System QBs vs. Gunslingers- Good Read

[Shazam!]

A good read.


System QBs more valuable than gunslingers
The Sporting News
Apr 13, 2009

In the wake of the recent Jay Cutler saga, the general consensus around the league is that the Broncos and first year head coach Josh McDaniels made a serious mistake in giving up a young franchise quarterback for a couple of draft picks, No.18 overall pick this year, another first - round pick in 2010, a third - round pick this year, and a supposed scrub in former Bears quarterback, Kyle Orton.

For his part, McDaniels seems to think that the Broncos can be competitive with either Orton or Chris Simms, the only other quarterback on Denver’s roster, under center in 2009. This stems mostly from the belief that Orton and Simms, both of who are generally viewed around the league as “game managers,” are better fits in McDaniel’s offensive system, as opposed to a reckless gunslinger ala Jay Cuter. Apparently, McDaniels isn’t the only head coach in the NFL who feels this way. The New York Daily News reported that it was widely rumored new Jets head coach Rex Ryan would rather have Brett Ratliff than Brett Favre:

“Clearly, Rex Ryan didn’t want Favre, despite saying just the opposite last week. Ryan was hired on Jan. 19. Favre retired on Feb. 11. Not once did Ryan reach out to Favre and try to persuade him to play, claiming he didn’t feel it was appropriate. If Ryan wanted Favre, he would have called him or shown up on his doorstep in Hattiesburg. The first time they spoke is when Favre called to say that he was done…”

To the casual football fan, it may seem absurd, choosing a relatively obscure “system” quarterback over a future first ballot hall of famer, yet both McDaniels and Ryan have merit in the reasoning behind their respective decisions.

In New York, we know that Ryan has already publicly stated that the team will continue to use Brian Schottenheimer’s offense from the past season – a conservative system that is predicated around running the football and a high percentage of completions in the short and intermediate passing game, where field position and time of possession is of the highest priority.

In contrast, McDaniel’s offense, the same one that was responsible for Tom Brady’s record setting MVP season in 2007 as well as the emergence of Matt Cassel a year later, is an intricate pass happy system that is largely dependent on a quarterback’s ability to understand it’s terminology as well as being able to make last second adjustments at the line of scrimmage.

Despite the apparent differences, the Jets and Broncos do share something in common: both teams will rely heavily on their respective quarterbacks making good decisions and not turning the ball over. Keeping that in mind, here is what the “football scientist” KC Joyner, author of the book Blindsided: Why the Left Tackle is Overrated and Other Contrarian Football Thoughts, had to say about Favre and Cutler:

"The comparison (between Cutler and Favre) is apt on many levels. Both are vertically inclined gunslingers who had a pretty solid set of receivers and pass catching tight ends last season.

So how did they fare against each other? Let’s start by looking at each of their yard per attempt (YPA) gained by depth level.

Short passes (0-9 yards) – Cutler 6.2, Favre 5.8

Medium passes (10-19 yards) – Cutler 8.8 Favre 9.5

Deep passes (20-29 yards) – Cutler 11.2, Favre 9.6

Bomb passes (30+ yards) – Cutler 11.9, Favre 9.1??Overall YPA – Cutler 7.3, Favre 6.5

Vertical passes (medium, deep and bomb combined totals) – Cutler 9.8, Favre 9.5

Cutler was better than Favre in four of the five categories, but a lot of his overall YPA lead was built on short passes. He led Favre by only .3 of a yard on the longer passes despite presumably having better vertical targets than Favre (I say presumably because I’m of the mind-set that Brandon Marshall is the most overrated wide out in the NFL).

Another way to look at this is to put Cutler’s totals into a league wide perspective. The median overall YPA for QBs last year was 7.0 and the median vertical pass YPA was 10.1. Cutler was only slightly better than average in overall YPA and was slightly worse in the vertical category.

Those numbers take into account Cutler’s potential upside, but we can’t forget the risk-taking downside. I use two categories to measure this. The first is the combined interception/near interception total (a near interception being a pass that was almost picked off).

Interceptions/near interceptions – Cutler 51 (8.1%), Favre 44 (8.0%)

Their percentage is almost identical, so Cutler isn’t much of an upgrade here.

Last but certainly not least is the bad decision metric. Bad decisions are defined as when the quarterback does something ill-advised with the ball that leads to either a turnover or a near turnover. Some common instances of this include staring at receivers and not seeing linebackers in a passing lane.

Here are their totals in that category:

Bad decisions – Cutler 30 (4.6%), Favre 21 (3.7%)

This shows that Cutler is an even higher risk taker than Favre and that those risks lead to costly plays (or nearly costly plays) more often.

So to summarize, Cutler had better deep pass catchers and yet barely topped Favre in downfield passing. He also had more interceptions/near interceptions and made risky throws much more often."

While Favre may have won a Super Bowl, it is worth mentioning that it was 12 years ago. Since then, his passer rating in his last 12 postseason games has been a mediocre 77.8. In his last five wild-card games, he went 2-3 with more interceptions (nine) than touchdown passes (seven). In his last three divisional playoff games, he went 1-2 with seven touchdowns and seven interceptions. That’s a 3-5 record with 14 touchdown passes and 16 picks.

Favre also owns the distinction of being the only quarterback in the history of the league to throw overtime interceptions in two playoff games. One to Brian Dawkins of the Philadelphia Eagles back in 2003, and more recently, one to Corey Webster of the New York Giants in 2007. The most telling statistic: In his last nine playoff games, Favre threw 18 interceptions. Meanwhile, according to Joyner’s stats, Cutler, who has yet to play in the post season, is even worse than Favre, at least in terms of taking risks than often result in costly plays.

Not to say that this is a knock on Favre, who undoubtedly has enjoyed a hall of fame career, or even Cutler, who had the misfortune of playing with a defense that ranked statistically amongst the worst in NFL history this past season.

What this does say; however, is that “system quarterbacks” like Brett Ratliff may be more valuable to coaches than fans realize and that the whole “Kyle Orton versus Jay Cutler” argument isn’t as absurd as it seems after all.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/alex.lim1006/189073

[omac]

I think most people will agree that the ultimate system QB, Montana, was better than the ultimate gunslinger, Elway.

It is too bad that the Sporting News article couldn't do more research and going into greater depth, comparing system QBs and gunslingers at both the elite level and the average level in NFL history.

The truth about "system" is that some QBs are better suited to one type of system, and others are better suited to another type. While it used to be the "in" thing to not consider a draft prospect, because he was labeled as a system QB, now it's the in thing to be a system QB.

Montana was a perfect fit in Walsh's WCO, and was brought up slowly by Walsh, while Elway became the perfect fit for Shanahan's version of Walsh's WCO. It's always good to find a QB who fits the current system. In contrast, Cassel may be a perfect fit for McDaniels' system, yet he'd be a bad fit for offenses needing a QB with great mobility. He probably wouldn't do too well, either, for a traditional Raider offense as well.

[topscribe]

I think most people will agree that the ultimate system QB, Montana, was better than the ultimate gunslinger, Elway.

It is too bad that the Sporting News article couldn't do more research and going into greater depth, comparing system QBs and gunslingers at both the elite level and the average level in NFL history.

The truth about "system" is that some QBs are better suited to one type of system, and others are better suited to another type. While it used to be the "in" thing to not consider a draft prospect, because he was labeled as a system QB, now it's the in thing to be a system QB.

Montana was a perfect fit in Walsh's WCO, and was brought up slowly by Walsh, while Elway became the perfect fit for Shanahan's version of Walsh's WCO. It's always good to find a QB who fits the current system. In contrast, Cassel may be a perfect fit for McDaniels' system, yet he'd be a bad fit for offenses needing a QB with great mobility. He probably wouldn't do too well, either, for a traditional Raider offense as well.

Actually, I have seen debates and polls between Montana and Elway for a few
years now, and most do not believe Montana was better than Elway, from
what I have observed. It has seemed somewhat of a toss-up.

Also, I personally do not believe Elway was the "ultimate gunslinger." He found
himself all too often having to carry his team. When his team allowed him to
manage it, that is what he did. Elway didn't "sling" . . . he just did what he
had to, to win.

-----

[sneakers]

I still hate Tom Brady.

[omac]

Actually, I have seen debates and polls between Montana and Elway for a few
years now, and most do not believe Montana was better than Elway, from
what I have observed. It has seemed somewhat of a toss-up.

Also, I personally do not believe Elway was the "ultimate gunslinger." He found
himself all too often having to carry his team. When his team allowed him to
manage it, that is what he did. Elway didn't "sling" . . . he just did what he
had to, to win.

-----

As is usually the case, I don't disagree with your reasoning at all. :salute:

The writer of the article seems to have a very narrow perspective. Truth is, some QBs tend to either like taking more risks, while others gravitate towards being more risk averse. While some fans don't want a QB who isn't afraid of taking risks, others don't like QBs who play it safe. The grass is always greener on the other side. A more balanced team would make a risk-taking QB more conservative, while a less balanced team would make a risk-averse QB more likely to take more chances. We've seen that first hand with Elway. :cheers:

[omac]

I still hate Tom Brady.

Hehehe, the guy is a sure fire, first ballot HOF'er. It's gotta hurt that he'll probably enter the HOF before TD, if he ever does. :D

[Dirk]

Great read Shazam!

However, it is an article that is faulty simply because Favre had the experience over Cutler. Meaning, Favre had been around the block and has been against many a defense and had the chance to "learn" so to speak from it. Cutty was a 2.5ish year guy.

The comparisons to the style of play I agree with. But there is no way for these stats to ever be considered an accurate measure between the two.

As we have discussed on this board a time or two, if they both had the same defense, wide receivers, tight ends and o-line, then you can compare the two.

Anyway, I'm not on Cutty's jock strap here, I just thought that it was a great read with a lot of flaws.

I for one am looking forward to a more conservative style QB in Orton if it means more wins. I think as long as McD is in town, the days of the total "excitement" are gone.

It will be simply a Win or a Loss on sunday. No real heroics from our offense. But that is just my oppinion.

[Northman]

Actually, I have seen debates and polls between Montana and Elway for a few
years now, and most do not believe Montana was better than Elway, from
what I have observed. It has seemed somewhat of a toss-up.

Also, I personally do not believe Elway was the "ultimate gunslinger." He found
himself all too often having to carry his team. When his team allowed him to
manage it, that is what he did. Elway didn't "sling" . . . he just did what he
had to, to win.

-----


Great post.

[frenchfan]

Actually, I have seen debates and polls between Montana and Elway for a few
years now, and most do not believe Montana was better than Elway, from
what I have observed. It has seemed somewhat of a toss-up.

Also, I personally do not believe Elway was the "ultimate gunslinger." He found
himself all too often having to carry his team. When his team allowed him to
manage it, that is what he did. Elway didn't "sling" . . . he just did what he
had to, to win.

-----And Elway succeded in different O schemes, which was not the case for Montana... Joe had better reads IMO, but John had better physical tools (arm and so on). Both were terrific when it came to win a game.

Well... I don't know if it's better to have a gunslinger or a system QB... The most important is to have a TEAM and systems that fits this team.

And IMO, you have good or bad QB, period...
Some could argue that Brady is a perfect system QB... I don't know... But what I know (and I hate to say it) is that Brady is a damn great QB... I would have loved to see him coming here with McD ;) :D

[Dirk]

Well... I don't know if it's better to have a gunslinger or a system QB... The most important is to have a TEAM and systems that fits this team.

Agreed. But also, once Denver decided to build the offense around Elway's abilities plus give him a top notch running game with TD, they win two SBs.

So I guess it really has a lot to do with providing a QB with the type of offense that suits their needs and style of play.

[omac]

Agreed. But also, once Denver decided to build the offense around Elway's abilities plus give him a top notch running game with TD, they win two SBs.

So I guess it really has a lot to do with providing a QB with the type of offense that suits their needs and style of play.

That's the bottom line, isn't it. The system has to fit the player, and the player has to fit the system.

Some coaches look at the strengths of the current team, and build a system around those strengths, while others look for players that would fit the system they want to build. Both approaches could work. On offense, Shanahan was more a proponent of the former, while McDaniels is more a proponent of the latter.

[frenchfan]

Agreed. But also, once Denver decided to build the offense around Elway's abilities plus give him a top notch running game with TD, they win two SBs.

So I guess it really has a lot to do with providing a QB with the type of offense that suits their needs and style of play.Anyway, Elway showed that a great QB is great in any system... I mean, he played 3 SBs with Reeves system (which was not a WCO if I remember correctly).

But I do agree with you that the system and the players around the QB are very important... The goal is to make the players the best they can be ;)

:beer:

[Dean]

I think most people will agree that the ultimate system QB, Montana, was better than the ultimate gunslinger, Elway.


Given the same talent supporting them, I believe Elway is the superior QB. I am sure that John Elway could win in the West Coast offense with decent surrouning talent. After all, he won 2 Super Bowls running it. Could Montana have won in Denver pre-Shanahan in any system with the surrounding cast that was present? I doubt it, but as we all saw John did.

[Nomad]

Agreed. But also, once Denver decided to build the offense around Elway's abilities plus give him a top notch running game with TD, they win two SBs.

So I guess it really has a lot to do with providing a QB with the type of offense that suits their needs and style of play.

Terrel Davis was God sent for Elway!!!

[omac]

Given the same talent supporting them, I believe Elway is the superior QB. I am sure that John Elway could win in the West Coast offense with decent surrouning talent. After all, he won 2 Super Bowls running it. Could Montana have won in Denver pre-Shanahan in any system with the surrounding cast that was present? I doubt it, but as we all saw John did.

I agree; the article, though, does not take into consideration other factors. It just basically tries to convince the reader that what they perceive as a system QB is more valuable than what they perceive to be a gunslinger.

[Fan in Exile]

I know that somone out there has done a study on how much INTs hurt a team. The conclusion they came to was that you have to make something like seven great plays to make up for one INT. IIRC

Has anyone else seen this study do you know who did it?

[frenchfan]

I agree; the article, though, does not take into consideration other factors. It just basically tries to convince the reader that what they perceive as a system QB is more valuable than what they perceive to be a gunslinger.Personnaly, I don't care... Gunslinger... System QB...

What I want is a QB that leads us to a SB win... Even if is name is Trent Dilfer (the worst QB I've seen winning a SB :D)

[Superchop 7]

John forced the defense to account for him (usually a spy)

When the defense has to game plan because of your physical abilities you have an edge.

The rest is decision-making.

They are "all" systems QB's, plays break down for every QB in the league.

The difference is......some guys can get superbowls......some guys can throw for 4500 yards.

But most can't.

This is why elite QB's win superbowls, they change the defense, they gain an edge.

[omac]

Personnaly, I don't care... Gunslinger... System QB...

What I want is a QB that leads us to a SB win... Even if is name is Trent Dilfer (the worst QB I've seen winning a SB :D)

Hehehe, but we both know that in order to win a superbowl with Trent Dilfer as our QB, our defense has to be as good as those Ravens were, something Denver's defense hasn't been in a really long time. :D

[omac]

John forced the defense to account for him (usually a spy)

When the defense has to game plan because of your physical abilities you have an edge.

The rest is decision-making.

They are "all" systems QB's, plays break down for every QB in the league.

The difference is......some guys can get superbowls......some guys can throw for 4500 yards.

But most can't.

This is why elite QB's win superbowls, they change the defense, they gain an edge.

Very true; but John could not win a superbowl until he had the supporting cast to do so. The first superbowl John won was more through riding the back of TD. Favre had a much better superbowl performance than Elway. Our defense wasn't Steelers-great, but they were pretty solid.

Another thing to look at in the stats is Denver's defense in the earlier part of John's career. They didn't get enough credit, because they kept getting killed in the superbowl, but during the regular season, and against AFC teams in the playoffs, they were pretty solid. Check out their takeaways, and you'll see they were for the most part pretty good.

They didn't seem to stand much of a chance against the huge linemen in the NFC, though, like those hogs of the Redskins. :D

[broncofaninfla]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better off having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working.

[Fan in Exile]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better of having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working.

I don't think anyone looking at the Pat's O-line would say that they had optimized it. They're good but not HOF level guys. So I would say that when we have more success we can thank Harris and Clady and even Daniel Graham.

[broncofaninfla]

I don't think anyone looking at the Pat's O-line would say that they had optimized it. They're good but not HOF level guys. So I would say that when we have more success we can thank Harris and Clady and even Daniel Graham.

They were good enough, remember they were undefeated going into the Super Bowl. I agree we are better off on the oline but make no mistake about it, Cutlers strength and mobility helped lessen the sacks last year as well.

[omac]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better of having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working.

Yup. To support your point, a lot of people heavily criticize Ben Roethlisburger for holding on to the ball too long, and trying too hard to force a play, yet it was those traits ... his hard-headedness, his scrambling, the way it's difficult to bring him down .. those same traits that can hurt his team has also helped them towards winning a superbowl.

Funny you mentioned that powerful Brady offense. During the superbowl, I was thinking how they'd benefit if they took some of Denver's plays to move the pocket in order to not give the Giants a steady target.

Honestly, against that Giants defense, I think the best way to protect the QB is through a good mix of heavy rushing. Calling a lot of pass plays against them only gets your QB plastered. They could've also used a better blocking TE ... say Daniel Graham. :D

[omac]

They were good enough, remember they were undefeated going into the Super Bowl. I agree we are better off on the oline but make no mistake about it, Cutlers strength and mobility helped lessen the sacks last year as well.

Yeah, that one against the Chiefs where he was in his own endzone faking a handoff, then when he turns around, there's a Chiefs player heading straight at him; he sidesteps him, then delivers a bullet to Tony Scheffler for a 1st down. :D

[Dreadnought]

One other point to mention. A ball control "system" QB would have likely netted us 3-4 wins in 2008. Why? Field position was irrelevant with Bob Slowick's defensive squad taking the field. The difference between giving the opposing team a 50 or 80 yard field to work with was likely going to be only a matter of how many yards their offense netted before scoring. There simply was no choice but for the offense to gamble constantly, because no lead was safe, and no hole deep enough for the opponent's offense. In that scenario turnovers aren't that big a deal, because a punt is nearly as bad as a fumble or pick. In retrospect that 8-8 record last year was damned near miraculous.

[omac]

Btw, since someone mentioned OL, from reading some of McDaniels comments in an article, I have suspicions that ther might be some personnel changes; he didn't comment on whether our OL was good or not, but he said they had to be evaluated if they can hold the line and not get pushed back into the QB. I think he wants to make sure he has a pure pocket passing OL, as that will be critical to his style of offense.

[claymore]

I predict Ortons sack total is twice what Cutlers was. If Simms beats out Orton, I predict we draft in the top 5.

[TXBRONC]

This article has very little merit in my opinion because all it does is pick apart the number of Cutler and Farve and then claim victory.

[claymore]

Btw, since someone mentioned OL, from reading some of McDaniels comments in an article, I have suspicions that ther might be some personnel changes; he didn't comment on whether our OL was good or not, but he said they had to be evaluated if they can hold the line and not get pushed back into the QB. I think he wants to make sure he has a pure pocket passing OL, as that will be critical to his style of offense.

I remember him talking about our guards and how they are going to be pulling allot more.

[broncofaninfla]

I predict Ortons sack total is twice what Cutlers was. If Simms beats out Orton, I predict we draft in the top 5.

I hope you are wrong but our sacks are certain to go up without a physically gifted QB behind center.

[omac]

One other point to mention. A ball control "system" QB would have likely netted us 3-4 wins in 2008. Why? Field position was irrelevant with Bob Slowick's defensive squad taking the field. The difference between giving the opposing team a 50 or 80 yard field to work with was likely going to be only a matter of how many yards their offense netted before scoring. There simply was no choice but for the offense to gamble constantly, because no lead was safe, and no hole deep enough for the opponent's offense. In that scenario turnovers aren't that big a deal, because a punt is nearly as bad as a fumble or pick. In retrospect that 8-8 record last year was damned near miraculous.

Also, a "system" QB would more likely throw the ball away or hold onto it for a sack, than force a pass that could turn into an INT. Though there would be less turnovers, that could also result in more stalled drives. Though Cutler threw a lot of INTs, he was also pretty good on 3rd down conversions. He needed to be to keep drives alive, specially with our close to the bottom of the league average starting field position.

[omac]

I remember him talking about our guards and how they are going to be pulling allot more.

Yeah, though we will probably continue to have zone blocking, McDaniels will be introducing more gap style blocking, as he mentioned it's something he has strong confidence in.

[Dreadnought]

Also, a "system" QB would more likely throw the ball away or hold onto it for a sack, than force a pass that could turn into an INT. Though there would be less turnovers, that could also result in more stalled drives. Though Cutler threw a lot of INTs, he was also pretty good on 3rd down conversions. He needed to be to keep drives alive, specially with our close to the bottom of the league average starting field position.

Exactly. The safer QB would have thrown away a 3rd and 6 if it didn't look like it was there. That leads to a punt, which in 2008 might as well be a turnover. With Cutler there was a decent chance he actually pulled off the throw, kept us moving, and kept us alive.

It will be interesting to see what Cutler does in Chicago with a respectable defense, as in, will his own game change any? After all, playing for Vandy in the SEC was an awful lot like playing for Denver in 07 - 08.

[TXBRONC]

What I find funny is that the jackass that wrote this article didn't give any thought whatsoever what kind of defense was on the field for both Farve and Cutler. While he criticized Cutler for taking even more risks than Farve he failed mention that Farve still threw more interceptions. In fact, Farve threw it 94 times less and still threw 20 interceptions. And on top of that Farve had ra unning back that carried ball 290 times, rushed for over 1,300 yards and scored 13 touchdowns. The guy who wrote this doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

[MOtorboat]

What I find funny is that the jackass that wrote this article didn't give any thought whatsoever what kind of defense was on the field for both Farve and Cutler. While he criticized Cutler for taking even more risks than Farve he failed mention that Farve still threw more interceptions. In fact, Farve threw it 94 times less and still threw 20 interceptions. And on top of that Farve had ra unning back that carried ball 290 times, rushed for over 1,300 yards and scored 13 touchdowns. The guy who wrote this doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

You mean he judged a player by HIS play...what a novel concept. :rolleyes:

[TXBRONC]

You mean he judged a player by HIS play...what a novel concept. :rolleyes:

It would if he had actually done that. :coffee:

[omac]

You mean he judged a player by HIS play...what a novel concept. :rolleyes:

I think he means taking several factors into consideration when evaluating a players performance. Even Football Outsiders has an index that takes other factors into consideration when evaluating a player or a team.

[TXBRONC]

I think he means taking several factors into consideration when evaluating a players performance. Even Football Outsiders has an index that takes other factors into consideration when evaluating a player or a team.

The guy cherry picked a couple of the things and then claimed victory.

[frenchfan]

Hehehe, but we both know that in order to win a superbowl with Trent Dilfer as our QB, our defense has to be as good as those Ravens were, something Denver's defense hasn't been in a really long time. :DDamned... I knew there was something wrong in my plan... :shocked: :tsk:


...


:pound:

[frenchfan]

Very true; but John could not win a superbowl until he had the supporting cast to do so. The first superbowl John won was more through riding the back of TD. Favre had a much better superbowl performance than Elway. Our defense wasn't Steelers-great, but they were pretty solid.

Another thing to look at in the stats is Denver's defense in the earlier part of John's career. They didn't get enough credit, because they kept getting killed in the superbowl, but during the regular season, and against AFC teams in the playoffs, they were pretty solid. Check out their takeaways, and you'll see they were for the most part pretty good.

They didn't seem to stand much of a chance against the huge linemen in the NFC, though, like those hogs of the Redskins. :DTrue...

When Giants defeated us in the SB, they said that if they didn't have faced the Broncos during the regular season (Broncos won if my memory is correct) they would probably have lost the SB... This game granted them to adjust to our schemes.

IMO, that was a good D with great schemes... But overmatched in the trenches by NFC teams.

[Dreadnought]

The guy cherry picked a couple of the things and then claimed victory.

And then missed the point entirely. A cautious 'system" QB (a bad term IMO anyway) may be a better QB for a team built around a strong defense, and the stronger the defense the more cautiously he should play. With a bad defense he becomes a liability, and the worse the defense the more pronounced this is. Only a reckless gambler can deliver wins under those circumstances, and the worse the defense the more so. This approach will of course yield some pretty awful blowouts too, but a few more wins than otherwise possible.

The whole idea of judging a QB strictly by team wins and losses, or on playoff wins and appearances, is simply preposterous in any event, given that football is the ultimate team sport. A coach? Sure. That makes sense - its his show top to bottom. A QB? Superficial and shallow. Saves the time and energy it takes to actually do some analysis as to what happened on the field and why the results were what they were. It's posturing disguised as hard headed realism.

[frenchfan]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better of having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working. Good points...

Anyway, Joe Montana (another perfect system QB) survived playing some damned tough D (Giants, Bears...) and won...
Though I see your point, I think there could have been some answers that Brady and Pats didn't find there...
And if Eli would have been sacked during that "escape play", then I don't think you could argue this point today... Pats were very close to win...

Each has pros and cons...
You can win SB with very average QB (ask the Ravens or the Bucs or even the Giants with the backup... can't remember his name).
You can win SB with very great QB too...

Don't ask Orton to play like Jay... It's a suicide... Now, he can be good in a certain system... Who knows?
But sure, give him a D... If our O has to score a TD on every drive, we'll go nowhere (with or without Jay BTW).

[frenchfan]

And then missed the point entirely. A cautious 'system" QB (a bad term IMO anyway) may be a better QB for a team built around a strong defense, and the stronger the defense the more cautiously he should play. With a bad defense he becomes a liability, and the worse the defense the more pronounced this is. Only a reckless gambler can deliver wins under those circumstances, and the worse the defense the more so. This approach will of course yield some pretty awful blowouts too, but a few more wins than otherwise possible.

The whole idea of judging a QB strictly by team wins and losses, or on playoff wins and appearances, is simply preposterous in any event, given that football is the ultimate team sport. A coach? Sure. That makes sense - its his show top to bottom. A QB? Superficial and shallow. Saves the time and energy it takes to actually do some analysis as to what happened on the field and why the results were what they were. It's posturing disguised as hard headed realism.Good points too...

You can also judge a QB in the money time (big games and close games)... Jay is good in close games but didn't convince me in the big games (only game relevant though : our final game last year).
You could answer me about Peyton Manning who had the same troubles... He actually won the SB... But I really think a good QB (in a good system and so on) has to show his best in the money time...

[Dreadnought]

Good points too...

You can also judge a QB in the money time (big games and close games)... Jay is good in close games but didn't convince me in the big games (only game relevant though : our final game last year).
You could answer me about Peyton Manning who had the same troubles... He actually won the SB... But I really think a good QB (in a good system and so on) has to show his best in the money time...

Also - Elway under Dan Reeves was infamous for all too often playing dismally for 58 minutes. Some may have been lack of focus on his part, and a lot on being forced to work within Reeves' "system, i.e. pounding the likes of Sammy Winder and Gene Lang at an ooponent regardless of lack of success (yes, I know - an oversimplification.) In the final two minutes Elway would come alive. Competitive fire? Or a newly awakened recklessless forced by desperation, which was a mode he could pull off brilliantly? Both? Can't say for sure. We do know that a pure system/ball control guy like Brian Griese couldn't do that.

[TXBRONC]

Also - Elway under Dan Reeves was infamous for all too often playing dismally for 58 minutes. Some may have been lack of focus on his part, and a lot on being forced to work within Reeves' "system, i.e. pounding the likes of Sammy Winder and Gene Lang at an ooponent regardless of lack of success (yes, I know - an oversimplification.) In the final two minutes Elway would come alive. Competitive fire? Or a newly awakened recklessless forced by desperation, which was a mode he could pull off brilliantly? Both? Can't say for sure. We do know that a pure system/ball control guy like Brian Griese couldn't do that.

John also had a defense for most of his career that was solid enough to keep games close so John would have a chance at the end.

[powderaddict]

John also had a defense for most of his career that was solid enough to keep games close so John would have a chance at the end.

Although that comeback against Houston in the playoffs was absolutely epic!!

I really don't think there's a one-size-fits-all perfect answer. I'm just hoping that McDaniels knows what he's doing, and can bring a tough, winning attitude back to Denver!

[Fan in Exile]

They were good enough, remember they were undefeated going into the Super Bowl. I agree we are better off on the oline but make no mistake about it, Cutlers strength and mobility helped lessen the sacks last year as well.

Clearly they weren't good enough because the O-line got crushed in the play-offs. A mobile QB can reduce or increase the number of sacks depending on how long he holds onto the ball.

What exactly are you basing your judgment on that Cutler reduced the number of sacks? My guess would be you just think it's obvious and anecdotal evidence.

[omac]

Clearly they weren't good enough because the O-line got crushed in the play-offs. A mobile QB can reduce or increase the number of sacks depending on how long he holds onto the ball.

What exactly are you basing your judgment on that Cutler reduced the number of sacks? My guess would be you just think it's obvious and anecdotal evidence.

There are situations in games where a play breaks down and Cutler buys time for his receivers, and even avoids potential sacks. I've mentioned one earlier in this thread, I think. An analyst during one of the games also mentioned the low sack stat and partly attributed it to Cutler's mobility. The tv analyst made mention of how difficult it was to sack Cutler, while showing a slomo of a play wherein a defender broke through the line, yet Cutler was able to drift backwards then lob a short pass over the defender to one of our TEs, I think it was Nate Jackson or Scheffler.

[TXBRONC]

Although that comeback against Houston in the playoffs was absolutely epic!!

I really don't think there's a one-size-fits-all perfect answer. I'm just hoping that McDaniels knows what he's doing, and can bring a tough, winning attitude back to Denver!

True John's comeback win against Houston was epic, but I don't think it would have happened without the defense stiffing and getting some turnovers.

[G_Money]

Um...Bret Favre ran a West Coast offense. That's a system. He was a system QB.

Jay Cutler ran a West Coast offense. That's a system. He was a system QB.

John Elway was a gunslinger who ran a 1950s offense and a WC offense. He survived in that horrible Reeves O and thrived in a WC - as a gunslinger who made "poor decisions."

The question isn't "system vs. gunslinger." We're not talking about a guy who's perfect for one offense vs. a guy who just makes shit up because the offense is terrible.

We're talking about a guy who can ONLY be successful in one type of offense (system QB) vs. a guy who can succeed in more than one kind ("gunslinger") because he has more talents.

If you have a deep-ball oriented offense, a gunslinger can get the ball there. If you're throwing short, in theory a gunslinger can get it there. Pocket? Mobile? If you look at most "gunslingers" they can do both. If they can't, then they ALSO are usually system QBs - just a different system than the "Short-ball, controlled passing, no deep threat" system guys.

The question is how well they take to the terminology and understanding of a different offense, and how quickly they can make decisions.

This article does fine comparing Favre and Cutler. That's not exactly a stretch since that comparison has been made since before Cutler was drafted.

How does it explain to me why Cutler cannot change systems? Favre is a million years old - I understand why a new coach wouldn't want to try to build around him, knowing he's only got a few years and Favre is not likely to be there through all of them.

All it says is something to the effect of, "system QBs are more valuable than you think, because the Broncos and Jets got rid of their strong-armed gunslingers who make more poor decisions than you'd like."

But not just anyone can be a system QB either. They ARE valuable, because QBs with physical limitations who can still be mega-successful in the pros are rare too.

Most system QBs are come across by mistake. Very, verrrrry few "system QBs" are picked because they ARE system QBs and are successful. They are usually ones that rode the pine, picked up the O, and finally got a chance. Now either that means that every coach in history looks too much at arm and not enough at system fit, or picking QBs is just a dicey proposition all around.

We had system RBs, but all they have to do is read a hole and get through it. A QB has more things to consider.

People have called New England's system one of a plug-and-play QB variety, but if so, it would be one of the first. Well...maybe not. Bill Walsh's original West Coast had two HOFers come through it back to back, as well as some interesting seasons from backups. And Shanahan has gotten the absolute best from at least 3 QBs under his system. They topped out their abilities here, whatever those abilities were.

But when you have a system QB, you normally have the rest of the parts in place so that the QB doesn't have to do too much. You have a great running game, a great D, and the QB just has to complete 3rd and 4 passes to move the chains.

The NE offense is rather unique in that they want the QB to make all the plays and also manage the game. That puts more on your "system QB" than most do. We'll see if McDaniels can find - or has found - someone who can shoulder the load of the offense (something neither Orton nor Simms have ever done) while he rebuilds our weapons and defense.

Cassel is Exhibit A for Josh's ability to find a guy who can shoulder the load when he never has before. But Cassel had 3 years in the offense before he had to do that. Hopefully Orton, having already gotten settled somewhat in the league, can pick up the offense faster and become our "system QB" that excels.

We hired Josh to be that kind of genius. He looks like he's hitched his wagon to Orton, so hopefully that works out more like Brady and less like the myriad system QB failures that litter NFL history.

Because in the end, whether they're system QBs or "gunslingers" you want a guy you can win with. If you don't find him, you're out on your ear (aka Belichick going through Kosar, Tomczak and Testeverde with the Browns). If you do find him, you can be counted as the greatest coach of your era (aka Belichick tripping over Brady on his bench once Bledsoe went down and finally finding his franchise QB).

In a system that requires its QB to be the main cog and not just an occasional helper to a running game and a defense, getting the right guy is a must. Ours is not a team looking for a Trent Dilfer to not screw up the greatest defense ever. We're looking for the offensive focal point.

We're asking for a lot, even if "just" as a system QB. And we really need Orton to deliver.

~G

[NightTrainLayne]

Don't flame me guys, but I've got a few questions related to this discussion:

1. Has McDaniels called Orton a "system" QB or is this all coming from the media trying to sell ink?

2. Has McDaniels said that he'd prefer a "system" QB to someone more talented?

3. What are McDaniels thoughts on this and his evaluatiosn of Orton?

The only stories that I've seen that actually discuss McDaniels' thoughts on Orton would lead me to believe that McDaniels' opinion of Orton is more than just that of a "system" QB. Maybe McDaniels' evaluation is wrong on Orton, but I'm just not sure that McDaniels would argue that a "system" QB is better for him than a "gunslinger". But that seems to be the default assumption among everyone outside of Dove Valley.

[powderaddict]

True John's comeback win against Houston was epic, but I don't think it would have happened without the defense stiffing and getting some turnovers.

Well, yeah, it's impossible to come back if the other teams score as often as you do :P

[Tempus Fugit]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better off having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working.

Tom Brady was hurt (ankle) and unable to move around well
Kyle Brady was hurt
Neal (RG) got hurt
Faulk got hurt
Mankins played his worst game as a pro.

Despite all of that, it took a fluky catch off of a helmet and dropped ints for the Giants to win. It was a matter of injuries that took down the Patriots, not the Giants' defensive system. Sometimes, people read too much into things.

[Tempus Fugit]

Don't flame me guys, but I've got a few questions related to this discussion:

1. Has McDaniels called Orton a "system" QB or is this all coming from the media trying to sell ink?

2. Has McDaniels said that he'd prefer a "system" QB to someone more talented?

3. What are McDaniels thoughts on this and his evaluatiosn of Orton?

The only stories that I've seen that actually discuss McDaniels' thoughts on Orton would lead me to believe that McDaniels' opinion of Orton is more than just that of a "system" QB. Maybe McDaniels' evaluation is wrong on Orton, but I'm just not sure that McDaniels would argue that a "system" QB is better for him than a "gunslinger". But that seems to be the default assumption among everyone outside of Dove Valley.

Not completely responsive to you post, but I hope it's helpful nonetheless:

The McDaniels 'system' is predicated on a lot of moving parts, so to speak.

1.) Smart QB who can make pre-snap reads and adjustments
2.) QB who's willing to take the lesser play in order to avoid danger
3.) QB who's excellent at reading defenses
4.) Receivers who not only read defenses, but do it in sync with the QB
5.) Receivers who can adjust routes on the fly depending upon defensive positioning
6.) QBs who are accurate enough to allow for great YAC numbers on short throws
7.) Receivers who can gain plenty of YAC after short catches
8.) Receivers who can understand that the QB's favorite receiver is the open one
9.) Quality 3rd down back who can block, catch and run draws successfully

[topscribe]

Terrel Davis was God sent for Elway!!!

Absolute truth.

By the same token, TD was very blessed to have landed on the same team with Elway . . .

-----

[topscribe]

I can’t help but revert back to the Super Bowl two years ago with The Giants playing the then undefeated Patriots. The Patriots had optimized their offensive system and the Giants had optimized their defensive system, both teams had the players in place to optimize their respective systems. A classic Super Bowl match up in that regard. The end result was the Giants defensive system trumped the Patriots offensive system. The arguably ultimate system QB Brady couldn’t evade the DE’s of the Giants or make the plays a more physically gifted QB might have been able to make. Orton or Simms aren’t even close to Tom Brady, what is going to happen to us when our system plays an equal or better defensive system? A player with Cutlers intangibles can buy extra time, thread the needle in tighter coverage and stretch the field. We don’t have that anymore, we traded the intangible that COULD make a difference. Where I do agree the gunslinger mentality can be reckless and counterproductive at times, I do think you are better off having a QB capable of playing outside the system when the plays break down or the system isn’t working.

Actually, I can't say Orton isn't "close to" Brady. I think Orton needs another
year before I start making any definitive judgments about him . . . he has
completed only his second year on the field, after all, and he did a pretty
good job with what he had to work and with a high ankle sprain the last half
of the season.

I've seen Orton under heavy rushes, his elusiveness in the pocket, his quick
release, and his accuracy under pressure. And McDaniels, who said he studied
Orton closely, complimented Orton for making the "right decisions" on the field.
Orton wasn't just QB fodder in the trade; McDaniels wanted him.

Orton can't throw it as far and hard as Elway or Cutler, true. But does he
have to?--Not if he is given a good system in which to work, and, angry as I
have been with McDaniels, I do believe that is one thing he can provide to him.

-----

[broncofaninfla]

Clearly they weren't good enough because the O-line got crushed in the play-offs. A mobile QB can reduce or increase the number of sacks depending on how long he holds onto the ball.

What exactly are you basing your judgment on that Cutler reduced the number of sacks? My guess would be you just think it's obvious and anecdotal evidence.

I'm talking about Cutler getting away from pressure, getting outside the pocket when the receivers are covered and creating a play, pulling free when the DL's hands are on him. Really I do think it's obvious evidence, as much as I try to blck out the season from last year I still remember Cutler avoiding pressure. I'm taking nothing away from our O-Line, arguably the best but credit has to be given to Cutler as well for low sack numbers last seaon as well.

[TXBRONC]

Actually, I can't say Orton isn't "close to" Brady. I think Orton needs another
year before I start making any definitive judgments about him . . . he has
completed only his second year on the field, after all, and he did a pretty
good job with what he had to work and with a high ankle sprain the last half
of the season.

I've seen Orton under heavy rushes, his elusiveness in the pocket, his quick
release, and his accuracy under pressure. And McDaniels, who said he studied
Orton closely, complimented Orton for making the "right decisions" on the field.
Orton wasn't just QB fodder in the trade; McDaniels wanted him.

Orton can't throw it as far and hard as Elway or Cutler, true. But does he
have to?--Not if he is given a good system in which to work, and, angry as I
have been with McDaniels, I do believe that is one thing he can provide to him.

-----

Over on Broncomania their is Bears fan that started thread about Orton. In it he said that Orton actally has very good arm. I took that to mean Orton can probably make all the throws. His biggest shortcoming according to this Bears fan is that Orton doesn't throw a very accurate deep ball.

[topscribe]

Over on Broncomania their is Bears fan that started thread about Orton. In it he said that Orton actally has very good arm. I took that to mean Orton can probably make all the throws. His biggest shortcoming according to this Bears fan is that Orton doesn't throw a very accurate deep ball.

The Bears fan in question is correct. Orton actually has a stronger arm than
P. Manning or Brady, but he hasn't been nearly as accurate at long range.
Orton, however, has improved considerably in that area since turning pro.

-----

[powderaddict]

Over on Broncomania their is Bears fan that started thread about Orton. In it he said that Orton actally has very good arm. I took that to mean Orton can probably make all the throws. His biggest shortcoming according to this Bears fan is that Orton doesn't throw a very accurate deep ball.

To be fair, Cutler's deep ball (other than that ungodly throw to Walker against Arizona) hasn't really been on target either. He's been great in getting the ball into small windows quickly on the short and intermediate stuff, but his long ball hasn't been great.

Cutler's off target deep passes do get there faster though!

(This is in no way to say I think overall Orton is Cutler's equal or superior)

[TXBRONC]

To be fair, Cutler's deep ball (other than that ungodly throw to Walker against Arizona) hasn't really been on target either. He's been great in getting the ball into small windows quickly on the short and intermediate stuff, but his long ball hasn't been great.

Cutler's off target deep passes do get there faster though!

(This is in no way to say I think overall Orton is Cutler's equal or superior)

I disagree I can think of several instances that show that Cutler is accurate with the deep ball.

[Fan in Exile]

I'm talking about Cutler getting away from pressure, getting outside the pocket when the receivers are covered and creating a play, pulling free when the DL's hands are on him. Really I do think it's obvious evidence, as much as I try to blck out the season from last year I still remember Cutler avoiding pressure. I'm taking nothing away from our O-Line, arguably the best but credit has to be given to Cutler as well for low sack numbers last seaon as well.

You should always beware of something that seems to be obvious. The keys to avoiding sacks are fast/quality decision making as well as a quick release. Mobility can help and it can also hurt depending on what the QB does with it. I'm pretty sure that it was football outsiders that did the study of this one.

So I wouldn't be too worried about Orton, he's not as mobile but he does have a quick release, and if he can learn the system he should make quick decisions.

[Dreadnought]

I disagree I think of several instances that show that Cutler is accurate with the deep ball.

He is OK deep, but I agree with Powder that he really at his deadliest in the 15 - 25 yard range, esp. on that deep crossing route. He has the arm strength and accuracy to use that one effectively.

[Watchthemiddle]

I disagree I can think of several instances that show that Cutler is accurate with the deep ball.

Name them....

:coffee:

[TXBRONC]

Name them....

:coffee:

Why would I waste my time enlightening you? :coffee:

[Watchthemiddle]

Why would I waste my time enlightening you? :coffee:

Because you have all the facts TX.....or all you all talk and no proof......AGAIN???

Thanks for playing...next.

:coffee:

[TXBRONC]

Because you have all the facts TX.....or all you all talk and no proof......AGAIN???

Thanks for playing...next.

:coffee:

I have the proof you're just not worth the effort. :coffee:

[Watchthemiddle]

I have the proof you're just not worth the effort. :coffee:

Your a piece of work.

Much like all the other posters who want to post falshoods and not back them up.....well I guess you are backing up your falsehood by NOT backing it up.

Your a joke TX by posting things that aren't true.

again...thanks for playing...next...:coffee::coffee:

[Watchthemiddle]

I love the bashing on a mile high salute

thanks for playing

Your credibility is shot.

:coffee:

[TXBRONC]

Clearly they weren't good enough because the O-line got crushed in the play-offs. A mobile QB can reduce or increase the number of sacks depending on how long he holds onto the ball.

What exactly are you basing your judgment on that Cutler reduced the number of sacks? My guess would be you just think it's obvious and anecdotal evidence.

From what I remember Jay's mobility did help on several occassion. That's not to say that our offensive line didn't play well, they were great all year nevertheless Jay's mobility got him out of trouble on several occassions.

[Watchthemiddle]

From what I remember Jay's mobility did help on several occassion. That's not to say that our offensive line didn't play well, they were great all year nevertheless Jay's mobility got him out of trouble on several occassions.

Name them?

Thanks

again

for not playin

:coffee:

[Peerless]

Name them?

Thanks

again

for not playin

:coffee:

He doesn't have to name the specific times when it helped.

Of COURSE Jay's mobility helped.

The O-line was DAMN good. But they did get some breaks when Jay could extend the play with his legs.

If you really don't agree with that, or can't believe that it's even POSSIBLE that his mobility helped both the O-line and himself.....:lol:

[Watchthemiddle]

He doesn't have to name the specific times when it helped.

Of COURSE Jay's mobility helped.

The O-line was DAMN good. But they did get some breaks when Jay could extend the play with his legs.

If you really don't agree with that, or can't believe that it's even POSSIBLE that his mobility helped both the O-line and himself.....:lol:

Thanks TX...:coffee:

Great Job Jay ....you are the greatest at extending the play........tooo bad once you extended the play you made a bad decision and fumbled or threw an INT.

Thanks for playing JAY....now you have the Bears offense to deal with...:laugh:

TIA

WTM

[Peerless]

Thanks TX...:coffee:

Great Job Jay ....you are the greatest at extending the play........tooo bad once you extended the play you made a bad decision and fumbled or threw an INT.

Thanks for playing JAY....now you have the Bears offense to deal with...:laugh:

TIA

WTM

Eddie Royal's first touchdown catch of the year in the corner... and if I remember correctly, the entire season... was from an extended play from Jay.

The offensive line was breaking down, he rolled to the right... extended the play and laid a perfectly thrown ball to Royal in the corner for 6..

Watch the middle! Please do defense. Maybe you'll give Orton a chance to keep a lead! :eek:

Thanks for playing.. you lose.

Are these IN or something? :coffee::coffee::coffee: LOL what a boss.

[Watchthemiddle]

Eddie Royal's first touchdown catch of the year in the corner... and if I remember correctly, the entire season... was from an extended play from Jay.

The offensive line was breaking down, he rolled to the right... extended the play and laid a perfectly thrown ball to Royal in the corner for 6..

Watch the middle! Please do defense. Maybe you'll give Orton a chance to keep a lead! :eek:

Thanks for playing.. you lose.

Are these IN or something? :coffee::coffee::coffee: LOL what a boss.


Well he obiously didn't extend much in the 8 loses.

I mean....according to some on here we started the first quarter already down by 30.

Thats why the 30+ ppg is wrong.

Its not like the offense is starting 1st and 10 at their 20 with 14:52 left in the first quarter after the opening kickoff down by 30.

:coffee:

[Broncospsycho77]

All I want to do is win.

Kyle Orton won once or twice. Let's give him a shot.

[Peerless]

Well he obiously didn't extend much in the 8 loses.

First of all, it's losses not loses.

And I think I'll just use your comment:

Name them :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee:



Its not like the offense is starting 1st and 10 at their 20 with 14:52 left in the first quarter after the opening kickoff down by 30.

:coffee:

Of course not. But it's not like our defense was some saving grace actually HELPING the offense out. I mean get real.

But if you're really going to sit here and tell me that it was Cutler... Cutler was the one who threw this team off... Not the 29th ranked defense in the NFL who wouldn't be able to stop your big momma from walking into the end zone, then I've been listening to a bunch of bull shit this whole time.

[Simple Jaded]

There is nothing Kyle Orton can do that any other QB in the league can't do, the notion that you have to have bed-wetting game-managers to run Doogie's system is horseshit.

If Doogie can't get an intelligent and talented QB like Cutler to run his system, then Doogie's not worth the paper his paycheck is printed on.......

[Shazam!]

If Doogie can't get an intelligent and talented QB like Cutler to run his system, then Doogie's not worth the paper his paycheck is printed on.......

McDaniels is more than just entitled to have whoever run his Offense as he sees fit.

Cutler may be a Pro Bowl QB but it's not like he replaced a Peyton or a Brady.

As far as Cutler's 'intelligence' do you know his Wonderlic score or something?

[Simple Jaded]

McDaniels is more than just entitled to have whoever run his Offense as he sees fit.

Cutler may be a Pro Bowl QB but it's not like he replaced a Peyton or a Brady.

As far as Cutler's 'intelligence' do you know his Wonderlic score or something?

So if Doogie wanted Me to run his offense, you'd still be ok with that? You make it sound like trading Cutler is no big deal, it is.

Btw, Cutler got into Vanderbilt and picked up Shanahan's offense fast enough to replace and outperform a 10 year vet in his rookie season, I'd say he's intelligent enough for any NFL system.......

[Peerless]

McDaniels is more than just entitled to have whoever run his Offense as he sees fit.

Cutler may be a Pro Bowl QB but it's not like he replaced a Peyton or a Brady.

As far as Cutler's 'intelligence' do you know his Wonderlic score or something?

Cutler scored a 26 on his wonderlic.

20 is considered average intelligent

[DenverBronkHoes]

gunslingers will always be more fun to watch...


i love watching the camera lose a Jay Cutler thrown ball

[slim]

So if Doogie wanted Me to run his offense

If this were the case then I think we could all agree that McD is an idiot.


You make it sound like trading Cutler is no big deal

It's not...you are over reacting.


Btw, Cutler got into Vanderbilt

Awesome...Jay for President.

[Broncolingus]

gunslingers will always be more fun to watch...


i love watching the camera lose a Jay Cutler thrown ball

http://www.football-refs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/cutler-fumble.jpg

[Lonestar]

There is nothing Kyle Orton can do that any other QB in the league can't do, the notion that you have to have bed-wetting game-managers to run Doogie's system is horseshit.

If Doogie can't get an intelligent and talented QB like Cutler to run his system, then Doogie's not worth the paper his paycheck is printed on.......


who is to say he can't or did not want to..

seemed like boy wonder did not want to play the scheme.. where is it more controlled that last years wild west ride..

jay wanted out of DEN when mikey was canned and then after seeing the scheme/playbook and his midwife left that was all she wrote in DEN for jay..



Personally I'd rather have a quality QB that can move the chains consistently and score when in the red zone..

Something that we have lacked for almost ever.. at least since the HOF group Sharpe, John, TD, Rod, Zimmerman retired..

We have lacked focus and star talent since and when the rubber meets the road in the red zone, where the field is short and defenders can actually play tight we we have failed in most of those years.. we have one or two but then the rest of the field had probelms...

Jason Elam is one of the best FG EVER, BECAUSE we couldn't punch it for close in.. so mikey relied on him to keep us close or win games..

do you ever wonder why we have so many turn overs inside the red zone? perhaps it is explained above..

[omac]

You make it sound like trading Cutler is no big deal

It's not...you are over reacting.

LOL, it is a big deal. :D The ramifications are huge. Whether it will pan out or not remains to be seen.

[omac]

http://www.football-refs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/cutler-fumble.jpg

N0S2jCw4qrc

-DeiKswACNc

Instead of the blown call that would've cost us the game, I'd rather focus on the 2 endzone passes he made within seconds of each other to get us the win. Those fans sure seemed to be happy about it. :cheers:

[Shazam!]

...and since it is done, why continue to cry about it? He's gone. Jay messed this up plenty and is equallt as guilty about mishandling it as are the Broncos. If it was McD's fault or not, he didn't want to be here anymore. Period. People want to rant how McD sucks without coaching a game but Denver CLEARLY needed a change at the top. If he is a bust and completely drives the Broncos down, I will be the first to call for his head. Before he does that, let's see what we field in September and into late October.

We should be talking about the DRAFT, not whining about Cutler. The Broncos weren't dust before 2006.

[Simple Jaded]

If this were the case then I think we could all agree that McD is an idiot.



It's not...you are over reacting.



Awesome...Jay for President.

Trading their MVP is not a big deal? Awesome.......Doogie for President.......

[omac]

...and since it is done, why continue to cry about it? He's gone. Jay messed this up plenty and is equallt as guilty about mishandling it as are the Broncos. If it was McD's fault or not, he didn't want to be here anymore. Period. People want to rant how McD sucks without coaching a game but Denver CLEARLY needed a change at the top. If he is a bust and completely drives the Broncos down, I will be the first to call for his head. Before he does that, let's see what we field in September and into late October.

We should be talking about the DRAFT, not whining about Cutler. The Broncos weren't dust before 2006.

Errr ... you started the thread where the author was trying to make a case with his narrow definition of gunslingers and system QBs, against Cutler. What did you think was eventually going to happen? :D

Cutler will be fine in Chicago, and Orton will be fine in Denver. :cheers:

[TXBRONC]

There is nothing Kyle Orton can do that any other QB in the league can't do, the notion that you have to have bed-wetting game-managers to run Doogie's system is horseshit.

If Doogie can't get an intelligent and talented QB like Cutler to run his system, then Doogie's not worth the paper his paycheck is printed on.......

It's interesting some people think its better to have less talented quarterback running an offense. :lol:

[frenchfan]

It's interesting some people think its better to have less talented quarterback running an offense. :lol:I see your point... But I'd rather having a less talented QB and a great team rather than what we had last season...

Humm... wait... we still don't have a D, do we? :shocked: :confused: :laugh:

If Broncos improve as a team, that's ok... It's just wait & see for now...

I'm not happy Jay is not a Bronco anymore but I will give my team, my players and my coaches the benefit of the doubt...
We'll have enough time to criticize during the season...

Let's have a great draft...
Let's put back our magical heart and soul ...
Sometimes, it's not just about talent or stats... ;)

:beer:

[Cugel]

In the wake of the recent Jay Cutler saga, the general consensus around the league is that the Broncos and first year head coach Josh McDaniels made a serious mistake in giving up a young franchise quarterback for a couple of draft picks, No.18 overall pick this year, another first - round pick in 2010, a third - round pick this year, and a supposed scrub in former Bears quarterback, Kyle Orton.

Blah, Blah, Blah! Translation: But, because I'm such an expert, I disagree! :coffee:

I think you could just stop reading right there. A bunch of NFL coaches and GMs who do this for a living reach a consensus. McDaniels and the Broncos screwed up. But, some idiot sportswriter comes to a different conclusion and he backs it up by comparing Brett Favre and Jay Cutler last season and shows they are about the same! (????)

What does that prove? That Cutler might have a career similar to Favre? Broncos fans would just LOVE to watch THAT for the next 12 years! :rolleyes:

Perhaps that Brett sucked in his last, pro-bowl, season? Cutler after 2 years as a starter is similar to Favre near the end of his career.

I'll take that any day! And as for a coach "preferring" his scrub QB over a "gunslinger?"

Has everybody forgotten Brian Griese already? The Broncos have been down that road and it doesn't work. Tom Brady isn't a "system" QB he's a Hall of Fame QB who would be good in any system.

McDaniels is going to have plenty of opportunity to learn that over the next couple of seasons. :coffee:

[Tempus Fugit]

It's interesting some people think its better to have less talented quarterback running an offense. :lol:

What's more interesting is that history shows that many quarterbacks are more successful in one type of offense than in another. The perfect recent example would be Jeff Garcia, who's been a very good quarterback in the 'west coast' style, but nowhere near as effective when he's had to run an alternate system.

For an example from the Patriots, one could also point to Drew Bledsoe, who struggled mightily under Belichick, but played much better in Buffalo in a different system.

Donovan McNabb is a top shelf quarterback, but his accuracy is underwhelming, and he'd likely not be a great fit for the McDaniels system, while Chad Pennington would likely thrive in it.

[Watchthemiddle]

What's more interesting is that history shows that many quarterbacks are more successful in one type of offense than in another. The perfect recent example would be Jeff Garcia, who's been a very good quarterback in the 'west coast' style, but nowhere near as effective when he's had to run an alternate system.

For an example from the Patriots, one could also point to Drew Bledsoe, who struggled mightily under Belichick, but played much better in Buffalo in a different system.

Donovan McNabb is a top shelf quarterback, but his accuracy is underwhelming, and he'd likely not be a great fit for the McDaniels system, while Chad Pennington would likely thrive in it.

You understand. Nice post!

[TXBRONC]

What's more interesting is that history shows that many quarterbacks are more successful in one type of offense than in another. The perfect recent example would be Jeff Garcia, who's been a very good quarterback in the 'west coast' style, but nowhere near as effective when he's had to run an alternate system.

For an example from the Patriots, one could also point to Drew Bledsoe, who struggled mightily under Belichick, but played much better in Buffalo in a different system.

Donovan McNabb is a top shelf quarterback, but his accuracy is underwhelming, and he'd likely not be a great fit for the McDaniels system, while Chad Pennington would likely thrive in it.

No what history has shown some quarterbacks are "system quarterbacks", quarterbacks that are more talented can thrive in many different styles of offense.

[Tempus Fugit]

No what history has shown some quarterbacks are "system quarterbacks", quarterbacks that are more talented can thrive in many different styles of offense.

Garcia was a Pro Bowl quarterback in the "west coast" system. He has plenty of talent. Bledsoe was a 4 time pro bowler, and was the #1 pick in the draft because of his talent. History has proven you wrong time and time again.

[TXBRONC]

Garcia was a Pro Bowl quarterback in the "west coast" system. He has plenty of talent. Bledsoe was a 4 time pro bowler, and was the #1 pick in the draft because of his talent. History has proven you wrong time and time again.

Afraid not.

[Tempus Fugit]

Afraid not.

Afraid so.











Are we really going to go down this path?

[TXBRONC]

Afraid so.











Are we really going to go down this path?

No because I know you're mistaken.

[Tempus Fugit]

No because I know you're mistaken.

Right..... despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

[omac]

Garcia was a Pro Bowl quarterback in the "west coast" system. He has plenty of talent. Bledsoe was a 4 time pro bowler, and was the #1 pick in the draft because of his talent. History has proven you wrong time and time again.

If you take the term "system QB" as it's always been applied by draft scouts when scouting college QBs, it's actually not a compliment. What the scout says is that the QB only had good production in college because of the system that was run. It usually has to do with (edited) run-and-shoot and spread offenses that have traditionally failed in the NFL. They imply that in a different system .. a pro-style offense, the quarterback wouldn't do well. Some college QBs with the "system QB" tag were Timmy Chang, Colt Brennan, and soon to follow, Tim Tebow.

A QB coming out of college not designated as a "system QB" is someone the scouts believe will produce in the NFL ... that his value coming out of college was not over-inflated by the system he played in ... that he has true value beyond just playing in one system. They look at his overall abilities as a football player, his intelligence, his athleticism, and his physical build and determine that he could play in the NFL for most pro-style systems and against NFL pros.

While it is true that most QBs would do better in one system versus another, if they are not "system QBs" in the traditional sense of the word, they could do well in others too.

Jeff Garcia has performed pretty well for SF, Philly, and Tampa; he is not a "system QB" in the traditional sense. Gunslingers like Favre have done pretty well in the system in GB, as well as the system with the Jets. Even guys like Orton and Griese are not system QBs in the traditional sense of the word, because they have the skills to play well in traditional, pro style offenses.

Though I used Montana as a "system QB", I was only using it in the author's perspective of the word in his article. Truth is, Montana, like Brady, has the skills to play for any team that doesn't need great mobility in their QBs, so they aren't system QBs in the traditional sense either. And the "gunslinger" Cutler has shown he can play in the pocket, shotgun, or outside of it, and even run the option, so he has the skill set to play in most systems.

Cassel is thought of currently by some as a system QB, because throughout his college and pro career, he's never been able to unseat the starter; he's always been a backup. But after being trained by McDaniels in his system, he did pretty well taking over for the injured Brady. Cassel has yet to prove if he can thrive in a non-McDaniels system; Kiper seems to think so, but then again, Kiper did pick Leinart to be the best of the 2006 draft class. :D (added: drafted QBs of 2006, I mean).

[Tempus Fugit]

If you take the term "system QB" as it's always been applied by draft scouts when scouting college QBs, it's actually not a compliment. What the scout says is that the QB only had good production in college because of the system that was run. It usually has to do with (edited) run-and-shoot and spread offenses that have traditionally failed in the NFL. They imply that in a different system .. a pro-style offense, the quarterback wouldn't do well. Some college QBs with the "system QB" tag were Timmy Chang, Colt Brennan, and soon to follow, Tim Tebow.

I understand the traditional meaning. It's about adaptability more than skill, when you break it down, though. Chad Pennington is one of the most accurate passers ever to play the game, but you wouldn't want him on your team if you were planning to be a "Bombs away" sort of team because of his arm strength.



While it is true that most QBs would do better in one system versus another, if they are not "system QBs" in the traditional sense of the word, they could do well in others too.

Jeff Garcia has performed pretty well for SF, Philly, and Tampa; he is not a "system QB" in the traditional sense. Gunslingers like Favre have done pretty well in the system in GB, as well as the system with the Jets. Even guys like Orton and Griese are not system QBs in the traditional sense of the word, because they have the skills to play well in traditional, pro style offenses.

SF, Philly and Tampa were all using variants of the "West Coast" system. It's exactly the point, really. You'll note that Garcia didn't fare as well in Cleveland or Detroit, where he put up the two worst passer ratings of his career.


Though I used Montana as a "system QB", I was only using it in the author's perspective of the word in his article. Truth is, Montana, like Brady, has the skills to play for any team that doesn't need great mobility in their QBs, so they aren't system QBs in the traditional sense either. And the "gunslinger" Cutler has shown he can play in the pocket, shotgun, or outside of it, and even run the option, so he has the skill set to play in most systems.

Actually, I don't recall Cutler demonstrating particular alacrity in most systems. I don't belittle his skills, and I think he can play in more than one system, but let's not go crazy here.


Cassel is thought of currently by some as a system QB, because throughout his college and pro career, he's never been able to unseat the starter; he's always been a backup. But after being trained by McDaniels in his system, he did pretty well taking over for the injured Brady. Cassel has yet to prove if he can thrive in a non-McDaniels system; Kiper seems to think so, but then again, Kiper did pick Leinart to be the best of the 2006 draft class. :D (added: drafted QBs of 2006, I mean).

Cassel played behind 2 Heisman Trophy winners, and then ended up behind arguably the greatest quarterback in NFL history. People who call him a 'system' quarterback are just hedging their bets on whether or not he'll be successful. Frankly, I don't blame them, because Cassel may be the biggest wild card in the NFL right now.

[topscribe]

Wow. Anybody who takes Brady into consideration for G.O.A.T. of QBs
apparently hasn't seen a lot of QBs or has a short memory. I just couldn't
picture him taking the Broncos of the 1980s to their Super Bowls, or the bad
teams Van Brocklin took to NFL championships.

I'm sure, however, a case can be made for Brady's being the best QB ever to
play for the Patriots . . .

-----

[Tempus Fugit]

Wow. Anybody who takes Brady into consideration for G.O.A.T. of QBs
apparently hasn't seen a lot of QBs or has a short memory. I just couldn't
picture him taking the Broncos of the 1980s to their Super Bowls, or the bad
teams Van Brocklin took to NFL championships.

I'm sure, however, a case can be made for Brady's being the best QB ever to
play for the Patriots . . .

-----

Come on, being a homer is one thing, but this is just ridiculous. Even losing a season to injury when the Patriots were the favorites to win the Super Bowl, he's still got 3 Super Bowl rings and a perfect regular season under his belt.

[bcbronc]

Wow. Anybody who takes Brady into consideration for G.O.A.T. of QBs
apparently hasn't seen a lot of QBs or has a short memory. I just couldn't
picture him taking the Broncos of the 1980s to their Super Bowls, or the bad
teams Van Brocklin took to NFL championships.

I'm sure, however, a case can be made for Brady's being the best QB ever to
play for the Patriots . . .

-----

and I'm not sure if Elway goes a calendar year without a loss, or 18-1 (putting his team up with 2min to play in his one loss to boot) with NE. For me, if I'm down by 4 with 2 minutes left on the clock, I want Elway behind centre. If I'm down by 2 with 5 minutes left on the clock, I want Brady or Montana. imo those are the 3 GOATS at QB.

But anyone who DOESNT take Brady into consideration for GOAT of QBs is letting his bias dictate his reason.

[omac]

I understand the traditional meaning. It's about adaptability more than skill, when you break it down, though. Chad Pennington is one of the most accurate passers ever to play the game, but you wouldn't want him on your team if you were planning to be a "Bombs away" sort of team because of his arm strength.

That's exactly the point; the author used a pretty narrow view of the term system QB. Of course most QBs would do better in one system versus another. Yet his distinction for a "system QB" is limited, and differentiates it from what he perceives to be gunslingers, who we both know should fare well in certain systems too.


SF, Philly and Tampa were all using variants of the "West Coast" system. It's exactly the point, really. You'll note that Garcia didn't fare as well in Cleveland or Detroit, where he put up the two worst passer ratings of his career.

It could be the system in Cleveland and Detroit that Garcia didn't adapt to very well, or it could also be playing for a terrible Browns (4-12) and Lions (5-11) teams. I could see Garcia doing well for the 2007 Jaguars offense.


Actually, I don't recall Cutler demonstrating particular alacrity in most systems. I don't belittle his skills, and I think he can play in more than one system, but let's not go crazy here.

Cutler has shown that he can play with a poor OL (2007) and a good OL. He's shown that he can make quick decisions and get rid of the ball fast (see the Steelers own article after we beat them in 2007), and take his time in the pocket. He's shown that he can roll out of the pocket and make great throws (had the highest QB passer rating outside of the pocket). He's shown that he can throw short, intermediate, and deep passes. He can throw lasers, and he can lob balls over defenders onto his receivers (Browns game). He can throw TDs from the pocket, and on the run. He can make every throw. We've also seen him stand in the pocket to deliver a throw without flinching, knowing he'd take a vicious hit from the defender. And Shanahan, according to Jaws, would give him complex offensive gameplans tailored for each team each week.

With those skills and football acumen, just what system can he not play?


Cassel played behind 2 Heisman Trophy winners, and then ended up behind arguably the greatest quarterback in NFL history. People who call him a 'system' quarterback are just hedging their bets on whether or not he'll be successful. Frankly, I don't blame them, because Cassel may be the biggest wild card in the NFL right now.

You have to remember, though he was behind Carson Palmer, when Palmer left, the 3rd stringer Leinart won the job over him. Also, though Leinart played great in college, he wasn't exactly lighting it up in the pros.

Another point, notice that Palmer and Leinart were highly touted in college playing for USC, and highly touted coming into the draft. We see the same thing again with Mark Sanchez. Had Cassel won the starting job, who knows if he would've been highly touted in college and going into the draft too?

I prefer to have a wait and see attitude with Cassel; he's shown some pretty good stuff last season, but he hasn't been able to push the starters in college, and there were rumors before last season that the Pats were thinking of releasing him after the season ended, thus he didn't have an extension; they weren't even that interested in keeping him as a backup, while we extended Patrick freaking Ramsey :D . Then Bellichick, after franchising Cassel, gives him away for much less than traditional franchise tag value. Those are a few red flags.

I think there's a pretty good chance that Cassel turns out pretty good; we'll see soon enough. :cheers:

[omac]

Wow. Anybody who takes Brady into consideration for G.O.A.T. of QBs
apparently hasn't seen a lot of QBs or has a short memory. I just couldn't
picture him taking the Broncos of the 1980s to their Super Bowls, or the bad
teams Van Brocklin took to NFL championships.

I'm sure, however, a case can be made for Brady's being the best QB ever to
play for the Patriots . . .

-----

:D Yikes ... I would put Brady up there, but then again, no way have I seen the QBs you've seen. :cheers:

I will say 2 things ....

1. As a good QB who struggles to win because of a poor team should be taken into consideration, it's tough to penalize a good QB for having it easier because of a good team, ala Brady.

2. This is an era where the QBs are very much protected by the league from really vicious hits, and Brady himself has a rule named after him to protect QBs. :D Add that to NFL rules that handcuff defenses and promote the passing game, and the current QBs would look better than the former ones. The QBs before, with the hits they had to take, would probably think the football played today is for pansies. :D

[TXBRONC]

:D Yikes ... I would put Brady up there, but then again, no way have I seen the QBs you've seen. :cheers:

I will say 2 things ....

1. As a good QB who struggles to win because of a poor team should be taken into consideration, it's tough to penalize a good QB for having it easier because of a good team, ala Brady.

2. This is an era where the QBs are very much protected by the league from really vicious hits, and Brady himself has a rule named after him to protect QBs. :D Add that to NFL rules that handcuff defenses and promote the passing game, and the current QBs would look better than the former ones. The QBs before, with the hits they had to take, would probably think the football played today is for pansies. :D


No one should argue with Top on this he's seen everyone from "Slingin" Sammy Baugh to the present. :D

[topscribe]

Come on, being a homer is one thing, but this is just ridiculous. Even losing a season to injury when the Patriots were the favorites to win the Super Bowl, he's still got 3 Super Bowl rings and a perfect regular season under his belt.

Homer? Did you notice I mentioned Van Brocklin? You are aware, aren't you,
that Van Brocklin played before there ever was a Denver Broncos team, or
even one in anyone's mind? Do you even know, without the benefit of Google,
what teams Van Brocklin played for?

Homer? Here's a list of QBs I consider better than Brady: Otto Graham, Johnny
Unitas, Y.A. Tittle, Van Brocklin, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino,
John Elway, Joe Montana, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning . . . and I'm sure
I missed a few. I believe any one of them, playing in his prime for the Patriots
during the stretch in question, would have ended up with the same rings,
maybe more, such as the Super Bowl following the 2007 season.

Please don't "homer" me . . . unless you also have seen just about every
starting QB to play since and including Johnny Unitas. :coffee:


and I'm not sure if Elway goes a calendar year without a loss, or 18-1 (putting his team up with 2min to play in his one loss to boot) with NE. For me, if I'm down by 4 with 2 minutes left on the clock, I want Elway behind centre. If I'm down by 2 with 5 minutes left on the clock, I want Brady or Montana. imo those are the 3 GOATS at QB.

But anyone who DOESNT take Brady into consideration for GOAT of QBs is letting his bias dictate his reason.

. . . or maybe he's just seen more quarterbacks . . .

-----

[topscribe]

No should argue with Top on this he's seen everyone from "Slingin" Sammy Baugh to the present. :D

Thanks . . . I think. :D

-----

[Tempus Fugit]

Homer? Did you notice I mentioned Van Brocklin? You are aware, aren't you,
that Van Brocklin played before there ever was a Denver Broncos team, or
even one in anyone's mind? Do you even know, without the benefit of Google,
what teams Van Brocklin played for?

Homer? Here's a list of QBs I consider better than Brady: Otto Graham, Johnny
Unitas, Y.A. Tittle, Van Brocklin, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino,
John Elway, Joe Montana, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning . . . and I'm sure
I missed a few. I believe any one of them, playing in his prime for the Patriots
during the stretch in question, would have ended up with the same rings,
maybe more, such as the Super Bowl following the 2007 season.

Please don't "homer" me . . . unless you also have seen just about every
starting QB to play since and including Johnny Unitas. :coffee:

-----

I read your post and noticed Van Brocklin. Seeing this follow up post, I'm even more confident in my assertion.

[topscribe]

I read your postand noticed Van Brocklin. Seeing this follow up post, I'm even more confident in my assertion.

Wow. . . nice rebuttal. :whoknows:

-----

[Tempus Fugit]

Here's just a couple of sites commenting on G.O.A.T., 2 using experts and stats and one from D.C. of all places.


http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list:_Top_10_NFL_quarterbac ks.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203686.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3209882

That you have him behind Drew Brees says it all, really. A rebuttal really wasn't necessary.

[Lonestar]

and I'm not sure if Elway goes a calendar year without a loss, or 18-1 (putting his team up with 2min to play in his one loss to boot) with NE. For me, if I'm down by 4 with 2 minutes left on the clock, I want Elway behind centre. If I'm down by 2 with 5 minutes left on the clock, I want Brady or Montana. imo those are the 3 GOATS at QB.

But anyone who DOESNT take Brady into consideration for GOAT of QB's is letting his bias dictate his reason.

GOAT Brady not so sure while he is a great QB in their system can he do it somewhere else I do not think that he is..

If it were not for their system in NE would he have even got a chance to play QB in the NFL.. chances are not.. He fell into a great situation and had he been elsewhere who knows if he might even be a perennial Backup..

I guess we will never know for sure..

But if he continues in NE at the pace he is he will be a first ballot HOF choice no doubt about it..

[topscribe]

GOAT Brady not so sure while he is a great QB in their system can he do it somewhere else I do not think that he is..

If it were not for their system in NE would he have even got a chance to play QB in the NFL.. chances are not.. He fell into a great situation and had he been elsewhere who knows if he might even be a perennial Backup..

I guess we will never know for sure..

But if he continues in NE at the pace he is he will be a first ballot HOF choice no doubt about it..

Absolutely. I believe Brady is already HOF worthy. It's just that I can think of
a dozen or so QBs I rate higher than Brady. If one is to go by SB rings as the
sign of G.O.A.T., then one has to consider that Bradshaw was better than
Brady, wouldn't one?

-----

[Lonestar]

Absolutely. I believe Brady is already HOF worthy. It's just that I can think of
a dozen or so QBs I rate higher than Brady. If one is to go by SB rings as the
sign of G.O.A.T., then one has to consider that Bradshaw was better than
Brady, wouldn't one?

-----


What I was trying to say if he had went to CLE or DET do you really think he would have become what he is today..

Many teams think they can stick any good QB into their System and they will become good..

Many a good QB has went down the tubes because they were used wrongly or to soon..

Does any one think that Farve would have lasted in NE under Belichick or under Parcels?

There is an ASS for every saddle, but not all saddles fit fit the ASS..

[turftoad]

What I was trying to say if he had went to CLE or DET do you really think he would have become what he is today..

Many teams think they can stick any good QB into their System and they will become good..

Many a good QB has went down the tubes because they were used wrongly or to soon..

Does any one think that Farve would have lasted in NE under Belichick or under Parcels?

There is an ASS for every saddle, but not all saddles fit fit the ASS..

When Favre was in his prime, he could have thrived under anyone.

[Fan in Exile]

When Favre was in his prime, he could have thrived under anyone.

I'm not sure that I buy that one. Holmgren almost went insane coaching Favre. I don't think that if he had a less patient coach that Favre would have made it.

[Tempus Fugit]

What I was trying to say if he had went to CLE or DET do you really think he would have become what he is today..

Many teams think they can stick any good QB into their System and they will become good..

Many a good QB has went down the tubes because they were used wrongly or to soon..

Does any one think that Farve would have lasted in NE under Belichick or under Parcels?

There is an ASS for every saddle, but not all saddles fit fit the ASS..

Jrwiz, this is not aimed at you, but you gave me a good jumping off point....

The Patriots were 5-11 the year before Brady took over. They started the next season 0-2 under Bledsoe. Once Brady took over, the team went 11-3, and then won 3 playoff games to win the Super Bowl. That team won 9 in a row, and 11 of their last 12. That loss was against the Rams, and it was avenged in the Super Bowl.

The Patriots are the winningest team in the NFL during Brady's tenure. Brady has the best record of any quarterback in history through his first 100 starts. Brady has the single season touchdown passes record. Brady got a team with Reche Caldwell as the #1 wide receiver to the AFCCG, and the Patriots would likely have won that game and the Super Bowl that season had not illness and injuries devastated the defense in the second half. All told, in 7 years as the starter (Not counting last season for obvious reasons), he's won 3 Super Bowls, been to 4, been to 5 AFCCGs, and missed the playoffs only in 2002, on a tiebreaker with the Jets.

In the early years, the Patriots were a run heavy team that featured the short pass, often using WR screens to supplement the running of A. Smith. In 2007, the Patriots became the greatest scoring offense in NFL history,

How people feel they can claim that Brady is a system quarterback when the Patriots have changed how they run their offense over time, but don't make that same claim of Peyton Manning, is something I may never understand.

[TXBRONC]

Thanks . . . I think. :D

-----

Anytime Top.

[Lonestar]

When Favre was in his prime, he could have thrived under anyone.

there is a difference in thriving and being happy about what he was told to do..

[elsid13]

I guess that I am one of the few people in America that don't believe in either the system QB or the Gunslinger QB ideas. There are simply QBs that have arm strength to challenge all areas of the field no matter the coverage and guys that need to depend on timing to reach areas of the field while the defense coverage limits his throws. A good to great QB isn't dependent on the offense system, he dependent on maximizing his personal skill sets no matter what those physical skills are.

[Shazam!]

In 2007, the Patriots became the greatest scoring offense in NFL history...

How some people aren't happy we have the architect of that, I don't understand.

When Shanahan came in he was virtually the same. The most important factor in his resume was that he turned SF's Offense into one of the greatest of all time. Elway wanted him... no, demanded him. Besides that, it wasn't for his stint at LA, Denver, or his NCAA time at Illinois or Florida. It's what he learned in the 49ers organzation. This is what made him the hottest candidate for a Coaching job in the League in 1995, and others sought him. It was Bowlen who went to SF HQ disguised to get him to come and talk.

And when he came in Denver's defense was a laughing stock.

McDaniels comes in as he turned the Patriots offense into the most efficient scoring machine in a season, helped them almost go undefeated, turned an unknown nobody into a 14 million QB, and knows what it took for the Patriots to win. AND he coached a lil' Defense.

And when he came in Denver's defense was, again... a laughing stock.

The only difference was a Hall of Fame QB in John Elway. McDaniels' didn't come into the same circumstance because of Cutler, so don't spin that, because then you are saying that Cutler is as good as Elway, who started Super Bowls and won at least 7 Playoff games already.

We gotta give the guy a chance.

[omac]

How some people aren't happy we have the architect of that, I don't understand.

When Shanahan came in he was virtually the same. The most important factor in his resume was that he turned SF's Offense into one of the greatest of all time. Elway wanted him... no, demanded him. Besides that, it wasn't for his stint at LA, Denver, or his NCAA time at Illinois or Florida. It's what he learned in the 49ers organzation. This is what made him the hottest candidate for a Coaching job in the League in 1995, and others sought him. It was Bowlen who went to SF HQ disguised to get him to come and talk.

And when he came in Denver's defense was a laughing stock.

McDaniels comes in as he turned the Patriots offense into the most efficient scoring machine in a season, helped them almost go undefeated, turned an unknown nobody into a 14 million QB, and knows what it took for the Patriots to win. AND he coached a lil' Defense.

And when he came in Denver's defense was, again... a laughing stock.

The only difference was a Hall of Fame QB in John Elway. McDaniels' didn't come into the same circumstance because of Cutler, so don't spin that, because then you are saying that Cutler is as good as Elway, who started Super Bowls and won at least 7 Playoff games already.

We gotta give the guy a chance.

I doubt people are unhappy about what he was able to accomplish with the 2007 Patriots offense, and that's why there was a lot of buzz with him coming in to coach the team. I still think he's a great X's and O's guy who can build a great offense.

Being a head coach is a totally different matter, and we've seen how terribly he's handled certain situations first hand. Also, the one thing you have to remember with Shanahan was that before he became the Broncos head coach, he worked for the Broncos too; he had history with the club, he wasn't an outsider, and he had many more years and more varied coaching experience than McDaniels had, and it showed in the not only in his X's an O's, but the way he managed his players and the team overall. Wisdom-wise, McDaniels is very green in that sense.

I'm taking a similar stance to topscribe's that even though I'm pissed with the way he's handled things, I'll give him a chance to show he's a good or even great coach. :cheers:

[Shazam!]

Again though Omac, Shanahan was the hottest commodity in Coaching in 1995 for his stint in SF. Nothing else. He was highly sought, the Broncos made him the best offer. Full control and big bucks (6M?). Not many teams would offer that, full control.


I'm giving Mike full control of our football operations. That's what I want him to do...

[TXBRONC]

I doubt people are unhappy about what he was able to accomplish with the 2007 Patriots offense, and that's why there was a lot of buzz with him coming in to coach the team. I still think he's a great X's and O's guy who can build a great offense.

Being a head coach is a totally different matter, and we've seen how terribly he's handled certain situations first hand. Also, the one thing you have to remember with Shanahan was that before he became the Broncos head coach, he worked for the Broncos too; he had history with the club, he wasn't an outsider, and he had many more years and more varied coaching experience than McDaniels had, and it showed in the not only in his X's an O's, but the way he managed his players and the team overall. Wisdom-wise, McDaniels is very green in that sense.

I'm taking a similar stance to topscribe's that even though I'm pissed with the way he's handled things, I'll give him a chance to show he's a good or even great coach. :cheers:

:dito:

[TXBRONC]

Again though Omac, Shanahan was the hottest commodity in Coaching in 1995 for his stint in SF. Nothing else. He was highly sought, the Broncos made him the best offer. Full control and big bucks (6M?). Not many teams would offer that, full control.

Two years before that Bowlen offered the job to him and he turned it down. Whether or not he was sought just because of his stint in San Francisco I don't that was Omac's point. His point was that Shanahan had longer and wider range of experience compared to McDaniels.

[omac]

Two years before that Bowlen offered the job to him and he turned it down. Whether or not he was sought just because of his stint in San Francisco I don't that was Omac's point. His point was that Shanahan had longer and wider range of experience compared to McDaniels.

That's exactly what I meant. :cheers: