer would be allowed to criticise that type of production is beyond me.

That so many fools on this board jump on that band wagon....doesn't surprise me!

No, I agree that Tebow himself hasn't done enough to garner some of the harsher criticism he's received, you can actually thank McDaniels for that. Let's face it, not one of the scouting services or draft service companies had Tebow graded out so high, Tim was expected to fall deep into the second round, maybe even the third...McDaniels crucified him by drafting him so high, therein proclaiming that he was a franchise capable quarterback. If we would have taken him in the mid to late second round, there would have been far less pressure for him to succeed, the fans wouldn't have been as gun-ho to see him as the starter, or possibly. What McDaniels did was put the weight of the world on Tim and then looked to not believe in his own decision. Tebow would have had some criticism no matter what because he is a polarizing figure, probably the most polarizing quarterback to be drafted in the past decade and pretty much he's not living up to the hype as so many predicted, Mike Mayock didn't even believe he was worth a first round pick.

Now, in the wake of what should have been his first year at the helm, which the Broncos' even wanted to give him, he can't even compete with Orton on a rival field, he's barely in competition with Quinn for the backup spot, so what we have is a first round quarterback, the supposed future of the team and he's not progressing on a team that lacks a quality starting quarterback nonetheless. Some people were excited by what they saw in his first pre-season game, but I saw many deficiencies to cause concern and to believe he is far from ready.

Is some of the criticism wrong? Of course, especially the little quips about religion, but some of it is coming from reliable people as well, so there all becoming hacks. We'll never know if there is a source or if Silver's story is at it's base a freakin' fairy-tale. But until he steps up and shuts them up, the vast criticism will continue, the bashing will go on, the more he looks to fail, the worse it will get.

bcbronc
08-26-2011, 03:05 AM
Print is dead for two reasons. 1) It is way too slow for dispensing "news" and electronic media does a much better job at getting information out broadly and quickly. 2) The stalwarts of print media have completely abandoned any pretense of reporting straight news without a slant. The first has made the second even worse because - as you noted above - anyone can easily put information out on the net. That makes it very easy for the average joe staring at his computer screen in his pajamas to get several sources for the same story and wade through the particular biases and determine what is the truth to whatever level of satisfaction he desires. The big news outlets can no longer manipulate the news, but instead of correcting the problem they are getting even worse.



no, this isn't correct. Yes portable media devices and the internet change the way people access their news. But radio and TV have always been quicker at reporting the events of the day and yet print did just fine. The slant angle doesn't hold either, the best rated TV news programs and most visited web sites are strongly slanted. People don't want their views challenged anymore, so they search out "news" that supports their predetermined view. Makes zero sense to claim in today's news environment that people aren't picking up newspapers because they're too slanted.

The reason print is dead is because they've become too dependent on advertising revenue to exist, giving advertisers too much influence over editorial content. That and massive media conglomerations whose first priority is dividends to share holders, not being our civic watchdogs.

Because profits are king, expensive time consuming investigative journalism (what print can do like no other format) gets replaced by press wire content or stuff journalists can turn around quickly to make their deadlines.

And when legit investigative journalism is done, if it gets too close to an important advertiser, the EiC or Publisher quickly kills the story. This is common knowledge stuff that shouldn't stir up any controversy.

Another element is J-school and the production of a slew of journalists that aren't good writers but can fill in the blanks in the news article form letter. So a combination of profit and advertising interests killing investigative journalism..what makes print news worth picking up and delving into...and too often writing that can only be called uninspired is why people have turned away from print.

Technology changes no doubt also factor in, but part of the reason on-line news is so successful (other than the obvious convenience) is because people lost interest in what newspapers were saying and how they said it and actively sought out other mediums.



What happened between then and now? Tebow has played one preseason game...in which he went 6-7 for 91yds. That's 13yds an attempt for you mathematically challenge folks. Oh, yeah..he played or 4:00 minutes in the 2nd preseason game and went 1-2 for 10yds. The one incompletion was a 30yd fly route to the TE down the right hash...in which the TE had a chance on the ball. Tebow in the 2011 preseason...is 7-9 for 101yds folks. That's over 11yds per pass play.



I love this. For two years now I've heard nothing but how Orton's regular season stats don't mean anything because he can't get it done on third down or in the redzone. But then for Tebow, it's "look at the statline, the guys clearly a gamer!"

6-7 for 91 yards looks good. But how many TDs did he produce? 0? Oh. And one drive started at the opponents 7? I thought red zone was important in judging a QB's play? And how did he do on 3rd downs? I'm not sure exactly, but iirc he had a 1-6 conversion rate at one point. As pretty as a 4 yd slant on 3rd and 12 looks on the stat line, it doesn't keep the punter off the field.

People just need to accept that Silver didn't make up the source. Somebody said what he quoted. Who it was doesn't even matter...if you think Fox and Elway are in love with Tebow at this point you haven't been paying attention. Not that they're about to cut him or anything crazy, but clearly they don't see him as a legit option at QB right now. Beheading the messenger won't change that.

BroncoStud
08-26-2011, 05:23 AM
So you are denying that print media is dead because of electronic media? Are you kidding? Newspapers and editorials that were too slow to go digital are in a lot of trouble.

Why buy a newspaper or a magazine when you can Google any information and get it instantly? Advertising will ALWAYS drive media just as it does on the internet and on your phone. There's no way around it. Information is far too plentiful today, the age of print media has come and gone.

MOtorboat
08-26-2011, 07:33 AM
We know that Joe Soccomano set up numerous interviews for Silver on site, so he had a fair number of people who could be the source. We know from his wording that he has 'one' source whom could be confirmed as the leak, or he wouldn't mention such, reporters may not announce their sources to the world, especially the law, but usually their editors want to know and the journalist has to tell them and reporters don't exactly keep to the mantra of no longer revealing such things - if forced. We can also gander from his report, that it's the 'one' source who told him a general opinion, a viewpoint that the source felt was open among several within the organization. What we can not figure is if he brought it up with others interviewed and what, if any was their own responses or their own angles on the situation.

Why would he ask Tebow? I am really sure that asking Tebow such would have caused tremendous issues, one allowing for the Broncos to get a media injunction against ESPN, banning them from the facility or from reporting on the Broncos as Oakland did to ESPN two years ago.

Could he have had the story prior to any interviews? There is a possibility. Did he write the story after his interviews? There is likewise a possibility of this. So again what we have is an assumptive fan base, trying to discredit a jackass journalist because we don't happen to like his story!

Why would the Broncos ban ESPN for something Yahoo Sports wrote?

Tned
08-26-2011, 07:50 AM
Why would the Broncos ban ESPN for something Yahoo Sports wrote?

Probably just mixed up the agencies and meant Yahoo.

FWIW, for those that didn't see Sacco's comments following the Yahoo Silver article, here is what he Tweeted:


RT @broncos_sacco: A serious concern for teams is granting access to outlets that provide incentives to writers based on page clicks. That is a problem. #fb

Obviously, the underlying message was that Silver was simply trying to get traffic.

MOtorboat
08-26-2011, 08:06 AM
Obviously, the underlying message was that Silver was simply trying to get traffic.

Here is my concern with Sacco's comments afterwards:

Pryor treatment should also apply to coaches
Smith miraculously still behind center for Niners
Jackson excited about legit shot with 'Hawks

He's written six pre-season football articles, and four of them have been about quarterbacks and controversial decisions by teams as to who is going to play quarterback (the fourth being about a controversial suspension of a high-profile college QB). Those are the headlines of three written previously to his Tebow article. They are all about quarterbacks. They are all blunt. And its kind of obvious what the story in camp is for Denver, and its at quarterback.

Almost every writer that's come through camp has written about Tebow and Silver has a history of writing blunt stories with anonymous sources. Shouldn't Saccamonno know this, or research that before granting him access?

Agent of Orange
08-26-2011, 08:11 AM
Probably just mixed up the agencies and meant Yahoo.

FWIW, for those that didn't see Sacco's comments following the Yahoo Silver article, here is what he Tweeted:



Obviously, the underlying message was that Silver was simply trying to get traffic.

Did I or did I not already break this down for Lawdog? Uh huh.

SOCALORADO.
08-26-2011, 08:11 AM
No, I agree that Tebow himself hasn't done enough to garner some of the harsher criticism he's received, you can actually thank McDaniels for that. Let's face it, not one of the scouting services or draft service companies had Tebow graded out so high, Tim was expected to fall deep into the second round, maybe even the third...McDaniels crucified him by drafting him so high, therein proclaiming that he was a franchise capable quarterback. If we would have taken him in the mid to late second round, there would have been far less pressure for him to succeed, the fans wouldn't have been as gun-ho to see him as the starter, or possibly. What McDaniels did was put the weight of the world on Tim and then looked to not believe in his own decision. Tebow would have had some criticism no matter what because he is a polarizing figure, probably the most polarizing quarterback to be drafted in the past decade and pretty much he's not living up to the hype as so many predicted, Mike Mayock didn't even believe he was worth a first round pick.

Now, in the wake of what should have been his first year at the helm, which the Broncos' even wanted to give him, he can't even compete with Orton on a rival field, he's barely in competition with Quinn for the backup spot, so what we have is a first round quarterback, the supposed future of the team and he's not progressing on a team that lacks a quality starting quarterback nonetheless. Some people were excited by what they saw in his first pre-season game, but I saw many deficiencies to cause concern and to believe he is far from ready.

Is some of the criticism wrong? Of course, especially the little quips about religion, but some of it is coming from reliable people as well, so there all becoming hacks. We'll never know if there is a source or if Silver's story is at it's base a freakin' fairy-tale. But until he steps up and shuts them up, the vast criticism will continue, the bashing will go on, the more he looks to fail, the worse it will get.

I agree when it pertains to the media and how they deal with Tebow.
However, Tebow isnt ready to play QB in the NFL anyways, which is obvious to any sane person, which is why hes 3rd on the depth chart and not even considered by anyone in the DEN FO as a legit option.

Agent of Orange
08-26-2011, 08:21 AM
Schefter is proven right time and time again. These other clowns, not so much. Comparing him to almost anyone is off base at best.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Like I said in response to Ravage, Schefter is usually the one breaking news. Silver is just some vulture trying to ride the gravy train.

Agent of Orange
08-26-2011, 08:31 AM
you proved my point when you dove into the murky realm of "objectivity."

How is that?


hey, i just think it's funny reading people rip into reporters for not giving tebow a chance, then not giving the reporters a chance - at all. it is what it is.

It's not even that and only that. It's as much about the reporters as it is their subjects.


as for objectivity, it's irrelevant in this discussion. most of the media reports that blast tebow aren't trying to be objective. they're opinion pieces from people who present themselves as being opinionated. huge difference between the editorials and objective reporting.

The basis for your "hypocrisy" is that fans on a message board and reporters should somehow be the same. That clearly was a big fail in spite of all the spinning you're trying to do here.

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 12:10 PM
Proof of media hypocrisy and some fans do the same

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/821810-tim-tebow-vs-cam-newton-analysts-pick-at-tebow-praise-newton-for-same-flaws?utm_campaign=buzztap&utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

broncobryce
08-26-2011, 12:22 PM
I agree when it pertains to the media and how they deal with Tebow.
However, Tebow isnt ready to play QB in the NFL anyways, which is obvious to any sane person, which is why hes 3rd on the depth chart and not even considered by anyone in the DEN FO as a legit option.

Was it obvoius to houston last year? I must have been insane when I watched that game

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
08-26-2011, 12:22 PM
Proof of media hypocrisy and some fans do the same

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/821810-tim-tebow-vs-cam-newton-analysts-pick-at-tebow-praise-newton-for-same-flaws?utm_campaign=buzztap&utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

Yea, i started a thread about the comparison last night. Vic Lombardi was tweeting all night about the hypocrisy of it all. Pretty funny watching him rant about it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277303

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 12:37 PM
Yea, i started a thread about the comparison last night. Vic Lombardi was tweeting all night about the hypocrisy of it all. Pretty funny watching him rant about it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277303

OK thanks

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 01:24 PM
Drew Brees on Tebow

Do you think it was the wrong thing to do to change Tim Tebow’s throwing motion the way the Denver Broncos have?

“It’s hard to change a guys throwing motion at this level in the game. If you can get a guy in middle school and high school there are certain things you can probably tweak. Once you get him past college it is really hard to do that. Each guy is different. Each guy throws the ball a little bit different and has their own style. I think there are certain fundamentals that you would like to have and in the end your goal is to try to get the ball out as quickly as possible when you talk about the quick release, but obviously for what he didn’t do a whole lot of in college was the straight drop back passing [where] you stand in the pocket and go through your progressions and that kind of thing. That’s something you are required to do a lot in the NFL, so I think for him it’s just a matter of repetition and experience. The more he gets of that the better he will get at those things and then obviously the guy has a ton of ability, a ton of athletic ability, leadership ability. It seems like he has all the intangibles now it’s just a matter of him getting the reps and experience he needs to refine his game a little bit.” – Drew Brees

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Well, Drew said all the right things, and said the exact same thing everyone else has been saying.

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 02:39 PM
Well, Drew said all the right things, and said the exact same thing everyone else has been saying.

Well not exactly, he did not attack him like everyone else is right now. He did not say he wont make it in the NFL like all the others.

Lancane
08-26-2011, 03:17 PM
Well not exactly, he did not attack him like everyone else is right now. He did not say he wont make it in the NFL like all the others.

Joe Montana said much the same Phi, I understand that you support Tebow and that you want him to succeed, I would love nothing more for then him to succeed, but I am not blind. Neither is Pat Kirwin, Boomer Esiason, Chris Simms, Mike Mayock and so on. As I have said a hundred times before, he is the one who has to prove himself not those criticizing him or backing him. And he's by in far not the only to receive such remarks from others, Griese was supposedly the next Montana; Joe Montana said Alex Smith was the next great quarterback of the 49ers; Steve Young declared the JaMarcus Russell was going to be elite and change the face of the AFC West; John Elway said that Brian Griese had all the tools to be great; Mel Kiper said Ryan Leaf would be a continuous All-Pro, on the same foot, do you think anyone of those same said players escaped harsh criticism for failing to live up to the hype? The only reason Tebow is such news is because he is such a polarizing figure himself.

Agent of Orange
08-26-2011, 03:25 PM
Joe Montana said much the same Phi, I understand that you support Tebow and that you want him to succeed, I would love nothing more for then him to succeed, but I am not blind. Neither is Pat Kirwin, Boomer Esiason, Chris Simms, Mike Mayock and so on. As I have said a hundred times before, he is the one who has to prove himself not those criticizing him or backing him. And he's by in far not the only to receive such remarks from others, Griese was supposedly the next Montana; Joe Montana said Alex Smith was the next great quarterback of the 49ers; Steve Young declared the JaMarcus Russell was going to be elite and change the face of the AFC West; John Elway said that Brian Griese had all the tools to be great; Mel Kiper said Ryan Leaf would be a continuous All-Pro, on the same foot, do you think anyone of those same said players escaped harsh criticism for failing to live up to the hype? The only reason Tebow is such news is because he is such a polarizing figure himself.


Yet, you'd argue for taking Barkley in the first even though you're now admitting it's an extremely inexact science.

slim
08-26-2011, 03:27 PM
Well, Drew said all the right things, and said the exact same thing everyone else has been saying.

So this is the same thing that Hoge and Boomer said?

Really?

Tned
08-26-2011, 03:35 PM
Yea, i started a thread about the comparison last night. Vic Lombardi was tweeting all night about the hypocrisy of it all. Pretty funny watching him rant about it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277303

I listened to them for a bit on the radio this morning (streamed), and he brought it back up for a bit. Doesn't like the hypocrisy of the different standards.

Lancane
08-26-2011, 03:37 PM
Yet, you'd argue for taking Barkley in the first even though you're now admitting it's an extremely inexact science.

It's always been an inexact science Agent, there is no guarantees regarding the transition from the collegiate level to the pro-level. Look at the careers of Steve Fuller a first round pick compared to Joe Montana who was a third round pick in the same exact draft. But that goes for all positions...not just quarterbacks.

At this time? Yes, I would argue that Matt Barkley at this time is the likely better quarterback at the pro level then Tebow. Barkley comes from and runs a pro-style offense very efficiently, has better overall vision, better mechanics, a decent arm if not better then Tebow's own and is more accurate then Tebow. Now, could he fall flat at the pro level? Yes, but that is a given for anyone that is drafted, no matter if they're the top rated or the fifth rated at their respective positions.

Agent of Orange
08-26-2011, 03:50 PM
It's always been an inexact science Agent, there is no guarantees regarding the transition from the collegiate level to the pro-level. Look at the careers of Steve Fuller a first round pick compared to Joe Montana who was a third round pick in the same exact draft. But that goes for all positions...not just quarterbacks.

At this time? Yes, I would argue that Matt Barkley at this time is the likely better quarterback at the pro level then Tebow. Barkley comes from and runs a pro-style offense very efficiently, has better overall vision, better mechanics, a decent arm if not better then Tebow's own and is more accurate then Tebow. Now, could he fall flat at the pro level? Yes, but that is a given for anyone that is drafted, no matter if they're the top rated or the fifth rated at their respective positions.

One major thing you're not mentioning is the speed of the game. A lot of QBs have been strong at all the things you mentioned but when they face the speed of the NFL game, it goes away. They can't function.

I've mentioned this before. It's like baseball. Some prospects have flawed swings and some have almost perfect swings. In the end, having a nearly perfect swing doesnt mean you'll be able to hit 95 mph pitching. In fact, there have been a lot of good hitters with flawed swings. It's OK to focus on the back end (eg the mechanics) but what really matters is the front end (how they respond to things happening at full speed).

So far, the game has never really seemed too fast for Tebow even in the first preseason game when he was playing on the 2nd team against Dallas' first team defense.

I don't think you can just gloss over this and yammer on and on about things on the back end.

As it stands right now, Tebow's QB rating is over 80, which is actually incredibly high for a rookie after 3 starts. We've seen Tebow and we've seen him play well. Barkley has only played against college players.

And it is more inexact for QBs than some other positions.

Northman
08-26-2011, 03:50 PM
Now, could he fall flat at the pro level? Yes, but that is a given for anyone that is drafted, no matter if they're the top rated or the fifth rated at their respective positions.

Ultimately, this is all that needed to be said. But i think the wise thing to do with ANY QB is too give them time instead of automatically writing them off like some commentators and certain fans have done. Barkley is a nice prospect but until we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY that Tebow will not work drafting a QB is not the WISE thing to do right now.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 04:24 PM
Ultimately, this is all that needed to be said. But i think the wise thing to do with ANY QB is too give them time instead of automatically writing them off like some commentators and certain fans have done. Barkley is a nice prospect but until we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY that Tebow will not work drafting a QB is not the WISE thing to do right now.

Right. We will have to wait until April. :D

Lancane
08-26-2011, 04:24 PM
Ultimately, this is all that needed to be said. But i think the wise thing to do with ANY QB is too give them time instead of automatically writing them off like some commentators and certain fans have done. Barkley is a nice prospect but until we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY that Tebow will not work drafting a QB is not the WISE thing to do right now.

North, the era of being able to give time to the development of a player is long past unless you're in the position to have a young player sit behind a noteworthy starter, such as Rodgers did in Green Bay behind Farve or Young behind Montana in San Fran. Many fans said the same thing about Van Pelt if you remember. The NFL has become the 'Not For Long' league for a reason, because we don't allow coaches or players the time any longer. I said before that Fox will likely have up to three years before his position comes into question, no matter his record. So let's say for argument sake that we go 10-6, the chances we're in reach of one of the top three is slim, so we lose Orton and Quinn, and go with Tebow but he falters, then Denver is left in the precarious position of well was it simply just adjusting? Then they give him one more year and let's say he still falters, then Fox's job comes into question as it did in Carolina, they can draft a quarterback that year and have him challenge whoever for the starting job, pretty much what we saw in Carolina this past year, and we'll likely be forced to undergo another rebuilding. Now if we are 6-10 after the year and one of the top three is available, wouldn't it be wiser to take one of them, have them compete and maybe come out with two capable quarterbacks like San Diego did with Brees and Rivers? Sometimes it's better to have more talent at a position then possibly none. Another question is when will we be able to draft one of the top three again?

I understand that people want Tebow to succeed, that some of the criticism seems harsh and unfair, and you may be willing to risk it all on the idea he becomes capable or great, but is that the safe bet for the organization or for Fox?

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 04:30 PM
So this is the same thing that Hoge and Boomer said?

Really?

Come on, Slim. I would expect Phid to be literal with every comment (which is why I ignored when he made the same post), but we know that Hoge and Boomer aren't "everyone."

Drew said the same things about Tebow that "nearly" everyone has been saying about him...

It’s hard to change a guys throwing motion at this level in the game. If you can get a guy in middle school and high school there are certain things you can probably tweak. Once you get him past college it is really hard to do that. Each guy is different. Each guy throws the ball a little bit different and has their own style. I think there are certain fundamentals that you would like to have and in the end your goal is to try to get the ball out as quickly as possible
Tebow doesn't have the fundementals you would like for him to have, and needs to learn to get rid of the ball faster. Thats been the comment from day one.

when you talk about the quick release, but obviously for what he didn’t do a whole lot of in college was the straight drop back passing [where] you stand in the pocket and go through your progressions and that kind of thing.
Tim doesn't know how to drop back and read defenses/coverages, and isn't a pocket passer.


That’s something you are required to do a lot in the NFL, so I think for him it’s just a matter of repetition and experience.
He's a project.


The more he gets of that the better he will get at those things and then obviously the guy has a ton of ability, a ton of athletic ability, leadership ability. It seems like he has all the intangibles now it’s just a matter of him getting the reps and experience
He' has all the intangibles, but doesn't have what it takes.... right now. Could he? Sure. But its just a matter of finding out if those things come to bloom


he needs to refine his game a little bit.”
A perfect way for Drew to understate what everyone has been saying.

SOCALORADO.
08-26-2011, 04:37 PM
Well not exactly, he did not attack him like everyone else is right now. He did not say he wont make it in the NFL like all the others.

No. Wrong. I never attacked TT. Never have.
I stated exactly what Brees stated.
TT cannot drop back and throw from the pocket.
Meaning, he cant run playaction, he cant take 3,5,7 step drops and he cant make a hot read proficiently. He isnt even remotely ready to operate the offense. Thats it. Everything else, i never even addressed. Cause i could care less, or it isnt a glaring problem for him.
Tebows problem is his basic mechanics coupled with a mental ability to throw from the pocket together without having to actually think about it as he does it. He cant do it in one fluid motion and still be aware of his surroundings in the pocket, all the while scanning downfield to make the play.
Thats why he said he was working so hard on this in the offseason. Unfortunately for Tebow, he hasnt improved.
3 year project from today.

SOCALORADO.
08-26-2011, 04:46 PM
Yet, you'd argue for taking Barkley in the first even though you're now admitting it's an extremely inexact science.

Go watch Barkley. He plays in a Pro-Style offense. Specifically designed for him to make throws from under center, in 3,5,7 step drops, play-action, bootlegs, or the EASIEST formation...shotgun. Anyone can play in shotgun. Its why we all play it when were out at the park, playing with our friends.
One of Luck, Barkley and Landrys biggest positives in regards to their NFL futures, is they are LETHAL pocket passers. All of them have extremelly good pocket awareness and Luck and barkley are excellent at staying in the pocket to the very last second, and then finally when theres no option taking off as scramblers. I think Luck has a 7 yard a rush average! Hes awsome at running with the ball and Barkley is no slouch. But they only do that when there is finally no option downfield.

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 04:50 PM
Go watch Barkley. He plays in a Pro-Style offense. Specifically designed for him to make throws from under center, in 3,5,7 step drops, play-action, bootlegs, or the EASIEST formation...shotgun. Anyone can play in shotgun. Its why we all play it when were out at the park, playing with our friends.
One of Luck, Barkley and Landrys biggest positives in regards to their NFL futures, is they are LETHAL pocket passers. All of them have extremelly good pocket awareness and Luck and barkley are excellent at staying in the pocket to the very last second, and then finally when theres no option taking off as scramblers. I think Luck has a 7 yard a rush average! Hes awsome at running with the ball and Barkley is no slouch. But they only do that when there is finally no option downfield.

I dont think we will be in position to get them....personally.

SOCALORADO.
08-26-2011, 05:04 PM
I dont think we will be in position to get them....personally.

Watch. The beggining is Barkley taking snaps from under center and getting him out of the pocket and then throwing downfield, often on the run. These play are designed this way . Very Shanahan-like.
The 2nd part is Barkley making alot of touch passes or quick out from under center. Again, very Shanahan-like plays.
The 3rd is Barkley straigh up throwing from the pocket from under center either in play-action or 3,5 step drops to all parts of the field.
Oh, and the last part has his scrambling ability highlighted.
Pro-ready day one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTmKA-AiFUc

Northman
08-26-2011, 05:09 PM
Watch. The beggining is Barkley taking snaps from under center and getting him out of the pocket and then throwing downfield, often on the run. These play are designed this way . Very Shanahan-like.
The 2nd part is Barkley making alot of touch passes or quick out from under center. Again, very Shanahan-like plays.
The 3rd is Barkley straigh up throwing from the pocket from under center either in play-action or 3,5 step drops to all parts of the field.
Oh, and the last part has his scrambling ability highlighted.
Pro-ready day one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTmKA-AiFUc

Thats still college mate. ;)

Jsteve01
08-26-2011, 05:12 PM
Watch. The beggining is Barkley taking snaps from under center and getting him out of the pocket and then throwing downfield, often on the run. These play are designed this way . Very Shanahan-like.
The 2nd part is Barkley making alot of touch passes or quick out from under center. Again, very Shanahan-like plays.
The 3rd is Barkley straigh up throwing from the pocket from under center either in play-action or 3,5 step drops to all parts of the field.
Oh, and the last part has his scrambling ability highlighted.
Pro-ready day one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTmKA-AiFUc

Barkley really gets your blood pumping eh socal?

Lancane
08-26-2011, 05:16 PM
And it is more inexact for QBs than some other positions.

I would say that it has vastly improved...

Let's name the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks who were Drafted in the 80's in the first round; Jim McMahon, John Elway, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Ken O'Brien, Bernie Kosar, Jim Everett, Vinny Testaverde, Chris Miller, Jim Harbaugh, and Troy Aikman. Now of those mentioned who would be considered franchise or elite quarterbacks? Elway, Marino, Kelly and Aikman are givens, I would also say Kosar.

Now, let's name the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks drafted in the 90's in the first round; Drew Bledsoe, Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper. Of those mentioned who are elite or franchise quarterbacks? Bledsoe, McNair, Manning and McNabb.

So let's look now at the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks drafted in the past eleven years in the first round; Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Vince Young, Jay Cutler and Matt Ryan. Of those named the only ones who could be disputed as being franchise capable or possibly elite is Young and Vick. That's not including the young guys that could make there marks still like Bradford, Freeman, Sanchez, Tebow, Newton, Locker, Gabbert or Ponder.

Are you seeing the difference? While there is no exact scientific formula to drafting a quarterback, it's easy to see that it's easier now to draft a franchise capable or elite quarterback in the first round then at any other time in the last three decades. And though I added Tebow in that list of those who could prove capable, one thing we should note is that he is by far the only real project quarterback drafted in the first round, though Ponder and Newton may prove to be up there in the end.

Jsteve01
08-26-2011, 05:25 PM
Ponder not so much, Newton yes, huuuuuge project.

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 05:41 PM
Watch. The beggining is Barkley taking snaps from under center and getting him out of the pocket and then throwing downfield, often on the run. These play are designed this way . Very Shanahan-like.
The 2nd part is Barkley making alot of touch passes or quick out from under center. Again, very Shanahan-like plays.
The 3rd is Barkley straigh up throwing from the pocket from under center either in play-action or 3,5 step drops to all parts of the field.
Oh, and the last part has his scrambling ability highlighted.
Pro-ready day one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTmKA-AiFUc

I think he will be drafted before we have a chance....or will cost too much for EFX to give for him.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-26-2011, 05:44 PM
I am really annoyed Elway hasn't refuted this....I'm starting to think he's behind it.

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 05:49 PM
I am really annoyed Elway hasn't refuted this....I'm starting to think he's behind it.

Elway said in every draft he will look at every position to get the best player on available

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-26-2011, 05:56 PM
Elway said in every draft he will look at every position to get the best player on available

Sorry, I guess I should give a little context. I'm referring to the yahoo article....it's been widely speculated that Elway was the source....

NightTerror218
08-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Sorry, I guess I should give a little context. I'm referring to the yahoo article....it's been widely speculated that Elway was the source....

Ah sorry. I have not heard that. Not to mention there is so much speculation out there, I just assume it is all complete crap unless it comes the the EFX mouth and we can hear/watch it.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Sorry, I guess I should give a little context. I'm referring to the yahoo article....it's been widely speculated that Elway was the source....

I've never heard this. Where are you hearing this?

Northman
08-26-2011, 06:10 PM
I've never heard this. Where are you hearing this?


Yea, this is a first for me too.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Yea, this is a first for me too.

Me also

Tangerine
08-26-2011, 06:45 PM
Here's the original article that was copied onto Broncos country forum, read the 13th paragraph closely:


This is a remarkable turn of events from last season, when Tebow started the last three games and engineered an impressive comeback triumph over the Houston Texans. Trailing 17-0 at the half, Tebow went on a passing rampage, throwing for 308 yards, and scored on a 6-yard run with three minutes remaining to give Denver a 24-23 triumph, the Broncos’ third and final victory of a miserable season.
http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=192115

The article now reads fourth victory on the yahoo website, but when he first wrote the article he didn't even get the number games the Broncos won last season right.

He supposedly has a high ranking source, yet he didn't even know how many games the Broncos won last year. How sad is that? It's something that takes two seconds to look up.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 06:47 PM
Eh.. that doesn't mean much really. You write the article thinking you were sure the team was 3-13. :shrugs: It doesn't really take away credibility that a simple stat that is meaningless to the article was a bit off.

Tangerine
08-26-2011, 06:51 PM
Eh.. that doesn't mean much really. You write the article thinking you were sure the team was 3-13. :shrugs: It doesn't really take away credibility that a simple stat that is meaningless to the article was a bit off.

Makes you wonder what other points of the article is a bit off

SOCALORADO.
08-26-2011, 07:06 PM
Barkley really gets your blood pumping eh socal?

Hey, franchise QBs dont come around often.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 07:07 PM
Makes you wonder what other points of the article is a bit off

Not really. I mean, he wasn't writing about the record of our team, so that was a meaningless stat that wasn't even relevant to the story. Thats how I see, it. Its not something you would even really care about looking up, when writing the story, because it didn't have anything to do with the story.

Northman
08-26-2011, 07:14 PM
Eh.. that doesn't mean much really. You write the article thinking you were sure the team was 3-13. :shrugs: It doesn't really take away credibility that a simple stat that is meaningless to the article was a bit off.

I disagree. When you put yourself out there as a respected journalist and consider yourself intelligent enough and you dont do simple research it makes you look like a fool and hard to take seriously. If this had been a journalist who was commenting positively about Tebow and yet had some oversights he would be crucified as a hack.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-26-2011, 08:22 PM
I've never heard this. Where are you hearing this?

A radio guy in Denver (Sandi ?)suggested it when he had Silva on his show a few days ago.

Woody (this is just my opinion) indirectly links Elway to it in his recent article about the situation....

http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_18752495

Northman
08-26-2011, 08:36 PM
A radio guy in Denver (Sandi ?)suggested it when he had Silva on his show a few days ago.

Woody (this is just my opinion) indirectly links Elway to it in his recent article about the situation....

http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_18752495

Yea, im not sure i get that feeling at all Al. While i didnt hear the radio show your talking about reading that article all it says is the same thing that Silver did and it supposedly came from a "High ranking official" which could be anybody. Even at the end of that article Elway is quoted as saying "I'd never give up on Tim Tebow."

Denver Native (Carol)
08-26-2011, 08:39 PM
A radio guy in Denver (Sandi ?)suggested it when he had Silva on his show a few days ago.

Woody (this is just my opinion) indirectly links Elway to it in his recent article about the situation....

http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_18752495

Who is Silva? By saying Sandi - do you mean Sandy Clough on the fan? If so, the only thing I can find on the fan is Silver talking to DMac, Alfred & Stink the next day after he posted the article.

http://www.1043thefan.com/Channels/thedrive/Story.aspx?ID=1527251

Dzone
08-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Does anyone know how many NFL QBs worked with multiple QB coaches this past offseason? I mean, how many did what Brady Quinn did?

Dzone
08-26-2011, 09:55 PM
Well, I want to jump on the Quinn bandwagon but I need to know more about him before I climb aboard that train...Seiously, he probably works just as hard as Tebow, plus he is just as christian as Tebow for those who like guys for their religion.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2011, 10:13 PM
I disagree. When you put yourself out there as a respected journalist and consider yourself intelligent enough and you dont do simple research it makes you look like a fool and hard to take seriously. If this had been a journalist who was commenting positively about Tebow and yet had some oversights he would be crucified as a hack.

There is a reason there are people that have the job of correcting spelling, and correcting the small facts in articles. This particular fact didn't have ANYTHING to do with what was being discussed. It was completely insignificant. But, oh well. To which their own :beer:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-26-2011, 11:15 PM
Who is Silva? By saying Sandi - do you mean Sandy Clough on the fan? If so, the only thing I can find on the fan is Silver talking to DMac, Alfred & Stink the next day after he posted the article.

http://www.1043thefan.com/Channels/thedrive/Story.aspx?ID=1527251

You might be right Carol....keep in mind, I live in Idaho, so I get some of your radio personalities confused. I don't remember who said it; I just know it was a radio personality in Denver.


Anyway, how many high ranking officials are there (it's obviously a matter of perspective) in the organization? Ellis, Elway, Xanders, Fox? Would coordinators be considered high ranking officials? Either way there is the appearance of dysfunction and something should be done about it......I'm freakin annoyed! :laugh:

Agent of Orange
08-27-2011, 09:58 AM
I would say that it has vastly improved...

Let's name the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks who were Drafted in the 80's in the first round; Jim McMahon, John Elway, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Ken O'Brien, Bernie Kosar, Jim Everett, Vinny Testaverde, Chris Miller, Jim Harbaugh, and Troy Aikman. Now of those mentioned who would be considered franchise or elite quarterbacks? Elway, Marino, Kelly and Aikman are givens, I would also say Kosar.

Now, let's name the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks drafted in the 90's in the first round; Drew Bledsoe, Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper. Of those mentioned who are elite or franchise quarterbacks? Bledsoe, McNair, Manning and McNabb.

So let's look now at the Pro-Bowl Quarterbacks drafted in the past eleven years in the first round; Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Vince Young, Jay Cutler and Matt Ryan. Of those named the only ones who could be disputed as being franchise capable or possibly elite is Young and Vick. That's not including the young guys that could make there marks still like Bradford, Freeman, Sanchez, Tebow, Newton, Locker, Gabbert or Ponder.

Are you seeing the difference? While there is no exact scientific formula to drafting a quarterback, it's easy to see that it's easier now to draft a franchise capable or elite quarterback in the first round then at any other time in the last three decades. And though I added Tebow in that list of those who could prove capable, one thing we should note is that he is by far the only real project quarterback drafted in the first round, though Ponder and Newton may prove to be up there in the end.

Sorry, I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.

Agent of Orange
08-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Go watch Barkley. He plays in a Pro-Style offense. Specifically designed for him to make throws from under center, in 3,5,7 step drops, play-action, bootlegs, or the EASIEST formation...shotgun. Anyone can play in shotgun. Its why we all play it when were out at the park, playing with our friends.
One of Luck, Barkley and Landrys biggest positives in regards to their NFL futures, is they are LETHAL pocket passers. All of them have extremelly good pocket awareness and Luck and barkley are excellent at staying in the pocket to the very last second, and then finally when theres no option taking off as scramblers. I think Luck has a 7 yard a rush average! Hes awsome at running with the ball and Barkley is no slouch. But they only do that when there is finally no option downfield.

This applies to a lot of guys. And a lot of them flop in the NFL. Like someone else said, it's college.

I think what's happening is you're getting into the swing of college football and are influenced by a lot of Barkley hype at the moment.

Agent of Orange
08-27-2011, 10:06 AM
Not really. I mean, he wasn't writing about the record of our team, so that was a meaningless stat that wasn't even relevant to the story. Thats how I see, it. Its not something you would even really care about looking up, when writing the story, because it didn't have anything to do with the story.

You need to get that kind of stuff right.

Lancane
08-27-2011, 01:15 PM
Sorry, I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.

It's rather simple, it proves that franchise capable and elite quarterbacks have over the last eleven or twelve years been easier to draft, particularly in the first round of the draft then at any time since the 70's. So while it's not an exact science, it does mean there is a better chance then ever before.

Agent of Orange
08-27-2011, 01:50 PM
It's rather simple, it proves that franchise capable and elite quarterbacks have over the last eleven or twelve years been easier to draft, particularly in the first round of the draft then at any time since the 70's. So while it's not an exact science, it does mean there is a better chance then ever before.

Except your analsysis doesnt prove that at all. Based on your analysis, there were 11 first round QBs (from the 1980s) who made the pro bowl. Then of those taken in the first round in the 90s, there have only been 7 probowlers. If anything, your analysis suggests the opposite.

Lancane
08-27-2011, 02:01 PM
Except your analsysis doesnt prove that at all.

Actually it does, you just refuse to see it! At no time in NFL history has there been more teams with franchise quarterbacks then there is now, nor has it ever been easier then it is now to find them, particularly in the first round. If you look at the previous post, you'd see the difference. Argue all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding, there may not be as many elites drafted as were seen in the 80's and 90's, but franchise capable? Way more now then ever before.

Agent of Orange
08-27-2011, 02:19 PM
Actually it does, you just refuse to see it! At no time in NFL history has there been more teams with franchise quarterbacks then there is now, nor has it ever been easier then it is now to find them, particularly in the first round. If you look at the previous post, you'd see the difference. Argue all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding, there may not be as many elites drafted as were seen in the 80's and 90's, but franchise capable? Way more now then ever before.

Not only have you contradicted yourself by providing commentary pointing out how it's an inexact science but your own analysis has indicated as much. And I'm the one who is refusing to see something?

MOtorboat
08-31-2011, 06:57 PM
Just listened to his interview on 102.3. Thought his opinions were well justified. I thought he approached them correctly. I don't like that the source is anonymous, but I didn't think he came across arrogant during that interview, and I think he made good points.

I will never be a real big fan of the anonymous source, but it is what it is.

MOtorboat
08-31-2011, 07:02 PM
www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=737&f=169461

That's the link to 102.3's podcast page. (The Silver interview is on there)

However, listen to the Salisbury interview. I've heard several people talk about how he's similar to Hoge. Listen to it, especially the people critical of Hoge (especially the people who have made personal insults at Hoge) and I want your opinion of Salisbury's comments. He delivers opinions in much the same manner, and speaks in absolutes...

Northman
09-01-2011, 05:38 AM
Listened to it but didnt get the same sense that he is anything like Hoge, not even in the way he conveyed it.

Agent of Orange
09-01-2011, 06:40 PM
www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=737&f=169461

That's the link to 102.3's podcast page. (The Silver interview is on there)

However, listen to the Salisbury interview. I've heard several people talk about how he's similar to Hoge. Listen to it, especially the people critical of Hoge (especially the people who have made personal insults at Hoge) and I want your opinion of Salisbury's comments. He delivers opinions in much the same manner, and speaks in absolutes...

Funny. First Lancane is trashing Montana and Elway as experts on the QB position and now you're presenting Salisbury as some expert.

The only thing Salisbury is an expert on is getting fired for showing women his penis.

Lancane
09-01-2011, 06:54 PM
Funny. First Lancane is trashing Montana and Elway as experts on the QB position and now you're presenting Salisbury as some expert.

The only thing Salisbury is an expert on is getting fired for showing women his penis.

I never thrashed Elway or Montana as experts, because they're not experts - telling it as it is may not be popular but makes it no less true! Playing, coaching and evaluating players is all vastly different. Elway himself has already admitted as much, I guess that you'd argue against the man's own given admission of the fact? Or that he said he looks forward to learning how to evaluate players? Or how about you argue that he himself said he was better in his own mind at evaluation defensive talent? Do I need to go on?

Northman
09-01-2011, 06:58 PM
I never thrashed Elway or Montana as experts, because they're not experts - telling it as it is may not be popular but makes it no less true! Playing, coaching and evaluating players is all vastly different. Elway himself has already admitted as much, I guess that you'd argue against the man's own given admission of the fact? Or that he said he looks forward to learning how to evaluate players? Or how about you argue that he himself said he was better in his own mind at evaluation defensive talent? Do I need to go on?

The only thing i will say to this is if Elway and Montana arent any kind of expert on the QB position than NO ONE is. Which basically means that anyone including all of us on this forum know about as much as they do. :D

Agent of Orange
09-01-2011, 06:58 PM
I never thrashed Elway or Montana as experts, because they're not experts - telling it as it is may not be popular but makes it no less true! Playing, coaching and evaluating players is all vastly different. Elway himself has already admitted as much, I guess that you'd argue against the man's own given admission of the fact? Or that he said he looks forward to learning how to evaluate players? Or how about you argue that he himself said he was better in his own mind at evaluation defensive talent? Do I need to go on?

Its funny how you indict the very people who hype Barkley and then stand by their reasoning in other threads.

Northman
09-01-2011, 07:03 PM
Its funny how you indict the very people who hype Barkley and then stand by their reasoning in other threads.

Thats actually a great point. Elway apparently loves Andrew Luck but since he doesnt know anything i just cant take him seriously. :lol:

MOtorboat
09-01-2011, 07:08 PM
Funny. First Lancane is trashing Montana and Elway as experts on the QB position and now you're presenting Salisbury as some expert.

The only thing Salisbury is an expert on is getting fired for showing women his penis.

I propped him up as an "expert?"

I think you completely missed the point. Not that that shocks me...

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:17 PM
Its funny how you indict the very people who hype Barkley and then stand by their reasoning in other threads.

Those aren't the 'experts' I listen to or follow, but good try. I've mentioned what Elway has said himself, such as he isn't an expert or that they'll be looking for a franchise quarterback and so on. And how have I 'accused or criticized' those who hype Barkley, please tell me?

Or are you just running with wordplay in order to try and prop yourself up?

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:22 PM
The only thing i will say to this is if Elway and Montana arent any kind of expert on the QB position than NO ONE is. Which basically means that anyone including all of us on this forum know about as much as they do. :D

Again I will point to the fact that playing a sport, coaching a position or team of a sport or therein evaluating players within a particular sport are vastly different. It's quite simple...

Mel Kiper is considered an ass, but a pretty fair evaluator of talent...guess how much football experience he has? Mike Mayock who is by in far probably the best was a complete bust in the NFL, so why is he so good at evaluating talent?

And about Montana...he's the same guy who said Alex Smith was the next great 49ers quarterback, if that isn't enough to question his opinion then I hate to see what is.

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Thats actually a great point. Elway apparently loves Andrew Luck but since he doesnt know anything i just cant take him seriously. :lol:

North, come on bro...I think you know how ridiculous that sounds! Luck has some of the most respected scouts, talent evaluators and draftniks drooling, that says more to me then any opinion Elway has, he simply shares the same opinion a plethora of others have.

Agent of Orange
09-01-2011, 07:32 PM
Thats actually a great point. Elway apparently loves Andrew Luck but since he doesnt know anything i just cant take him seriously. :lol:

Thanks, that's all I want people to know: 1. I'm here to party, and 2. I've exposed Lancane for his contradictory statements, which mean when he promotes Barkley, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Northman
09-01-2011, 07:34 PM
Again I will point to the fact that playing a sport, coaching a position or team of a sport or therein evaluating players within a particular sport are vastly different. It's quite simple...

Mel Kiper is considered an ass, but a pretty fair evaluator of talent...guess how much football experience he has? Mike Mayock who is by in far probably the best was a complete bust in the NFL, so why is he so good at evaluating talent?

And about Montana...he's the same guy who said Alex Smith was the next great 49ers quarterback, if that isn't enough to question his opinion then I hate to see what is.


Actually, all you have proven is that all of the above can be wrong from time to time. Well, no shit brother. Its ALL a guessing game. :lol:

At the end of the day i take it all in no matter if its Montana, Elway, Kiper, Mayock, or Salisbury. The fact is they will all be wrong or right at some point when they speak on any player. But i do find if funny that while those who want to prop up one commentator are the same ones who will claim another is wrong.

Elway may have said he isnt a "evaluator" or a good one yet but i think he says that more out of being humble and not a arrogant ass. At the end of the day Lan you can question ANYONE about their opinion because no one is perfect at evaluating players. We see it every year where blah blah should be the next best thing or the blah blah will fail. Its a imperfect science.

Northman
09-01-2011, 07:37 PM
Thanks, that's all I want people to know: 1. I'm here to party, and 2. I've exposed Lancane for his contradictory statements, which mean when he promotes Barkley, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Well, i respect Lan's viewpoint. I think you can point to just about everyone on this board from time to time and they can be caught contradicting themselves. But, ive never taken NFL talking heads or players opinions as word of god (no pun intended). When someone comes out and is 100/100 on guessing how a player will turn out than i will change my viewpoint. But until that happens its all a guessing game. It just boils down to who you think is worthy of believing.

Northman
09-01-2011, 07:39 PM
North, come on bro...I think you know how ridiculous that sounds! Luck has some of the most respected scouts, talent evaluators and draftniks drooling, that says more to me then any opinion Elway has, he simply shares the same opinion a plethora of others have.

Those guys have been wrong too. ;)

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:42 PM
Those guys have been wrong too. ;)

Yes, but they've been far more right as well! ;)

Northman
09-01-2011, 07:46 PM
Yes, but they've been far more right as well! ;)

Not really. I mean really i could watch countless tape of great players and "predict" who will be successful and who wont be. Its nothing more than a bunch of miss cleo's really. I am curious though, is there ANYONE who thinks Luck will fail? Serious question because i would give that person props for not quoting the obvious. :D

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:49 PM
Thanks, that's all I want people to know: 1. I'm here to party, and 2. I've exposed Lancane for his contradictory statements, which mean when he promotes Barkley, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Opinions vary, as do ass***es!

Though, I haven't contradicted myself - you can simply believe what you want, to and rant and rave on your merry way to blissful glee. Hell, you can even claim that you have exposed me and say you've proven that I don't have a leg to stand on, no matter the fact that you haven't. That's the great thing about a message board, you can claim shit all you want, declare it all the same and swear it's true...in the end all it is, is an opinion - not a fact.

Lancane
09-01-2011, 07:52 PM
Not really. I mean really i could watch countless tape of great players and "predict" who will be successful and who wont be. Its nothing more than a bunch of miss cleo's really. I am curious though, is there ANYONE who thinks Luck will fail? Serious question because i would give that person props for not quoting the obvious. :D

That's opinionative...but I like the Miss Cleo remark, that's funny! :lol:

I've heard a few people who have not said he'll fail, but that he's overly hyped and that they feel Jones is a better pro prospect and should be drafted before Luck.

Agent of Orange
09-01-2011, 08:00 PM
I propped him up as an "expert?"

I think you completely missed the point. Not that that shocks me...

Yeah, you did. You cited him as reference. That means "propping him up" especially when the guy is a punch line.

Agent of Orange
09-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Opinions vary, as do ass***es!

Though, I haven't contradicted myself - you can simply believe what you want, to and rant and rave on your merry way to blissful glee. Hell, you can even claim that you have exposed me and say you've proven that I don't have a leg to stand on, no matter the fact that you haven't. That's the great thing about a message board, you can claim shit all you want, declare it all the same and swear it's true...in the end all it is, is an opinion - not a fact.

You most definitely have. And this proclamation just further adds to it.

Slick
09-01-2011, 08:12 PM
We are getting quite a bit of rain right now.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

MOtorboat
09-01-2011, 09:30 PM
I propped him up as an "expert?"

I think you completely missed the point. Not that that shocks me...

Yeah, you did. You cited him as reference. That means "propping him up" especially when the guy is a punch line.

Your reading comprehension really sucks.

I cited him as a reference because of the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about and drives the hard line much as Hoge does with extreme opinions. The reason I highlighted it is because people automatically bring his name up with Hoge's because of his delivery and the absolutes he speaks in, to show people how stupid it is to make personal attacks against Hoge for his highly educated opinion, especially in the case of people who think they are smarter than those who watch film and analyze this game for a living (much like yourself).

The only punch line involved is you. You're a fraud.

Watchthemiddle
09-02-2011, 12:21 AM
I want to see a follow-up piece by Silver after tonight's game...and now that the preseason is over. :laugh::laugh:

I bet his "inside source" is cut tomorrow:laugh:

Northman
09-02-2011, 12:25 AM
I want to see a follow piece by Silver after tonight's game...and now that the preseason is over. :laugh::laugh:

I bet his "inside source" is but tomorrow:laugh:

Thats the first thing that came to my mind as well. I mean clearly, Quiinn is far superior. :lol:

PAINTERDAVE
09-02-2011, 12:36 AM
Preseason ending QB Ratings:

Weber 118.7

Tebow 108.3

Orton 104

Quinn 79.1


Just sayin'....

Watchthemiddle
09-02-2011, 01:12 AM
Oopss. meant a follow-up piece, and the source is cut tomorrow, not but tomorrow...:D