Broncos' focus remains on draft [Archive]

nevcraw

01-21-2012, 02:12 PM

I understand what they are trying to do....but:

1. They better make sure that they are drafting the right guys then. Carter (who had 2 picks in the post season) can't run better than a 4.7. Go see the Pats game where he is chasing Hernandez...wow, is he slow, slow, slow. Slower than Dawkins...instant liability.

2. They should still consider signing young promising free agents to add to the mix. Some of those guys are going to cost you $.

3. Is this a strategy...or is Bowlen broke?

4. They can follow this strategy...all they want...they still need to hit the cap floor this year. What is it...$125m? So, they will either have to give significant money to our own guys we resign...or they are going to have to spend money in free agency.

FA doesn't start for a while.. I just wouldn't expect any super high dollar FA's but wouldn't you take another McGahee? Bunkley? Their approach is smart and in no way means they won't get help in the areas you want but not going to break the bank on flash...

TXBRONC

01-21-2012, 02:47 PM

How's the FA scrap heap going to look this year, John?

Guess we'd BETTER get it done in the draft...We don't leave much room for error in Denver.

I think McGahee was excellent free agent signing.

LTC Pain

01-21-2012, 03:55 PM

I think McGahee and Bunkley were excellent free agent signings.

I thought we traded a 6th round pick to the Eagles/Browns for Bunkley?

TXBRONC

01-21-2012, 04:08 PM

I thought we traded a 6th round pick to the Eagles/Browns for Bunkley?

I complete forgot we traded for him. Anyway McGahee was excellent free agent signing and while Bunkley came via trade it was also an excellent move. Both moves were in part seen as us picking up someone elses trash.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 06:43 PM

Is it really one or the other?

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 06:49 PM

Is it really one or the other?

No, of course not, but the emphasis on team building for the Broncos is on the draft. I think it's as it should be.

That doesn't mean there won't be a few signings, because there will be.

I'd argue that McGahee was the best free agent signing in the entire league this past season. But that doesn't mean Denver should now build through free agency. Find a couple of pieces there and build through the draft.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 06:51 PM

No, of course not, but the emphasis on team building for the Broncos is on the draft. I think it's as it should be.

That doesn't mean there won't be a few signings, because there will be.

I'd argue that McGahee was the best free agent signing in the entire league this past season. But that doesn't mean Denver should now build through free agency. Find a couple of pieces there and build through the draft.

Mo... If you are going to credit McGahee is there anyone else you like to give any indirect credit to in regards to his performance given Knowshon's/current O-line's performance?

Having said that, I gotta go with Sproles... I wish we had picked him up so badly.

I agree with you though. Focusing on one or the other just doesn't make any sense. You can't really depend primarily on either nor can you pass up opportunities on either.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 06:58 PM

Mo... If you are going to credit McGahee is there anyone else you like to give any indirect credit to in regards to his performance given Knowshon's/current O-line's performance?

Having said that, I gotta go with Sproles... I wish we had picked him up so badly.

I agree with you though. Focusing on one or the other just doesn't make any sense. You can't really depend primarily on either nor can you pass up opportunities on either.

We should probably credit Tebow for McGahee's success. Is that what you're getting at? Or that I think Moreno's struggles last year was because of the offensive line?

Sproles was never coming here.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 07:05 PM

We should probably credit Tebow for McGahee's success. Is that what you're getting at? Or that I think Moreno's struggles last year was because of the offensive line?

Sproles was never coming here.

Tebow and McCoy deserve some credit for McGahee's success. I said it and I stand by it. I'm not sure how you can ignore going from 24th rushing to 1st rushing without the threat of Tebows legs and McCoy's playcalling.

I know Sproles wasn't coming here, just wishful thinking and I still feel he was the #1 FA acq...

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 07:10 PM

Tebow and McCoy deserve some credit for McGahee's success. I said it and I stand by it. I'm not sure how you can ignore going from 24th rushing to 1st rushing without the threat of Tebows legs and McCoy's playcalling.

I know Sproles wasn't coming here, just wishful thinking and I still feel he was the #1 FA acq...

Well, I disagree. I think the entire running game was predicated on McGahee's success, not Tebow's. Tebow's was the cherry on top.

Now, if he could just throw at a competent NFL level...

wayninja

01-21-2012, 07:16 PM

Well, I disagree. I think the entire running game was predicated on McGahee's success, not Tebow's. Tebow's was the cherry on top.

Now, if he could just throw at a competent NFL level...

For the regular season:

Games Orton completed:
McGahee
3.4 yards per carry
64 yards per game

Games Tebow completed:
McGahee
5.1 yards per carry
81.5 per game

I'm sure Tebow had nothing to do with it.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 07:37 PM

For the regular season:

Games Orton completed:
McGahee
3.4 yards per carry
64 yards per game

Games Tebow completed:
McGahee
5.1 yards per carry
81.5 per game

I'm sure Tebow had nothing to do with it.

Since he is the sole reason the running game is good, maybe he could learn to be an actual quarterback now? Wouldn't that be fantastic?

:whoknows:

wayninja

01-21-2012, 07:54 PM

Since he is the sole reason the running game is good, maybe he could learn to be an actual quarterback now? Wouldn't that be fantastic?

:whoknows:

Sure, it would be great. I'm assuming by 'actual' you mean 'traditional' though. It would sorta be silly to call the actual quarterback of the Broncos not an actual quarterback, right?

I'm guessing that means no, though. You aren't going to give any credit. I can't say I'm terribly shocked.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 08:34 PM

Sure, it would be great. I'm assuming by 'actual' you mean 'traditional' though. It would sorta be silly to call the actual quarterback of the Broncos not an actual quarterback, right?

I'm guessing that means no, though. You aren't going to give any credit. I can't say I'm terribly shocked.

Weren't you complaining earlier tonight about blame/credit being assigned? Yes, yes you were.

Why do I have to credit Tebow when I say McGahee had a good season and was one of the best signings in the league? Maybe we should credit Tebow for the defense's turnaround in week 7 while we're at it.

And Tebow is OBVIOUSLY the reason Colquitt was as good as he was, because Colquitt wouldn't have as many opportunities to hone his craft without Tebow engineering three and outs...

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 08:36 PM

The ONLY reason McGahee was a good signing is because Tebow is so awesome.

Davii

01-21-2012, 08:39 PM

I like the Broncos focusing on building through the draft. The teams that are consistently good, perennial playoff teams seem to vastly use this approach. Look at Pittsburgh, GB, etc most of their players are originally drafted there.

Teams are built through the draft, holes are filled through FA.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 08:54 PM

Weren't you complaining earlier tonight about blame/credit being assigned? Yes, yes you were.

Why do I have to credit Tebow when I say McGahee had a good season and was one of the best signings in the league? Maybe we should credit Tebow for the defense's turnaround in week 7 while we're at it.

And Tebow is OBVIOUSLY the reason Colquitt was as good as he was, because Colquitt wouldn't have as many opportunities to hone his craft without Tebow engineering three and outs...

I wasn't complaining about blame/credit being assinged, I was complaining about how often the word 'blame' is being used for a team that after the worst season in franchise history made a playoff run. Nice try though.

You don't have to give Tebow credit, that's totally your call. Clearly you don't want to, under any circumstances.

Colquitt. Nice deflection there.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 08:57 PM

The ONLY reason McGahee was a good signing is because Tebow is so awesome.

The bitterness is strong with you.

Why can't you just admit that Tebow's best asset helped our running game, and consequently, McGahee out this season? Is that really a stretch?

I'm just trying to give you softballs and you still refuse to swing.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 09:11 PM

wayninja

01-21-2012, 09:14 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why we have to credit Tebow for McGahee being a solid signing?

It was a good signing, and that's the type of signings we'll see from the Broncos in the future.

It has NOTHING to do with Tebow, and yet I'm told I have to give Tebow credit for it. It makes no damn sense.

Maybe we should credit Tebow for the Broderick Bunkley trade?

Please quote where I commanded you to give credit.

I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to acknowledge any increase in performance post-Tebow taking the QB position.

If McGahee had performed the rest of the season the same way he did when Orton was the starter, I doubt you'd be calling him a 'great FA signing'. He'd be average. Slightly above at best.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 09:19 PM

Please quote where I commanded you to give credit.

I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to acknowledge any increase in performance post-Tebow taking the QB position.

If McGahee had performed the rest of the season the same way he did when Orton was the starter, I doubt you'd be calling him a 'great FA signing'. He'd be average. Slightly above at best.

He would have been a thousand yard back even at that pace. And even at that pace he would have been a good signing.

MAYBE it was Tebow that made it great. MAYBE it was the offensive line that made it great. MAYBE it was McGahee that made it great. MAYBE it was McCoy that made it great.

Any which way it was a great signing. Why do I have to credit, specifically, to Tebow?

Causation, or correlation? I can't prove either, so I choose to give credit for McGahee being a great signing to McGahee.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 09:26 PM

He would have been a thousand yard back even at that pace. And even at that pace he would have been a good signing.

MAYBE it was Tebow that made it great. MAYBE it was the offensive line that made it great. MAYBE it was McGahee that made it great. MAYBE it was McCoy that made it great.

Any which way it was a great signing. Why do I have to credit, specifically, to Tebow?

Causation, or correlation? I can't prove either, so I choose to give credit for McGahee being a great signing to McGahee.

To be fair, I said McCoy or Tebow, you chose to focus on Tebow.

But yeah, you have to acknowledge the jump in performance with regards to rushing after Tebow took over. Nothing else had changed. You can ignore it if you want to, but it's purely willful.

And not to be picky, but extrapolating his production from his games where Orton started/finished the game (in other words removing the split San Diego game from both Orton and Tebow's extrapolations) he would only have BARELY been a 1000 yard back assuming he didn't miss any play time. Which he did. But I'm sure that's Tebows fault.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 09:34 PM

Whatever. McGahee was a great signing by the front office. Tebow had NOTHING to do with that.

He became a great signing because he worked his ass off and I'm giving credit to McGahee and the front office for realizing McGahee still had that left in him.

Why does everything good about this team have to be directly related to Tebow?

wayninja

01-21-2012, 10:02 PM

For the third time you've chosen to ignore the name McCoy.

And I could ask you the opposite question; Why does Tebow get no credit for any offensive success?

VonSackemMiller

01-21-2012, 10:16 PM

For the third time you've chosen to ignore the name McCoy.

And I could ask you the opposite question; Why does Tebow get no credit for any offensive success?

Because hes clueless, I dont even know why some of you still waste your time arguing this tebow shit with peopel like him.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 10:20 PM

Because hes clueless, I dont even know why some of you still waste your time arguing this tebow shit with peopel like him.

Easy.

Because MO is a standup bronco fan. I don't disrespect his opinion nor do I dismiss it. I'm genuinely interested in discussing it with him and won't dismiss him.

If I thought he wasn't thinking critically or had some other beef that was clouding his judgement, I might do so, but I don't think so.

MO is genuinely interested in the Broncos success and doesn't want to get burned again. I can understand that.

VonSackemMiller

01-21-2012, 10:22 PM

Mo= denial. period. waste of time. Your sitting here presenting facts and hes just remaining in denial. move on.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 10:25 PM

Mo= denial. period. waste of time. Your sitting here presenting facts and hes just remaining in denial. move on.

No thanks, If you aren't interested in the discussion or show, you can feel free to move on.

There are facts on both sides as well as arguments to be made. If you don't want to do that, lurk mode seems more appropriate.

MOtorboat

01-21-2012, 10:50 PM

For the third time you've chosen to ignore the name McCoy.

And I could ask you the opposite question; Why does Tebow get no credit for any offensive success?

I don't give credit for the signing to McCoy, either.

McGahee balled. That's on him, and a great job by the front office for realizing he could still do it.

wayninja

01-21-2012, 10:56 PM

I don't give credit for the signing to McCoy, either.

McGahee balled. That's on him, and a great job by the front office for realizing he could still do it.

Ok, fair enough. Credit to the FO for recognizing potential. Anyone share/deserve credit for realizing the potential?

Or are we just going in circles?

Slick

01-21-2012, 11:35 PM

VonSackemMiller

01-21-2012, 11:56 PM

McGahee got a lot of yards up the gut because of the threat of Tebow yanking the ball away from his belly and running it himself.

Don't be silly Mo.

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

Which is why its silly to even argue this with him. Anybody that cant recognize that is in denial. You cant win a arguement with somebody thats in denial.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:03 AM

Which is why its silly to even argue this with him. Anybody that cant recognize that is in denial. You cant win a arguement with somebody thats in denial.

I can understand why you would not argue with him if you feel this way. What's puzzling is why you are so opposed with anyone else arguing with him?

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:07 AM

Again, the decision to sign McGahee, and the credit for signing McGahee has NOTHING TO DO WITH TEBOW. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zllch.

His ability to go from a good signing (He would have been a 1,000 yard back had Orton had anything to do with his production) but he became a great signing because he broke out in the scheme implemented by McCoy when it became obvious Tebow couldn't run a normal offense. I place the onus on that on McGahee, who went against every principle he's ever been taught in the pros (of course no one ever gives credit to the players who bought in to the archaic scheme suited to Tebow, they only want to give credit to Tebow...)

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:19 AM

McGahee got a lot of yards up the gut because of the threat of Tebow yanking the ball away from his belly and running it himself.

Don't be silly Mo.

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

McGahee is not Lance Ball. McGahee was so good as a RB that they drafted him
in the first round even though his knee was blown out. Now, why would you
think that a healthy McGahee needed Tim Tebow to succeed as a RB?

Did you see him play? His power and moves were sometimes just stunning.

Not taking anything away from Tebow. Just saying that McGahee would have
done what he did regardless of the QB, IMO.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:23 AM

Again, the decision to sign McGahee, and the credit for signing McGahee has NOTHING TO DO WITH TEBOW. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zllch.

I never argued (and indeed conceeded) that his signing did have anything to do with McCoy or Tebow. I was talking about how 'good' of a signing that was and what that was due to.

His ability to go from a good signing (He would have been a 1,000 yard back had Orton had anything to do with his production) but he became a great signing because he broke out in the scheme implemented by McCoy when it became obvious Tebow couldn't run a normal offense. I place the onus on that on McGahee, who went against every principle he's ever been taught in the pros (of course no one ever gives credit to the players who bought in to the archaic scheme suited to Tebow, they only want to give credit to Tebow...)

MO, this is just funny. You've basically managed to give credit to everyone for him 'breaking out' except for Tebow. It sounds like you are basically saying that he broke out in spite of Tebow.

And, no, unless he was perfectly healthy all year long, he would not have been 1000 yard back. If perfectly healthy, he would have been a (based on extrapolation) 1024 yard back.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:25 AM

McGahee is not Lance Ball. McGahee was so good as a RB that they drafted him
in the first round even though his knee was blown out. Now, why would you
think that a healthy McGahee needed Tim Tebow to succeed as a RB?

Did you see him play? His power and moves were sometimes just stunning.

Not taking anything away from Tebow. Just saying that McGahee would have
done what he did regardless of the QB, IMO.

He didn't. His performance increased dramatically once Tebow was put in. Is it really that hard to admit that this was due, at the very least in part, to playcalling and the dual running threat that Tebow represented?

To ignore this is straight silly.

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:28 AM

He didn't. His performance increased dramatically once Tebow was put in. Is it really that hard to admit that this was due, at the very least in part, to playcalling and the dual running threat that Tebow represented?

To ignore this is straight silly.

You seem to forget that McGahee started out as a backup to Moreno. Now,
before you say something like I've made your point, keep in mind that Tebow
started out behind Orton and Quinn. McGahee's performance increased
dramatically after he became the starting back.

Canmore

01-22-2012, 12:31 AM

You seem to forget that McGahee started out as a backup to Moreno. Now,
before you say something like I've made your point, keep in mind that Tebow
started out behind Orton and Quinn. McGahee's performance increased
dramatically after he became the starting back.

McGahee when healthy was a beast. I hope that he has a couple more seasons left in the tank.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:33 AM

MO, this is just funny. You've basically managed to give credit to everyone for him 'breaking out' except for Tebow. It sounds like you are basically saying that he broke out in spite of Tebow.

And, no, unless he was perfectly healthy all year long, he would not have been 1000 yard back. If perfectly healthy, he would have been a (based on extrapolation) 1024 yard back.

Yup.

And I'm not wrong. McGahee stepped up when he realized Tebow couldn't operate an NFL offense.

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:34 AM

McGahee when healthy was a beast. I hope that he has a couple more seasons left in the tank.

McGahee is a pile-mover. And in the open field, while he doesn't have Barry
Sanders type of moves, his subtle juking causes a lot of missed tackles. In
addition, his 60-yard scamper -- if you recall -- showed he still had some speed.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:35 AM

You seem to forget that McGahee started out as a backup to Moreno. Now,
before you say something like I've made your point, keep in mind that Tebow
started out behind Orton and Quinn. McGahee's performance increased
dramatically after he became the starting back.

Explain to me why yards per carry improves based on depth?

Canmore

01-22-2012, 12:36 AM

McGahee is a pile-mover. And in the open field, while he doesn't have Barry
Sanders type of moves, his subtle juking causes a lot of missed tackles. In
addition, his 60-yard scamper -- if you recall -- showed he still had some speed.

Agreed. He had a great season and was a huge step up from Moreno.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:37 AM

Yup.

And I'm not wrong. McGahee stepped up when he realized Tebow couldn't operate an NFL offense.

If this is true, I've lost a lot of respect for McGahee. Fortunately, I don't believe it for a second.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:41 AM

If this is true, I've lost a lot of respect for McGahee. Fortunately, I don't believe it for a second.

Wait, so, if he carried the team, because as a veteran he realized Tebow couldn't operate an NFL offense, and, you have lost respect for him?

Damn. He stepped the **** up with a quarterback who sucks balls. We ought to be crediting Tebow's success to McGahee.

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 12:42 AM

in boats mind mcgahee tanked it untill he realized tebow couldnt run a normal offense, ive lost respect for him also

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:44 AM

Wait, so, if he carried the team, because as a veteran he realized Tebow couldn't operate an NFL offense, and, you have lost respect for him?

Damn. He stepped the **** up with a quarterback who sucks balls. We ought to be crediting Tebow's success to McGahee.

No, I would have lost respect for him because of your implication that he was witholding his game until he 'realized Tebow couldn't operate an NFL offense'. You would think that he would be playing at a high level in every game, not conditionally.

I'm not saying that McGahee didn't allow Tebow's running to succeed. I can see the running attack was complimentary, not a case of one carrying the other as you seem to suggest.

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:45 AM

Explain to me why yards per carry improves based on depth?

For the same reason Tebow's performance improved when he became starter.
It's called reps. You know, getting acquainted with the supporting cast,
becoming an active part of the scheme, plays designed more for him than for
Moreno (just as Tebow had plays designed more for him than for Orton), getting
the time in the game to warm up and wear down the defense, and a dozen more
things that are escaping me at the moment . . .

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:46 AM

Haha. Funny. Y'all get your panties in a bunch when its even suggested that McGahee's success was because of McGahee and not because of Tebow.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:47 AM

For the same reason Tebow's performance improved when he became starter.
It's called reps. You know, getting acquainted with the supporting cast,
becoming an active part of the scheme, plays designed more for him than for
Moreno (just as Tebow had plays designed more for him than for Orton), getting
the time in the game to warm up and wear down the defense, and a dozen more
things that are escaping me at the moment . . .

Are you serious? This can't be serious.

McGahee didn't need Reps. Tebow did. McGahee is a vet nearing the end of his career and has seen and done a lot. Tebow is raw and had only started 3 NFL games when he took over as starter. Also, McGahee was playing in every game regardless of his position on the depth chart. Tebow was not.

This comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Also, as 2nd on the depth chart and getting less carries per game, shouldn't he be 'fresher' than Moreno and therefore be getting better YPC?

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:48 AM

McGahee was good because McGahee was good, not because of Tebow. This is ******* ridiculous.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:49 AM

Von Miller's sacks were the result of Tim Tebow being awesome.

Prove me wrong.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:51 AM

Haha. Funny. Y'all get your panties in a bunch when its even suggested that McGahee's success was because of McGahee and not because of Tebow.

You speak too frequently in absolutes. I never suggested this and your attempt to frame it that way is hollow.

McGahee is a good back, has been most of his career. But there's 10 other guys on the field with him at any given time and the one other variable in those 10 was Tebow. It's not rocket science to see how the option and/or scrambling ability of Tebow opened things up on the running game more than it had been previously.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 12:52 AM

Von Miller's sacks were the result of Tim Tebow being awesome.

Prove me wrong.

Uh, oh, we've gone into silly tantrum mode.

I gave you the stats to back up my argument and you just want to ignore or dismiss them. That's fine, but don't pretend the argument is baseless without more than just your word on it.

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:54 AM

Uh, oh, we've gone into silly tantrum mode.

I gave you the stats to back up my argument and you just want to ignore or dismiss them. That's fine, but don't pretend the argument is baseless without more than just your word on it.

Yup, much as I agree with Mo about McGahee, I didn't understand that argument.
But, once again, we're not talking about a scrub here. We're talking about McGahee,
who has first-round talent as a RB.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 01:05 AM

Yup, much as I agree with Mo about McGahee, I didn't understand that argument.
But, once again, we're not talking about a scrub here. We're talking about McGahee,
who has first-round talent as a RB.

Maybe I'm coming across as attacking McGahee? Or saying that he sucks without Tebow? If that's the case, then let me clear the confusion. I'm not saying Tebow is responsible for McGahee's season. I'm simply saying that the dual-running threat was complimentary to both players and both saw increases in their (rushing) production as a result of having opportunities present that a less mobile QB would not engender.

MO's argument is basically "WAAAAH!!!! TEBOW SUCKSSS!!!! McGahee reached into some secret veteran well of performance to increase his productivity when he realized he couldn't phone it in and get wins!!!"

Timmy!

01-22-2012, 01:06 AM

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 01:12 AM

Uh, oh, we've gone into silly tantrum mode.

I gave you the stats to back up my argument and you just want to ignore or dismiss them. That's fine, but don't pretend the argument is baseless without more than just your word on it.

Hes been in silly tantrum mode, If you had listened to me this would have never happend. Tebow being a threat to pull it out and run on the other side didnt help the the alleys open up behind the DL. It was all mcgahee,

wayninja

01-22-2012, 01:16 AM

Hes been in silly tantrum mode, If you had listened to me this would have never happend. Tebow being a threat to pull it out and run on the other side didnt help the the alleys open up behind the DL. It was all mcgahee,

He didn't start in tantrum mode. But nonetheless, I'm still puzzled by your instistence on saying he can't be argued with and then inserting an argument.

bcbronc

01-22-2012, 03:47 AM

McGahee is a good back, has been most of his career. But there's 10 other guys on the field with him at any given time and the one other variable in those 10 was Tebow. It's not rocket science to see how the option and/or scrambling ability of Tebow opened things up on the running game more than it had been previously.

Or, just maybe, a young offense with a completely new offensive system/philosophy started to get on the same page after 5 weeks + a bye? Giving all the credit to the "one other variable" is completely ridiculous and completely ignores the reality of a new regime, young team and no offseason.

Sure, Tebow's threat to run opened up some lanes for McGahee. But on the other hand, Tebow's inability to throw consistently meant McGahee was seeing 8 or 9 in the box. Did that also help McGahee?

Same deal with McCoy, sure he drew up (copied) some plays that worked for McGahee. But running 24 of 25 first downs didn't exactly make the job easier for Big Willis.

Let's look at it from the other side of the street...how successful would Tebow have been without Willis getting it done? Way, do you really think Tebow would have went 9-9 with a backfield of Moreno, Ball and Johnson? It's a bit silly when you frame it that way, eh?

wayninja

01-22-2012, 11:48 AM

Or, just maybe, a young offense with a completely new offensive system/philosophy started to get on the same page after 5 weeks + a bye? Giving all the credit to the "one other variable" is completely ridiculous and completely ignores the reality of a new regime, young team and no offseason.

That's a rather convenient argument. It took the exact amount of time necessary to say Tebow had nothing to do with it?

Sure, Tebow's threat to run opened up some lanes for McGahee. But on the other hand, Tebow's inability to throw consistently meant McGahee was seeing 8 or 9 in the box. Did that also help McGahee?

You were right in the first place, lanes opened up. I'm not saying it worked on every down, that goes with out saying. No running play works on every down and being predictible didn't help and when defenders stacked the box and played very discipline/were not fooled by option, it didn't work. I still maintain that the numbers show it worked more often than the traditional running game was working.

Same deal with McCoy, sure he drew up (copied) some plays that worked for McGahee. But running 24 of 25 first downs didn't exactly make the job easier for Big Willis.

No argument here. That's been my problem with McCoy all season long. Predictibility was awful.

Let's look at it from the other side of the street...how successful would Tebow have been without Willis getting it done? Way, do you really think Tebow would have went 9-9 with a backfield of Moreno, Ball and Johnson? It's a bit silly when you frame it that way, eh?

9-9? I have no idea what this stat is, so I'm not sure how to answer it.

tomjonesrocks

01-22-2012, 12:03 PM

For years I've been hearing fans complain that Shanahan and to some extent McDaniels weren't doing it like the Steelers, Ravens, Patriots, Packers, etc.

Now they are trying to do that and people claim they are cheap.

This is a sound philosophy.

The Patriots have made huge, press-getting splashes in free agency (albeit with mixed success) in recent years and have done so much maneuvering in the draft they've really de-emphasized it.

The Ravens pay guys also.

Not really sure what you are trying to say--but you're right about me calling the Broncos ******* cheap.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 12:11 PM

The Patriots have made huge, press-getting splashes in free agency (albeit with mixed success) in recent years and have done so much maneuvering in the draft they've really de-emphasized it.

The Ravens pay guys also.

Not really sure what you are trying to say--but you're right about me calling the Broncos ******* cheap.

Those two teams are at a completely different stage of development. 12 years ago they were building through the draft, and that built long term stability which allowed them to build a core of players (Brady, Welker, Light, Branch, Mankins, Wilfork, Reed, Ngata, Rice, Lewis) and then were able to take chances in free agency later. Denver is not to that second stage yet.

topscribe

01-22-2012, 12:47 PM

:pop2:

MO hates Tebow so much. :lol:

The FO obviously gets all the credit for signing mcgahee. Even without Tebow it would have been a good signing and our run game would have improved. That said defenses having to account for tebow running definitely helped mcgahee out a bit, just like mcgahee running over people all game helped tebow. Mcgahees success is because of mcgahee, however I'd bet he wouldn't have been as successful if tebow didn't play.

To tell you the truth, I initially didn't have much use for Tebow, at all. But I
finally came to realize that, hey, he's our quarterback. He wears the Blue &
Orange. As he goes, so go the Broncos. So it's like him and back him -- what
choice do I have? He's a Bronco, and GO BRONCOS! That is all.

That, however, does not mean I won't realistically evaluate him -- or anyone
else -- and tell it like I see it.

But I have to disagree with you about McGahee. I do believe he would have
been as successful, no matter who the QB was. McGahee is that good, IMO.

jhildebrand

01-22-2012, 01:06 PM

wayninja

01-22-2012, 01:17 PM

I think Wayninja's argument has some support in looking at McGahee's game logs for this season. He only rushed for 5 YPC in one game w/ Ortonary under center and that was when Orton was having a good game against GB.

With Tebow under center it was a much more common occurence that he ran for 5 YPC. In fact he had games with 7, 8, and 10 YPC.

So the guy was running for 0.75, 3, and 2 prior to Tebow goes to 7, 8, and 10 it is all because he is just AWESOME. Scheme and QB change had nothing to do with it? :confused:

It's not just the numbers too. I actually watched the games. I'm not claiming to be a coach and I may not be getting the parlance correct, but I've been watching football long enough that I can see a difference. At first it was because teams were worried about Tebow running which left some missed assignments in place that helped spring McGahee, then it was Tebow making some throws as well as being a threat with his legs that softened it up.

I'm not saying it's all Tebow, and I'm not trying to take anything away from Willy Mac, just calling what I see.

jhildebrand

01-22-2012, 01:54 PM

It's not just the numbers too. I actually watched the games. I'm not claiming to be a coach and I may not be getting the parlance correct, but I've been watching football long enough that I can see a difference. At first it was because teams were worried about Tebow running which left some missed assignments in place that helped spring McGahee, then it was Tebow making some throws as well as being a threat with his legs that softened it up.

I'm not saying it's all Tebow, and I'm not trying to take anything away from Willy Mac, just calling what I see.

Agreed.

The problem next year is a lot of the stuff that worked this year in all likelihood wont next year.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 01:56 PM

Agreed.

The problem next year is a lot of the stuff that worked this year in all likelihood wont next year.

That's probably true, but if we are still running next year what we ran the majority of this year, I'm gonna scream.

bcbronc

01-22-2012, 02:52 PM

That's a rather convenient argument. It took the exact amount of time necessary to say Tebow had nothing to do with it?

Actually, yours is the convenient argument. It's easy to point to a change in QB and say "see".

Why didn't Willis have a great game in Wk7? Wk8, our rushing stats were okay, but not going to call the game a success.

By your "reasoning", seeing as after the WK8 debacle vs DET McCoy revamped the offense, and that's when the offense and Willis started to take off, if for some reason you can't give Willis the credit for his own performance, then it should go to McCoy.

Obviously the threat of Tebow running influenced the defense, but not anymore so than when Ball or Johnson or Moreno were in the backfield. imo there was a marked decline in effectiveness when McGahee wasn't on the field, why was that?

You were right in the first place, lanes opened up. I'm not saying it worked on every down, that goes with out saying. No running play works on every down and being predictible didn't help and when defenders stacked the box and played very discipline/were not fooled by option, it didn't work. I still maintain that the numbers show it worked more often than the traditional running game was working.

lol, okay. McGahee had success when, and only when, the rest of the defense was too distracted by the threat of Tebow running to play defense. Cuz he never had any success running out of a more traditional running formation. Never. 98% of his yardage came on option plays. :rolleyes:

No argument here. That's been my problem with McCoy all season long. Predictibility was awful.

thankfully Willis had Tebow to overcome those things for him.

9-9? I have no idea what this stat is, so I'm not sure how to answer it.

lol, yeah 8-8 + 1-1 is really hard to figure out. In case you're still lost, 9-9 was our final record on the season, including regular season + postseason. So now that I've explained it to you, do you think we would have had the same success if it was McGahee instead of Moreno that ended up on IR? Because we still would have had that "one single variable" of Tebow, so your answer has to be yes. If it isn't, your position quickly falls apart. And if it is, well, enough said.

:coffee:

wayninja

01-22-2012, 03:15 PM

Actually, yours is the convenient argument. It's easy to point to a change in QB and say "see".

Why didn't Willis have a great game in Wk7? Wk8, our rushing stats were okay, but not going to call the game a success.

Why didn't he have a great game in week 7? What does that have to do with anything? What happened in week 7 that would make him have a great game and why are you focusing on 1 game?

By your "reasoning", seeing as after the WK8 debacle vs DET McCoy revamped the offense, and that's when the offense and Willis started to take off, if for some reason you can't give Willis the credit for his own performance, then it should go to McCoy.

I give credit to Willis for his peformance. Have you not been reading?

Obviously the threat of Tebow running influenced the defense, but not anymore so than when Ball or Johnson or Moreno were in the backfield. imo there was a marked decline in effectiveness when McGahee wasn't on the field, why was that?

Willis is better than Ball and Moreno. I never disputed that. Again, are you ignoring or just not reading?

lol, okay. McGahee had success when, and only when, the rest of the defense was too distracted by the threat of Tebow running to play defense. Cuz he never had any success running out of a more traditional running formation. Never. 98% of his yardage came on option plays. :rolleyes:

I didn't say this either. Are you having some sort of epileptic fit or something?

thankfully Willis had Tebow to overcome those things for him.

The numbers speak for themselves. If you want to dismiss Tebow as a non-factor you are free to do so, I recommend watching the games though.

lol, yeah 8-8 + 1-1 is really hard to figure out. In case you're still lost, 9-9 was our final record on the season, including regular season + postseason. So now that I've explained it to you, do you think we would have had the same success if it was McGahee instead of Moreno that ended up on IR? Because we still would have had that "one single variable" of Tebow, so your answer has to be yes. If it isn't, your position quickly falls apart. And if it is, well, enough said.

:coffee:

Yeah, that 9-9 stat would mean something if Tebow actually started all 18 of those games. Since he didn't, it's simply puzzling why you would say:

Way, do you really think Tebow would have went 9-9 with a backfield of Moreno, Ball and Johnson? It's a bit silly when you frame it that way, eh?

You are obviously agitated, get your shit together and let me know when you have something coherent to say. Unless you are trying to say that Tebow had something to do with the 1-4 start under Orton, I wouldn't put it past you.

Also, kudos for the condescension for not understanding something you said that either makes no sense or is simply untrue.

jhildebrand

01-22-2012, 04:43 PM

there was a marked decline in effectiveness when McGahee wasn't on the field, why was that?

Because our other RB's suck. It is plain and simple as that. How many times did JJ get a toss only to bobble the ball. They dance around instead of heading north south. They aren't as physical as McGahee either especially between the tackles.

The only thing another back did better than McGahee was Moreno's screen pass and YAC on those plays.

Cuz he never had any success running out of a more traditional running formation. Never. 98% of his yardage came on option plays. :rolleyes:
Well the common game where Orton started for the first matchup and Tebow the 2nd was against the Raiders.

Week 1 with a traditional running formation he was 4 carries for 3 yards.
Week 7 he was 20 for 163.

His other games in a traditional running formation (your terminology and belief not mine) was against Cinci and Tennessee. Both those games had less than admirable YPC numbers. IN fac the TN game was atrocious and the Cinci game had ok numbers outside the YPC.

The reality is this team got away from the full time read option pretty quickly and was in a more traditional running game for much of Tebow's 2nd half of starts.

Insisting McGahee's numbers weren't boosted by Tebow's presence in the line up and scheme changes is disingenuous at best.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. McGahee is a 30+ back and as much as Fox runs the ball, we will be going through RB's. Why do you think he had Denagelo and Stewart in CAR? :confused:

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 04:54 PM

Timmy!

01-22-2012, 04:57 PM

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:01 PM

Ugh. My whole statement was simply that McGahee was one of, if not the best, free agent signing this season.

I still do not understand why Tebow gets credit for that. The whole premise of my thought was in team building, not this wild crazy ass idea that we have to credit Tebow anytime we say something good about another offensive player.

And my whole statement was simply that McGahee performed much better with Tebow under center than Orton. I'm not trying to say you have to credit Tebow any time you talk about an offensive player. However, Tebows BEST asset for our offense this season was in complimenting and supplementing the running game.

I don't think your estimation of McGahee would be as high had Orton stayed in all year. It's pretty simple, I'm not sure why it's being twisted into such a black and white argument.

Actually, yes I do know why.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 05:06 PM

And my whole statement was simply that McGahee performed much better with Tebow under center than Orton. I'm not trying to say you have to credit Tebow any time you talk about an offensive player. However, Tebows BEST asset for our offense this season was in complimenting and supplementing the running game.

I don't think your estimation of McGahee would be as high had Orton stayed in all year. It's pretty simple, I'm not sure why it's being twisted into such a black and white argument.

Actually, yes I do know why.

Jesus Christ (Or Tebow, if you prefer).

Tebow had NOTHING TO DO with the signing of Willis McGahee. The statement on its own "McGahee was a good signing" doesn't automatically need any qualifiers. It would have been a good signing with Tebow and it would have been a good signing without Tebow.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:11 PM

Jesus Christ (Or Tebow, if you prefer).

Tebow had NOTHING TO DO with the signing of Willis McGahee. The statement on its own "McGahee was a good signing" doesn't automatically need any qualifiers. It would have been a good signing with Tebow and it would have been a good signing without Tebow.

MO, why do you insist on harping on this? I know Tebow had nothing to do with signing McGahee. I have explained this distinction several times now.

"Good" is a qualifier. You can't say he was "Good" in hindsight without considering his performance, hence the statement. You really can't say for sure how 'good' the signing would have been without Tebow, all you can do is speculate. Which is what I'm doing.

Not sure why this is causing such pain for you. Sorry, man, I hope there is a butt cream or something for it.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 05:15 PM

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:16 PM

Why has it pissed me off? Because I can't credit a single offensive player with anything without the Tebow brigade jumping in and claiming some sort of "victory."

Tebow didn't make McGahee a good signing.

So, now you are crediting an offensive player? McGahee had nothing to do with signing McGahee.

I think you mean "Tebow didn't make McGahee a signing".

McGahee's performance made the signing Good. His performance was enhanced by the presence of Tebow which helped vault Denver to #1 in rushing.

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 05:21 PM

lmao please keep going this boat is sounding dumber and dumber by the post. Its just about sunk.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:24 PM

lmao please keep going this boat is sounding dumber and dumber by the post. Its just about sunk.

I'm not going anywhere. I've got several hundred days to kill.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 05:26 PM

So, now you are crediting an offensive player? McGahee had nothing to do with signing McGahee.

I think you mean "Tebow didn't make McGahee a signing".

McGahee's performance made the signing Good. His performance was enhanced by the presence of Tebow which helped vault Denver to #1 in rushing.

It's just unbelievable that people have to give credit to Tebow for everything. I can't even say McGahee was a good signing and had a good season without the Tebow brigade coming in and claiming "victory."

I don't even know what your second sentence means.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 05:27 PM

lmao please keep going this boat is sounding dumber and dumber by the post. Its just about sunk.

What's the conspiracy theory of the day?

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:31 PM

It's just unbelievable that people have to give credit to Tebow for everything. I can't even say McGahee was a good signing and had a good season without the Tebow brigade coming in and claiming "victory."

I don't even know what your second sentence means.

If you are going to keep saying this, I will keep denying it. You don't have to give Tebow any credit. Stubborness in the face of all facts doesn't necessarily mean you are correct, though.

I'm not part of the Tebow brigade. I never was. I simply believe in the broncos and like what we did this year. Tebow was the QB for that. So until something changes, I'll be defending the winning Broncos QB.

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 05:51 PM

McGahee got a lot of yards up the gut because of the threat of Tebow yanking the ball away from his belly and running it himself.

Don't be silly Mo.

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

MO isn't arguing WHY McGahee was successful. He IS arguing that the ACTUAL SIGNING ITSELF has ZERO to do w/ Tebow, the OC or even Champ Bailey for that matter. Sure, Tebow, the OC, the OLine all contributed to the actual success. The SIGNING is a separate discussion however...

wayninja

01-22-2012, 05:57 PM

MO isn't arguing WHY McGahee was successful. He IS arguing that the ACTUAL SIGNING ITSELF has ZERO to do w/ Tebow, the OC or even Champ Bailey for that matter. Sure, Tebow, the OC, the OLine all contributed to the actual success. The SIGNING is a separate discussion however...

That's funny, because he was asking why he couldn't credit an offensive player. What offense player had to do with the ACTUAL SIGNING ITSELF exactly?

I guess if MO wants to give credit to McGahee for signing on the dotted line... I'm on board?

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 06:12 PM

MO isn't arguing WHY McGahee was successful. He IS arguing that the ACTUAL SIGNING ITSELF has ZERO to do w/ Tebow, the OC or even Champ Bailey for that matter. Sure, Tebow, the OC, the OLine all contributed to the actual success. The SIGNING is a separate discussion however...

But that ******* obvious, Nobody ever said tebow signed mcgahee. what is this pre school?

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 06:16 PM

But that ******* obvious, Nobody ever said tebow signed mcgahee. what is this pre school?

Apparently it is.

The thread was about team building. I responded with a benign comment about McGahee, and it devolved into HAVING to give credit to Tebow, which is just ridiculous, in and of itself, let alone it had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 06:22 PM

Apparently it is.

The thread was about team building. I responded with a benign comment about McGahee, and it devolved into HAVING to give credit to Tebow, which is just ridiculous, in and of itself, let alone it had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Have you ever gave tebow credit in any thread? No... It was funny watching you dance around and look dumb but it was pointless becasue instead of ending the whole arguement saying tebow helped mcgahee and mcgahee helped tebow you just danced around and said tebow had nothing to do with it because tebow didnt sign mcgahee. a bunch of pre school crap. Goodbye

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 06:29 PM

Have you ever gave tebow credit in any thread? No... It was funny watching you dance around and look dumb but it was pointless becasue instead of ending the whole arguement saying tebow helped mcgahee and mcgahee helped tebow you just danced around and said tebow had nothing to do with it because tebow didnt sign mcgahee. a bunch of pre school crap. Goodbye

you, AGAIN, completely choose to ignore the point.

Regardless of MO's opinion/comments/feelings about Tebow, that has ZERO to do w/ the original topic discussed. Someone else brought Tebow into it and BAM...6 pages of crap.

Set aside your opinion of MO and how he views Tebow and look directly at the topic.If you do that, you'll see there is nothing to dance around. Maybe in another thread...but not on this topic.

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 06:30 PM

But that ******* obvious, Nobody ever said tebow signed mcgahee. what is this pre school?

I agree that it's obvious...but the dude who questioned him apparently didn't feel that way.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 06:39 PM

I agree that it's obvious...but the dude who questioned him apparently didn't feel that way.

What dude would that be?

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 06:43 PM

What dude would that be?

that dude would be u.

:salute:

wayninja

01-22-2012, 06:45 PM

that dude would be u.

:salute:

That's what I thought. Seems like you need to read the thread.

I'll state it for the 4th time since you somehow missed it. I never once said that Tebow had anything to do with signing McGahee. The argument was twisted by MO (and somehow caught you up in that twisting). I asked if Tebow had anything to do with how 'great' (and later 'good) that signing was.

If you can't see this distinction, it's because you want to try to turn the argument into silly semantics...

BroncoNut

01-22-2012, 06:45 PM

This is ridiculous! They should be focused on the upgoing pats game. We still have a shot to win that last saturday!

funny. You are bringing it this afternoon.
thanks for the article Carol. But I was like, what else is there to be focusing on? suppose there could be some things like replacing some staff members.

MOtorboat

01-22-2012, 06:46 PM

bcbronc

01-22-2012, 06:48 PM

Why didn't he have a great game in week 7? What does that have to do with anything? What happened in week 7 that would make him have a great game and why are you focusing on 1 game?

Because that was when Tebow took the helms. If, as you are saying, McGahee was a result of Tebow's threat to run, the results should have been apparent from GM1 with Tebow. Remember, you said something along the lines of the only different variable was Tebow.

I give credit to Willis for his peformance. Have you not been reading?

Oh you do, but you insist on qualifying it as being because of Tebow.

Willis is better than Ball and Moreno. I never disputed that. Again, are you ignoring or just not reading?

so why the insistence on McGahee's success being because of Tebow?

I didn't say this either. Are you having some sort of epileptic fit or something?

so what are you saying then?

The numbers speak for themselves. If you want to dismiss Tebow as a non-factor you are free to do so, I recommend watching the games though.

Tebow certainly was a factor, no doubt about it, never claimed otherwise. All the same, for the benefits brought by Tebow's threat to run, it was offset by the extra man in the box because of Tebow's inconsistent arm.

But I won't say Tebow was the ONLY factor like you are...how did you put it again, "the one single variable"? Sure, Tebow was the "one single variable" that allowed McGahee to have a good season.

Yeah, that 9-9 stat would mean something if Tebow actually started all 18 of those games. Since he didn't, it's simply puzzling why you would say:

ya ya, semantics and you know it. Would the Broncos have ended up 9-9 without McGahee? Of course not. It's not hating on Tebow or stretching reality to say that McGahee was the single most important player on our offense this season.

Tebow made plays, but as much as Tebow's strengths helped out McGahee (and Tebow's weaknesses offset those to a degree), McGahee allowed Tebow to have the success he did.

You are obviously agitated, get your shit together and let me know when you have something coherent to say. Unless you are trying to say that Tebow had something to do with the 1-4 start under Orton, I wouldn't put it past you.

Not agitated at all. Enjoying the banter while watching the CCGs. Stick to arguing semantics though, cuz your position holds no water. But you know that, or else you wouldn't be stuck on the semantics. ;)

Because our other RB's suck. It is plain and simple as that. How many times did JJ get a toss only to bobble the ball. They dance around instead of heading north south. They aren't as physical as McGahee either especially between the tackles.

Exactly. So why would Tebow be given credit for the way Willis performed?

Well the common game where Orton started for the first matchup and Tebow the 2nd was against the Raiders.

Week 1 with a traditional running formation he was 4 carries for 3 yards.
Week 7 he was 20 for 163.

Week 9 actually. And that's what I'm saying. The biggest reason for the improved running game was the gelling of the offense. Tebow was a part of that, he's the quarterback. Willis isn't young, but it was his first season as a Bronco, and the coaches were still figuring out what they had in him (I don't think they intended on giving him as many touches as he got).

My objection is with the Tebow being hailed as the "one single variable" that made our running game effective. It was the entire offense improving as a unit, from Tebow through the other ten players and the coaches. Willis deserves credit for what Willis did.

Insisting McGahee's numbers weren't boosted by Tebow's presence in the line up and scheme changes is disingenuous at best.

imo it's more disingenuous to give all the credit for McGahee's numbers to Tebow.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. McGahee is a 30+ back and as much as Fox runs the ball, we will be going through RB's. Why do you think he had Denagelo and Stewart in CAR? :confused:

Agreed. And just goes to show you, Fox's offense had success running the ball before he had Tebow, heck without a running QB. So why is Tebow the sole reason (the one single variable) for McGahee's success here?

BroncoNut

01-22-2012, 06:59 PM

Yes. I have given Tebow credit when he deserved it. Have you ever not made excuses for him?
He doesn't always make excusses for Tim and you do give Tebow credit sometimes. I remember you telling me at the first tailgate that Cutler was a bust and that Brandstater was our qb of the future. I could say some hurtful things too, but I choose not too.

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 07:01 PM

Cutler IS a bust.

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 07:07 PM

Cutler IS a bust.

Your crazy cutler is way better than tebow and brandstater. Hes a top 15 QB not elite but good enough to win with not that hes maturing.

wayninja

01-22-2012, 07:08 PM

Because that was when Tebow took the helms. If, as you are saying, McGahee was a result of Tebow's threat to run, the results should have been apparent from GM1 with Tebow. Remember, you said something along the lines of the only different variable was Tebow.

So, only the first game matters? I don't understand the point. Very little can be said either way about a single game.

Oh you do, but you insist on qualifying it as being because of Tebow.

Of course I do. That is the whole point of the argument. If I didn't, there would be no discussion.

so why the insistence on McGahee's success being because of Tebow?

You can read for yourself, but I'll summarize; I asked MO if there was anyone else he'd like to credit for McGahee being a 'great' signing (i.e. Tebow or McCoy). MO didn't want to give any credit so I made an argument that there is a logical argument for some credit to be given. It's no different really than giving a different OL player credit when a change in peformance occurs.

so what are you saying then?

I'll repeat it as it's pretty basic and simple. McGahee benefitted from having Tebow as a QB (and McCoy changing the playcalling to accentuate the run more). It improved his performance. I guess once could try to argue WHY it improved, but the argument is simply that it did indeed improve.

Tebow certainly was a factor, no doubt about it, never claimed otherwise. All the same, for the benefits brought by Tebow's threat to run, it was offset by the extra man in the box because of Tebow's inconsistent arm.

But it wasn't offset. I'll gladly admit that McGahee would probably have done EVEN BETTER than he did if Tebow could throw well consistently, but despite having defenses try to stuff the run (and really, it was trying to stuff Tebow since they wouldn't honor the arm), the running game thrived.

But I won't say Tebow was the ONLY factor like you are...how did you put it again, "the one single variable"? Sure, Tebow was the "one single variable" that allowed McGahee to have a good season.

I'll give you this, I was unclear. In my OP, I said McCoy or Tebow, but later said Tebow was the only single variable. What I meant, was that Tebow was the only offensive player single variable. McCoy changing the playcalling was also a factor as well. McGahee did it on his own because he is good, but the environment for him to thrive was greatly improved upon by Tebow's dual-threat and McCoy playcalling to that strength.

ya ya, semantics and you know it. Would the Broncos have ended up 9-9 without McGahee? Of course not. It's not hating on Tebow or stretching reality to say that McGahee was the single most important player on our offense this season.

This is NOT semantics. I genuinely did not know what you were referring to with 9-9 so I gave you the chance to clarify. You chose to be arrrogant and condescending. I'm not a mind reader and there is no attributable stat specific to Tebow that is 9-9 that is obvious to me. If you want to change it to would Tebow be 8-5 without McGahee, I would say no, he probably would not be, but so? I never shied away from giving McGahee credit. I'm simply saying that the presence of both of them was greater than the sum of the parts.

Tebow made plays, but as much as Tebow's strengths helped out McGahee (and Tebow's weaknesses offset those to a degree), McGahee allowed Tebow to have the success he did.

I agree. And never disputed this. I don't mind saying that Tebows rushing success was complimented by McGahee's threat. That's the whole point actually.

Not agitated at all. Enjoying the banter while watching the CCGs. Stick to arguing semantics though, cuz your position holds no water. But you know that, or else you wouldn't be stuck on the semantics. ;)

My position holds water just fine. The stats are there for anyone to view. 24th in rushing to 1st in rushing. That's not 'coincidental'. Also, you should look up what semantics mean.

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 07:16 PM

Your crazy cutler is way better than tebow and brandstater. Hes a top 15 QB not elite but good enough to win with not that hes maturing.

A...I was kidding.

B...You make my prior point for me. When did I ever compare Cutler to Tebow or Brandstater? This is what I often see from you. You jump to conclusions and put words in people's mouths.

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 07:22 PM

A...I was kidding.

B...You make my prior point for me. When did I ever compare Cutler to Tebow or Brandstater? This is what I often see from you. You jump to conclusions and put words in people's mouths.

Well if your going to kid lol or something. So you dont look crazy in the head making comments like that.

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 07:29 PM

Well if your going to kid lol or something. So you dont look crazy in the head making comments like that.

where would the fun be in that?

SmilinAssasSin27

01-22-2012, 07:34 PM

also...I've been around her for a LONG time...even w/ a lot of these members at the site before this one. Most get my sense humor (or lack thereof).

VonSackemMiller

01-22-2012, 07:39 PM

True true.

hamrob

01-22-2012, 08:42 PM

I hope we get a good CB, a good RB, and plenty of depth picks. I think we have a good nucleus of young players on this team.

iLands

01-22-2012, 08:56 PM

I hope we get a good CB, a good RB, and plenty of depth picks. I think we have a good nucleus of young players on this team.

I love that we're back on topic after trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

hotcarl

01-22-2012, 08:58 PM

Your crazy cutler is way better than tebow and brandstater. Hes a top 15 QB not elite but good enough to win with not that hes maturing.

orton was top 15

wayninja

01-23-2012, 12:51 AM

orton was top 15

I'm pretty sure that hotcarls eyeballs being removed by tinypic is one of the signs of the apocalypse. The mayans were right.

VonSackemMiller

01-23-2012, 01:23 AM

orton was top 15

For how long though? he was top 15 during the 6-0 streak. then faded back to the back of the pack. Cutler was a immature bitch when he was here but now that hes maturing hes far far better than orton, i wish we had kept Cutler. :tsk:

WARHORSE

01-23-2012, 06:05 PM

also...I've been around her for a LONG time...even w/ a lot of these members at the site before this one. Most get my sense humor (or lack thereof).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

BWAHAHAHA-BWAHA-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

(feelin encouraged yet assassin?)

BWAHAHAHAHA--CACK-COUGH-CHOKE-GULP-BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!;)

topscribe

01-23-2012, 06:20 PM

For how long though? he was top 15 during the 6-0 streak. then faded back to the back of the pack. Cutler was a immature bitch when he was here but now that hes maturing hes far far better than orton, i wish we had kept Cutler. :tsk:

You overlooked Orton's first 11 games of 2010, when he was near the top in
total yardage, TD:INT, YPA, QBR, etc.

But regarding Cutler, I personally had no problems with his mannerisms when
he was playing for the Broncos. He had his quirks, yes, and he was not a
darling of the press. But he did lead the #2 offense in the league in 2008. I
didn't give a hoot about his little spat with McDaniels. I thought at the time
the wrong guy was sent down the road, that it should have been McDaniels,
if it came down to which of the two. What Cutler did on the field was my
concern, and he was one of the top QBs in the league before he was
shown the door . . .

VonSackemMiller

01-23-2012, 07:01 PM

You overlooked Orton's first 11 games of 2010, when he was near the top in
total yardage, TD:INT, YPA, QBR, etc.

But regarding Cutler, I personally had no problems with his mannerisms when
he was playing for the Broncos. He had his quirks, yes, and he was not a
darling of the press. But he did lead the #2 offense in the league in 2008. I
didn't give a hoot about his little spat with McDaniels. I thought at the time
the wrong guy was sent down the road, that it should have been McDaniels,
if it came down to which of the two. What Cutler did on the field was my
concern, and he was one of the top QBs in the league before he was
shown the door . . .

Um dude im not with those statistics the broncos wasnt the number 2 offense under cutler we were like middle of the pack is scoring offense which is all that matters. Yardage means nothing if your kicking field goals at the end of the drives or turning it over. we averaged about 19 points per game with that GREAT number 2 offense huh? Samethiing with Orton, at the end of the day neither could punch it in once we hit the redzone and both had top ranked offenses in yards but thats meaningless. Cuter was average when we was here, Now hes GOOD, Orton was average when he got here, Bubbled to above average and then fizzled to poor. Pat B botched the whole Cutler situation by allowing Cutler to cry his way out of town and MCD to make any trade regarding cutler with 4-5 months of off season left to build the relationship back up.

topscribe

01-23-2012, 07:08 PM

Um dude im not with those statistics the broncos wasnt the number 2 offense under cutler we were like middle of the pack is scoring offense which is all that matters. Yardage means nothing if your kicking field goals at the end of the drives or turning it over. we averaged about 19 points per game with that GREAT number 2 offense huh? Samethiing with Orton, at the end of the day neither could punch it in once we hit the redzone and both had top ranked offenses in yards but thats meaningless. Cuter was average when we was here, Now hes GOOD, Orton was average when he got here, Bubbled to above average and then fizzled to poor. Pat B botched the whole Cutler situation by allowing Cutler to cry his way out of town and MCD to make any trade regarding cutler with 4-5 months of off season left to build the relationship back up.

That's the thing about the term "average." It has been bandied about on
these boards as if that is something negative. The NFL is the creme-de-la-
creme of football. "Average" in the NFL is pretty damned good. If Orton
and Cutler, therefore, were "average" in the RZ, then that was pretty good.

But, not to be drawn into the usual has-nothing-to-do-with-the-topic
debate, my point was generally in agreement to your wish that we had
kept Cutler.