The Bears' outlook and our pick next year

[TimBuff10]

So now that we traded away our No1 next year I am left hoping the Bears go 0-16 so we can get the first pick overall. And no, I don't need to hear about how having the first overall pick is bad because it is too expensive. Having the first pick gives you more options. We may want to use it on a a QB, or better yet we could trade it to move into the middle of the round and gain an extra second rounder or something like that.

Anyway, what do you all think about the Bear's outlook this year?

I am no big Bear follower but I recall that their D got a bit worse in the last year or two after being very good for the past half decade or so. Good but not great, but their D is their identity. On the Offense, they have Cutler now who will throw for a bunch of yards and probably a bunch of picks too. Their RB is pretty good, but how is their O-line? I seem to remember it being about average at best. The receivers... Well, other than Hester who most think is living a lie on offense, I can't even name any of their receivers.

Oh yeah, and if Cutler were go down, who is their backup? I know Grossman isn't there anymore... So here's to an 0-16 season for the Bears.

[honz]

I think their D is getting a little old and they really did nothing to address it this offseason. I expect their defense to be average again this year, and it will all depend on how much Cutler improves that team. I too hope they have a very mediocre year so that we can get a mid first round pick or so.

[TimBuff10]

I am worried they will be able to grab one of these "problem" receivers that are on the block at the moment. Plaxico, Bolden, and Braylon Edwards are all on the block. If any one of these three end up there, that could easily give them another win or three with just that one addition. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

I guess one way to look at this season for the Broncos is to make sure that our record is better than the Bears'. At least that will make giving up that pick not quite as bad of a move because when that deal was made our FO was obviously making that bet.

[omac]

I am worried they will be able to grab one of these "problem" receivers that are on the block at the moment. Plaxico, Bolden, and Braylon Edwards are all on the block. If any one of these three end up there, that could easily give them another win or three with just that one addition. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

I guess one way to look at this season for the Broncos is to make sure that our record is better than the Bears'. At least that will make giving up that pick not quite as bad of a move because when that deal was made our FO was obviously making that bet.

According to McDaniels, the other team did give them the option of taking the worse pick, but McDaniels decided that it was okay, they can have the Broncos pick no matter what. I can understand confidence, but business-wise, when the other team is willing to guarantee you the better compensation, you should take it.

[Elevation inc]

According to McDaniels, the other team did give them the option of taking the worse pick, but McDaniels decided that it was okay, they can have the Broncos pick no matter what. I can understand confidence, but business-wise, when the other team is willing to guarantee you the better compensation, you should take it.

according to the DP and MCD and the financial conversations that went down with the seahawks the seahwaks wouldnt take the bears pick, and denver had like under 2 minutes on the clock, so they said screw it and got there guy


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12241376

True to suspicions, the Broncos discussed finances before the NFL draft.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders huddled with chief operating officer Joe Ellis and owner Pat Bowlen. They talked about the draft budget. They went over their two first-round picks and how much they would cost. They talked about the two first-round picks in 2010 and how much they would cost. The result of that meeting of Broncos leaders and Bowlen's pocketbook?

"No restrictions," McDaniels said.

It wasn't finances that caused the Broncos to raise eyebrows by trading their first-round pick in 2010 to Seattle for a high second-round pick and the right to select cornerback Alphonso Smith on Saturday.

The deal was a blast from Bobby Beathard's past.

"It's really the philosophy of let's get better now," said Beathard, who built rosters in Miami, Washington and San Diego that went to seven Super Bowls and won four. In 1993, Beathard traded San Diego's No. 1 draft pick in 1994 for the right to select running back Natrone Means in the second round, right then and there. "If there's a player there you really like, it's not the gamble people think. You have to go by your evaluations, your convictions, and if the Broncos had (Smith) rated there, then, 'Don't let him go, we're going to go get another No. 1.' "

On the surface, trading the No. 1 of tomorrow for a No. 2 of today doesn't add up. And yes, the Broncos were facing the pricey commitment of paying approximately $12.5 million in guaranteed money to running back Know-shon Moreno and another $9.5 million to defensive end/linebacker Robert Ayers after selecting them in the first round.

But Bowlen did not issue an edict to McDaniels and Xanders that they must get rid of one of their first-round picks in 2010. As McDaniels said Saturday after drafting two players in the first round, "We did it this year. We would have done it next year."

That extra first-round pick, it should be noted, had been acquired 23 days earlier in the Jay Cutler trade.

The reason the Broncos dealt a first-round pick next year for a second-round pick this year was simply their desire to draft Smith. From the start of the second round, the Broncos started calling teams hoping to acquire the cornerback who some scouts compare to the late Darrent Williams because of his instincts and playmaking abilities.

Seattle, with the overall No. 37 pick in the second round, liked the idea of getting one of the Broncos' first-round draft picks next year. But no, the Seahawks would not agree to the condition the Broncos keep the better of the two picks. One pick would have been dependent on the Chicago Bears' record this season; the other pick would have been determined by the Broncos' finish.

The Seahawks insisted on taking the Broncos' pick. The Broncos didn't have time to argue, not with the clock running. To finish the deal for Smith, the Broncos agreed to surrender their own pick and kept the one connected to where the Bears finish.
"I don't think it was about finances," draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. said. "Forget the second round. If he's the 20th-best player on your board, which Alphonso Smith could have been, then who cares? That's their argument and it's a just argument. I'm not an advocate of that. I think it's a risky proposition."

Here's the risk: If the Broncos finish, say, 5-11 this season, Seattle could have the No. 6 overall pick or so in the 2010 draft. No matter how it's explained, Broncoland will never understand how a No. 37 pick equals what turned out to be a No. 6.

But if the Broncos finish 10-6, then Seattle's extra pick would come in around No. 22 overall in 2010, or around where the Broncos may have rated Smith on their 2009 board. And if Smith has a big season and the Broncos win the AFC West, a No. 2 or a No. 1 will have been worth it.

"Maybe you don't hit it right sometimes, but I believe in that," Beathard said.

[muse]

I think some of you guys are underestimating Jay. Yes, he had a good supporting cast in the passing game last year...but he's no stranger to having a bad OL/non-name receivers and he still produced in college. He's also going to make his receivers better, by how much remains to be seen. And now he has a running game which is more than can be said for last year. I just think you guys should remember that we had no business being 8-8 last season - we could've been 3-13 or 4-12 without Jay quite easily.

[Nomad]

Bears go 7-9 at best 9-7, so BRONCOS picking around the 11-14 range!! I see the BRONCOS pick going in the same range, so Seattle picks there.

[Dirk]

Hard to say where we finish and where Da Bears finish.

Either way, it is a very risky move trading a #1 for the next year on a 5'9" corner, no matter how much skill he has.

So IMO, it was a bad trade because he would have probably been there when they picked anyhow.

But every draft pick is a risk, so who knows.

[Nomad]

Hard to say where we finish and where Da Bears finish.

Either way, it is a very risky move trading a #1 for the next year on a 5'9" corner, no matter how much skill he has.

So IMO, it was a bad trade because he would have probably been there when they picked anyhow.

But every draft pick is a risk, so who knows.

I watched a clip of Smith last night. I wasn't a fan of DW and he reminds me alot of DW. I like his heart and intensity and hope he proves all his critics wrong!!

[Dirk]

I watched a clip of Smith last night. I wasn't a fan of DW and he reminds me alot of DW. I like his heart and intensity and hope he proves all his critics wrong!!


I don't take anything away from Smith's heart and abilities at all. He is a player for sure. The only thing that bothers me is his height in the NFL. So many recievers are over 6'1" and up.

I do hope he does quite well. :salute:

Poor DW...struck down in the prime of his life. That effected me tremendously. :tsk:

[CoachChaz]

Asante Samuel, 5-10...Ronde Barber, 5-10...Antoine Winfield, 5-9...Cortland Finnegan, 5-10...


I'm not going through every NFL roster, but here are 4 Pro-Bowl players around Smith's height. Being 6'0" isnt a requirement for success in the NFL as a DB, so when an "expert" says the only reason Smith didnt go in the first is becuase of his height...I'm not worried.

Don't forget...at 5'8", Bob Sanders is way too small to play safety

[Nomad]

You won't see me judge according to size and I'm not critical of the young man, but I'm wondering what Nolans schemes are because jamming some of these bigger receivers at the line my not be effective for him, then again Denver doesn't seem to run the 'bump n run' with the corners!

[LRtagger]

I disagree that having the #1 pick opens up your options. IMO it actually limits your options because you are forced to take a "franchise" type position rather than having the option to address positions of need. If our biggest need is NT or LB, you dont want to pay a NT or LB $45mil guaranteed. You are almost forced to take a OT, QB, etc...unless you have a guy like Curry who offered to take less money. But honestly, guys like Curry don't come out every year.

Not to mention it is the hardest draft position to trade out of. I would be happy if the Bears gave us a pick in the 7-20 range. Seems thats often the best place to be as far as money vs. talent goes.

Either way, I don't think there is any way the Bears win less than 6 or 7 games unless Jay goes on IR early in the season. IMO Jay was the only legit improvement the team made, but you have to remember they still won 9 games last year.

[TXBRONC]

I disagree that having the #1 pick opens up your options. IMO it actually limits your options because you are forced to take a "franchise" type position rather than having the option to address positions of need. If our biggest need is NT or LB, you dont want to pay a NT or LB $45mil guaranteed. You are almost forced to take a OT, QB, etc...unless you have a guy like Curry who offered to take less money. But honestly, guys like Curry don't come out every year.

Not to mention it is the hardest draft position to trade out of. I would be happy if the Bears gave us a pick in the 7-20 range. Seems thats often the best place to be as far as money vs. talent goes.

Either way, I don't think there is any way the Bears win less than 6 or 7 games unless Jay goes on IR early in the season. IMO Jay was the only legit improvement the team made, but you have to remember they still won 9 games last year.

If the Bears stay healthy I think will end up challenging the Viking for the division crown.

[Dirk]

If the Bears stay healthy I think will end up challenging the Viking for the division crown.

That would be a pretty good feat! I think the Vikings may be the NFC Champs this year. SB bound IMO. But then again, what do I know? :lol:

[LRtagger]

If the Bears stay healthy I think will end up challenging the Viking for the division crown.

Even if they dont contend for the division, there is no way in hell they end up with the worst record in the league.

[TXBRONC]

Even if they dont contend for the division, there is no way in hell they end up with the worst record in the league.

I agree.

[TimBuff10]

I think some of you guys are underestimating Jay. Yes, he had a good supporting cast in the passing game last year...but he's no stranger to having a bad OL/non-name receivers and he still produced in college. He's also going to make his receivers better, by how much remains to be seen. And now he has a running game which is more than can be said for last year. I just think you guys should remember that we had no business being 8-8 last season - we could've been 3-13 or 4-12 without Jay quite easily.


I am thinking it was more of a wash... He cost us a few games with his wild throwing that led to picks. I also think without him, we would have lost the Cleveland game, and maybe the SD game, although the Hokuli play would have never have happened.

[TimBuff10]

I disagree that having the #1 pick opens up your options. IMO it actually limits your options because you are forced to take a "franchise" type position rather than having the option to address positions of need. If our biggest need is NT or LB, you dont want to pay a NT or LB $45mil guaranteed. You are almost forced to take a OT, QB, etc...unless you have a guy like Curry who offered to take less money. But honestly, guys like Curry don't come out every year. .

I don't see it. The Jets gave up several picks and several players to move up to take Sanchez.

If we had the #1 pick, I am sure we could have had their first, and second for it. You can't tell me that a team at no 17 can get more than a team at #1 if they are trying to trade down. In those days before the draft there were plenty of teams that wanted to move up to get that player they wanted.

Plus, by next year we should know the answer to our own QB question. May want to get that best QB in the draft by then if things dont work out this year.

[TimBuff10]

Even if they dont contend for the division, there is no way in hell they end up with the worst record in the league.

That is true most likely... It is kind of a moot point.

Although if Cutler goes down for the season, we can hope.

[Nomad]

That would be a pretty good feat! I think the Vikings may be the NFC Champs this year. SB bound IMO. But then again, what do I know? :lol:

Especially if Farve finds his way out of retirement again and has the Vikings on his radar. You never know what June will bring!;)

[Lonestar]

I disagree that having the #1 pick opens up your options. IMO it actually limits your options because you are forced to take a "franchise" type position rather than having the option to address positions of need. If our biggest need is NT or LB, you dont want to pay a NT or LB $45mil guaranteed. You are almost forced to take a OT, QB, etc...unless you have a guy like Curry who offered to take less money. But honestly, guys like Curry don't come out every year.

Not to mention it is the hardest draft position to trade out of. I would be happy if the Bears gave us a pick in the 7-20 range. Seems thats often the best place to be as far as money vs. talent goes.

Either way, I don't think there is any way the Bears win less than 6 or 7 games unless Jay goes on IR early in the season. IMO Jay was the only legit improvement the team made, but you have to remember they still won 9 games last year.

While MIN and GB improved drmaically in the draft and DET can't get any worse. And not knowing their schedule I just do not see them with any huge improvement via the draft. As it stands his OC is for crap the guy that refused him a scholarship at IL, his oLInE stinks, he does not have marshall, royal, stokely, schefler,/rahm and Hillis out of the backfield.

I suspect he is going miss some of those guys. Even though the RB there was about the same production wise and the defense is/was marginallt better.

I suspect the only reason they might have a beeter year is our schedule.

[Lonestar]

That would be a pretty good feat! I think the Vikings may be the NFC Champs this year. SB bound IMO. But then again, what do I know? :lol:

Anyone that thinks they are equal teams as long as they are both. healthy is smoking something with power. The only thing they lack is a great QB and they may have that in Sage.

Contend they will be lucky to keep the games a split. And not get blown out of the park.

Ahahahahahahahaha

[hotcarl]

Anyone that thinks they are equal teams as long as they are both. healthy is smoking something with power. The only thing they lack is a great QB and they may have that in Sage.

Contend they will be lucky to keep the games a split. And not get blown out of the park.

Ahahahahahahahaha

what?

are you drunk again?

[TimBuff10]

I see the Bears going about 6-10 this year. Their schedule is pretty tough too. The only gimmies they have are the two against the Lions, and one with the Rams, and even those two teams may surprise some teams. I suspect the trip to Seattle will be tougher than most think. Maybe one of the two road games with the Falcons and Bengals could be a win. The Cards could turn into their old selves but they might roll it up on the Bears too. The 49ers could be a shot at a win but playing in San Fran and against Singletary it will be tough as he will be amped to beat the Bears.

1 Sun Sep 13, 2009 @Packers 8:20 PM ET L
2 Sun Sep 20, 2009 Steelers 4:15 PM ET L
3 Sun Sep 27, 2009 @Seahawks 4:05 PM ET L
4 Sun Oct 4, 2009 Lions 1:00 PM ET W
5 --- BYE WEEK ---
6 Sun Oct 18, 2009 @Falcons 8:20 PM ET L
7 Sun Oct 25, 2009 @Bengals 1:00 PM ET W
8 Sun Nov 1, 2009 Browns 1:00 PM ET W
9 Sun Nov 8, 2009 Cardinals 1:00 PM ET L
10 Thu Nov 12, 2009 @49ers 8:20 PM ET L
11 Sun Nov 22, 2009 Eagles 8:20 PM ET L
12 Sun Nov 29, 2009 @Vikings 1:00 PM ET L
13 Sun Dec 6, 2009 Rams 1:00 PM ET W
14 Sun Dec 13, 2009 Packers 1:00 PM ET W
15 Sun Dec 20, 2009 @Ravens 1:00 PM ET L
16 Mon Dec 28, 2009Vikings 8:30 PM ET L
17 Sun Jan 3, 2010 @Lions 1:00 PM ET W

[T.K.O.]

At least that will make giving up that pick not quite as bad of a move because when that deal was made our FO was obviously making that bet.

actually no our front office offered to make it the worst of the 2 picks and the seahawks declined and said they wanted ours meaning both parties likely thought the bears would have a better record.....dont believe it !

[UnderArmour]

I see the Bears going about 6-10 this year. Their schedule is pretty tough too. The only gimmies they have are the two against the Lions, and one with the Rams, and even those two teams may surprise some teams. I suspect the trip to Seattle will be tougher than most think. Maybe one of the two road games with the Falcons and Bengals could be a win. The Cards could turn into their old selves but they might roll it up on the Bears too. The 49ers could be a shot at a win but playing in San Fran and against Singletary it will be tough as he will be amped to beat the Bears.

1 Sun Sep 13, 2009 @Packers 8:20 PM ET L
2 Sun Sep 20, 2009 Steelers 4:15 PM ET L
3 Sun Sep 27, 2009 @Seahawks 4:05 PM ET L
4 Sun Oct 4, 2009 Lions 1:00 PM ET W
5 --- BYE WEEK ---
6 Sun Oct 18, 2009 @Falcons 8:20 PM ET L
7 Sun Oct 25, 2009 @Bengals 1:00 PM ET W
8 Sun Nov 1, 2009 Browns 1:00 PM ET W
9 Sun Nov 8, 2009 Cardinals 1:00 PM ET L
10 Thu Nov 12, 2009 @49ers 8:20 PM ET L
11 Sun Nov 22, 2009 Eagles 8:20 PM ET L
12 Sun Nov 29, 2009 @Vikings 1:00 PM ET L
13 Sun Dec 6, 2009 Rams 1:00 PM ET W
14 Sun Dec 13, 2009 Packers 1:00 PM ET W
15 Sun Dec 20, 2009 @Ravens 1:00 PM ET L
16 Mon Dec 28, 2009Vikings 8:30 PM ET L
17 Sun Jan 3, 2010 @Lions 1:00 PM ET W

Wow. The Bears will finish at worst 10-6. Way to be optimistic though. The fact you have them starting at 0-3 is laughable. Teams simply do not have these terrible slides in the NFL unless they are just awful, which the Bears are not. This is a team that finished 9-7 last year with Kyle Orton and a terrible offense. They can compete with anyone in the NFC. I wouldn't be shocked if this team went 13-3 or 14-2.

1 Sun Sep 13, 2009 @Packers 8:20 PM ET Win.
2 Sun Sep 20, 2009 Steelers 4:15 PM ET Win.
3 Sun Sep 27, 2009 @Seahawks 4:05 PM ET Win
4 Sun Oct 4, 2009 Lions 1:00 PM ET Win.
5 --- BYE WEEK ---
6 Sun Oct 18, 2009 @Falcons 8:20 PM ET Win.
7 Sun Oct 25, 2009 @Bengals 1:00 PM ET Win.
8 Sun Nov 1, 2009 Browns 1:00 PM ET Win.
9 Sun Nov 8, 2009 Cardinals 1:00 PM ET Win.
10 Thu Nov 12, 2009 @49ers 8:20 PM ET Win.
11 Sun Nov 22, 2009 Eagles 8:20 PM ET Loss.
12 Sun Nov 29, 2009 @Vikings 1:00 PM ET Win.
13 Sun Dec 6, 2009 Rams 1:00 PM ET Win.
14 Sun Dec 13, 2009 Packers 1:00 PM ET Win.
15 Sun Dec 20, 2009 @Ravens 1:00 PM ET Loss.
16 Mon Dec 28, 2009Vikings 8:30 PM ET Win.
17 Sun Jan 3, 2010 @Lions 1:00 PM ET Win.

I cannot envision a scenario where this team does not contend for the NFC. I followed this team last year with Orton and they were not too far off. They lost a few games in the 4th quarter that prevented them from taking the division. Where does Cutler excel? The 4th quarter. This will be an exciting team to watch next season.

[oobehr]

I don't care what the bears record is just as long as they don't make the playoffs(thus picking in the top 20), I am happy with the pick.

[TimBuff10]

Wow. The Bears will finish at worst 10-6. Way to be optimistic though. The fact you have them starting at 0-3 is laughable. Teams simply do not have these terrible slides in the NFL unless they are just awful, which the Bears are not. This is a team that finished 9-7 last year with Kyle Orton and a terrible offense. They can compete with anyone in the NFC. I wouldn't be shocked if this team went 13-3 or 14-2.

1 Sun Sep 13, 2009 @Packers 8:20 PM ET Win.
2 Sun Sep 20, 2009 Steelers 4:15 PM ET Win.
3 Sun Sep 27, 2009 @Seahawks 4:05 PM ET Win
4 Sun Oct 4, 2009 Lions 1:00 PM ET Win.
5 --- BYE WEEK ---
6 Sun Oct 18, 2009 @Falcons 8:20 PM ET Win.
7 Sun Oct 25, 2009 @Bengals 1:00 PM ET Win.
8 Sun Nov 1, 2009 Browns 1:00 PM ET Win.
9 Sun Nov 8, 2009 Cardinals 1:00 PM ET Win.
10 Thu Nov 12, 2009 @49ers 8:20 PM ET Win.
11 Sun Nov 22, 2009 Eagles 8:20 PM ET Loss.
12 Sun Nov 29, 2009 @Vikings 1:00 PM ET Win.
13 Sun Dec 6, 2009 Rams 1:00 PM ET Win.
14 Sun Dec 13, 2009 Packers 1:00 PM ET Win.
15 Sun Dec 20, 2009 @Ravens 1:00 PM ET Loss.
16 Mon Dec 28, 2009Vikings 8:30 PM ET Win.
17 Sun Jan 3, 2010 @Lions 1:00 PM ET Win.

I cannot envision a scenario where this team does not contend for the NFC. I followed this team last year with Orton and they were not too far off. They lost a few games in the 4th quarter that prevented them from taking the division. Where does Cutler excel? The 4th quarter. This will be an exciting team to watch next season.


Haha, where does Cutler excel? Between the 20s.

I don't see them winning any of the first thee games. Their best chance of the three will be on the road in GreenBay for the season opener... will be tough to get a win there though.

Hosting the Steelers... Maybe, but I doubt it.

Seahawks in Seattle. It's a long trip out there and I am sure they won't have the injury problems they did last year. I am betting Seattle will be one of the more improved teams this year.

[UnderArmour]

Haha, where does Cutler excel? Between the 20s.

I don't see them winning any of the first thee games. Their best chance of the three will be on the road in GreenBay for the season opener... will be tough to get a win there though.

Hosting the Steelers... Maybe, but I doubt it.

Seahawks in Seattle. It's a long trip out there and I am sure they won't have the injury problems they did last year. I am betting Seattle will be one of the more improved teams this year.

The Bears consistently beat the Seahawks. This isn't something that I expect to change with the Seahawks offense only decaying more and more with each passing year. Also, the Bears have gotten the best of the Packers in recent years of their rivalry, so again I don't feel like it's something that's going to change.

[NameUsedBefore]

Considering Cutler came from Vanderbilt I think many overrate his "need" for a surrounding offensive cast.

[T.K.O.]

I don't see it. The Jets gave up several picks and several players to move up to take Sanchez.

If we had the #1 pick, I am sure we could have had their first, and second for it. You can't tell me that a team at no 17 can get more than a team at #1 if they are trying to trade down. In those days before the draft there were plenty of teams that wanted to move up to get that player they wanted.

Plus, by next year we should know the answer to our own QB question. May want to get that best QB in the draft by then if things dont work out this year.

nobody would take detroits #1 they tried....and next year is an uncapped year ,if there is no rookie pay scale in place nobody will want a top 10 pick ,let alone 2

[TimBuff10]

nobody would take detroits #1 they tried....and next year is an uncapped year ,if there is no rookie pay scale in place nobody will want a top 10 pick ,let alone 2

If that were true, then you would have seen teams not picking and instead just passing when it was their turn. Until you see that, then I can't agree.

[MOtorboat]

Considering Cutler came from Vanderbilt I think many overrate his "need" for a surrounding offensive cast.

Because when given one he sure succeeded?

:rolleyes:

[NameUsedBefore]

8-8 is pretty good for a team with Denver's defense.

It's not perfect, but a kid who was just in his third season and slinging 600+ passes to produce like that is ahead of the game I'd say.

[honz]

No winning seasons since high school...he could probably use a good surrounding cast.

[MOtorboat]

No winning seasons since high school...he could probably use a good surrounding cast.

He had one.

[honz]

He had one.
The one where he started like 5 games and went 2-3 or something? I stand corrected.

[MOtorboat]

The one where he started like 5 games and went 2-3 or something? I stand corrected.

No... actually meant a surrounding cast.

It amazes me at how people can dismiss the talent on the offensive side of the ball so quickly when referring to how good Cutler was when they slam the defense.

Yes, the defense was horrible, but the talent on this offense is astounding.

[honz]

No... actually meant a surrounding cast.

It amazes me at how people can dismiss the talent on the offensive side of the ball so quickly when referring to how good Cutler was when they slam the defense.

Yes, the defense was horrible, but the talent on this offense is astounding.
Oh, okay. Gotcha. I agree.

Cutler is a very good QB, but I think a lot of QB's could have success with the type of talent he had around him last year. I bet almost any QB in the league (minus Brady and maybe Delhomme and a few others) would have traded their supporting cast in for Denver's with little hesitation last year.

[hamrob]

11-5 or 12-4

[NameUsedBefore]

7 RBs on IR? A turnover-less defense that forces the offense into passing 600+ times? Worst starting field position in the league? Yeah I bet Brady would take that in a heart beat.

[honz]

7 RBs on IR? A turnover-less defense that forces the offense into passing 600+ times? Worst starting field position in the league? Yeah I bet Brady would take that in a heart beat.
Not running the ball was really by choice. There were few games where we were down early in games and forced to start chucking it all over the place. Not that that's Jay's fault, but still. Also, I was just talking about his offensive supporting cast. It was fantastic, and we still only had the 16th best scoring offense.

[MOtorboat]

7 RBs on IR? A turnover-less defense that forces the offense into passing 600+ times? Worst starting field position in the league? Yeah I bet Brady would take that in a heart beat.

I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing are more and more excuses.

[NameUsedBefore]

Not running the ball was really by choice. There were few games where we were down early in games and forced to start chucking it all over the place. Not that that's Jay's fault, but still. Also, I was just talking about his offensive supporting cast. It was fantastic, and we still only had the 16th best scoring offense.

Again. Worst in turnovers and worst in starting position. As "fantastic" as our offense was, that's very hard to come over. And I don't think Shanahan, of all people, just started throwing it by choice. As I've said many times, starting a game with one running-back and ending with another isn't conducive to a great running-game. Starting a game with a great running-game is irrelevant when the team is blowing you out. Denver was dead last in turnovers by the defense by a considerable margin. These were major issues for the Broncos and one of the reasons I don't buy the "but, but, but look at the surrounding cast" arguments.

[MOtorboat]

Again. Worst in turnovers and worst in starting position. As "fantastic" as our offense was, that's very hard to come over. And I don't think Shanahan, of all people, just started throwing it by choice. As I've said many times, starting a game with one running-back and ending with another isn't conducive to a great running-game. Starting a game with a great running-game is irrelevant when the team is blowing you out. Denver was dead last in turnovers by the defense by a considerable margin. These were major issues for the Broncos and one of the reasons I don't buy the "but, but, but look at the surrounding cast" arguments.

More excuses.

We were in just about every game we played, but for some reason Shanahan refused to quit throwing the ball around the yard. Unless...Cutler audibled a lot, and if that is the case, then he's an idiot.

[NameUsedBefore]

I'm not pulling this stuff out of nowhere, Mo. I honestly don't see how one could divest the offense from the defense here when one was so atrociously bad as to afford the other practically zero benefits whatsoever -- particularly when defense makes up an entire half of football.

And I don't see how Shanahan abandoned the run just to be pass-happy. That's incredibly unlike Shanahan which is probably why it didn't happen like that. A chunk of the games were either close shootouts or embarrassing blow outs, usually not in our favor on the latter. Neither of those lend themselves to handing the ball off. My favorite example being Tatum Bell in the San Diego game -- 80 yards on 8 carries. Sounds pretty badass. 52 points by San Diego is also pretty badass. I guess if we just handed it off to Bell more they would have scored less or something. Also, for repetition, it's hard to stick with the running-game when you're starting running-backs keep getting knocked out of the game. The running-game is Shanahan's bread and butter; if it was left in the garage you can bet your ass it was for good reasons and last season was most certainly full of 'em.

[MOtorboat]

I'm not pulling this stuff out of nowhere, Mo. I honestly don't see how one could divest the offense from the defense here when one was so atrociously bad as to afford the other practically zero benefits whatsoever -- particularly when defense makes up an entire half of football.

And I don't see how Shanahan abandoned the run just to be pass-happy. That's incredibly unlike Shanahan which is probably why it didn't happen like that. A chunk of the games were either close shootouts or embarrassing blow outs, usually not in our favor on the latter. Neither of those lend themselves to handing the ball off. My favorite example being Tatum Bell in the San Diego game -- 80 yards on 8 carries. Sounds pretty badass. 52 points by San Diego is also pretty badass. I guess if we just handed it off to Bell more they would have scored less or something. Also, for repetition, it's hard to stick with the running-game when you're starting running-backs keep getting knocked out of the game. The running-game is Shanahan's bread and butter; if it was left in the garage you can bet your ass it was for good reasons and last season was most certainly full of 'em.

Yes, yes it would have. You shorten the game and control the clock. That had always been Shanahan's mantra, even with Elway, and you would be right that it WAS unlike Shanahan, but that sure looked like what he was doing. For some reason, and we can debate the zillion reasons why, when he got Cutler he began to abandon that philosophy. There were many who saw it, and I'll even I admit I scoffed at them some, but it looks more and more like they were right.

[LRtagger]

I don't see it. The Jets gave up several picks and several players to move up to take Sanchez.

If we had the #1 pick, I am sure we could have had their first, and second for it. You can't tell me that a team at no 17 can get more than a team at #1 if they are trying to trade down. In those days before the draft there were plenty of teams that wanted to move up to get that player they wanted.

Plus, by next year we should know the answer to our own QB question. May want to get that best QB in the draft by then if things dont work out this year.

Theres a big difference between the #1 and #5 pick. #1 is paying the guy $40mil+ guaranteed. Its the reason Detroit didnt get Jay because we wanted nothing to do with their #1. The only advantage to having the #1 pick is you can negotiate a contract before you draft the player, so there shouldn't be any holdouts etc.

But nobody wants any part of paying $40mil guaranteed to an unproven player. Detroit couldnt have given away their pick this year.

[LRtagger]

Again. Worst in turnovers and worst in starting position. As "fantastic" as our offense was, that's very hard to come over. And I don't think Shanahan, of all people, just started throwing it by choice. As I've said many times, starting a game with one running-back and ending with another isn't conducive to a great running-game. Starting a game with a great running-game is irrelevant when the team is blowing you out. Denver was dead last in turnovers by the defense by a considerable margin. These were major issues for the Broncos and one of the reasons I don't buy the "but, but, but look at the surrounding cast" arguments.


We were also 11th in total tackles which tells me the offense put the defense on the field more often than they should have.

[T.K.O.]

We were also 11th in total tackles which tells me the offense put the defense on the field more often than they should have.

OR... the defense couldnt stop a drive and teams just kept converting 3rd downs and our offense couldnt get back on the field.
thats how i remember it;)

[LRtagger]

I guess if we just handed it off to Bell more they would have scored less or something.

Well they DID score 14 points off Jay's interceptions...one of which was inside our own 20 yard line and the other was inside their 20.

And Tater scored 2 TDs on 8 carries. Logic would say if we threw the ball less and ran the ball more it would have been a closer game.

To suggest Mike went to the pass because we were so far behind is not true. This is our first possession:

1-10-DEN 27 (11:34) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 19-E.Royal to DEN 24 for -3 yards (95-S.Phillips).
2-13-DEN 24 (11:00) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass deep right to 88-T.Scheffler ran ob at DEN 40 for 16 yards.
1-10-DEN 40 (10:41) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short left to 15-B.Marshall.
2-10-DEN 40 (10:38) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 89-D.Graham to DEN 49 for 9 yards (95-S.Phillips).
3-1-DEN 49 (10:03) 21-T.Bell up the middle to SD 48 for 3 yards (54-S.Cooper).
1-10-SD 48 (9:29) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to 50 for -2 yards (99-I.Olshansky).
2-12- (9:01) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 14-B.Stokley to SD 35 for 15 yards (27-P.Oliver).
1-10-SD 35 (8:22) (Shotgun) 21-T.Bell right end to SD 26 for 9 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
2-1-SD 26 (7:46) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short left to 15-B.Marshall.
3-1-SD 26 (7:42) 21-T.Bell up the middle for 26 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

[LRtagger]

OR... the defense couldnt stop a drive and teams just kept converting 3rd downs and our offense couldnt get back on the field.
thats how i remember it;)

Plus an offense that couldnt sustain drives by putting the ball in the endzone...and a QB that threw 18 INTs often times putting the defense in bad spots.

Our defense was atrocious last year, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking our offense was not part of the problem as well.

[TimBuff10]

Theres a big difference between the #1 and #5 pick. #1 is paying the guy $40mil+ guaranteed. Its the reason Detroit didnt get Jay because we wanted nothing to do with their #1. The only advantage to having the #1 pick is you can negotiate a contract before you draft the player, so there shouldn't be any holdouts etc.

But nobody wants any part of paying $40mil guaranteed to an unproven player. Detroit couldnt have given away their pick this year.

Again, if that were true the Lions or whoever would have had the first pick would have just passed and let it slip down to a lower overall pick. Unless the rules have changed I remember reading that the team has to pay for the slot the player was actually picked at, not where the team was slotted to pick. This is what prevented a team from picking Sanchez at 2 and then holding him for the best offer. He still would have had to be paid the #2 slot and not the slot of whatever team he went to.

[TXBRONC]

Theres a big difference between the #1 and #5 pick. #1 is paying the guy $40mil+ guaranteed. Its the reason Detroit didnt get Jay because we wanted nothing to do with their #1. The only advantage to having the #1 pick is you can negotiate a contract before you draft the player, so there shouldn't be any holdouts etc.

But nobody wants any part of paying $40mil guaranteed to an unproven player. Detroit couldnt have given away their pick this year.

Having the overall number one pick seems to be more a curse than a blessing. Not only are you paying veteran money to an unproven player what it will cost a potential trade partner in draft picks, just to trade up you could end compromising you're draft board.

[TXBRONC]

We were also 11th in total tackles which tells me the offense put the defense on the field more often than they should have.

Denver was one of the worst at keeping opposing offenses from converting 3rd downs.

[LRtagger]

Denver was one of the worst at keeping opposing offenses from converting 3rd downs.

True but with the YPA that we gave up we should not have been in the top of the league in tackles...unless, of course, our offense couldnt sustain drives and turned the ball over.