PDA

View Full Version : Six NFL teams that could be home again for the playoffs



Lonestar
05-19-2009, 04:53 PM
By Mike Florio - SportingNews
May 18, 10:26 am EDT

Now that I've listed six 2008 playoff teams that won't get back to the postseason in 2009 and six non-playoff teams that will take their places, common sense and a copy of the league's lineup of teams will permit a list of the other 14 non-playoff teams to be generated fairly easily.

But this is a three-part series. So I've got to emphasize six of those non-playoff teams from 2008 that will remain non-playoff teams in 2009. Otherwise, it'll throw the whole thing off.

So here's six who didn't make it last year and whom some might think will make it back, but I don't.

1. New York Jets

An offseason spending spree capped by the unexpected arrival of an aging quarterback created high expectations for the Jets in 2008.

When Patriots quarterback Tom Brady's knee imploded in the first quarter of the first game of the season, the expectations were even higher.



When the Jets reeled off impressive back-to-back road wins against the Pats and Titans in November, some began to fret about the scheduling nightmare that would arise if two New York teams that share a stadium in New Jersey end up hosting conference title games on the same day.

Then the bottom fell out for the Jets, claiming coach Eric Mangini's job.

This year, more money has been spent and the draft has brought a young, fresh-faced quarterback who'll be counted on to conjure memories of Joe Namath. So the expectations will be high again.

But high expectations in 2009 would be even more unrealistic than they were in 2008.

If Brady is healthy, the Pats will be very tough to overcome for the division crown. So then the question becomes whether the Jets will be able to beat out the likes of the Steelers or the Ravens (whichever one doesn't win the division) and the second-place team in the AFC South for the two wild-card berths. Given that the teams of the AFC East face a much tougher slate of games this year, playing each of the teams of the AFC South and the NFC South, it will be harder to compete in the standings with the teams of the AFC North (who play the teams of the AFC West and the NFC North) and the teams of the AFC South (who play the teams of the NFC West).

With a new head coach, defensive coordinator and quarterback and a thin receiving corps and two tailbacks who are skipping underwear practices because they want more money, the Jets would be better off targeting 2010 as the year in which they return to the tournament.

2. Denver Broncos

The good news for the Broncos is they play in a bad division.

The bad news for the Broncos is they're a lot worse than they were in 2008.

Weeks after the fact, the decision to trade quarterback Jay Cutler remains vexing. Regardless of whether coach Josh McDaniels decided he preferred Matt Cassel or whether McDaniels simply didn't want Cutler or whether Cutler simply didn't want McDaniels, a team should not be giving up a young franchise quarterback for any amount of draft picks or players.

So now the job falls to Kyle Orton, who couldn't do much of anything on a Bears team that had an excellent defense. He'll likely have an even harder time on a team with a mediocre defense.

But, hey, at least they have more tailbacks than former Broncos tailback Travis Henry has kids.


3. Washington Redskins

Here's a fairly safe rule of thumb for assessing how a pro football team feels about its chances for the coming season.

If the team in question makes more than one attempt to acquire a new starting quarterback, it's safe to conclude that the team doesn't believe that its current starter is good enough to get the team to the playoffs.

The Redskins attempted to trade for former Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler, and then the Redskins tried to draft former USC quarterback Mark Sanchez.

They failed on both accounts, and so they're stuck with Jason Campbell. And if they don't believe they can win with Campbell, why should anyone else?

4. Cincinnati Bengals

Fueled by the return to health of quarterback Carson Palmer, the retention of running back Cedric Benson, the replacement of one receiver with a hard-to-spell name (T.J. Houshmandzadeh) with another one (Laveranues Coles), the arrival of perennial Pro Bowl safety Roy Williams, and an unlikely selection to serve as the featured team on NFL Films' Hard Knocks series, there's a feeling that the Bengals can rebound dramatically in 2009, like the Dolphins, Ravens, and Falcons did in 2008.

At times, I agree with the notion that, with Palmer available all season, the Bengals can be much better than they were in 2008.

But will that be enough to overcome the Steelers and the Ravens?

That's the primary problem—the Bengals find themselves in the same division as last year's AFC finalists. Thus, unless Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger or Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco become plagued by the same kind of injury issues that limited Cincinnati to a four-win season, the Bengals would have to qualify as the second wild-card team—from the position of third place in their division.

So while the Bengals might be good this year, there likely will be too many other good teams.

5. New Orleans Saints

With an unprecedented number of Super Bowl-winning coaches expected to be in the mix for new jobs in 2010, the hot seats will be hotter than ever.

And the seats don't get much hotter than they do under Sean Payton, head coach of the Saints.

After starting his career in New Orleans with the franchise's first-ever berth in an NFC title game, Payton's Saints have missed the playoffs twice in a row.

A similar pattern already has gotten Eric Mangini fired by the Jets; thus, Payton surely fears that, if he doesn't turn things around in 2009, he'll possibly be looking for new work soon.

While there's reason to believe the Saints will be as good if not better than they were last season, they face a tall order in a tougher-than-advertised NFC South. The Falcons likely weren't flashes in the pan, and the Panthers apparently will continue to be competitive.

So if the Saints can't overcome the two division rivals they weren't able to overcome a year ago, they'll then have to navigate the mine field of second-place (and possibly third-place) teams in a top-heavy NFC for one of the two wild-card spots.

With no tailback on board who can replace Deuce McAllister(notes) and a draft class grossly undermined by last year's trades for linebacker Jonathan Vilma(notes) and tight end Jeremy Shockey(notes), it's looking like 2009 could be another year that conjures memories of all those seasons in the 1970s and most of those seasons in the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in Saints players watching playoff action not from the sidelines, but from their living rooms.

6. Green Bay Packers

The Packers followed a 2007 season capped by an outcome that far exceeded all expectations with a messy divorce from Brett Favre(notes) and a disastrous 2008 campaign.

The defense took the fall for the team's failures, and the resulting overhaul of the coaching staff also triggered a change in the philosophy from a 4-3 to 3-4.

It's not an easy switch to make absent the personnel to do it correctly. Though the Packers managed to land two key pieces of the puzzle—nose tackle B.J. Raji(notes) and linebacker Clay Matthews(notes)—in the draft's first round, it's simply too much to expect the defense to perform at a playoff-caliber level in the first year it's used.

Then there's the fact the offensive line has some lingering question marks, and the running game could use some extra beef.

Put it all together, and it's unlikely the Packers will fend off the Bears and the Vikings for the NFC North crown.

Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=sixnflteamsthatcouldbeho&prov=tsn&type=lgns

topscribe
05-19-2009, 04:57 PM
The Bears, the team with an excellent defense.

Ranked #30 in yards passing defense in 2008. mmm-hmmm

The author also neglected to mention the Bears ranked #24 in total yards, and #27 in YPC, in rushing offense.

Oh, but Orton really didn't do much. Just 21-12. In his first two years on the field (plus 3 games) . . .

-----

Lonestar
05-19-2009, 05:13 PM
The Bears, the team with an excellent defense.

Ranked #30 in yards passing defense in 2008. mmm-hmmm

The author also neglected to mention the Bears ranked #24 in total yards and #27 in YPC in rushing offense.

Oh, but Orton really didn't do much. Just 21-12. In his first two years on the field (plus 3 games) . . .

-----

your correct but even as writers there is a misconception of how good/bad teams are.. they have a tough time knowing everything there is to KNOW about all teams..

the Bears D has a rep he obviously did not check it out along with many members here..

T.K.O.
05-19-2009, 05:27 PM
sssshhhhh....be vewy vewy kwiet.....wew be hunting teams wike wabbits !;)

T.K.O.
05-19-2009, 05:31 PM
your correct but even as writers there is a misconception of how good/bad teams are.. they have a tough time knowing everything there is to KNOW about all teams..

the Bears D has a rep he obviously did not check it out along with many members here..

he also didnt mention the stark contrast of denvers o-line and da bears line that afforded orton about 1/2 the time to make a read and get rid of the ball or be sacked.

Lonestar
05-19-2009, 05:36 PM
I just found the article and decided not to editorialize on it up front.. I saw both of those glaring misses but thought I'd let the rest of the world catch/comment on them..

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 05:47 PM
The Bears, the team with an excellent defense.

Ranked #30 in yards passing defense in 2008. mmm-hmmm

The author also neglected to mention the Bears ranked #24 in total yards, and #27 in YPC, in rushing offense.

And just #2 in turnovers forced. Of course that doesn't matter right?

Yes the whole Bear's offense sucked last year, but at the same time that could also mean that Orton was failing to take pressure off of the running game. Time will tell if it was the Bear's incompetence or Orton's.


Oh, but Orton really didn't do much. Just 21-12. In his first two years on the field (plus 3 games) . . .

-----

If you are going to complain about the Bear's defense, then don't include his record from a rookie season where the defense was the best in the league. Orton practically did nothing to win games that season.

T.K.O.
05-19-2009, 05:59 PM
If you are going to complain about the Bear's defense, then don't include his record from a rookie season where the defense was the best in the league. Orton practically did nothing to win games that season.

ok and jay did nothing to lose 20 of his 37 games ,right?
it doesnt work that way the qb is the captain of the ship he will always share in the glory for winning and blame for losing...as it should be

WARHORSE
05-19-2009, 06:13 PM
We are who we are.

No amount of speculation will determine what the end result of the coming season will be.

Only what takes place on the gridiron on sunday afternoons and monday nights.


We are 0-0. And we will stay that way until day one.


Release the hounds!


Er..........

Release the horses!

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 06:29 PM
ok and jay did nothing to lose 20 of his 37 games ,right?
it doesnt work that way the qb is the captain of the ship he will always share in the glory for winning and blame for losing...as it should be

Once again the Orton fans can only drag in Cutler as their defense. We aren't talking about him.

Terrible comparison. Orton in his rookie season did more to lose games than he did to win them. I would bet if you put that offense on any other team they would have been competing for the first pick overall. Hell I think the defense practically scored more than the offense did

In fact he was doing so poorly he was benched mid game in the Atlanta game.

So don't use his record from his rookie season because that was not a biproduct of his play by any stretch of the imagination. The Bear's defense was flat out amazing that year and it was the only reason they were winning that season.

The only season we can honestly judge Orton by is last year.

Northman
05-19-2009, 06:30 PM
The Bears, the team with an excellent defense.

Ranked #30 in yards passing defense in 2008. mmm-hmmm

The author also neglected to mention the Bears ranked #24 in total yards, and #27 in YPC, in rushing offense.

Oh, but Orton really didn't do much. Just 21-12. In his first two years on the field (plus 3 games) . . .

-----

My thoughts exactly. :lol:

SmilinAssasSin27
05-19-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm not sayin we're making the playoffs, but I don't know how anyone can say we are clearly worse than in 2008. Even if you loved what Cutler did for us, you still have to admit he turned the ball over a lot. Adding a much less turnover prone Orton and a potential mega-star in Moreno is at the very worst a wash. And the D HAS to be better. We got rid of the posers, who apparently noone else wants either, and filled the holes with better players all around. Not all stars, but undoubtedly better than the crew we let go.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 06:55 PM
If you are going to complain about the Bear's defense, then don't include his record from a rookie season where the defense was the best in the league. Orton practically did nothing to win games that season.

Did you get what you just said? ROOKIE season. How is he supposed to
play in his rookie season? Shall we gather up the stats on the rookie
seasons for Montana, Elway, Manning (either one), Bradshaw, et al. and
compare them to Orton's?

That's just the point: Orton is essentially a two-year QB, whose record
just happens to be 21-12. I have hours upon hours of investigating him,
watching every single film clip I can get my hands on (a total probably of
about four hours), good and bad, read every scouting report. I have read and
listened to every interview, not to mention seeing three or four games last
year. And as Orton goes into only his third year on the field, I am very
impressed with him as a quarterback. And now he has McDaniels, who seems
to know exactly how turn potentially good QBs into presently good QBs (see
Tom Brady, Matt Cassel).

BTW, I didn't "complain" about anything. Why should I do that? I don't care
about the Bears. I just observed . . .

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 07:05 PM
Did you get what you just said? ROOKIE season. How is he supposed to
play in his rookie season? Shall we gather up the stats on the rookie
seasons for Montana, Elway, Manning (either one), Bradshaw, et al. and
compare them to Orton's?

You seriously missed the whole point of my post....


That's just the point: Orton is essentially a two-year QB, whose record
just happens to be 21-12. I have hours upon hours of investigating him,
watching every single film clip I can get my hands on (a total probably of
about four hours), good and bad, read every scouting report. I have read and
listened to every interview, not to mention seeing three or four games last
year. And as Orton goes into only his third year on the field, I am very
impressed with him as a quarterback. And now he has McDaniels, who seems
to know exactly how turn potentially good QBs into presently good QBs (see
Tom Brady, Matt Cassel).

BTW, I didn't "complain" about anything. Why should I do that? I don't care
about the Bears. I just observed . . .

-----

Exactly it was his rookie season and as a result those wins were not his doing. Which is exactly what I said!

My point was you bashed the Bears defense for lasts years performance and then took Orton's overall record in his defense. Which is misleading since his rookie year the Bear's had easily one of the best defenses in the NFL.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 07:07 PM
Once again the Orton fans can only drag in Cutler as their defense.

1. Orton has only two (2) years actually on the field. That includes, then, a
rookie and sophomore year. Now, how well is he supposed to do in just two
years? Shall we dig up the likes of Elway and Montana to see how they did
their first two years?

2. Orton had a corps of pedestrian receivers to work with, who don't belong
on the same field with Denver's receivers.

3. Orton played behind a subpar O-line, that doesn't belong on the same field
as Denver's.

4. Chicago's running game ranked #24 in the league in total yards and #27 YPA.
That wouldn't amount to much help, would it?

5. Orton played the last half of 2008 on a high ankle sprain and still managed
decent numbers as a QB: 2,972 yds, 18 TDs, 12 INTs, 58.5% comp, 79.6 rating.
That is very good for a player in his second year on the field.

6. The Bears' defense was #30 in the league in defending the pass, in terms of yards?

7. All this while compiling a 21-12 record.


EE2CxDWm1sc


The first play here (:09) is a 45-yard pass on a rope.

Now go to :29. Perfect, from 42 yards, and the receiver didn't break stride.

The next one (:50) shows Orton zipping the ball 35 yards to the back of the end zone.

At :55 comes one of my favorites: Launched at the 37-yard line, Orton heaves it to
the opposite 10-yard line, which is 53 yards away. Add another 5 yards or so for cross-
field, and you have a pass going 58 yards in the air. Hester never has to break stride as
he takes it into the end zone.

At 1:12, you see Orton throwing it about 40 yards, and again the receiver doesn't
have to break stride.

At 1:18 is a 35-yarder on the money.

At 1:25, he just flips (notice flips) the ball for about 35 yards over the defender, and
again the receiver doesn't break stride.

At 1:40, Orton tosses a pass from the right hash mark at the 25 to the left sideline
in the back of the endzone. That's about 45 yards in the air, on the money.

Again, at 2:06, Orton throws a TD pass that travels about 40 yards in the air.

Just so there is a thorough understanding on distances: A football field is 53
yards and 1 foot wide (that's fifty-three yards and one foot). When a
quarterback throws the ball, he not only throws straight downfield, but also
across the field. So how far the ball travels depends not only on how far down
the field the QB throws it, but how far across the field it also goes.

Oh, and the end zones are also 10 yards deep, so when a QB throws a TD,
how far into the end zone has to be taken into consideration, as well as the
width of the field there, too.

This actually presents only an overview of the 64 (or is it 67?--I forgot) clips
I viewed on Orton.

Now, what else would you like to know? :coffee:


P.S. I believe Cutler is a potentially a once-in-a-generation QB, so you won't
find me dragging him in as a "defense."

-----

topscribe
05-19-2009, 07:11 PM
Exactly it was his rookie season and as a result those wins were not his doing. Which is exactly what I said!

My point was you bashed the Bears defense for lasts years performance and then took Orton's overall record in his defense. Which is misleading since his rookie year the Bear's had easily one of the best defenses in the NFL.

I did not bash. Go to NFL.com and check the stats. How is it bashing when I
only pointed out a fact? As I very clearly stated, I don't give a rat's ass how
good or bad the Bears are, so why would I bash?

Don't try to derail the fact that Orton was a rookie that year. His rookie
figures will stand up to many of those who eventually became superstars. I'm
not predicting Orton himself will become one, but I am saying that anyone
who chooses to talk about how "bad" he is, is doing it from sheer ignorance.

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 07:25 PM
I did not bash. Go to NFL.com and check the stats. How is it bashing when I
only pointed out a fact? As I very clearly stated, I don't give a rat's ass how
good or bad the Bears are, so why would I bash?

However you were using the facts to say Orton didn't have much help. Why else would you be talking about the Bear's running game and defense if not to say Orton had no help? Why even bring it up?

I know how the game is played.


Don't try to derail the fact that Orton was a rookie that year. His rookie
figures will stand up to many of those who eventually became superstars. I'm
not predicting Orton himself will become one, but I am saying that anyone
who chooses to talk about how "bad" he is, is doing it from sheer ignorance.

-----

You are missing the whole point! Again! I am saying it is stupid to use his record from the rookie season since it does not reflect how he played that season. Of course he played bad, he was a rookie. That is why I say throw it out when we are discussing Orton's abilities.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 07:34 PM
However you were using the facts to say Orton didn't have much help. Why else would you be talking about the Bear's running game and defense if not to say Orton had no help? Why even bring it up?


Where did I say Orton had no help? You are now putting words into my mouth.

I brought it up as two of the many factors in Orton's performance, and I listed
many factors. I was showing that Orton was a good quarterback for his level
of experience despite his many obstacles.

But nowhere did I say Orton had no help--that I know of.


And I got your point. I was making mine . . .

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 07:47 PM
1. Orton has only two (2) years actually on the field. That includes, then, a
rookie and sophomore year. Now, how well is he supposed to do in just two
years? Shall we dig up the likes of Elway and Montana to see how they did
their first two years?

2. Orton had a corps of pedestrian receivers to work with, who don't belong
on the same field with Denver's receivers.

3. Orton played behind a subpar O-line, that doesn't belong on the same field
as Denver's.

4. Chicago's running game ranked #24 in the league in total yards and #27 YPA.
That wouldn't amount to much help, would it?

5. Orton played the last half of 2008 on a high ankle sprain and still managed
decent numbers as a QB: 2,972 yds, 18 TDs, 12 INTs, 58.5% comp, 79.6 rating.
That is very good for a player in his second year on the field.

6. The Bears' defense was #30 in the league in defending the pass, in terms of yards?

Better at least you bothered to at least look up stats.

Now want to hear my concerns?

1. He is a quick starter and then goes stale. Last season he was great in the first quarter and then quickly fell into mediocrity. The fact that 9 out of 12 interceptions came late in games concerns me. As he passes more he becomes worse and worse.

2. He doesn't play well when behind.

3. The Bears games I watched, teams were stacking the box. They acted as if they didn't fear the passing game.

4. 3rd down conversion % was terribly low.

5. He received a high number of turnovers from his defense (The defense was ranked #2 in the league only behind Baltimore) which may have inflated his stats.

Also I might add that I don't quite buy the "He's only had two years of field experience" as much since too many QBs have been benched for 3 years only to come out of the gate with amazing seasons. Even just being in training camp counts as NFL experience.



7. All this while compiling a 21-12 record.

Once again this is where I have a problem with quoting his whole record.

Were the Bears #30th in passing defense in 2005? No
Were the Bears #24 in rushing in 2005? No

You just spend the last 6 points telling me why the Bears sucked last season and yet you quote a record that includes a season where Orton was playing with a phenomenal defense and good running game. The fact is he was 9-7 in his only season with some experience behind him. That is the only season of relevance right now.

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 07:49 PM
Where did I say Orton had no help? You are now putting words into my mouth.

I brought it up as two of the many factors in Orton's performance, and I listed
many factors. I was showing that Orton was a good quarterback for his level
of experience despite his many obstacles.

But nowhere did I say Orton had no help--that I know of.


And I got your point. I was making mine . . .

-----

So I guess you just felt like stating the rankings of the Bears running game and defense right? What's the point of bringing those up if not to try to make the point that Orton did more with less?

topscribe
05-19-2009, 07:58 PM
Better at least you bothered to at least look up stats.

Now want to hear my concerns?

1. He is a quick starter and then goes stale. Last season he was great in the first quarter and then quickly fell into mediocrity. The fact that 9 out of 12 interceptions came late in games concerns me. As he passes more he becomes worse and worse.

2. He doesn't play well when behind.

3. The Bears games I watched, teams were stacking the box. They acted as if they didn't fear the passing game.

4. 3rd down conversion % was terribly low.

5. He received a high number of turnovers from his defense (The defense was ranked #2 in the league only behind Baltimore) which may have inflated his stats.

Also I might add that I don't quite buy the "He's only had two years of field experience" as much since too many QBs have been benched for 3 years only to come out of the gate with amazing seasons. Even just being in training camp counts as NFL experience.




Once again this is where I have a problem with quoting his whole record.

Were the Bears #30th in passing defense in 2005? No
Were the Bears #24 in rushing in 2005? No

You just spend the last 6 points telling me why the Bears sucked last season and yet you quote a record that includes a season where Orton was playing with a phenomenal defense and good running game. The fact is he was 9-7 in his only season with some experience behind him. That is the only season of relevance right now.

And, once again, you are pulling little points out of context and making appear
that I am using them to represent the whole show. I mentioned nothing as to
why the Bears "sucked" last season. I don't care. Can I not get that across
to you? I don't care.

If you want to present Orton's 9-7 as a "fact is," then the fact is, Cutler was
8-8 last year, with two seasons behind him. Whatever.

Now, I went to a lot of trouble, based on massive research (I "bothered" to
look up Orton's stats a long time ago), providing a whole lot of information on
him. You provided personal opinions.

If you want to argue with the facts I presented, present facts. I'm running
out of patience and won't hang around long . . .

-----

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:03 PM
On second thought, just forget it. All I wanted to do was to provide some
of what I had found that showed Orton is not the noodle-armed bum some
people on these boards have wanted to make him.

It appears you just want a pissing contest. I'm not taking the bait.

Bye. :wave:

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
05-19-2009, 08:09 PM
So I guess you just felt like stating the rankings of the Bears running game and defense right? What's the point of bringing those up if not to try to make the point that Orton did more with less?

Don't bother Loyal. He once thought Orton was a noodle-armed bum too until massive research was done that showed him otherwise. Flip-flop.

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:09 PM
And, once again, you are pulling little points out of context and making appear
that I am using them to represent the whole show. I mentioned nothing as to
why the Bears "sucked" last season. I don't care. Can I not get that across
to you? I don't care.

THEN WHY EVEN BRING IT UP! That is my whole point. Why even discuss the Bear's #30 ranked defense huh? You haven't answered that.


If you want to present Orton's 9-7 as a "fact is," then the fact is, Cutler was
8-8 last year, with two seasons behind him. Whatever.

I don't care about Cutler, so what?


Now, I went to a lot of trouble, based on massive research (I "bothered" to
look up Orton's stats a long time ago), providing a whole lot of information on
him. You provided personal opinions.


If you want to argue with the facts I presented, present facts. I'm running
out of patience and won't hang around long . . .

-----

*buzzer*

Those aren't opinions. Those are facts. His play drastically decreases as the game goes on.

http://www.nfl.com/players/kyleorton/situationalstats?id=ORT716150

Look them up yourself. His rating in the 3rd and 4th quarter is 66.5 and 65.7 respectively and his overall rating for the second half is 66.1.
He plays amazing in the first half and fades in the second. His first quarter stats are amazing. He didn't throw a single Int all season in the first quarter. When his throw attempts is between 21 and 30 his rating is 60.2

So do those look like opinions to you? To me they look like stats. I did plenty of research and it tells me Orton is a decent QB and nothing more. If we were a team like the Pats or Steelers then I wouldn't be worried, but we are a Broncos team who struggled with a good QB like Cutler.

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:10 PM
On second thought, just forget it. All I wanted to do was to provide some
of what I had found that showed Orton is not the noodle-armed bum some
people on these boards have wanted to make him.

It appears you just want a pissing contest. I'm not taking the bait.

Bye. :wave:

-----

No what I want is for people to quit making Orton out to be a Probowl QB. I get sick of people making Orton sound like the messiah this team has been waiting for. He hasn't done much of anything so far in the NFL so I am not getting my hopes up that a 5th year QB will finally turn the corner. He is not a total bum nor is he a high quality QB. He is average.

I can stop arguing any time, but the fact is that I haven't see anything out of Orton that I haven't heard a million times about other QBs.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:13 PM
Don't bother Loyal. He once thought Orton was a noodle-armed bum too until massive research was done that showed him otherwise. Flip-flop.

That's right. I had a negative opinion of Orton until I investigated the facts.
The facts that I discovered are what changed my mind. That is called "open
mind."

You'll understand someday when you grow up . . . :coffee:

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:15 PM
That's right. I had a negative opinion of Orton until I investigated the facts.
The facts that I discovered are what changed my mind. That is called "open
mind."

You'll understand someday when you grow up . . . :coffee:

-----

So because I found other stats that worry me about Orton I am not open minded?

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:17 PM
No what I want is for people to quit making Orton out to be a Probowl QB. I get sick of people making Orton sound like the messiah this team has been waiting for. He hasn't done much of anything so far in the NFL so I am not getting my hopes up that a 5th year QB will finally turn the corner. He is not a total bum nor is he a high quality QB. He is average.

I can stop arguing any time, but the fact is that I haven't see anything out of Orton that I haven't heard a million times about other QBs.

You should have never started arguing. I did not predict the Pro Bowl for
Orton, nor did I put any "messiah" tag on him. I only got tired of people, who
have not bothered to investigate, who know nothing of the player, disparaging
him out of total ignorance.

Maybe he is "average" (whatever that is), who knows? I don't deny it, nor did
I from the start. I said, in my opinion, he is a good QB who will get better. I
based that on the hours I spent researching him. That's all I did.

So, whatever you want to argue about, I hope you find someone else, or you
are good at talking to yourself. Because I'm done here . . .

-----

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:18 PM
So because I found other stats that worry me about Orton I am not open minded?

Did you notice to whom I responded with that post?

Guess not.

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:27 PM
Did you notice to whom I responded with that post?

Guess not.

-----

I did. So I asked what you thought of my opinion.

I did bother to do some research. I find that Orton could be a decent QB at least till we get a replacement. It could be worse as we could have some really bad QB, but Orton reminds me a lot of Aaron Brooks. They both have their spots, but they don't seem to have the "it" factor that you need to have to be a great QB in the NFL.


A sidenote: You did highfive your own post. I assume you were trying to click the edit button instead. ;)

T.K.O.
05-19-2009, 08:30 PM
Better at least you bothered to at least look up stats.

Now want to hear my concerns?

1. He is a quick starter and then goes stale. Last season he was great in the first quarter and then quickly fell into mediocrity. The fact that 9 out of 12 interceptions came late in games concerns me. As he passes more he becomes worse and worse.

2. He doesn't play well when behind.

3. The Bears games I watched, teams were stacking the box. They acted as if they didn't fear the passing game.

4. 3rd down conversion % was terribly low.

5. He received a high number of turnovers from his defense (The defense was ranked #2 in the league only behind Baltimore) which may have inflated his stats.

Also I might add that I don't quite buy the "He's only had two years of field experience" as much since too many QBs have been benched for 3 years only to come out of the gate with amazing seasons. Even just being in training camp counts as NFL experience.




Once again this is where I have a problem with quoting his whole record.

Were the Bears #30th in passing defense in 2005? No
Were the Bears #24 in rushing in 2005? No

You just spend the last 6 points telling me why the Bears sucked last season and yet you quote a record that includes a season where Orton was playing with a phenomenal defense and good running game. The fact is he was 9-7 in his only season with some experience behind him. That is the only season of relevance right now.

sounds alot like cutler to me.....and orton should have a good running game and hopefully as good of a d as he had last year in chicago so,it is what it is.
he IS likely to be our qb and i for one wont go into the season saying "were gonna suck now that jay is gone...boo hoo"
until i see jay turn the bears offense into a powerhouse and orton turn our o into .....well
i'm gonna hold my head up high and say "im a broncos fan and i expect us to win!
i think qwe have as good a chance to get to the playoffs as we have in recent memory...so LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:31 PM
sounds alot like cutler to me.....and orton should have a good running game and hopefully as good of a d as he had last year in chicago so,it is what it is.
he IS likely to be our qb and i for one wont go into the season saying "were gonna suck now that jay is gone...boo hoo"
until i see jay turn the bears offense into a powerhouse and orton turn our o into .....well
i'm gonna hold my head up high and say "im a broncos fan and i expect us to win!
i think qwe have as good a chance to get to the playoffs as we have in recent memory...so LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

I think it all depends on the defense. I don't believe we can win the way we did last season. The defense needs to pick up their end of the bargain.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:42 PM
I did. So I asked what you thought of my opinion.

Okay, here is my opinion: You are not being open-minded when you refuse to
understand the point I was trying to make. When you imply that I was trying
to make a Pro Bowler of Orton or that he was a "messiah," you missed my
point. If you feel that Orton may do a pretty good job "until we find a
replacement," then we're not far apart because I don't know, and I don't think
anyone else on God's green earth knows, either. All I did was to produce some
positive facts about him. That is all I did. If you insist on arguing with that,
then, no, you're not being open-minded.


A sidenote: You did highfive your own post. I assume you were trying to click the edit button instead. ;)

I had my reasons . . .

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 08:46 PM
Okay, here is my opinion: You are not being open-minded when you refuse to
understand the point I was trying to make. When you imply that I was trying
to make a Pro Bowler of Orton or that he was a "messiah," you missed my
point. If you feel that Orton may do a pretty good job "until we find a
replacement," then we're not far apart because I don't know, and I don't think
anyone else on God's green earth knows, either. All I did was to produce some
positive facts about him. That is all I did. If you insist on arguing with that,
then, no, you're not being open-minded.

I think my overall frustration is reading some of the posts on here (not necessarily yours) that can be unrealistic about Orton at times.

The biggest pro for him is that he played for the Bears. The Biggest knock against him? He played for the Bears. :D

Requiem / The Dagda
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
I think the biggest knock against Orton is that he is a booze lover like Jay Brimley was.

T.K.O.
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
We are who we are.

No amount of speculation will determine what the end result of the coming season will be.

Only what takes place on the gridiron on sunday afternoons and monday nights.


We are 0-0. And we will stay that way until day one.


Release the hounds!


Er..........

Release the horses!

and then we'll be 1-0 :beer:

topscribe
05-19-2009, 08:57 PM
I think my overall frustration is reading some of the posts on here (not necessarily yours) that can be unrealistic about Orton at times.

The biggest pro for him is that he played for the Bears. The Biggest knock against him? He played for the Bears. :D

But that's my point, LS. We don't know what "realistic" is. He has only two
years on the field. Hell, we don't even know that of Cutler, for sure, if the
truth is known. :whoknows:

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 09:05 PM
But that's my point, LS. We don't know what "realistic" is. He has only two
years on the field. Hell, we don't even know that of Cutler, for sure, if the
truth is known. :whoknows:

-----

Am expecting a more "Jake Plummer" scale of a season, but may be not so many Ints. Because thus far that is all he has shown. If he throws 33 TDs and 7 Ints I would love it, but I am expecting a season just slightly better than he had last season.

topscribe
05-19-2009, 09:06 PM
Am expecting a more "Jake Plummer" scale of a season, but may be not so many Ints. Because thus far that is all he has shown. If he throws 33 TDs and 7 Ints I would love it, but I am expecting a season just slightly better than he had last season.

You may be right. We'll see . . .

-----

BANJOPICKER1
05-19-2009, 10:53 PM
:beer:
I'm not sayin we're making the playoffs, but I don't know how anyone can say we are clearly worse than in 2008. Even if you loved what Cutler did for us, you still have to admit he turned the ball over a lot. Adding a much less turnover prone Orton and a potential mega-star in Moreno is at the very worst a wash. And the D HAS to be better. We got rid of the posers, who apparently noone else wants either, and filled the holes with better players all around. Not all stars, but undoubtedly better than the crew we let go. I think this post ended the thread.:salute:
gooooooooooooooo Broncos!!

Lonestar
05-19-2009, 10:58 PM
Once again the Orton fans can only drag in Cutler as their defense. We aren't talking about him.

Terrible comparison. Orton in his rookie season did more to lose games than he did to win them. I would bet if you put that offense on any other team they would have been competing for the first pick overall. Hell I think the defense practically scored more than the offense did

In fact he was doing so poorly he was benched mid game in the Atlanta game.

So don't use his record from his rookie season because that was not a biproduct of his play by any stretch of the imagination. The Bear's defense was flat out amazing that year and it was the only reason they were winning that season.

The only season we can honestly judge Orton by is last year.

conversly we can only judge jay in his last season also which was the only one worth a damn.. Yards between the 20 that is..

BANJOPICKER1
05-19-2009, 11:00 PM
Better at least you bothered to at least look up stats.

Now want to hear my concerns?

1. He is a quick starter and then goes stale. Last season he was great in the first quarter and then quickly fell into mediocrity. The fact that 9 out of 12 interceptions came late in games concerns me. As he passes more he becomes worse and worse.

2. He doesn't play well when behind.

3. The Bears games I watched, teams were stacking the box. They acted as if they didn't fear the passing game.

4. 3rd down conversion % was terribly low.

5. He received a high number of turnovers from his defense (The defense was ranked #2 in the league only behind Baltimore) which may have inflated his stats.

Also I might add that I don't quite buy the "He's only had two years of field experience" as much since too many QBs have been benched for 3 years only to come out of the gate with amazing seasons. Even just being in training camp counts as NFL experience.




Once again this is where I have a problem with quoting his whole record.

Were the Bears #30th in passing defense in 2005? No
Were the Bears #24 in rushing in 2005? No

You just spend the last 6 points telling me why the Bears sucked last season and yet you quote a record that includes a season where Orton was playing with a phenomenal defense and good running game. The fact is he was 9-7 in his only season with some experience behind him. That is the only season of relevance right now.

So he had crappy coaching,,SHADDY UP!:D

GOOOOOOOOOO BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!:salute:
Oh, I also take offense to your use of the word STUPID to just about everyone who responds to your posts.Perhaps a word instead of stupid would suit someone like you. :)

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 11:34 PM
conversly we can only judge jay in his last season also which was the only one worth a damn.. Yards between the 20 that is..

To quote you from a long time ago


For those of you who have not gotten it yet.. jay is gone time to move on.. if your unable to do so, it is time to move on with jay.. Take your own advice. Stop dragging Jay into an Orton discussion. I've moved on, that is why I am discussing ORTON. It concerns me that Orton's level of play dropped as the games went on. It could be fatigue or defenses catching on to him, but either way he needs to work on it.

LoyalSoldier
05-19-2009, 11:37 PM
So he had crappy coaching,,SHADDY UP!:D

GOOOOOOOOOO BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!:salute:
Oh, I also take offense to your use of the word STUPID to just about everyone who responds to your posts.Perhaps a word instead of stupid would suit someone like you. :)

I never called anyone stupid, just their points. I don't believe Top is an idiot, but even a smart man is capable of a flawed argument.

Not to mention I never said stupid in the post you quoted. In fact I can only find it once in this whole thread.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 01:06 AM
To quote you from a long time ago

Take your own advice. Stop dragging Jay into an Orton discussion. I've moved on, that is why I am discussing ORTON. It concerns me that Orton's level of play dropped as the games went on. It could be fatigue or defenses catching on to him, but either way he needs to work on it.

Or it could be Orton played the last half of 2008 with a high ankle sprain, as
I already documented.


I never called anyone stupid, just their points. I don't believe Top is an idiot, but even a smart man is capable of a flawed argument.

Not to mention I never said stupid in the post you quoted. In fact I can only find it once in this whole thread.

I presented facts and figures. I presented nothing besides that, except my
own opinion, and I did not present my opinion as an "argument" but only as
an opinion. Other than that, all I presented were facts and figures.

BTW, did I mention that all I presented were facts and figures?

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-20-2009, 05:07 AM
Or it could be Orton played the last half of 2008 with a high ankle sprain, as
I already documented.

He didn't have the sprain during the first half of the season. He had the problems in the Phily game. He started the game with 3 TDs and then turned the ball over 3 times in the second half and didn't throw a TD the whole second half. Going through his trends were rather consistent. There are a few exceptions of course.

As I have already documented many times, his problems were not from the sprain although I am sure it didn't help. He did not play well against winning teams.


I presented facts and figures. I presented nothing besides that, except my
own opinion, and I did not present my opinion as an "argument" but only as
an opinion. Other than that, all I presented were facts and figures.

BTW, did I mention that all I presented were facts and figures?

And all I have done is mention facts or figures. I don't bash anything for something I haven't found through stats or reproducible means.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 01:26 PM
He didn't have the sprain during the first half of the season. He had the problems in the Phily game. He started the game with 3 TDs and then turned the ball over 3 times in the second half and didn't throw a TD the whole second half. Going through his trends were rather consistent. There are a few exceptions of course.

As I have already documented many times, his problems were not from the sprain although I am sure it didn't help. He did not play well against winning teams.

It sounds as if you've never had a high ankle sprain, and if you did you never
had to throw the ball or run in a game with it. It has been well documented
that Orton had terrific problems driving off that foot to put needed drive into
his passes. Moreover, his mobility was limited. However, I guess they figured
he was better at less than 100% than anyone else on the squad was at 100%.

But yes, he had problems in the Philly game. Peyton Manning had problems in
their Cleveland and Packers games. Cutler had problems in the Dolphins game.
Roethlisberger had problems in their Colts and Giants games . . . and their
game against the Eagles. (And you do remember their Super Bowl game against
the Seahawks, don't you?)

One can point out certain games in which any QB has had problems, and
and even certain times of the season when they've done better than other
times.



And all I have done is mention facts or figures. I don't bash anything for something I haven't found through stats or reproducible means.

No, you've made an argument out of my simply expressing my opinion and
presenting facts and figures, and you've implied that I have made a Pro Bowler
out of Orton.

Well, in my opinion, Orton may well become a Pro Bowler, or at least play at
a Pro Bowl level. In my opinion, he is potentially good enough to do it. I
formed that opinion upon assiduously researching him, after holding the
initial opinion that he was a bum (as another poster pointed out recently, and
not in support of me). Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my opinion.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
05-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Who here has played quarterback with diabetes!?

topscribe
05-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Who here has played quarterback with diabetes!?

Me. :coffee:

Well, I tried to. I wasn't very successful, but the problem was talent, not debility.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
05-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Wilford Brimley did too for the Liberty Medical Insulators.

NameUsedBefore
05-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Eight of Orton's wins came with a sub-70 rating.


How many wins did Cutler have with a sub-70 rating?

Zero.



If Orton plays shitty -- literally at all -- the Broncos are getting swamped. If this defense is the same as last year's then we are up a creek in a bad way.

I don't get this optimism. We haven't really fixed any issues at all and we've downgraded about as well as you can at the one position that we had in place. We're taking up the 3-4 without even having a freakin' NT on the team. Then we go on to draft a 4-3 DE that is literally an effort to try the Jarvis Moss approach again just with another player, this time going to be playing out of position. I could understand the optimism if we had some vanilla cake schedule, but the schedule is absurdly ridiculous.


I mean, honestly now, if you (anyone) saw another team doing all these things, would you really think they'd make the playoffs?

Superchop 7
05-20-2009, 01:50 PM
You don't see how they are worse ?

You gotta be kidding me.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 02:04 PM
Eight of Orton's wins came with a sub-70 rating.


How many wins did Cutler have with a sub-70 rating?

Zero.



If Orton plays shitty -- literally at all -- the Broncos are getting swamped. If this defense is the same as last year's then we are up a creek in a bad way.

I don't get this optimism. We haven't really fixed any issues at all and we've downgraded about as well as you can at the one position that we had in place. We're taking up the 3-4 without even having a freakin' NT on the team. Then we go on to draft a 4-3 DE that is literally an effort to try the Jarvis Moss approach again just with another player, this time going to be playing out of position. I could understand the optimism if we had some vanilla cake schedule, but the schedule is absurdly ridiculous.


I mean, honestly now, if you (anyone) saw another team doing all these things, would you really think they'd make the playoffs?

What eight games would that be in 2008? Not in his rookie year, but 2008.

-----

T.K.O.
05-20-2009, 02:12 PM
i remember jay playing like crap in the 3 most important games of his career...yeah i remember that....made us the biggest chokers of all time as far as blowing a playoff spot that is......

Requiem / The Dagda
05-20-2009, 02:13 PM
He had diabetes though mang.

NameUsedBefore
05-20-2009, 02:56 PM
What eight games would that be in 2008? Not in his rookie year, but 2008.

-----

IIRC, he had two 40.0 QB rating games in 2008 in which he won.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 03:01 PM
IIRC, he had two 40.0 QB rating games in 2008 in which he won.

What games were those? I remember the Saints at 49-something. And the
Packers at 50-something. But I don't remember a 40. Not that he didn't; I just
don't remember.

I do know that to amass a 79.6, however, he had to get some good ones, too.
As I tried to convey, every QB has good and bad games. Even great ones . . .

-----

broncohead
05-20-2009, 03:02 PM
i remember jay playing like crap in the 3 most important games of his career...yeah i remember that....made us the biggest chokers of all time as far as blowing a playoff spot that is......

Ok but where was the rest of the team? It's not like he was the only one having a bad game. The defense gave up 82 points in those 3 games but who cares, it's not football is a team sport.

NameUsedBefore
05-20-2009, 03:20 PM
What games were those? I remember the Saints at 49-something. And the
Packers at 50-something. But I don't remember a 40. Not that he didn't; I just
don't remember.

I do know that to amass a 79.6, however, he had to get some good ones, too.
As I tried to convey, every QB has good and bad games. Even great ones . . .

-----

Saints and Packers, via NFL.com.


What I'm trying to convey is that Orton played about as far into the hole of sucktitude as you can get at QB and came out with wins. The "21-12" is nice and all except for the fact that more than a 1/3 of the wins came completely in spite of Orton's play.

What I'm also trying to convey is that our previous QB never "won" a game in which he played bad. Ever. Meaning this isn't exactly a great team. He also lost a number of games he played great in. Cutler either played great and we hopefully won; or he played average and it was a coin toss; or he played sub-par or below and we lost 100% of the time. Don't expect a change of QB to change that.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 03:37 PM
Saints and Packers, via NFL.com.


What I'm trying to convey is that Orton played about as far into the hole of sucktitude as you can get at QB and came out with wins. The "21-12" is nice and all except for the fact that more than a 1/3 of the wins came completely in spite of Orton's play.

What I'm also trying to convey is that our previous QB never "won" a game in which he played bad. Ever. Meaning this isn't exactly a great team. He also lost a number of games he played great in. Cutler either played great and we hopefully won; or he played average and it was a coin toss; or he played sub-par or below and we lost 100% of the time. Don't expect a change of QB to change that.

Okay, I was right about the Saints: Orton had a 49.2. That's more like 50 than
40. NFL.com lumps the two Division games together in the game splits, but I
remember a good game and a bad game against them. IIRC, Orton pretty
much tanked the first game, but the second one, didn't he end up with a
70-something? That was a good game (except as a Pack fan--after the
Broncos, of course--I didn't enjoy the loss).

But, outside those two games, Orton didn't play any others particularly badly,
even the Eagles, as previously suggested. Yes, he did throw two picks in that
game, but he also launched three TDs.

It was in the Eagles game that he began to win my heart, in fact. I remember
one play where he influenced the cagey old Brian Dawkins inside with his eyes
then passed to the TE (Dawkins' man) out in the flat. It was pretty cool to
see that.

-----

LRtagger
05-20-2009, 04:18 PM
All this bickering over a Mike Florio article :lol:

topscribe
05-20-2009, 04:20 PM
All this bickering over a Mike Florio article :lol:

Actually, I think it's a pretty nice conversation, so far, with NUB. :smile:

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-20-2009, 05:24 PM
It sounds as if you've never had a high ankle sprain, and if you did you never
had to throw the ball or run in a game with it.

Yes I have. Yet I was making a case for before the sprain. I got it, he was injured and that is why I only talked about games before the injury. I went in to compile his stats prior to the injury.



It has been well documented
that Orton had terrific problems driving off that foot to put needed drive into
his passes. Moreover, his mobility was limited. However, I guess they figured
he was better at less than 100% than anyone else on the squad was at 100%.

But yes, he had problems in the Philly game. Peyton Manning had problems in
their Cleveland and Packers games. Cutler had problems in the Dolphins game.
Roethlisberger had problems in their Colts and Giants games . . . and their
game against the Eagles. (And you do remember their Super Bowl game against
the Seahawks, don't you?)

One can point out certain games in which any QB has had problems, and
and even certain times of the season when they've done better than other
times.

The problem is that the trend shows that he has been lower than average against winning teams and also has his worst play late in games. That is not just one or two cherry picking games, that is his whole season even before the sprain.


No, you've made an argument out of my simply expressing my opinion and
presenting facts and figures, and you've implied that I have made a Pro Bowler
out of Orton.

The problem is every time I do any "research" everyone just blows it off. Try to show Orton's play against winning teams? Worthless. Try to show Orton's fading in the 3rd quarter? Worthless. Try to show Orton's incredibly low third down conversion percentage? Worthless.

I have done it countless numbers of times in tons of threads and everyone treats me as a bumbling idiot. Sorry if I am getting pissed off after a while. It is annoying to spend time on something only to have everyone ignore you.


Well, in my opinion, Orton may well become a Pro Bowler, or at least play at
a Pro Bowl level. In my opinion, he is potentially good enough to do it. I
formed that opinion upon assiduously researching him, after holding the
initial opinion that he was a bum (as another poster pointed out recently, and
not in support of me). Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my opinion.

-----

Your welcome to your opinion just like I am welcome to mine. My opinion is that Orton isn't a long term solution for the Broncos and will be cut a year or two from now.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 05:42 PM
Yes I have. Yet I was making a case for before the sprain. I got it, he was injured and that is why I only talked about games before the injury.

I was giving him the benifit of the injury.

LS, Orton was up, and he was down . . . typical of a 2nd year (on the field)
quarterback. It's called "streaky." But when he was good, he was really good.

His Vikings game has been posted, and I understand more is to come. (In
seven parts because of YouTube's 10-minute restriction, stolen from
KO8pectate over on Mania.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwzjVs_dcM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuC_SF1pl14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIlZVGSMtM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec0nQZKhOsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2w6Sy2J54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKum634_JbI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4d5epC0l8



The problem is that the trend shows that he has been lower than average against winning teams and also has his worst play late in games. That is not just one or two cherry picking games, that is his whole season even before the sprain.

Of course, one is going to have a better showing against lesser teams. That's
why those teams are lesser. However, before I consent to "lower than
average," I would like to know specifically what "average" is. That is such a
bandied-about term, and it really doesn't mean anything . . .



The problem is every time I do any "research" everyone just blows it off. I have done it countless numbers of times in tons of threads and everyone treats me as a bumbling idiot. Sorry if I am getting pissed off after a while.

Tell me about it. As I mentioned, I have hours upon hours of research on
Orton. I have never researched a player like I did him (and I hope never to do
it again). So you and I came away with slightly differing opinions of Orton
after all our research. But I still respect your knowledge on it. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif



Your welcome to your opinion just like I am welcome to mine. My opinion is that Orton isn't a long term solution for the Broncos and will be cut a year or two from now.

And, while acknowledging you may be right, from what I have seen of Orton,
and from what I understand of McDaniels' and McCoy's acumen with QBs, I
believe Orton can be cultured and groomed into a top level QB. We'll see . . .

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-20-2009, 05:51 PM
LS, Orton was up, and he was down . . . typical of a 2nd year (on the field)
quarterback. It's called "streaky." But when he was good, he was really good.

His Vikings game has been posted, and I understand more is to come. (In
seven parts because of YouTube's 10-minute restriction, stolen from
KO8pectate over on Mania.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwzjVs_dcM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuC_SF1pl14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIlZVGSMtM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec0nQZKhOsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2w6Sy2J54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKum634_JbI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4d5epC0l8

I actually have the game DVRed from when it was replayed on NFLN.

I bet though that will be taken off of youtube though because of the copyright nazis on there. :tsk:

Edit: Boy did I call that one, before I even got to click on it and look at it.

Orton did have his good games, I am just worried that he has them often enough to help us. If we were the 05 Broncos I wouldn't worry as much since we could get by with an ok QB, but this team is still going through a lot of change.


Of course, one is going to have a better showing against lesser teams. That's
why those teams are lesser. However, before I consent to "lower than
average," I would like to know specifically what "average" is. That is such a
bandied-about term, and it really doesn't mean anything . . .

For the season as a whole the average QB rating was around 83(plus or minus 1) last time I checked. For a game average it was around 81.3. Which has been consistent for the NFL for the last 5 seasons. So generally if you had a rating of 81 or above you had a decent game. If you were below 81 then you start getting into below average game.

In years past the average rating was closer to 76 for a season. Which is why John Elway's rating of 79.9 was actually a good rating for his time.

topscribe
05-20-2009, 06:00 PM
I actually have the game DVRed from when it was replayed on NFLN.

I bet though that will be taken off of youtube though because of the copyright nazis on there. :tsk:

Edit: Boy did I call that one, before I even got to click on it and look at it.

Orton did have his good games, I am just worried that he has them often enough to help us. If we were the 05 Broncos I wouldn't worry as much since we could get by with an ok QB, but this team is still going through a lot of change.

Just remember, he was essentially a 2nd year QB last year. If he improves at
all, it will be in the area of consistency because he has all the other tools.
And he now has the receivers, O-line, and coaches to do so. So I am optimistic.



For the season as a whole the average QB rating was around 83(plus or minus 1) last time I checked. For a game average it was around 81.3. Which has been consistent for the NFL for the last 5 seasons. So generally if you had a rating of 81 or above you had a decent game. If you were below 81 then you start getting into below average game.

In years past the average rating was closer to 76 for a season. Which is why John Elway's rating of 79.9 was actually a good rating for his time.

Thank you for that. So he essentially hovered roughly around "average" most
of the season. I find that encouraging, but I tend toward the optimist side.
*I'm sure JR had no idea of that* :D

-----

topscribe
05-20-2009, 08:47 PM
I actually have the game DVRed from when it was replayed on NFLN.

I bet though that will be taken off of youtube though because of the copyright nazis on there. :tsk:

Edit: Boy did I call that one, before I even got to click on it and look at it.


I should have downloaded it last night. Crap. :tsk:

-----

LoyalSoldier
05-20-2009, 08:58 PM
I should have downloaded it last night. Crap. :tsk:

-----

Yep Youtube is quick to jump on that. Better off hosting it somewhere else.