PDA

View Full Version : Evaluating Chris Simms



SmilinAssasSin27
03-20-2009, 09:15 PM
So I was listening to this XM radio show this morning hosted by this dude who experienced Simms' situation in Tampa first hand(don't know who the host was, but said he roomed with him and is very close to his situation...sorry).

The dude made some interesting points that those who just simply dismiss him because he is Chris Simms may want to consider.

First off, for those who think he couldn't even earn the starting gig in Tampa...Chucky is a dick to players that aren't "his guys". Apparently Simms fit that mold and Chucky refused to play him until he had to. Once he got the rock, he played well until his spleen ruptured. The seaosn he actually got a chance, his completion % was over 61 w/ 10 TD and 7 INTs. Not great, but not terrible for a shortened season in a very bland offense.

Secondly, apparently the Titans tried very hard to get him back and he also had plenty of other suitors. Problem is that they are committed to not admitting that VY was a wasted pick and Simms wanted to go to where he had a legit chance to start...which is the interesting part. Simms had plenty of options and came to Denver...who has Cutler. Did someone know something already?

So our current backup QB has played well when given the chance and had plenty of teams vying for his services...doesn't sound to me like he'd be aterrible option if Cutty were to be traded. Now I know he doesn't have the same skillset, but if McDaniels' system is the real indicator of success, maybe Simms is the right fit for it.

Only time will tell...just food for thought.

nthngd2say
03-20-2009, 09:22 PM
I remember that Simms had some success the one season - they made the playoffs IIRC. I don't think the guy is talentless but he hasn't started a game since 12/2006. That very well could be because of issues with Chucky and not talent. That said, I friggin can't stand Phil Simms. Cornhole.

getlynched47
03-20-2009, 09:28 PM
what is there to evaluate?

He was good PRIOR to getting his spleen removed...but since his magical spleen was removed by the emergency apendectomy, he's sucked.

Magic spleen? I think so...

dogfish
03-20-2009, 11:17 PM
simms is a good backup. . . .

LoyalSoldier
03-20-2009, 11:21 PM
Simm's only decent season was a 10 TD to 7 Int season when he had the #1 defense in the NFL. They lost in the playoffs due to their offensive ineptitude.

Forgive me if I am not overflowing with confidence.

underrated29
03-20-2009, 11:22 PM
I have always like simms. But like Dawgfish said. He is a backup. In our new system he could be a starter, but NEVER ahead of Jay....

Places that chris could succeed on his own imo would be-CHI,MIN,KC-maybe,HOU,BUF.....But who knows, we got him and i am thrilled about it. he is my ideal backup.

From another post, good enough to step in if needed, but not good enough to have us a qb controversy, although that kinda happened on its own.

EMB6903
03-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Simms is a gamer.... He just isnt that bright.... Give him a few years in the system and I'd have no problem if Cutler went down for a couple of games and he took over. But as our starter next year this team wouldnt win 5 games.

56crash
03-20-2009, 11:52 PM
how about he sucks . long ass wind up .

BeefStew25
03-21-2009, 12:10 AM
You are gayer than a Freddie Mercury lookalike.

bud
03-21-2009, 12:15 AM
You are gayer than a Freddie Mercury lookalike.

And, I got a terms of service warning for using the term "crackpot"...

:D

I can't figure it out. :confused:

So, I'll just go with it. :cool:

bullis26
03-21-2009, 01:21 AM
how about he sucks . long ass wind up .

and to everybody else saying chris simms sucks

The guy is tough as hell, he stayed in the game he got ****** up in against Carolina

He's only been a starter for one year, so you cant say he's sucks, your beloved jay wasnt so great his first year as a starter

Shazam!
03-21-2009, 01:35 AM
Every current QB in the NFL not named Manning, Brady, or Cutler apparently sucks. Didn't you know? Where've you been?

LoyalSoldier
03-21-2009, 02:06 AM
and to everybody else saying chris simms sucks

The guy is tough as hell, he stayed in the game he got ****** up in against Carolina

He's only been a starter for one year, so you cant say he's sucks, your beloved jay wasnt so great his first year as a starter

Yea because every other year he played he threw an amazing total of 2 TDs to 10 Ints. The reason he hasn't started is because in a total of 3 starts he sucked and sucked big time since that one good year.

I don't care if he is tough. I know a lot of tough guys who couldn't throw a football accurately to save their lives.


your beloved jay wasnt so great his first year as a starter

9 TDs to 5 Ints. Not bad for a rookie. It beats 1 TD to 7 Ints in Simm's last 3 starts. :tsk:

If you give any QB in the NFL the #1 defense they will win games, but we don't have the #1 defense which is why I don't like the aspect of Simms being the starter. If you think he is going to be amazing you are only setting yourself up for collosal disappointment.

LoyalSoldier
03-21-2009, 02:07 AM
Every current QB in the NFL not named Manning, Brady, or Cutler apparently sucks. Didn't you know? Where've you been?

When it comes to QBs. You are either good or you suck. There isn't a whole lot in the middle thanks to NFL defenses. They pick apart mediocre QBs like a pack of Lions. (Ok maybe I should use a different animals since people associate Lions with sucking this year)

There are still good QBs in the NFL outside of Brady and Manning, but they aren't coming to the Broncos anytime soon.

WARHORSE
03-21-2009, 06:05 AM
and to everybody else saying chris simms sucks

The guy is tough as hell, he stayed in the game he got ****** up in against Carolina

He's only been a starter for one year, so you cant say he's sucks, your beloved jay wasnt so great his first year as a starter



Heres a list of the 32 starting quarterbacks in this league right now;

I put a star next to the names of each of the quarterbacks who have won at least one superbowl.

Anything interesting about the list?


Kurt Warner*

Tom Brady*

Jay Cutler

Ben Roethlesburger*

Donovan McNabb

Joe Flacco

Matt Ryan

Matt Cassell

Matt Schaub

Peyton Manning*

Eli Manning*

Kyle Orton

Carson Palmer

Mark Bulger

Chad Pennington

NY JETS?

Kerry Collins

Brady Quinn/David Anderson

David Garrard

Sage Rosenfels

Aaron Rogers

Trent Edwards

JT O Sullivan

Matt Hasselbeck

Jamarcus Russell

Philip Rivers

Jason Campbell

Daunte Culpepper

Tony Romo

Jake Delhomme

Josh McKown/Garcia/Simms

Drew Brees

SmilinAssasSin27
03-21-2009, 07:57 AM
The only interesting part that I see is that you conveniently made your list so it would exclude Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer...2 average QBs w/ SB rings w/in the last decade.

drewloc
03-21-2009, 08:47 AM
The only interesting part that I see is that you conveniently made your list so it would exclude Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer...2 average QBs w/ SB rings w/in the last decade.

Brad Johnson is a Backup, and I thought Dilfer didn't even play last year? I think he just listed the starters. That said, there is only 5 QB's on the list that have rings.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-21-2009, 09:04 AM
Brad Johnson is a Backup, and I thought Dilfer didn't even play last year? I think he just listed the starters. That said, there is only 5 QB's on the list that have rings.

Yes...only 5 who have rings. Who are currently playing. who are the others w/ SB wins? His "stat" was shown out of convenience for his own argument. Who care if Johnson and Dilfer are no longer starters? They still won SBs, did they not? And both w/in the past 10 years. How bout a certain NY Giants backup vs Buffalo? Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? C'mon man. Don't drink the Kool-aid. There have been plenty of QBs w/ SB wins who weren't "franchise" guys.

And that's not even addressing the names who got their teams there...O'Donnell, Rex frickin Grossman, Delhomme, and so on...

It's also interesting how many franchise QBs on his list or who have retired who DON'T have SB wins.

omac
03-21-2009, 09:42 AM
The only interesting part that I see is that you conveniently made your list so it would exclude Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer...2 average QBs w/ SB rings w/in the last decade.

Not disputing your point at all, as they did win superbowls and weren't all that great as QBs; Dilfer's TD-INT ratios were pretty bad. Both their teams, though, were defensive powerhouses who weren't great on offense. These defensive teams are usually complemented with strong rushing offenses.

If your team is defined by it's defense, like Baltimore, Tampa (before), Chicago, Tennessee, you may not need a franchise QB; you can get by fine with a game manager. Denver's defense with Coyer at the helm was pretty solid, but not comparable defensive powerhouses. Denver's defense post Coyer needs a franchise QB on offense to give the Broncos a chance. We'll see if Nolan can make Denver the Baltimore of the AFC West; who knows? :cheers:

dogfish
03-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Yes...only 5 who have rings. Who are currently playing. who are the others w/ SB wins? His "stat" was shown out of convenience for his own argument. Who care if Johnson and Dilfer are no longer starters? They still won SBs, did they not? And both w/in the past 10 years. How bout a certain NY Giants backup vs Buffalo? Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? C'mon man. Don't drink the Kool-aid. There have been plenty of QBs w/ SB wins who weren't "franchise" guys.




just for fun, let's look at all the QBs that have won rings in the salary cap era (i know that's an arbitrary time period, but IMO it's the best measure of the modern NFL):

steve young (1 ring): HOF
troy aikman (1 ring, 3 total): HOF
brett favre (1 ring): will be HOF
john elway (2 rings): HOF
kurt warner (1 ring): will be an HOF nominee, has a good chance of making it
trent dilfer (1 ring): game manager/scrub
tom brady (3 rings): will be HOF
brad johnson (1 ring): game manager/scrub
ben roethlisbungler (2 rings): debatable, but the stone-cold football pros in pitt gave him a $100 million contract-- that makes him a franchise QB IMO
peyton manning (1 ring): will be HOF
eli manning (1 ring): debatable


take out sheli and cheeseburger for a minute, and you have nine of the other twelve rings won in the salary cap era going to guys who are either already in the hall of fame, or are dead locks to go in on the first ballot when they become eligible, and the tenth going to a guy that's probably going to get in. . . also, the only repeats on that list besides roethisberger are HOF quarterbacks. . . . as omac said, the only two scrub QBs to win rings in this era are guys that rode in on the backs of elite defenses-- one of the two was arguably the best defense of all time. . . .

as for sheli and ben. . . realistically it's too early in their careers to judge, but i think it's fair to say that neither of them is a HOF-type QB on their own merits (although ben could conceivably pull a bradshaw and get in if the squeelers keep winning championships). . . but i'd say they have enough criteria to earn the label "franchise quarterback," at least by my definition. . . to me, franchise quarterback isn't automatically synonomous with elite quarterback. . . i define franchise QB, simply, as a QB that's good enough for a franchise to build around him-- thus, IMO a guy can be a franchise QB without being peyton manning. . .

both ben and eli were top ten draft picks with plenty of hype and the talent to back it up, both have played very well in stretches and still have growth potential, and both have won big games, including the super bowl. . . cheeseburger stunk it up in his first bowl, but he actualy played very well in their other playoff games that year, and manning was excellent when he needed to be in their SB win. . . ben has a giant contract which says that the steelers (one of the league's model organizations, and NOT known for overspending) feel comfortable building around him, and reports are that the G-men are working on a comparable deal for manning. . .

but regardless of where you rank those two, it's very clear that in today's NFL your chances of winning a super bowl are exponentially higher if you have a high level quarterback. . . if you plan on winning it without one, you'd better have an elite defense and hope to catch not a few alllllll the right breaks. . . .

chazoe60
03-21-2009, 03:48 PM
I thought the interesting thing was that other than Eli all the SB winning QBs on the list have a vowel as the second letter in their first name. Also, all of them except Eli have the letter T somewhere in their name.


I'm starting to think Eli never should have won a SB.:laugh:

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 04:18 PM
just for fun, let's look at all the QBs that have won rings in the salary cap era (i know that's an arbitrary time period, but IMO it's the best measure of the modern NFL):

steve young (1 ring): HOF
troy aikman (1 ring, 3 total): HOF
brett favre (1 ring): will be HOF
john elway (2 rings): HOF
kurt warner (1 ring): will be an HOF nominee, has a good chance of making it
trent dilfer (1 ring): game manager/scrub
tom brady (3 rings): will be HOF
brad johnson (1 ring): game manager/scrub
ben roethlisbungler (2 rings): debatable, but the stone-cold football pros in pitt gave him a $100 million contract-- that makes him a franchise QB IMO
peyton manning (1 ring): will be HOF
eli manning (1 ring): debatable


take out sheli and cheeseburger for a minute, and you have nine of the other twelve rings won in the salary cap era going to guys who are either already in the hall of fame, or are dead locks to go in on the first ballot when they become eligible, and the tenth going to a guy that's probably going to get in. . . also, the only repeats on that list besides roethisberger are HOF quarterbacks. . . . as omac said, the only two scrub QBs to win rings in this era are guys that rode in on the backs of elite defenses-- one of the two was arguably the best defense of all time. . . .

as for sheli and ben. . . realistically it's too early in their careers to judge, but i think it's fair to say that neither of them is a HOF-type QB on their own merits (although ben could conceivably pull a bradshaw and get in if the squeelers keep winning championships). . . but i'd say they have enough criteria to earn the label "franchise quarterback," at least by my definition. . . to me, franchise quarterback isn't automatically synonomous with elite quarterback. . . i define franchise QB, simply, as a QB that's good enough for a franchise to build around him-- thus, IMO a guy can be a franchise QB without being peyton manning. . .

both ben and eli were top ten draft picks with plenty of hype and the talent to back it up, both have played very well in stretches and still have growth potential, and both have won big games, including the super bowl. . . cheeseburger stunk it up in his first bowl, but he actualy played very well in their other playoff games that year, and manning was excellent when he needed to be in their SB win. . . ben has a giant contract which says that the steelers (one of the league's model organizations, and NOT known for overspending) feel comfortable building around him, and reports are that the G-men are working on a comparable deal for manning. . .

but regardless of where you rank those two, it's very clear that in today's NFL your chances of winning a super bowl are exponentially higher if you have a high level quarterback. . . if you plan on winning it without one, you'd better have an elite defense and hope to catch not a few alllllll the right breaks. . . .

It seems that many people think that putting journeyman quarterback under center is no big deal, but I beg to differ with them. Can be successful with a journeyman quarterback under center? Sure, provided that he is surrounded by terrific talent on both sides of the ball and that your special teams are solid. Even then I wouldn't be comfortable with game on the line to have to put the game in his hands to win it.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 04:47 PM
The only interesting part that I see is that you conveniently made your list so it would exclude Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer...2 average QBs w/ SB rings w/in the last decade.

True both of those quarterbacks have Super Bowl rings but neither of them was asked win games for their teams. They had both had superb defenses and solid special team. In 2002 Johnson had a good enough year that he was selected to the pro bowl but nonetheless they Buccaneers won with games because their defense and special teams gave Johnson a lot of help.

Certainly a team can win the Super Bowl with journeyman/game manager type quarterback but on the whole it's not often. I think it's also worth mentioning that only one journeyman/game manager type quarterback has ever one more than one Super Bowl and that was Jim Plunkett in 1980 and 1983. So while it's possible to win a Super Bowl with quarterback who doesn't have great skill the odds are if it even happens it will only be once.

bud
03-21-2009, 05:16 PM
Counting Super Bowls is stupid.

Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. He never got the supporting cast he needed to get there. It's fun to pick on Dolphins fans about it; but I know why he didn't get a ring.

The fact that there is a way to win a Super Bowl with a lousy quarterback (like Dilfer) doesn't make me want the Broncos to have a crummy quarterback.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 06:21 PM
Counting Super Bowls is stupid.

Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. He never got the supporting cast he needed to get there. It's fun to pick on Dolphins fans about it; but I know why he didn't get a ring.

The fact that there is a way to win a Super Bowl with a lousy quarterback (like Dilfer) doesn't make me want the Broncos to have a crummy quarterback.

I'm in total agreement with you on not wanting a journeyman quarterback to lead this team, but I think SA's point is that a game manager can win a Super Bowl. But I pointed out, they need great supporting cast to win.

MOtorboat
03-21-2009, 06:42 PM
Counting Super Bowls is stupid.

Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. He never got the supporting cast he needed to get there. It's fun to pick on Dolphins fans about it; but I know why he didn't get a ring.

The fact that there is a way to win a Super Bowl with a lousy quarterback (like Dilfer) doesn't make me want the Broncos to have a crummy quarterback.

I agree.

Super Bowls are stupid.

getlynched47
03-21-2009, 07:10 PM
and to everybody else saying chris simms sucks

The guy is tough as hell, he stayed in the game he got ****** up in against Carolina

He's only been a starter for one year, so you cant say he's sucks, your beloved jay wasnt so great his first year as a starter

His first full season starting was excellent. 20 TD's and 3000+ yards passing is considered a good season :rolleyes:

Chris Simms sucks...deal with it. He has no comparable stats to what Jay Cutler has produced as a starter.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 07:17 PM
His first full season starting was excellent. 20 TD's and 3000+ yards passing is considered a good season :rolleyes:

Chris Simms sucks...deal with it. He has no comparable stats to what Jay Cutler has produced as a starter.

I guess playing with undiagnosed diabetes doesn't show toughness.

MOtorboat
03-21-2009, 07:18 PM
I guess playing with undiagnosed diabetes doesn't show toughness.

Valiant as it is...no...it doesn't. Pouting during crucial parts of crucial games, however...

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 07:51 PM
Valiant as it is...no...it doesn't. Pouting during crucial parts of crucial games, however...

Well yes it is in my opinion.

bullis26
03-21-2009, 08:21 PM
Heres a list of the 32 starting quarterbacks in this league right now;

I put a star next to the names of each of the quarterbacks who have won at least one superbowl.

Anything interesting about the list?


Kurt Warner*

Tom Brady*

Jay Cutler

Ben Roethlesburger*

Donovan McNabb

Joe Flacco

Matt Ryan

Matt Cassell

Matt Schaub

Peyton Manning*

Eli Manning*

Kyle Orton

Carson Palmer

Mark Bulger

Chad Pennington

NY JETS?

Kerry Collins

Brady Quinn/David Anderson

David Garrard

Sage Rosenfels

Aaron Rogers

Trent Edwards

JT O Sullivan

Matt Hasselbeck

Jamarcus Russell

Philip Rivers

Jason Campbell

Daunte Culpepper

Tony Romo

Jake Delhomme

Josh McKown/Garcia/Simms

Drew Brees

that theres no star by cutler

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 08:29 PM
Heres a list of the 32 starting quarterbacks in this league right now;

I put a star next to the names of each of the quarterbacks who have won at least one superbowl.

Anything interesting about the list?


Kurt Warner*

Tom Brady*

Jay Cutler

Ben Roethlesburger*

Donovan McNabb

Joe Flacco

Matt Ryan

Matt Cassell

Matt Schaub

Peyton Manning*

Eli Manning*

Kyle Orton

Carson Palmer

Mark Bulger

Chad Pennington

NY JETS?

Kerry Collins

Brady Quinn/David Anderson

David Garrard

Sage Rosenfels

Aaron Rogers

Trent Edwards

JT O Sullivan

Matt Hasselbeck

Jamarcus Russell

Philip Rivers

Jason Campbell

Daunte Culpepper

Tony Romo

Jake Delhomme

Josh McKown/Garcia/Simms

Drew Brees

well, there are a few unprovens in there. I'm sorry, I dont' think that was what I was supposed to find interesting.

getlynched47
03-21-2009, 08:40 PM
that theres no star by cutler

Cutler wont be getting a ring anytime soon with the 28th ranked defense and an inconsistant running game helping him out :coffee:

MOtorboat
03-21-2009, 08:42 PM
Heres a list of the 32 starting quarterbacks in this league right now;

I put a star next to the names of each of the quarterbacks who have won at least one superbowl.

Anything interesting about the list?


Kurt Warner*

Tom Brady*

Jay Cutler

Ben Roethlesburger*

Donovan McNabb*

Joe Flacco*

Matt Ryan*

Matt Cassell*

Matt Schaub

Peyton Manning*

Eli Manning*

Kyle Orton*

Carson Palmer*

Mark Bulger*

Chad Pennington*

NY JETS?

Kerry Collins*

Brady Quinn/David Anderson*

David Garrard*

Sage Rosenfels

Aaron Rogers

Trent Edwards

JT O Sullivan

Matt Hasselbeck*

Jamarcus Russell

Philip Rivers*

Jason Campbell*

Daunte Culpepper*

Tony Romo*

Jake Delhomme*

Josh McKown/Garcia*/Simms

Drew Brees*

Let's star the players who have played in the playoffs...wait, you mean Cutler isn't one of them?

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 08:47 PM
Cutler wont be getting a ring anytime soon with the 28th ranked defense and an inconsistant running game helping him out :coffee:

hey there hold on. Look at some of the greats that made it happen :rollseyes: 3 years in the league with crappy playcalling and a shiddy d. c'mon

getlynched47
03-21-2009, 08:48 PM
hey there hold on. Look at some of the greats that made it happen :rollseyes: 3 years in the league with crappy playcalling and a shiddy d. c'mon

click that link in my Sig.

Cutler is one of the last people you should blame for us not making the playoffs the past 2 years...

And anybody who says otherwise doesnt know their football...

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 08:58 PM
click that link in my Sig.

Cutler is one of the last people you should blame for us not making the playoffs the past 2 years...

And anybody who says otherwise doesnt know their football...

Kirwan makes good on that article imo. that's pretty much what I saw in Cutler last year. Football can be kinda a hard game to watch on T.V at times in that you don't see the field and the longer running routes. I think Jay's weakness is in checking down his field, but I surmise that that will improve with coaching and experience. i count on him to have a very successful career.

getlynched47
03-21-2009, 09:00 PM
Kirwan makes good on that article imo. that's pretty much what I saw in Cutler last year. Football can be kinda a hard game to watch on T.V at times in that you don't see the field and the longer running routes. I think Jay's weakness is in checking down his field, but I surmise that that will improve with coaching and experience. i count on him to have a very successful career.

With McDaniels coaching Cutler...the skies the limit for Jay.

I hope this mess gets fixed that doesnt involve Cutler getting traded...because our franchise needs him more than he needs the Broncos.

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 09:01 PM
With McDaniels coaching Cutler...the skies the limit for Jay.

I hope this mess gets fixed that doesnt involve Cutler getting traded...because our franchise needs him more than he needs the Broncos.

the sad thing is is that McDaniel's doesn't like Cutler.

getlynched47
03-21-2009, 09:02 PM
the sad thing is is that McDaniel's doesn't like Cutler.

And Cutler rightfully hates McDaniels...

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 09:03 PM
And Cutler rightfully hates McDaniels...

Yep. That's why I think it's best for Jay to be traded.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 09:24 PM
the sad thing is is that McDaniel's doesn't like Cutler.

They don't have to like each other to be successful as a tandem.

rcsodak
03-21-2009, 09:38 PM
I have always like simms. But like Dawgfish said. He is a backup. In our new system he could be a starter, but NEVER ahead of Jay....

Places that chris could succeed on his own imo would be-CHI,MIN,KC-maybe,HOU,BUF.....But who knows, we got him and i am thrilled about it. he is my ideal backup.

From another post, good enough to step in if needed, but not good enough to have us a qb controversy, although that kinda happened on its own.

I agree.

And since when is it bad to have a capable backup? When was the last time denver had one? Kubiak?

Teams NEED capable backups. And even though he sucked at TU, I think he's been in the NFL long enough to have learned a thing or two.

He's sure as hell better than Ramsey!

LoyalSoldier
03-21-2009, 09:42 PM
that theres no star by cutler

There ain't a defense either. There isn't a single QB who has a winning record when the defense gives up 30+ points. Not a single one! Yet Cutler had to deal with that 9 times last season. That is more than half the games and by some miracle we won 8.

rcsodak
03-21-2009, 09:45 PM
There ain't a defense either. There isn't a single QB who has a winning record when the defense gives up 30+ points. Not a single one! Yet Cutler had to deal with that 9 times last season. That is more than half the games and by some miracle we won 8.

It's not like the opposing teams scored at will, LS. And throwing pick-6's didn't help his cause, nor his red-zone int's.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 09:47 PM
There ain't a defense either. There isn't a single QB who has a winning record when the defense gives up 30+ points. Not a single one! Yet Cutler had to deal with that 9 times last season. That is more than half the games and by some miracle we won 8.

There were years in Elway's career where the defense was bad and his stats suffered as well as the team's record.

BroncoNut
03-21-2009, 09:52 PM
They don't have to like each other to be successful as a tandem.

they're both inexperienced, that's the problem. But you are right.

MOtorboat
03-21-2009, 09:57 PM
There were years in Elway's career where the defense was bad and his stats suffered as well as the team's record.

Amazingly he still made it to the Super Bowl. :noidea:

Guess its time to get rid of the ridiculous idea that Cutler is really worth much...:noidea:

SmilinAssasSin27
03-21-2009, 10:00 PM
It seems that many people think that putting journeyman quarterback under center is no big deal, but I beg to differ with them. Can be successful with a journeyman quarterback under center? Sure, provided that he is surrounded by terrific talent on both sides of the ball and that your special teams are solid. Even then I wouldn't be comfortable with game on the line to have to put the game in his hands to win it.

I agree 100% that the team needs to be complete, but there are also plenty of examples of complete teams winning SBs w/ less than spectacular QBs. I never said Simms was leading the way to the SB in 2009...but I also wouldn't say it about Cutler. Denver's TEAM isn't ready for prime time regardless of who the QB is..jmho.

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 10:03 PM
Amazingly he still made it to the Super Bowl. :noidea:

Guess its time to get rid of the ridiculous idea that Cutler is really worth much...:noidea:

Wow you mean Denver got the Super Bowl when the went 5-11 in 1990? I don't know that seems like a bit of stretch.

MOtorboat
03-21-2009, 10:07 PM
Wow you mean Denver got the Super Bowl when the went 5-11 in 1990? I don't know that seems like a bit of stretch.

So cherry picking Elway's one bad season...solid argument...

TXBRONC
03-21-2009, 10:11 PM
So cherry picking Elway's one bad season...solid argument...

Apparently you didn't read my initial post. I said that Elway's stats suffered as well as the team's record when defense was poor. So yes that is solid argument, whether or not you agree.

LoyalSoldier
03-21-2009, 10:34 PM
So cherry picking Elway's one bad season...solid argument...

Actually it was your fault for arguing something that has nothing to do with what he said.....

LoyalSoldier
03-21-2009, 10:37 PM
It's not like the opposing teams scored at will, LS.

What team were you watching last year?


And throwing pick-6's didn't help his cause, nor his red-zone int's.

No, but historically a bad defense actually causes more turnovers for the offense because the defense constantly puts the offense in bad situations.

rcsodak
03-22-2009, 12:13 AM
Amazingly he still made it to the Super Bowl. :noidea:

Guess its time to get rid of the ridiculous idea that Cutler is really worth much...:noidea:

He is, though.

Picks and/or players! :D

rcsodak
03-22-2009, 12:21 AM
What team were you watching last year?



No, but historically a bad defense actually causes more turnovers for the offense because the defense constantly puts the offense in bad situations.

The same team you were, I believe.

And that 'bad defense causes offensive turnovers' theme doesn't cut it with me. They go out there to score points, REGARDLESS of the score. C'mon, LS... wink

LoyalSoldier
03-22-2009, 12:35 AM
The same team you were, I believe.

And that 'bad defense causes offensive turnovers' theme doesn't cut it with me. They go out there to score points, REGARDLESS of the score. C'mon, LS... wink

Just think about it from a statistical point of view. If an offense has to drive an average of 90 yards to score on average they have to run more plays do they not? More plays means more opportunities for something to go wrong and it also means it gives the other defense more time to figure out what you are trying to do. The shorter the field you have to work with the more likely you will score.

Also if the offense is pressured to score because the defense gave up 3 straight TDs that means that younger players try to do too much.

When I was playing football two years ago my coach actually showed an interesting statistic that when a defense is failing the offense is 43% more likely to turn the ball over and make things worse.

Shazam!
03-22-2009, 01:14 AM
A horrendous bottom-feeding defense will affect production on offense. Fact.

TXBRONC
03-22-2009, 09:03 PM
A horrendous bottom-feeding defense will affect production on offense. Fact.

It sure can especially when your defense allows opponents to make about 60% of their 3rd down conversions.

rcsodak
03-22-2009, 09:44 PM
A horrendous bottom-feeding defense will affect production on offense. Fact.

Bullrubish!

Have you not watched Indy over the last umpteen years? Where they had a below average defense, but STILL were able to win games?
The difference?
QB!

Indy has/had such a prolific offense, that they would FORCE other teams to outscore them. Even when Indy's defense was subpar, they would get stops/int's because the other team was being forced to throw to stay in the race.

Ya'll need to get off this blaming every bad thing that's happened to cut-n-run'er on the defense. He's AT LEAST a 1/3 of the problem. Period.

dogfish
03-22-2009, 10:07 PM
Bullrubish!

Have you not watched Indy over the last umpteen years? Where they had a below average defense, but STILL were able to win games?
The difference?
QB!

Indy has/had such a prolific offense, that they would FORCE other teams to outscore them. Even when Indy's defense was subpar, they would get stops/int's because the other team was being forced to throw to stay in the race.

Ya'll need to get off this blaming every bad thing that's happened to cut-n-run'er on the defense. He's AT LEAST a 1/3 of the problem. Period.



of course, in PAYton's first three years the team was only two games over .500-- they did make the playoffs two of those three years, but having the NFL rushing champion both of those years didn't exactly hurt, either. . .

you know it wasn't until manning's sixth year in the league that he had a season where he turned the ball over less than seventeen times?

absolutely cutler's PART of the problem. . . but he also set multiple franchise passing records and made an awful lot of plays-- how many third and longs did we convert last year where in seasons past we would've just run the ball and then punted? the defense, on the other hand, was possibly the worst this franchise has ever fielded-- they were challenging records for futility! IMO, lettin' those bums off with only 66% of the blame is going far too easy on them, but that's JMO. . . .

*shrugs*

hamrob
03-22-2009, 10:11 PM
I like Simms and always have. I think in the right system he can be a probowl qb. However, he does lack the sexiness of a Cutler. In other words, he's blue collar without alot of pizzaz. In alot of ways...I'd compare him to Cassell...maybe even a step above.

hamrob
03-22-2009, 10:15 PM
Yes...only 5 who have rings. Who are currently playing. who are the others w/ SB wins? His "stat" was shown out of convenience for his own argument. Who care if Johnson and Dilfer are no longer starters? They still won SBs, did they not? And both w/in the past 10 years. How bout a certain NY Giants backup vs Buffalo? Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? C'mon man. Don't drink the Kool-aid. There have been plenty of QBs w/ SB wins who weren't "franchise" guys.

And that's not even addressing the names who got their teams there...O'Donnell, Rex frickin Grossman, Delhomme, and so on...

It's also interesting how many franchise QBs on his list or who have retired who DON'T have SB wins.O.K....that's 20%.....Wow!

Yeah....that's what I want!

Shazam!
03-22-2009, 10:20 PM
I'd take any Colts defense over the last few years over Denver.

LoyalSoldier
03-23-2009, 01:23 AM
Bullrubish!

Have you not watched Indy over the last umpteen years? Where they had a below average defense, but STILL were able to win games?
The difference?
QB!

Indy has/had such a prolific offense, that they would FORCE other teams to outscore them. Even when Indy's defense was subpar, they would get stops/int's because the other team was being forced to throw to stay in the race.

Ya'll need to get off this blaming every bad thing that's happened to cut-n-run'er on the defense. He's AT LEAST a 1/3 of the problem. Period.

However the problem with the Indy defense has been their rushing defense. They actually play good passing defense do to their scheme. So if Peyton gets a lead the defense was able to slow down the other team enough to get a win. Also the Colts defense has been able to get turnovers unlike our mess of a defense.

Trusting Denver's defense last year was like trusting Vista's virus protection. You know your going to get screwed sooner or later.

Shazam!
03-23-2009, 01:29 AM
I got Vista now and have experienced not a problem...

I'd take any Indianapolis defense any year in Peyton's tenure than what the Broncos have fielded over the last 2 seasons. You couldn't even feel relief when the opponents came out of the huddle on 2nd and 23. A disgrace. They made the 94 Broncos look like world beaters, and I never thought I'd see a worse defense than that.

LoyalSoldier
03-23-2009, 01:34 AM
I got Vista now and have experienced not a problem...

While I am not going to get into it here. I was talking about how it was stupid to use window's virus protection since it is the crappiest on the market.

Though Vista is not a great OS and has plenty of problems that casual users never run into. If you want to discuss it make a thread in the off-topic section and I will be glad to explain why I hate Vista.


I'd take any Indianapolis defense any year in Peyton's tenure than what the Broncos have fielded over the last 2 seasons. You couldn't even feel relief when they came out of the huddle on 2nd and 23. A disgrace. They made the 94 Broncos look like world beaters, and I never thought I'd see a worse defense than that.

No kidding. I was watching a replay of the Broncos games from this season and I saw us blow a 3rd and 34!

TXBRONC
03-23-2009, 06:42 AM
While I am not going to get into it here. I was talking about how it was stupid to use window's virus protection since it is the crappiest on the market.

Though Vista is not a great OS and has plenty of problems that casual users never run into. If you want to discuss it make a thread in the off-topic section and I will be glad to explain why I hate Vista.



No kidding. I was watching a replay of the Broncos games from this season and I saw us blow a 3rd and 34!

If I'm not mistaken our defense was letting opposing offenses convert 3rd downs to the tune of 60% or somewhere in that neighborhood. Against the Jaguars it was 70%!