Plummer takes a few jabs at Shanahan [Archive]

ChairmanBron

07-17-2009, 04:56 PM

Mike Florio
July 17, 2009 3:30 PM ET
hprofootballtalk.nbcsports.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/17/plummer-takes-a-few-jabs-at-shanahan/)

During a recent interview with Vic Lombardi and Gary Miller of ESPN Radio in Denver, former NFL quarterback Jake Plummer teed off, a little, on former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan.

He agreed that his time in Denver was a positive experience, pointing out that "one guy isn't gonna make me hate Denver or hate my experience there."

Plummer was referring to Shanahan.

The Broncos' former head coach drafted Jay Cutler in 2006, benched Plummer during Cutler's rookie season, and then traded Plummer to Tampa.

Plummer retired without ever suiting up for the Bucs, and Plummer ultimately had to fork over a nice chunk of bonus money to Tampa.

The quarterback who signed in Denver after completing his rookie deal in Arizona compared his own exile from Denver to Shanahan's eventual departure, explaining that the NFL often pushes guys aside and moves forward.

And Plummer couldn't resist taking a crack at Shanahan's height. Or lack of it.

As the hosts were talking about the size of Shanahan's new mansion, and pointing out that the coach apparently upset that people are saying it's smaller than it really is, Plummer had this to say: "Well, he was what only five-four? But he wants them to think he's five-six. Hey man, that's just like his mansion, he wants you to think it's bigger than it is."

But Plummer doesn't hold a grudge. Or so he claims.

"Hey, you know what, if I saw the man I'd go shake his hand," Plummer said. "Geez, he gave me a chance to put a stamp on my career of a winner. . . . I have to live with myself, he's gotta live with himself down the road. So, you know, I don't have hard feelings and I don't hold grudges. He got his due there. I think it was a year past due, he should have been gone a year before, and I've already said all that stuff . . . . He'll find himself coaching somewhere again and, you know, cutting some other quarterback for another young kid."

Plummer was laughing through much of that. But his point is clear -- he doesn't agree with the manner in which his tenure in Denver ended, and he still blames Shanahan for it.

.

ChairmanBron

07-17-2009, 04:57 PM

Oops.. Another Plummer thread!....

Northman

07-17-2009, 05:19 PM

Wahhhh, wahhhhh, wahhhhh, wahhhh

The Glue Factory

07-17-2009, 05:34 PM

Nevermind that he absolutely stank the year he was benched. I guess he's not willing to look at his role in his exit from Denver.

dogfish

07-17-2009, 05:46 PM

underrated29

07-17-2009, 05:55 PM

plummer's such a bitch-- i've never been able to understand how people around here can still like that douchebag so much. . . shanahan gave him a ticket out of football hell when not too many teams would have taken a chance, he put the guy in a scheme that hid his (many and glaring) weaknesses, and surrounded him with solid talent that allowed him to put together a few decent seasons. . . if jake didn't want to be benched, maybe he shouldn't have played like complete garbage in '06! but no, it's always easier to blame someone else. . .

I always liked Jake. he wasnt the best QB, but shanny built him a scheme to play within. When he did it was great. And the broncos were awesome. But often times Jake had other plans and didnt play withing that scheme.

He is the one who really has the final say. Like Dogfish pointed out. If you wanted to be the starter QB and not get benched. Then shut up and play. The Coach will not bench you, no matter how good the prospect waiting inthe wings, if you play your butt off and make him keep you in the lineup.

Take your blame effort and put it to good use. Like worrying about what you need to do right, instead of what will happen if you do wrong.

horsepig

07-17-2009, 08:13 PM

Anybody happen to recall Plummer's W/L record as the Broncos starter?

Tned

07-17-2009, 08:37 PM

Anybody happen to recall Plummer's W/L record as the Broncos starter?

It's irrelevant, because when Plummer was QB, the QB had nothing to do with wins/losses.

Lonestar

07-17-2009, 09:11 PM

Jake with Vic and Gary CBS4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=58461@kcnc.dayport.com

almost 10 minutes long a good listen

Y'all probably need to listen to the whole thing IN context..

NameUsedBefore

07-17-2009, 09:45 PM

He says he doesn't hold a grudge but,

He'll find himself coaching somewhere again and, you know, cutting some other quarterback for another young kid.

That's pretty catty.

Overtime

07-18-2009, 06:31 PM

i never understand why the media continues to give this chump a channel to speak through.

he never did anything he's never accomplished anything, he's an overrated, underachieving version of Trent Dilfer (Dilfer could outplay him easily).

he was never anything special, he was never anything other than a quitter.

so why do they bother wasting time, and getting everyone all riled up? The loser is gone, and we don't care anymore? He's like the ex-girlfriend's we've all ditched because we got tired of their crap, and their empty threats, and all their drama. we ditched them and we ain't looked back.

so why does this asshat keeping talking about it as if anything he says or does is gonna change the fact that the RELATIONSHIP IS OVER???????

Jake you were a big mistake for Denver, and Denver left you hanging, because she realized you weren't worth a crap to begin with, and she made a big big big mistake.

Get over it and move on and go play your handball, bang your cheerleader wife, and scale some cliffs, and forget about football, because it's a game that has forgotten all about you.

Tned

07-18-2009, 07:49 PM

I have never understood the Plummer hate. Was he John Elway? No. Did we win a shit load of games when he was QB? Yes.

T.K.O.

07-18-2009, 07:59 PM

jake's cool,he won alot of games and cost us a few (with his bone-headed lefty tosses etc...)
you gotta admit the 5'4" thing was kinda funny.
i dont think he cares to much what people around the league think of him.
he made that obvious when he told tampa "thanx but no thanx"
he has a good life, a hot wife, more money than he needs (his words) and escaped the nfl with all his limbs and his head intact.

i say you go jake !:D

Overtime

07-18-2009, 08:00 PM

I have never understood the Plummer hate. Was he John Elway? No. Did we win a shit load of games when he was QB? Yes.

the Plummer hate comes from the fact that he's not a team player. He goes off and does his own thing, and he only thinks about himself. He's selfish, arrogant, and he's full of himself.

He didn't devote himself to the team, the workouts, and he missed OTA's in 2006, which is why he ended up Shanahan's bad side. Throughout the 9 or so games he started, his attitude got worse, and his behavior was terrible. He was flipping off the fans, and he was just being downright stupid with the things he did, and becoming very rude with the media (i heard several interviews where he was just plain disrespectful of reporters).

that's why I hate the guy. He thought he was God's gift to football, and IMO he wasn't better than Trent Dilfer. Just another mediocre guy who couldn't look past himself enough to utilize the "team" he had around him.

Jake should look in the mirror, and humble himself, because he's his own worst enemy, and his big mouth continues to prove that fact.

T.K.O.

07-18-2009, 08:06 PM

Tned

07-18-2009, 08:15 PM

the Plummer hate comes from the fact that he's not a team player. He goes off and does his own thing, and he only thinks about himself. He's selfish, arrogant, and he's full of himself.

He didn't devote himself to the team, the workouts, and he missed OTA's in 2006, which is why he ended up Shanahan's bad side. Throughout the 9 or so games he started, his attitude got worse, and his behavior was terrible. He was flipping off the fans, and he was just being downright stupid with the things he did, and becoming very rude with the media (i heard several interviews where he was just plain disrespectful of reporters).

that's why I hate the guy. He thought he was God's gift to football, and IMO he wasn't better than Trent Dilfer. Just another mediocre guy who couldn't look past himself enough to utilize the "team" he had around him.

Jake should look in the mirror, and humble himself, because he's his own worst enemy, and his big mouth continues to prove that fact.

The only flaw with your logic is that his team mates, who you claim he wasn't devoted to, defended him and said the exact opposite of what you claim.

The offense sucked in '06, because Heimerdinger implemented an offense not suited to the players. Numerous Broncos did interviews early in the '06 season talking about how blocking assignments were missed, routes run improperly, etc. Too many changes in personell and scheme.

You guys can ignore the 75% winning percentage in his first three years, the fact that only NE and Indy had more wins from '03-'05, but ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts.

T.K.O.

07-18-2009, 08:16 PM

actually most of his bad attitude was a direct reflection of how the league handled his not being able to wear his good friends # on his helmet (you know his friend that died fighting for his country....your country)
which they allowed the entire redskins team to do for a player who was killed by thugs)
combined with the fact that even though he led us to the afccg in 05'
he was basically betrayed by the broncos (shanny) when they drafted cutler.
who as it turns out is more of a " He thought he was God's gift to football "
and a "he's not a team player. He goes off and does his own thing, and he only thinks about himself. He's selfish, arrogant, and he's full of himself."

T.K.O.

07-18-2009, 08:18 PM

Lonestar

07-18-2009, 08:20 PM

broncogirl7

07-18-2009, 08:21 PM

Typical Plummer, way to show your true colors!

red98

07-18-2009, 08:31 PM

Shanny, 3 rings. 6 times at the dance.

Plummer, blue ribbon hand ball champ

'nuff said

Lonestar

07-18-2009, 09:39 PM

i think its just one guy !
hey tned i was wondering what you thought about possibly adding a "countdown clock" to the top of the site ?
you know like a small ticker that would count down the time til' kickoff . either preseason...reg season or both ?
would that be hard to do? and should i shut up and ask this in another forum?
thanx

Actually there are several mega Jake haters on the forum..

Why? I have never really figured out..

He was a guy that irrelevant about himself..

Saw many articles about how he was amazed he was even in the NFL, had not given it much thought while in college.. but when he was drafted, he kind a thought what the hell.. I know because, I saw this posted or reported during his tenth year.. He said he had felt blessed to play in the NFL that long and was "surprised" because of it.. He felt like he was a really lucky guy to be able to be paid for playing a game he loved so much..

He did not get off on being the BMOC so to speak drive a cheap ass Honda element and dressed in working mens clothes like you would see at the corner bar.. T shirt and jeans..

Loved his teammates and dedicated his season to his friend that died in the War.. stood up the NFL and forced them to back off fines.. for wearing his number on his Jersey.. and the year before he retired he had the best season in his career ..

Now he is gone and frankly I wish him all the best in the world..

Lets hope the Orton can turn in 75% wining factors over his career here..

Lonestar

07-18-2009, 09:48 PM

Typical Plummer, way to show your true colors!

He studied ever game film with Gary the season before, almost set and NFL record for passes between picks was being talked about as league MVP mid year.. Hhe had his best year ever before mike drafted jay, gave his all during the AFCCG game. Which was lost for a bunch of reasons, but it was not because Jake quit during the game..

You do not think he has a right to be a tad bitter after giving all he had and being dumped without any notice?

I guess I can quote you on this one "way to show your true colors!"

Shanny, 3 rings. 6 times at the dance.

Plummer, blue ribbon hand ball champ

'nuff said

and mike is looking for a job as we speak.. mostly because he could not close a season out on a winning note since he dumped Jake .. nuff said..

red98

07-18-2009, 10:35 PM

I'm no JP hater, he did pretty damn good when Shanny showed him the way.

I'm glad we had him here, he did a great job and almost made the promised land and he wasn't a jerk off the filed(mostly).

Simple Jaded

07-18-2009, 10:42 PM

If Plummer is seeking the popularity he never had with Broncos fans, taking shots at other former Broncos is the easiest way to do it.

Cutler was better, that's why Plummer lost his job.......

Overtime

07-19-2009, 12:37 AM

why do we keep talking about this piece of shit??? can we not move on? I don't care what he says, or what anyone thinks about him, he's a butt hurt little punk, he's retired, and he's a crybaby, who's still running mouth about something that happened 3 freaking years ago.

HE NEEDS TO GET OVER IT. NO ONE CARES WHAT HE THINKS OF SHANAHAN, AND I'M SURE SHANAHAN DOESN'T GIVE A RATS ASS EITHER WHAT PLUMMER THINKS OF HIM. and in fact, I hope SHANAHAN GETS A KICK OUT OF IT ALL.

Shanahan = Class
Plummer = Trash

and yes he's a quitter, because when he found out he was traded, he QUIT and retired, like a baby because he didn't get his way.

Tned

07-19-2009, 12:54 AM

and yes he's a quitter, because when he found out he was traded, he QUIT and retired, like a baby because he didn't get his way.

That's garbage. His team mates were on record stating well before the trade they thought Plummer might retire. Jay was on record talking about how Jake tried to help him learn the ropes.

The 'easy' thing would have been to show up in TB, since not doing so meant he had to return millions of dollars in signing bonus money.

You make a lot of baseless statements, but as I indicated before, just because you make the baseless statements, doesn't make them true.

Shazam!

07-19-2009, 02:00 AM

Lonestar

07-19-2009, 03:39 AM

Say what you want about Jake, love him or hate him, he was sabotaged and betrayed by Shanahan. Most teams coming off a 13-3 season and a game away from the SB don't go out and trade up to Draft a new QB to replace your starter when he is under 33 and coming off the best season of his career, unless he is coming off a catastrophic injury.

well you make way to much sense for some to get..

I guess for some seeing the name Jake is a red flag.. I'd think they would not even bother joining the conversation, if they think his is a POS....

Tned

07-19-2009, 09:49 AM

well you make way to much sense for some to get..

I guess for some seeing the name Jake is a red flag.. I'd think they would not even bother joining the conversation, if they think his is a POS....

Say what you want about Jake, love him or hate him, he was sabotaged and betrayed by Shanahan. Most teams coming off a 13-3 season and a game away from the SB don't go out and trade up to Draft a new QB to replace your starter when he is under 33 and coming off the best season of his career, unless he is coming off a catastrophic injury.

I think the 'reality' falls somewhere in between the position of the Jake lovers and Jake haters.

He wasn't a great QB, but he played very well in the Kubiak/Shanahan offense.

Northman

07-19-2009, 11:12 AM

the Plummer hate comes from the fact that he's not a team player. He goes off and does his own thing, and he only thinks about himself. He's selfish, arrogant, and he's full of himself.

God, why did you make me have to come and defend him here. :lol:

So untrue. Jake was a team player, Jake had a lot of fire for the game. He was never arrogant or selfish but the guy did quit when faced with adversity and he was extremely overrated as a player by many Bronco fans. But for this quote its just not true.

He didn't devote himself to the team, the workouts, and he missed OTA's in 2006, which is why he ended up Shanahan's bad side. Throughout the 9 or so games he started, his attitude got worse, and his behavior was terrible. He was flipping off the fans, and he was just being downright stupid with the things he did, and becoming very rude with the media (i heard several interviews where he was just plain disrespectful of reporters).

I dont know about the reporter issues but a lot of this is true. Most people will say he worked his ass off and then quit when Kubes left and when Jay was drafted which is probably also true. However, thats just another sign that the guy could not deal with adversity (kubes was going to be gone at some point anyway).

that's why I hate the guy.

I dont hate the guy, he is what he was. He benefitted greatly by the talent around him and thus Bronco fans put him on a pedestal that really doesnt deserve. He was a game manager and nothing more. When needed to step up or make the play that needed to be made and carry the team he could not do that. People are quick to praise him for his record as a Bronco but are quick to dismiss his record as a Cardinal because of the surrounding talent. You cant have it both ways.

Jake should look in the mirror, and humble himself, because he's his own worst enemy, and his big mouth continues to prove that fact.

Jake should be thankful for the opportunity he got in Denver thats for sure. However, all this is the media trying to stir the pot and create more chaos for a already rumbling offseason.

lex

07-19-2009, 11:12 AM

Tned

07-19-2009, 12:09 PM

You can indeed ignore all of that by looking at his time in Arizona. How can the winning % prior to Heimerdinger be all Jake but not all Jake when Heimerdinger was there. If Plummers success hinged so heavily on who was the offensive coordinator, wouldnt the 75% be more attributable to the OC that pre-dated Heimerdinger (ie Kubiak)?

As to Arizona, they had something like a .40 winning percentage before, during and after Plummer's time. It took AZ many, many decades, and far more than changing the QB to finally become a winning team.

Back to Plummer, I believe the scheme and OC were a perfect match for Plummer. However, the scheme alone didn't account for his play. It is what is referred to a s a 'good match'. The small line that couldn't straight up pass block, required a QB that could get out on the edges, which also happened to be Jake's strengths. However, not every QB can make the plays when asked to get outside the pocket.

As to Heimerdinger, anyone that watched the games realized that Heimerdinger didn't use a scheme suited to the players, which is why Shanahan fired his best friend after two years.

lex

07-19-2009, 12:23 PM

As to Arizona, they had something like a .40 winning percentage before, during and after Plummer's time. It took AZ many, many decades, and far more than changing the QB to finally become a winning team.

Back to Plummer, I believe the scheme and OC were a perfect match for Plummer. However, the scheme alone didn't account for his play. It is what is referred to a s a 'good match'. The small line that couldn't straight up pass block, required a QB that could get out on the edges, which also happened to be Jake's strengths. However, not every QB can make the plays when asked to get outside the pocket.

As to Heimerdinger, anyone that watched the games realized that Heimerdinger didn't use a scheme suited to the players, which is why Shanahan fired his best friend after two years.

Sorry but throwing from the pocket is part of playing QB. Plummers shortcomings at throwing from the pocket just means that Denver was winning with smoke and mirrors. Im not saying theres not some validity in what youre saying where Heimerdinger is concerned but to blame it on him because he was asking Plummer to throw from the pocket (something thats part of the job) is extremely myopic. Maybe Plummer wasnt optimally used but he was also so bad at passing from the pocket, that its a little silly to put it all on the OC since this is a basic part of playing QB.

Shazam!

07-19-2009, 12:33 PM

I don't think Dinger was 'fired', didn't he go back to Tennessee as OC again?

IMO it was a lateral move to avoid being fired, but this was the case if IRC.

Tned

07-19-2009, 12:33 PM

lex

07-19-2009, 12:37 PM

Ironic that you would accuse me of having a myopic view, since that is exactly what you showed in this post.

The issue was not just not having a scheme/calling plays that suited Plummer, but also the rest of the offense. We had a small offensive line that were pushed back and could not maintain a pocket when asked to straight up pass block. If Plummer was playing behind the '08 line, then your argument would have some merit, but he wasn't.

Again, if Heimerdinger wasn't the problem, then why was he shown the door after only two years? 1 1/3 of which was with Cutler under center.

All I did was question the logic of saying 2006 was because of the OC but the 75% winning % in the prior years was because of Plummer. I acknowledged that Heimerdinger didnt optimally utilize Plummer too. Hardly myopic.

Tned

07-19-2009, 12:39 PM

I don't think Dinger was 'fired', didn't he go to Tennessee?

IMO it was a lateral move to avoid being fired, but this was the case if IRC.

First, the NFL does not allow lateral moves for coaches under contract.

Second, it wasn't a lateral move, because he was assistant head coach offense for the Broncos and became offensive coordinator for Tenn, which is consider a demotion in the NFL. When the Broncos hired him away from the Jets, they made him assistant head coach offense so that it 'would not' be a lateral move, but a promotion from offensive coordinator. Lateral moves are not allowed.

Unlike with Bates, who Shanny through under the bus, he 'quietly' let his very good friend and former roommate, Heimerdinger, take the demotion to OC of Tenn. However, NO team allows a coach to leave in such a fashion unless they planned to fire him or wanted him gone.

Tned

07-19-2009, 12:41 PM

All I did was question the logic of saying 2006 was because of the OC but the 75% winning % in the prior years was because of Plummer. I acknowledged that Heimerdinger didnt optimally utilize Plummer too. Hardly myopic.

I haven't said the 75% winning percentage as because of Plummer, I said the Kubiak/Shanny offense was a very good match for Plummer and the rest of the offense, which led to a LOT of wins, where Heimerdinger tried to shoe-horn his offense into a team of players that were not suited to it.

Go back and re-read my posts, rather than 'assuming' you know what I am thinking.

lex

07-19-2009, 12:49 PM

The only flaw with your logic is that his team mates, who you claim he wasn't devoted to, defended him and said the exact opposite of what you claim.

The offense sucked in '06, because Heimerdinger implemented an offense not suited to the players. Numerous Broncos did interviews early in the '06 season talking about how blocking assignments were missed, routes run improperly, etc. Too many changes in personell and scheme.

You guys can ignore the 75% winning percentage in his first three years, the fact that only NE and Indy had more wins from '03-'05, but ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts.

I haven't said the 75% winning percentage as because of Plummer, I said the Kubiak/Shanny offense was a very good match for Plummer and the rest of the offense, which led to a LOT of wins, where Heimerdinger tried to shoe-horn his offense into a team of players that were not suited to it.

Go back and re-read my posts, rather than 'assuming' you know what I am thinking.

This is defending Plummer, no? The guy was totally panic stricken when required to throw out of the pocket. While Heimerdinger may not have used him optimally, its hardly unreasonable to expect an NFL QB-- a 9 year vet at that-- to throw from the pocket.

I think its more attributable to the coaches. In 2000 when we had Griese, we had some success and then with Frerotte in as a back up we also went on a good run. And then we get Plummer, with a different skill set, and were able to make it work. I think the 75% has more to do with the coaches than it does Plummer per se. Our coaches post Elway have made a lot of QBs look better than what they were with a lot of other teams.

Lonestar

07-19-2009, 12:53 PM

Sorry but throwing from the pocket is part of playing QB. Plummers shortcomings at throwing from the pocket just means that Denver was winning with smoke and mirrors. Im not saying theres not some validity in what youre saying where Heimerdinger is concerned but to blame it on him because he was asking Plummer to throw from the pocket (something thats part of the job) is extremely myopic. Maybe Plummer wasnt optimally used but he was also so bad at passing from the pocket, that its a little silly to put it all on the OC since this is a basic part of playing QB.

best case terminology here is you never try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear..

if someone is not suited for something do not try and make him into something he is not..

They tired to take a OLINE in this case that was designed for ZBS, quick mobile and smart but also extremely small in the world of NFL football..

IIRC about 35lbs on average across the boards and that was counting foster that was listed at 338.. about 40 pounds above the rest of the average.. take him out and your talking.. closer to 40 pounds disadvantage in holding the pass rush back, a drop back passing attack.. where the DL knows on each and every play where the QB is going to be.. In the roll out attack that Jake had mastered the DL had no clue on where he was going to be.. could be left could be right he could just flat take off.. hard to bull rush that..

it was a stupid move to make until they got their ducks lined up with getting more beef on the OLINE.. which they did in 2007-08 draft and m allowing Kuper a back up to take his spot on the OLINE.. they upped their average weight by almost 20 pounds per man plus upgrading both Tackle spots.. the only two light weights on the OLINE were Hamilton and a very experienced Casey..

and to say the least it was one of the best OLINES despite the rookie Clady and almost rookies in Kuper and Harris.. neither of which play much, if at all prior to starting..

In fact Kuper was slotted to take fosters spot until the ORG came to camp about 40 pounds over weight.. then we needed a ORG and Harris fell into the spot outside of Kuper..

having the beef makes it easier to pass from the pocket something Jake never had not saying he was a great pocket guy but I suspect he would have been better at it had he been more secure in knowing he would not be the meeting place for all 4 DL players each snap.

Tned

07-19-2009, 01:05 PM

This is defending Plummer, no? The guy was totally panic stricken when required to throw out of the pocket. While Heimerdinger may not have used him optimally, its hardly unreasonable to expect an NFL QB-- a 9 year vet at that-- to throw from the pocket.

I think its more attributable to the coaches. In 2000 when we had Griese, we had some success and then with Frerotte in as a back up we also went on a good run. And then we get Plummer, with a different skill set, and were able to make it work. I think the 75% has more to do with the coaches than it does Plummer per se. Our coaches post Elway have made a lot of QBs look better than what they were with a lot of other teams.

Again, you keep focusing only on Plummer. Newsflash, you must 'have' a pocket to throw from one, and the o-line was not capable of keeping a pocket in tact when the coach called drop back pass after drop back pass.

So, one more time, if Heimerdinger wasn't a major part of the problem, why was he shown the door?

lex

07-19-2009, 01:18 PM

Again, you keep focusing only on Plummer. Newsflash, you must 'have' a pocket to throw from one, and the o-line was not capable of keeping a pocket in tact when the coach called drop back pass after drop back pass.

So, one more time, if Heimerdinger wasn't a major part of the problem, why was he shown the door?

You could say the same thing about Plummer, no? He was shipped out of town first, no?

Dreadnought

07-19-2009, 01:31 PM

Tned

07-19-2009, 01:33 PM

You could say the same thing about Plummer, no? He was shipped out of town first, no?

I've never been one of the people that felt Plummer was a better QB than Cutler, just like I don't believe Orton is better.

Prior to the '06 draft, the Broncos had never been in a position to draft a so called 'franchise' QB, but having the two first round picks in '06 allowed them to move up and grab a potential 'franchise' QB.

Plummer clearly had limitations, Kubiak was gone, Heimerdinger was in and more of a pocket pass orientated OC, and the Broncos had the opportunity to get a strong-armed, franchise QB. They made the move.

However, as is normally the case, you deflect, rather than answer questions.

Once again, if Heimerdinger wasn't part of the problem, why was Shanny's best friend shown the door after two short years?

Dreadnought

07-19-2009, 01:34 PM

Actually there are several mega Jake haters on the forum..

:salute: Reporting for duty. He made me pine for Brian Griese his last year

lex

07-19-2009, 01:35 PM

I've never been one of the people that felt Plummer was a better QB than Cutler, just like I don't believe Orton is better.

Prior to the '06 draft, the Broncos had never been in a position to draft a so called 'franchise' QB, but having the two first round picks in '06 allowed them to move up and grab a potential 'franchise' QB.

Plummer clearly had limitations, Kubiak was gone, Heimerdinger was in and more of a pocket pass orientated OC, and the Broncos had the opportunity to get a strong-armed, franchise QB. They made the move.

However, as is normally the case, you deflect, rather than answer questions.

Once again, if Heimerdinger wasn't part of the problem, why was Shanny's best friend shown the door after two short years?

I didnt deflect anything. I acknowledged your observations about Heimerdinger having some validity from the outset. Your subsequent questions overlooked this and from that you are making the inference that I was deflecting when that is hardly the case.

BroncoWave

07-19-2009, 01:36 PM

QFT - the day I care what this worthless loser has to say Hell will have frozen over solid. Goodbye and thanks for nothing.

I find this hilarious seeing as he still left Denver in a much classier manner than our more recent QB did. And if all those wins and an AFCCG appearance are "nothing" than what would you call the "success" the other QB led us to?

Dreadnought

07-19-2009, 01:42 PM

I find this hilarious seeing as he still left Denver in a much classier manner than our more recent QB did. And if all those wins and an AFCCG appearance are "nothing" than what would you call the "success" the other QB led us to?

I disagree. He singlehandedly sank our 2006 season, with his miserable JaMarcus-like play. It was the worst QB performance I've witnessed from a Bronco QB since Steve freakin' Ramsey or Matt Robinson. Steve DeBerg was a huge step up from what we saw in '06. Then he tried his BS excuse that drafting Cutler was somehow a stab in the back, as if that explained or excused what we saw that year. Then he screwed us on the Tampa trade on top of it. Cutler showed far more class than Plummer, and was actually screwed by the franchise, unlike Plummer.

Tned

07-19-2009, 01:47 PM

I didnt deflect anything. I acknowledged your observations about Heimerdinger having some validity from the outset. Your subsequent questions overlooked this and from that you are making the inference that I was deflecting when that is hardly the case.

You're even deflecting about your deflection. :lol:

I find this hilarious seeing as he still left Denver in a much classier manner than our more recent QB did. And if all those wins and an AFCCG appearance are "nothing" than what would you call the "success" the other QB led us to?

Exactly. The support his team mates gave him, before and after Cutler replaced him, 'should' tell us fans an awful lot about Plummer, but instead we manifest fictional characteristics like "quitter", "refused to work hard during the week", etc.

How many times have we seen a QB (or other player) get benched and whine to the press? Plummer didn't do that. He handled it like a gentlemen, and according to Cutler and his other team mates, he did everything he could to support Cutler.

Was he a HOF QB? No. Did he leave everything on the field? Hell yes. Anyone that actually watched the games knows that. Which is likely why his team mates showed him such extreme loyalty.

Tned

07-19-2009, 01:53 PM

I disagree. He singlehandedly sank our 2006 season, with his miserable JaMarcus-like play. It was the worst QB performance I've witnessed from a Bronco QB since Steve freakin' Ramsey or Matt Robinson. Steve DeBerg was a huge step up from what we saw in '06. Then he tried his BS excuse that drafting Cutler was somehow a stab in the back, as if that explained or excused what we saw that year. Then he screwed us on the Tampa trade on top of it. Cutler showed far more class than Plummer, and was actually screwed by the franchise, unlike Plummer.

Dread, you simply have some facts wrong.

First to the trade. There was talk of him retiring long before the trade. His team mates stated that at the end of the season he was talking as if he might retire. Cutler said a few weeks before the trade that he wouldn't be surprised if Plummer retired. The ONLY person Plummer screwed by retiring was himself, as he had to give Tampa millions of dollars of his last signing bonus money.

Second, while there is no doubt that Plummer played bad, I heard at least three players on Sirius NFL radio early in '06 that talked about how what fans see and what actually happens are often not the same. They talked about a number of new faces on offense, along with the new play calling, lead to a lot of missed blocks/assignments and poorly run routes. They talked about how it is easy for a QB to look bad when a player isn't where he is supposed to be on a pass play, or if an RB or OL misses a blocking assignment.

Maybe those players lied because they liked Plummer, that worthless bum that didn't work during the week and quit on Sunday's. Maybe Plummer had evidence of them using steroids or something, and they were saying good things and making excuses for him for that reason.

I don't know, all I know is that the guys in the trenches with him tell a far different story than us fans.

Lonestar

07-19-2009, 02:01 PM

Dread, you simply have some facts wrong.

First to the trade. There was talk of him retiring long before the trade. His team mates stated that at the end of the season he was talking as if he might retire. Cutler said a few weeks before the trade that he wouldn't be surprised if Plummer retired. The ONLY person Plummer screwed by retiring was himself, as he had to give Tampa millions of dollars of his last signing bonus money.

Second, while there is no doubt that Plummer played bad, I heard at least three players on Sirius NFL radio early in '06 that talked about how what fans see and what actually happens are often not the same. They talked about a number of new faces on offense, along with the new play calling, lead to a lot of missed blocks/assignments and poorly run routes. They talked about how it is easy for a QB to look bad when a player isn't where he is supposed to be on a pass play, or if an RB or OL misses a blocking assignment.

Maybe those players lied because they liked Plummer, that worthless bum that didn't work during the week and quit on Sunday's. Maybe Plummer had evidence of them using steroids or something, and they were saying good things and making excuses for him for that reason.

I don't know, all I know is that the guys in the trenches with him tell a far different story than us fans.

I saw the trade as mike looking for something out of nothing considering he all but announced his retirement before the trade was announced..

I suspect that if Jake had been traded to Gary's team it would have been something he would have considered doing.. He trusted Gary, like John trusted mike and jay trusted mike..

Let me add I have never heard a team mate of Jake bad mouth him.. nothing but praise about how it left it on the field.. also remember him in presser after losses accepting all the blame for the loss when we all know that there were during most of those games dropped balls, fumbles and pass protection break downs that were not his fault..

lex

07-19-2009, 02:03 PM

You're even deflecting about your deflection. :lol:

Exactly. The support his team mates gave him, before and after Cutler replaced him, 'should' tell us fans an awful lot about Plummer, but instead we manifest fictional characteristics like "quitter", "refused to work hard during the week", etc.

How many times have we seen a QB (or other player) get benched and whine to the press? Plummer didn't do that. He handled it like a gentlemen, and according to Cutler and his other team mates, he did everything he could to support Cutler.

Was he a HOF QB? No. Did he leave everything on the field? Hell yes. Anyone that actually watched the games knows that. Which is likely why his team mates showed him such extreme loyalty.

Not deflecting and Im definitely not flipflopping like some here like to do.

Denver Native (Carol)

07-19-2009, 02:05 PM

Training camp can not get here TOO SOON for me

Lonestar

07-19-2009, 02:07 PM

Training camp can not get here TOO SOON for me

hey Tned a how about a count down clock..:salute:

perhaps it will help the off season rancor..

Tned

07-19-2009, 02:15 PM

hey Tned a how about a count down clock..:salute:

perhaps it will help the off season rancor..

I'll get the clock up (if I can find the code again), but I doubt it will help the off season rancor. Jake's been gone for two years, and it hasn't died down, the Jay feuds will likely be around for years, as will the McD/Shanny stuff.

It seems fandom and extreme positions are one and the same.

Lonestar

07-19-2009, 02:25 PM

I'll get the clock up (if I can find the code again), but I doubt it will help the off season rancor. Jake's been gone for two years, and it hasn't died down, the Jay feuds will likely be around for years, as will the McD/Shanny stuff.

It seems fandom and extreme positions are one and the same.

your probably right Jake/jay/mike/Josh wars will be for decades.

Just now starting to see the wounds heal from John retiring..:salute:

Northman

07-19-2009, 03:03 PM

Denver Native (Carol)

07-19-2009, 03:08 PM

Just now starting to see the wounds heal from John retiring..:salute:

Hey - I resemble that - and no wounds healed with me yet from John retiring :tsk: ;)

Dreadnought

07-19-2009, 03:32 PM

I'll get the clock up (if I can find the code again), but I doubt it will help the off season rancor. Jake's been gone for two years, and it hasn't died down, the Jay feuds will likely be around for years, as will the McD/Shanny stuff.

It seems fandom and extreme positions are one and the same.

My plan is to remain pissed off over the Cutler trade until they finally shovel dirt on me, and perhaps after that. Ditto for my detestation of Jake Plummer. A man needs to cling to his convictions :D

Shazam!

07-19-2009, 09:40 PM

Shanahan was the one who tanked 2006 by trading up for a QB when his starter was coming off his best season at 32 years old, injury free, and a 14-4 season a game away from a shot at the Championship.

He shattered his confidence.

Many of us wanted a new, young, phsyically talented QB but the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Unfortunately, that lawn on the other side was full of crab grass and dog turds.

Overtime

07-20-2009, 09:14 PM

God, why did you make me have to come and defend him here. :lol:

So untrue. Jake was a team player, Jake had a lot of fire for the game. He was never arrogant or selfish but the guy did quit when faced with adversity and he was extremely overrated as a player by many Bronco fans. But for this quote its just not true.

that's because they were just being classy, and didn't wanna hurt da little booboo's feewings and make him qwy.

I dont know about the reporter issues but a lot of this is true. Most people will say he worked his ass off and then quit when Kubes left and when Jay was drafted which is probably also true. However, thats just another sign that the guy could not deal with adversity (kubes was going to be gone at some point anyway). i do know about the reporter issues. I listened to a live interview with him and Rhonda Moss and Neal Jones when I lived up in KC, and he was a complete douchebag to them. It was really crappy how he talked to them, and that made me lose a lot of respect for the guy.

I dont hate the guy, he is what he was. He benefitted greatly by the talent around him and thus Bronco fans put him on a pedestal that really doesnt deserve. He was a game manager and nothing more. When needed to step up or make the play that needed to be made and carry the team he could not do that. People are quick to praise him for his record as a Bronco but are quick to dismiss his record as a Cardinal because of the surrounding talent. You cant have it both ways. i've never praised him for his record, because I always thought it was just luck. guess I was proven right, cause he never won anything important. and no he didn't beat New England in 05. Champ beat New England with his INT for a touchdown return in the playoffs.

Jake should be thankful for the opportunity he got in Denver thats for sure. However, all this is the media trying to stir the pot and create more chaos for a already rumbling offseason.I agree, and that's what blows my mind...why even interview a guy who wasn't even a has been? he's a never was.

The only flaw with your logic is that his team mates, who you claim he wasn't devoted to, defended him and said the exact opposite of what you claim.

The offense sucked in '06, because Heimerdinger implemented an offense not suited to the players. Numerous Broncos did interviews early in the '06 season talking about how blocking assignments were missed, routes run improperly, etc. Too many changes in personell and scheme.

You guys can ignore the 75% winning percentage in his first three years, the fact that only NE and Indy had more wins from '03-'05, but ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts.

once again, it was all class on the part of his teammates, and nothing more.

That's garbage. His team mates were on record stating well before the trade they thought Plummer might retire. Jay was on record talking about how Jake tried to help him learn the ropes.

The 'easy' thing would have been to show up in TB, since not doing so meant he had to return millions of dollars in signing bonus money.

You make a lot of baseless statements, but as I indicated before, just because you make the baseless statements, doesn't make them true.

his teammates were being classy, nothing more nothing less. Champ is saying the same thing about Cutler right now, and that's just Champ being a class act. Secretly I bet there are several guys on that team who think because Cutler pulled his little charade, that we just went from contender, to bottom of the barrell.

and what do you mean the easy thing? How bout the honorable thing by NOT WALKING OUT ON YOUR CONTRACT!

FOOTBALL IS A BUSINESS....NOT THE GOD DAMN LOVE BOAT!

there is no loyalty or love, or I O U'S in football. There is produce, and produce effectively, or you are history. let's not forget either Jake was a 10 year veteran, not exactly a young spring chicken anymore.

Shanahan did what any competent head coach woulda done by drafting a guy who could be a leader, and be the face of the franchise for years to come, and spark some competition to motivate his Starting QB. Jake responded to that adversity by acting like a 14 year old little girl in heat, and getting his thong stuck between his ass crack, and going on the rag all season long, instead of being a man, and letting it light a fire under his ass to be a better QB, a better team player, and work harder, instead he floundered around like a trout on dry land, and pouted, and sulked, and got on Shanahan's bad side, and displayed poor performance, and made bad decisions and ended up benched, and then he ended up getting traded, which further enraged him, and so HE QUIT!

Jake made a choice, and a poor one at that, but that's what quitters do, when the stakes go up they fold up shop, shut the doors and you never hear from them again, except when some dumbass reporter throws a leftover chicken leg to 'em, and then they pop up outta the wood work and drive a knife in someone's back.

Didn't see Brett Favre get butthurt when Aaron Rodgers was drafted did ya? No.

Anyone see Donovan McNabb get butthurt when the Eagles drafted Kevin Kolb? No. McNabb went out there and played harder.

Did anyone see Damon Huard or Trent Green throw a fit when Tyler Thigpen was drafted? No.

Will Matt Hasselbeck get butthurt when his replacement is drafted? No.

That's just part of the business of football, and if you can't handle that, you got no business playing.

All it sounds like to me is Plummer was jealous of Cutler, and didn't want to be motivated, and was afraid of a little competition, which leads me to believe Plummer had self-doubt in his own abilities, and had some real self-esteem problems, which is why the little crybaby folded up shop and disappeared to go play handball, and trapse all over the mountains.

Say what you want about Jake, love him or hate him, he was sabotaged and betrayed by Shanahan. Most teams coming off a 13-3 season and a game away from the SB don't go out and trade up to Draft a new QB to replace your starter when he is under 33 and coming off the best season of his career, unless he is coming off a catastrophic injury.

sabotaged? betrayed? jeez I thought this was football not the Young and the Restless. no more like it's just business and Shanahan had a duty to the team, to bring in a guy who could play the QB position without having to be babysat all the time, which Plummer could not.

BroncoWave

07-20-2009, 09:33 PM

Overtime, unless you were in the locker room you have NO IDEA if it was just his teammates being classy or if they were telling the truth, and to claim that you do know that they were just being classy and not telling the truth is pretty fallacious.

Shazam!

07-21-2009, 12:59 AM

sabotaged? betrayed? jeez I thought this was football not the Young and the Restless. no more like it's just business and Shanahan had a duty to the team, to bring in a guy who could play the QB position without having to be babysat all the time, which Plummer could not.

I am glad you have experience as a professional NFL QB and understand what it must be like to be in that situation.

Oh wait. You don't. Sorry.

Overtime

07-21-2009, 03:15 PM

I am glad you have experience as a professional NFL QB and understand what it must be like to be in that situation.

Oh wait. You don't. Sorry.

and what does that have to do with anything in my post that I said? :confused:

Superchop 7

07-21-2009, 03:36 PM

I would hold a grudge for that fiasco.

Shazam!

07-21-2009, 09:13 PM

and what does that have to do with anything in my post that I said?

All it sounds like to me is Plummer was jealous of Cutler, and didn't want to be motivated, and was afraid of a little competition, which leads me to believe Plummer had self-doubt in his own abilities, and had some real self-esteem problems, which is why the little crybaby folded up shop and disappeared to go play handball, and trapse all over the mountains. sabotaged? betrayed? jeez I thought this was football not the Young and the Restless. no more like it's just business and Shanahan had a duty to the team, to bring in a guy who could play the QB position without having to be babysat all the time, which Plummer could not.

Everything.

Overtime

07-21-2009, 10:01 PM

Everything.

and i backed up my statement with why. lots of teams draft QB's even when they're set at the QB position.

didn't see Tom Brady crying when Matt Cassell and Kevin O'Connell were drafted.

but as we've all seen, even guys like Brady get hurt and you need a little insurance if something happens.

fact of the matter is Plummer doesn't respond well to adversity, and continues to display this even today, with every passing interview and story that surfaces about him.

:coffee:

BroncoWave

07-21-2009, 10:23 PM

and i backed up my statement with why. lots of teams draft QB's even when they're set at the QB position.

didn't see Tom Brady crying when Matt Cassell and Kevin O'Connell were drafted.

but as we've all seen, even guys like Brady get hurt and you need a little insurance if something happens.

fact of the matter is Plummer doesn't respond well to adversity, and continues to display this even today, with every passing interview and story that surfaces about him.

:coffee:

Yes, because the Pats totally traded up in the first round to get Cassell and O'Connell after Brady led them to a great season. :rolleyes:

Come on now, you can do better than that.

Overtime

07-21-2009, 10:30 PM

Yes, because the Pats totally traded up in the first round to get Cassell and O'Connell after Brady led them to a great season. :rolleyes:

Come on now, you can do better than that.

who cares what round it was in, the fact of the matter is, Jake Plummer couldn't handle the fact that some competition was brought in, and instead of it being a motivational factor, he let it drag him down.

After all Plummer singlehandedly cost us the AFC Championship Game with 2 INT's and 2 Fumbles. Not that our defense was much better that day, but the man accounted for 4 turnovers in a game where you're supposed to be at your best.

That's what alarmed Shanahan, and that's why Shanahan went and got some insurance. Plummer responded like any true loser would do.

got butthurt, and a year later got the boot.

BroncoWave

07-21-2009, 11:08 PM

who cares what round it was in, the fact of the matter is, Jake Plummer couldn't handle the fact that some competition was brought in, and instead of it being a motivational factor, he let it drag him down.

After all Plummer singlehandedly cost us the AFC Championship Game with 2 INT's and 2 Fumbles. Not that our defense was much better that day, but the man accounted for 4 turnovers in a game where you're supposed to be at your best.

That's what alarmed Shanahan, and that's why Shanahan went and got some insurance. Plummer responded like any true loser would do.

got butthurt, and a year later got the boot.

Dude, almost EVERY team drafts developmental QB's in the later rounds at some point or another. Denver drafted BVP and Matt Mauck when they had Plummer but he knew that they were just developmental guys and that was no big deal. Same with the 2 guys in NE and Sorgi in Indy etc etc. You NEVER see a team that just went to the conference championship after a pretty good year (Pro Bowl alternate) from their QB and trade UP in the first round to nab another QB.

To compare those 2 scenarios is ridiculous and you know it. Unless you have another scenario in which a team traded up in the first round to replace their starting QB who had just led their team to a 13-3 record and the conference championship, you can't really compare Plummer's situation to anyone else's.

Northman

07-21-2009, 11:15 PM

Yes, because the Pats totally traded up in the first round to get Cassell and O'Connell after Brady led them to a great season. :rolleyes:

Come on now, you can do better than that.

Denver actually traded up because for the first time in many years they were in position to do so. Because of their success as a franchise they drafted pretty low for a long time. That was the first time in years they had a chance to move up and grab a good QB.

BroncoWave

07-21-2009, 11:23 PM

Denver actually traded up because for the first time in many years they were in position to do so. Because of their success as a franchise they drafted pretty low for a long time. That was the first time in years they had a chance to move up and grab a good QB.

Or they could have drafted Ngata and had a stud d-lineman. Just because you have the ammo to trade up doesn't mean you have to get a QB, especially given the bust rate of first rounders.

dogfish

07-22-2009, 12:04 AM

Yes, because the Pats totally traded up in the first round to get Cassell and O'Connell after Brady led them to a great season. :rolleyes:

Come on now, you can do better than that.

wait. . . . wait!

did you just compare jake ****ing plummer to tom brady, or did i miss something???

wow. . .

Overtime

07-22-2009, 12:14 AM

Dude, almost EVERY team drafts developmental QB's in the later rounds at some point or another. Denver drafted BVP and Matt Mauck when they had Plummer but he knew that they were just developmental guys and that was no big deal. Same with the 2 guys in NE and Sorgi in Indy etc etc. You NEVER see a team that just went to the conference championship after a pretty good year (Pro Bowl alternate) from their QB and trade UP in the first round to nab another QB.

To compare those 2 scenarios is ridiculous and you know it. Unless you have another scenario in which a team traded up in the first round to replace their starting QB who had just led their team to a 13-3 record and the conference championship, you can't really compare Plummer's situation to anyone else's.

no they aren't ridiculous. what's ridiculous is you and your defense of that selfish schmuck.

how did Plummer perform in that conference championship game?? by committing 4 turnovers! and playing with ineffectiveness, poor decision making.

that's why we moved up and took Cutler. Shanahan knew he could only do so much with Plummer, for so long. and that's why he did what he did.

Overtime

07-22-2009, 12:14 AM

wait. . . . wait!

did you just compare jake ****ing plummer to tom brady, or did i miss something???

wow. . .

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

BroncoWave

07-22-2009, 12:19 AM

no they aren't ridiculous. what's ridiculous is you and your defense of that selfish schmuck.

how did Plummer perform in that conference championship game?? by committing 4 turnovers! and playing with ineffectiveness, poor decision making.

that's why we moved up and took Cutler. Shanahan knew he could only do so much with Plummer, for so long. and that's why he did what he did.

So a great, pro bowl season should be erased because of a bad game in which the WHOLE TEAM stunk, not just plummer?

And BTW, how did Cutler do in his playoff games. Oh wait...

BroncoWave

07-22-2009, 12:20 AM

wait. . . . wait!

did you just compare jake ****ing plummer to tom brady, or did i miss something???

wow. . .

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

Um, Overtime made that comparison?

I was showing how the situations were totally different.

Shazam!

07-22-2009, 01:06 AM

I wonder how many times a 14 win team, who was a game away from the Super Bowl, with a 32 year old QB who was uninjured, coming off a good season, traded up to Draft a QB in the 1st Round?

Oh yeah. Never.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:14 AM

no they aren't ridiculous. what's ridiculous is you and your defense of that selfish schmuck.

How is he a selfish schmuck?

how did Plummer perform in that conference championship game?? by committing 4 turnovers! and playing with ineffectiveness, poor decision making.

that's why we moved up and took Cutler. Shanahan knew he could only do so much with Plummer, for so long. and that's why he did what he did.

The guy was playing with the flu and sucking oxygen between every series.

Also, the two fumbles were 100% on the O-line, while the INT's were on him.

Regardless, you don't want to talk about the AFCCG, unless you also want to talk about how the run game was totally ineffective, the O-line complete over matched in pass and run blocking, how Big Ben set a record for 3rd down completion percentage in the first half, and I could go on.

I love revisionist history or how one aspect of a team failure is focused on. Kind of like when 30 cars are speeding, one gets pulled over, and the guy not only gets a ticket, but is held up as the poster child for reckless driving.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:17 AM

So a great, pro bowl season should be erased because of a bad game in which the WHOLE TEAM stunk, not just plummer?

And BTW, how did Cutler do in his playoff games. Oh wait...

Or, how did he do in the five games after he took over for Plummer in '06, or how to did he perform in that three game collapse to end last year.

What about Romo and Brady's 4 or 5 INT games, or McNabb getting benched?

The guy isn't a HOF QB, but he helped Denver win a lot of games and played very well in Denver for three years.

Northman

07-22-2009, 10:08 AM

Or they could have drafted Ngata and had a stud d-lineman. Just because you have the ammo to trade up doesn't mean you have to get a QB, especially given the bust rate of first rounders.

They could have but that wasnt what Shanahan was looking for.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 10:32 AM

They could have but that wasnt what Shanahan was looking for.

I would guess one of the reasons that lead to his demise. Totally neglecting D and hiring schumks for D coaches.

It does not take a brain suregeon to see that while we had a pretty prolific O in 05 that a great D caused so much havoc and our D could not stop an at the time rookie QB on third and long all day.

The logical move would have been to go DL in that draft. OR even Oline to slow the pass rush down just abit.

But there I go thinking again.

Northman

07-22-2009, 10:38 AM

I would guess one of the reasons that lead to his demise. Totally neglecting D and hiring schumks for D coaches.

It does not take a brain suregeon to see that while we had a pretty prolific O in 05 that a great D caused so much havoc and our D could not stop an at the time rookie QB on third and long all day.

The logical move would have been to go DL in that draft. OR even Oline to slow the pass rush down just abit.

But there I go thinking again.

Without a doubt neglecting the defense (even before 05) led to his demise ultimately. However, i also too think that Shanahan saw that Jake had hit his plateau for what he could do as a QB. Maybe Shanahan got enamored with what he saw from Elway and was looking to recapture that i dont know. But it didnt help his cause when Jake went out and turned the ball over 4 times. One of Shanahan's pet peeves was players not taking care of the ball which ultimately led to Jake's demise as well.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 11:30 AM

Without a doubt neglecting the defense (even before 05) led to his demise ultimately. However, i also too think that Shanahan saw that Jake had hit his plateau for what he could do as a QB. Maybe Shanahan got enamored with what he saw from Elway and was looking to recapture that i dont know. But it didnt help his cause when Jake went out and turned the ball over 4 times. One of Shanahan's pet peeves was players not taking care of the ball which ultimately led to Jake's demise as well.

Well I agree with about all of that.. but in Jakes defense he had almost zero support that day and was about the only player on O that did not give up and was still trying to make stuff happen when he threw up that last Pick..

Perhaps he is or was not the long term solution but this team as we all know now this team had major problems especially on D that had been hid with smoke and mirrors for a long time.. as well as the need to upgrade the OLINE to be able to pick up blitz's or pass block in a generic term..

When the LB's are beating the QB to the pocket ;) something is drastically wrong..

mike Etal got out coached that day and the team was not ready for an emotional team.. for that matter the teams over the past few years have not been prepared mentally for playing softer/easy teams.. but until the past two years were always ready for OAK.. imagine that..

lex

07-22-2009, 11:45 AM

Well I agree with about all of that.. but in Jakes defense he had almost zero support that day and was about the only player on O that did not give up and was still trying to make stuff happen when he threw up that last Pick..

Perhaps he is or was not the long term solution but this team as we all know now this team had major problems especially on D that had been hid with smoke and mirrors for a long time.. as well as the need to upgrade the OLINE to be able to pick up blitz's or pass block in a generic term..

When the LB's are beating the QB to the pocket ;) something is drastically wrong..

mike Etal got out coached that day and the team was not ready for an emotional team.. for that matter the teams over the past few years have not been prepared mentally for playing softer/easy teams.. but until the past two years were always ready for OAK.. imagine that..

They made Jake look better than what he was with smoke and mirrors too.

CoachChaz

07-22-2009, 11:47 AM

They made Jake look better than what he was with smoke and mirrors too.

That can be said of MANY "great" players of the present and past.

Northman

07-22-2009, 11:50 AM

Well I agree with about all of that.. but in Jakes defense he had almost zero support that day and was about the only player on O that did not give up and was still trying to make stuff happen when he threw up that last Pick..

Probably true. However, i think Shanahan believed that Jake was more a hinderance to his team than the team was to Jake. Obviously we will never agree on who was the bigger liability on that team at the time. I put myself in Shanahan's corner in believing that Denver was good for Jake and not vice versa. Jake to me was a game manager but nothing more. But when that game manager starts turning the ball over on a regular basis or doesnt make the plays necessary to keep the offense afloat than there needed to be an upgrade.

Perhaps he is or was not the long term solution but this team as we all know now this team had major problems especially on D that had been hid with smoke and mirrors for a long time.. as well as the need to upgrade the OLINE to be able to pick up blitz's or pass block in a generic term..

Sadly, i would of liked to have seen Jake play 2 more years with Jay learning the system. I think it would of been good for both Qb's however with Shanahan's reluctance to address the defense following Jay's selection the following years and with Jake's inability to deal with the idea that he would indeed someday be replaced it just went all down hill from there.

When the LB's are beating the QB to the pocket ;) something is drastically wrong..

Pitt had a great defense no question about it. But as a Qb you really need to be aware of whats going on out there and who your opponent is. I think Jake and the entire Denver team thought they would be able to walk through that game after taking out New England. But again, the accountability is on Jake to take care of the ball. And the fact that Jake wasnt a big film study kind of guy makes me think of exactly how his career panned out with his inconsistencies.

mike Etal got out coached that day and the team was not ready for an emotional team.. for that matter the teams over the past few years have not been prepared mentally for playing softer/easy teams.. but until the past two years were always ready for OAK.. imagine that..

No question we got outcoached in every phase of the game. Pitt was much more hungry than we were. Maybe we left all of our emotion the week before i dont know. I think the Broncos truly believed that since Peyton and company werent the ones we were playing that we had it in the bag and it was a letdown by all involved. But for me, most likely like Shanahan, i dont mind getting my ass beat. I just dont want to get beat giving up the ball. As i used to hear all the time with Qb's, just take the sack and punt. 9 times out of 10 the team that turns the ball over the most usually loses. Im not saying that if we didnt turn the ball over we would have won but at least we would given ourselves a much better chance than we did.

lex

07-22-2009, 11:58 AM

That can be said of MANY "great" players of the present and past.

When youre a QB and you have a phobic aversion to passing from the pocket, its beyond what youre saying.

CoachChaz

07-22-2009, 12:06 PM

When youre a QB and you have a phobic aversion to passing from the pocket, its beyond what youre saying.

Yeah...that's factual:rolleyes:

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 12:06 PM

Probably true. However, i think Shanahan believed that Jake was more a hinderance to his team than the team was to Jake. Obviously we will never agree on who was the bigger liability on that team at the time. I put myself in Shanahan's corner in believing that Denver was good for Jake and not vice versa. Jake to me was a game manager but nothing more. But when that game manager starts turning the ball over on a regular basis or doesnt make the plays necessary to keep the offense afloat than there needed to be an upgrade.

Sadly, i would of liked to have seen Jake play 2 more years with Jay learning the system. I think it would of been good for both Qb's however with Shanahan's reluctance to address the defense following Jay's selection the following years and with Jake's inability to deal with the idea that he would indeed someday be replaced it just went all down hill from there.

Pitt had a great defense no question about it. But as a Qb you really need to be aware of whats going on out there and who your opponent is. I think Jake and the entire Denver team thought they would be able to walk through that game after taking out New England. But again, the accountability is on Jake to take care of the ball. And the fact that Jake wasnt a big film study kind of guy makes me think of exactly how his career panned out with his inconsistencies.

No question we got outcoached in every phase of the game. Pitt was much more hungry than we were. Maybe we left all of our emotion the week before i dont know. I think the Broncos truly believed that since Peyton and company werent the ones we were playing that we had it in the bag and it was a letdown by all involved. But for me, most likely like Shanahan, i dont mind getting my ass beat. I just dont want to get beat giving up the ball. As i used to hear all the time with Qb's, just take the sack and punt. 9 times out of 10 the team that turns the ball over the most usually loses. Im not saying that if we didnt turn the ball over we would have won but at least we would given ourselves a much better chance than we did.

Well again when the lb is there waiting for you it is hard to even make a play other than lay down.. and had Jake been sacked 15 times in the game many would have been even harder on him.. the fumbles were caused by great play by their blitzers..

I disagree with you about the game film stuff before that season he and Gary set down and studied all off season and it showed especially while Jake almost set a NFL record for passes between picks.. HE got it and had his absolute best year of his career after that film study..

Then he was gutted on draft day.. If that had been me I would have asked to be released or traded.. and I'm not a quitter.. It was clear to everyone in football what mike had planned and even though Jake tired to reinvent his game to the new system that was obvious to everyone was designed for jay not Jake..

I like Jake and still do.. I love players that love the game and play it with gusto.. I never saw that in jay.. I saw a bigger, stronger armed Griese.. head case all the way..

give me guys with a chip on their shoulder any day I'll take the Q's of the world long before I'll consider the taters that think they just have to show up..

Northman

07-22-2009, 12:17 PM

I disagree with you about the game film stuff before that season he and Gary set down and studied all off season and it showed especially while Jake almost set a NFL record for passes between picks.. HE got it and had his absolute best year of his career after that film study..

Unfortuantely, one great year does not a Qb make. Elway understood that no matter what obstacles come your way (Drafting Maddox, Coaching changes, etc) you have to keep going to grind stone and study, study, study, if you want to be a champion.

Then he was gutted on draft day.. If that had been me I would have asked to be released or traded.. and I'm not a quitter..

Thank god Elway didnt take this approach. For me personally, i dont believe that Jay was drafted to immediately replace Jake. I think Shanahan took the opportunity that he had with draft position and draft for the future for which he was trying to accomplish before his departure.

I like Jake and still do.. I love players that love the game and play it with gusto.. I never saw that in jay.. I saw a bigger, stronger armed Griese.. head case all the way..

Im sure Jake is a swell guy. I loved his passion and fire for the game. I just didnt like his work ethic (or lack thereof). And i didnt like his inconsistent play from the result of it. His overall record as a QB speaks for itself with some highs and lows. But my problems arent with Jake's character, just his ability to perform at a consistent level. As for Jay, i dont agree that Jay doesnt like playing. In fact, i think he is even more competitive than Jake the difference being that Jay is too immature to handle losing as well as winning. The Rivers incident just being the tip of the iceberg there. I truly believe it will be Jay's character that holds him back from being a HOF Qb and not his on field talent. But i really never doubted Jay's fire on the field.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 12:31 PM

Unfortuantely, one great year does not a Qb make. Elway understood that no matter what obstacles come your way (Drafting Maddox, Coaching changes, etc) you have to keep going to grind stone and study, study, study, if you want to be a champion.

Thank god Elway didnt take this approach. For me personally, i dont believe that Jay was drafted to immediately replace Jake. I think Shanahan took the opportunity that he had with draft position and draft for the future for which he was trying to accomplish before his departure.

Im sure Jake is a swell guy. I loved his passion and fire for the game. I just didnt like his work ethic (or lack thereof). And i didnt like his inconsistent play from the result of it. His overall record as a QB speaks for itself with some highs and lows. But my problems arent with Jake's character, just his ability to perform at a consistent level. As for Jay, i dont agree that Jay doesnt like playing. In fact, i think he is even more competitive than Jake the difference being that Jay is too immature to handle losing as well as winning. The Rivers incident just being the tip of the iceberg there. I truly believe it will be Jay's character that holds him back from being a HOF Qb and not his on field talent. But i really never doubted Jay's fire on the field.

I firmly believe the only reason jay did not start day one was the back lash mike got for doing the same thing with greasy over Bubby.. until he had some of the vets on his side he was not going to make that mistake again..

No one will ever convince me differently on this one..

If you look back to the preseason that year Jake got very few reps and jay was brought up to speed fast and got almost all the reps with BM, Scheffler so they had timing down and Jake did not.. Nor did Jake have the reps with the OLINE for the new offense being installed..

Look jay had all the tools no doubt about that but he did not nor do I believe he still has is between the ears..

As for how Jake handled it I do not blame him at all.. as I said I would have asked to be traded or retired on the spot.. Yep John handled it better but he also had the owner on his side also.. when danny boy drafted Maddox I suspect he was told by the owner it was stupid and that was the beginning of the end for Dan..

Tned

07-22-2009, 01:01 PM

They made Jake look better than what he was with smoke and mirrors too.

I know this is a popular phrase, but it really makes no sense and isn't accurate.

The Kubiak/Shanahan offense was successful based on the use of misdirection plays, whether it was in the running game or passing game. There was no smoke and mirrors, there was a scheme and play calling that played to the strengths of the tiny O-line and mobile QB.

Tned

07-22-2009, 01:13 PM

I firmly believe the only reason jay did not start day one was the back lash mike got for doing the same thing with greasy over Bubby.. until he had some of the vets on his side he was not going to make that mistake again..

No one will ever convince me differently on this one..

No one may ever convince you, but I am 100% confident that you are wrong.

I think Shanahan, who is still a QB coach at heart, knows the benefit of having a QB learn from the sidelines and grow into the job.

I agree with those that think Shanahan took advantage of an opportunity the Broncos never really had (up to that point) and that was to get a highly talented QB for the future of the franchise.

If Jake didn't have the bad year he did, then I am sure Jake would have started all year, and if the Broncos progressed into the playoffs, possibly even started in '07, or at least compete for the job.

However, the way the season went it made sense to move from Jake to Jay.

lex

07-22-2009, 01:25 PM

I know this is a popular phrase, but it really makes no sense and isn't accurate.

The Kubiak/Shanahan offense was successful based on the use of misdirection plays, whether it was in the running game or passing game. There was no smoke and mirrors, there was a scheme and play calling that played to the strengths of the tiny O-line and mobile QB.

No. Actually, its spot on. Plummer was so awful at throwing from the pocket that they were forced to do what youre saying (hence "smoke and mirrors"). I realize coaches play to their players' strengths but throwing from the pocket is kind of basic, especially for a 9 year vet...at least it should be. Its amazing what the coaches got out of Jake when you really think about it.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 01:47 PM

No one may ever convince you, but I am 100% confident that you are wrong.

I think Shanahan, who is still a QB coach at heart, knows the benefit of having a QB learn from the sidelines and grow into the job.

I agree with those that think Shanahan took advantage of an opportunity the Broncos never really had (up to that point) and that was to get a highly talented QB for the future of the franchise.

If Jake didn't have the bad year he did, then I am sure Jake would have started all year, and if the Broncos progressed into the playoffs, possibly even started in '07, or at least compete for the job.

However, the way the season went it made sense to move from Jake to Jay.

well we will have to agree to disagree on whether jay was slotted to start except for the veterans liking/trusting Jake.. whatever term works..

mike had set precedence on that and learned form the Griese/Bubby debacle

Jake was also set up to fail in the O that was installed.. drop back passing with mini OLINE that had almost zero experience or personnel to handle the pass rush/protection...

now granted jay had the same issue, but had the gift of the OLINE having 11 games to getting a bit better at it..

I agree that after most of us saw the season was not going good, it was best to move on to what everyone knew was ordained put the rookie in to get some experience for the next year..

with a few exceptions of those Jake haters, NO one was buying into mikes insistence of " jay giving us a better chance to win"..

Tned

07-22-2009, 02:35 PM

No. Actually, its spot on. Plummer was so awful at throwing from the pocket that they were forced to do what youre saying (hence "smoke and mirrors"). I realize coaches play to their players' strengths but throwing from the pocket is kind of basic, especially for a 9 year vet...at least it should be. Its amazing what the coaches got out of Jake when you really think about it.

If it was smoke and mirrors, it wouldn't work for three years. A game or two, yes, three years, no.

What's amazing is that anyone would think that the coaches of the other 20 or so teams Denver played over those three years were so incompetent that they were 'fooled' with some type of hypnotic smoke and mirrors. Ludicrous to believe this.

You confuse 'smoke and mirrors' with defensive confusion created via multiple formations and misdirection -- getting the defense over-pursuing to defend the run, and then gashing them on the back side of the play.

As Bill Parcell's said before that Thanksgiving game a couple years ago, "the Broncos only run like 5 plays, but they line up in different formations and execute those 5 plays well, so you never know what's coming next". That's paraphrased by memory, but essentially what he said.

You can call it smoke and mirrors, but then you would have to apply that same terminology to every NFL team that uses multiple formations, formation shifts, etc. into the same category. Once you define creating plays that confuse the opponent as smoke and mirrors, then all teams use smoke and mirrors.

Beyond the ridiculousness of the 'smoke and mirrors' concept is the fact that Jake was not the only problem with running a pocket passing offense. The O-line was completely incapable of pass blocking in a straight drop back passing offense, because they were tiny compared to the rest of the league. Long before Jake came to Denver, the line was made up of small, athletic linemen that were incapable of straight up pass blocking. What Jake brought to the table that Griese didn't have was the ability to move, and more importantly throw accurately while on the move.

lex

07-22-2009, 02:40 PM

If it was smoke and mirrors, it wouldn't work for three years. A game or two, yes, three years, no.

What's amazing is that anyone would think that the coaches of the other 20 or so teams Denver played over those three years were so incompetent that they were 'fooled' with some type of hypnotic smoke and mirrors. Ludicrous to believe this.

You confuse 'smoke and mirrors' with defensive confusion created via multiple formations and misdirection -- getting the defense over-pursuing to defend the run, and then gashing them on the back side of the play.

As Bill Parcell's said before that Thanksgiving game a couple years ago, "the Broncos only run like 5 plays, but they line up in different formations and execute those 5 plays well, so you never know what's coming next". That's paraphrased by memory, but essentially what he said.

You can call it smoke and mirrors, but then you would have to apply that same terminology to every NFL team that uses multiple formations, formation shifts, etc. into the same category. Once you define creating plays that confuse the opponent as smoke and mirrors, then all teams use smoke and mirrors.

Beyond the ridiculousness of the 'smoke and mirrors' concept is the fact that Jake was not the only problem with running a pocket passing offense. The O-line was completely incapable of pass blocking in a straight drop back passing offense, because they were tiny compared to the rest of the league. Long before Jake came to Denver, the line was made up of small, athletic linemen that were incapable of straight up pass blocking. What Jake brought to the table that Griese didn't have was the ability to move, and more importantly throw accurately while on the move.

Yet, it did last that long. Which was why it was amazing they got as much out of this as they did.

As I said before, Jake was horrible at throwing from the pocket. This is very basic to playing QB, bearing in mind that Jake was a 4,000 yard passer. You cant do that without smoke and mirrors. Other teams dont do it but other teams also dont have the coaching machinery that Denver had at this time. Having a 4,000 yard passer who is awful at throwing from the pocket is like having a pitcher who wins 20 games but cant get anyone out so he walks everyone and then picks them off at first base. You can dance around this all you want with your grievances toward Heimerdinger, which I dont even disavow. But to suggest Plummer didnt have massive help from the coaches is absurd.

The disguising plays with formations thing youre referring to is something that has caused Belichick fits. Whenever he has been asked about Shanahan, thats typically been the first thing he's mentioned. Doing this is a skill. Its an X and O maneuver. This is why none have been better than Shanahan at Xs and Os over the past several years. This deception is a skill. If it was so easy, youre right, everyone would be doing it. But not everyone is as masterful at this.

Also, a flaw in your argument is that you say the OLine couldnt pass block because of the more mobile linemen. They used the same type of linemen when Griese was QB, who was the opposite kind of QB from Plummer, and yet, they made Griese have success. Far more success than he had at any other team...like Plummer.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 02:41 PM

Yet, it did. Which was why it was amazing they got as much out of this as they did.

what you did not do is read the rest of the post.. try again..

lex

07-22-2009, 02:43 PM

what you did not do is read the rest of the post.. try again..

Meh.

Tned

07-22-2009, 05:00 PM

Yet, it did last that long. Which was why it was amazing they got as much out of this as they did.

As I said before, Jake was horrible at throwing from the pocket. This is very basic to playing QB, bearing in mind that Jake was a 4,000 yard passer. You cant do that without smoke and mirrors. Other teams dont do it but other teams also dont have the coaching machinery that Denver had at this time. Having a 4,000 yard passer who is awful at throwing from the pocket is like having a pitcher who wins 20 games but cant get anyone out so he walks everyone and then picks them off at first base. You can dance around this all you want with your grievances toward Heimerdinger, which I dont even disavow. But to suggest Plummer didnt have massive help from the coaches is absurd.

The disguising plays with formations thing youre referring to is something that has caused Belichick fits. Whenever he has been asked about Shanahan, thats typically been the first thing he's mentioned. Doing this is a skill. Its an X and O maneuver. This is why none have been better than Shanahan at Xs and Os over the past several years. This deception is a skill. If it was so easy, youre right, everyone would be doing it. But not everyone is as masterful at this.

Also, a flaw in your argument is that you say the OLine couldnt pass block because of the more mobile linemen. They used the same type of linemen when Griese was QB, who was the opposite kind of QB from Plummer, and yet, they made Griese have success. Far more success than he had at any other team...like Plummer.

You make the very case against your own argument. Smoke and mirrors would not produce a 4,000 yard passer. Smoke and mirrors wouldn't create a 75% winning percentage.

You give the example of a 20 game winner that walks everyone and picks them off at first base. That could never happen, just like no team could win 75% of their games over a three year span with smoke and mirrors. It is pure and utter nonsense.

Did he benefit GREATLY from the coaching scheme, and the fact that the ZBS running game, which caused over pursuit by defenders and opened up the bootleg to the backside of plays? Surely, but that isn't smoke and mirrors, that is what in the NFL is known as an offensive scheme and good play calling.

You are right about the X's and O's, and the difference between Plummer and Griese (very similar schemes, but with less QB movement). The use of multiple formations, so the defense doesn't know what package to put on the field is not smoke and mirrors, it is great offensive game planning. That's why for years they said, "give Shanahan two weeks and he could create a game plan to beat anyone."

OldschoolFreak

07-22-2009, 06:15 PM

You know the offseason is getting long when people have nothing better to do than to rehash old arguments from three years ago.

That being said, I have to chime in here. Tned, your analysis of the situation is excellent.

I've always been sad about the fact that the Broncos pulled the sails out of a great thing they had going. I know the Plummer era Broncos weren't a fan favorite but I personally find those years to have been some of the most entertaining in team history. Jake was indeed a polarizing figure but I thought he was great.

In my mind there's always been a little bit of a sense of what could have been. JR is right that regardless of whether or not the intent was to immediately replace Jake, the writing was on the wall as soon as Jay was drafted. Personally, I would have loved to see the team stay the course instead of changing schemes and heading in a different direction (which, consequently has been all down hill since).

Just think if the coaches hadn't given up on the QB and the team after the Pitt debacle...Stay the course, get better on D, and draft Haloti Ngata, Kiwanuka, or Ryans instead of scrapping the team and building around the punk with the bad attitude who ended up shackling the team with a me first attitude and ultimate mediocrity for what might turn out to be 5 years when it's all said and done.

The team had a good core, an effective scheme, a winning team leader for a QB who fit perfectly into that scheme, and most importantly, solid momentum and an overall winning swagger after a 13-3 season and 1 poor gameplan away from another Superbowl title.

Oh, what might have been.

lex

07-22-2009, 06:18 PM

You make the very case against your own argument. Smoke and mirrors would not produce a 4,000 yard passer. Smoke and mirrors wouldn't create a 75% winning percentage.

You give the example of a 20 game winner that walks everyone and picks them off at first base. That could never happen, just like no team could win 75% of their games over a three year span with smoke and mirrors. It is pure and utter nonsense.

Did he benefit GREATLY from the coaching scheme, and the fact that the ZBS running game, which caused over pursuit by defenders and opened up the bootleg to the backside of plays? Surely, but that isn't smoke and mirrors, that is what in the NFL is known as an offensive scheme and good play calling.

You are right about the X's and O's, and the difference between Plummer and Griese (very similar schemes, but with less QB movement). The use of multiple formations, so the defense doesn't know what package to put on the field is not smoke and mirrors, it is great offensive game planning. That's why for years they said, "give Shanahan two weeks and he could create a game plan to beat anyone."

No, again, when you have a player who is that limited (again, look at his struggles throwing from the pocket), its smoke and mirrors. Youre looking at 75% and concluding there is no smoke and mirrors. It was both smoke and mirrors and good scheming. The two arent mutually exclusive as you seem to think.

Ravage!!!

07-22-2009, 06:25 PM

I personallyl was thrilled... THRILLED with the choice/decision to move forward and actually MAKE THE MOVE to get a STUD QB. Teams are built around a quality QB. Making that move to go and GET ONE, made a huge statement that I, personally, was THRILLED to see in Denver.

I guess when the coach 'shacks' those stud players.... teams just can't progress forward.

Tned

07-22-2009, 06:29 PM

Ravage!!!

07-22-2009, 06:30 PM

No, again, when you have a player who is that limited (again, look at his struggles throwing from the pocket), its smoke and mirrors. Youre looking at 75% and concluding there is no smoke and mirrors. It was both smoke and mirrors and good scheming. The two arent mutually exclusive as you seem to think.

I think you have a different definition of 'smoke and mirrors' than what Tned is saying. YOu are suggesting that the only success the team had was by 'smoke and mirrors' which (to everyone else) suggest trick plays that 'fool' the other team. NO TEAM in the NFL can continue to win with trick plays that 'fool' the other team. Play action and bootlegs are not 'smoke and mirror' plays... that's a scheme that has been working for years and years now. Shanahan was a master of using a multitude of formations to confuse the defense... thats NOT smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrrors, is the wildcat. See how long that lasts and has success, and you'll see exactly why Tned is saying that you can't have sustained success by simply having 'smoke and mirrors' to somehow hide the deficiencies of a QB.

Its ludicrous to think that the offense was somehow developed, and executed, year after year after year by running some kind of 'trick' offense to hide a problem QB.... when in reality, its using your teams strengths and formations, combined with the offensive scheme, to get the most out of what is/was available..... hence what is known as 'game planning.'

lex

07-22-2009, 06:35 PM

I think you have a different definition of 'smoke and mirrors' is what Tned is saying. YOu are suggesting taht the only success the team had was by 'smoke and mirrors' which to eeryone else, suggest trick plays that 'fool' the other team. NO TEAM in the NFL can continue to win with trick plays that 'fool' the other team. Play action and bootlegs are not 'smoke and mirror' plays... thats a scheme that has been working for years and years now. Shanahan was a master of using a multitude of formations to confuse the defense... thats NOT smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrrors, is the wildcat. See how long that lasts and has success, and you'll see exactly why Tned is saying that you can't have sustained success by simply having 'smoke and mirrors' to somehow hide the deficiencies of a QB.

Its ludicrous to think that the offense was somehow developed, and executed, year after year after year by running some kind of 'trick' offense to hide a problem QB.... when in reality, its using your teams strengths and formations, combined with the offensive scheme, to get the most out of what is/was available..... hence what is known as 'game planning.'

Smoke and mirrors is accomplishing something by endrunning convention and/or using deception. Throwing fromt he pocket is a big part of passing. Its amazing that they were able to manufacture a 4,000 passer who was that dreadful at passing from the pocket. Its amazing that no one took the bootleg away in all that time. When you played Denver at that time, you knew you were going to get a lot of plays setting up the bootleg and you knew you were going to get a lot of bootlegs. You also knew that Plummer was horrible from the pocket. With that in play, smoke and mirrors is what kept it going.

Ravage!!!

07-22-2009, 06:37 PM

Smoke and mirrors is accomplishing something by endrunning convention and/or using deception. Throwing fromt he pocket is a big part of passing. Its amazing that they were able to manufacture a 4,000 passer who was that dreadful at passing from the pocket. Its amazing that no one took the bootleg away in all that time. When you played Denver at that time, you knew you were going to get a lot of plays setting up the bootleg and you knew you were going to get a lot of bootlegs. You also knew that Plummer was horrible from the pocket. With that in play, smoke and mirrors is what kept it going.

This makes no sense. I'm sorry, but you just explained how its NOT smoke in mirrors in an attempt to explain that it is.

lex

07-22-2009, 06:39 PM

This makes no sense. I'm sorry, but you just explained how its NOT smoke in mirrors in an attempt to explain that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_and_mirrors

Notice the emphasis on deception and refer back to my assertion that smoke and mirrors and scheming are not mutually exclusive.

Its ok if you dont understand...just like its ok if you dont agree with it.

Tned

07-22-2009, 06:43 PM

I think you have a different definition of 'smoke and mirrors' than what Tned is saying. YOu are suggesting that the only success the team had was by 'smoke and mirrors' which (to everyone else) suggest trick plays that 'fool' the other team. NO TEAM in the NFL can continue to win with trick plays that 'fool' the other team. Play action and bootlegs are not 'smoke and mirror' plays... that's a scheme that has been working for years and years now. Shanahan was a master of using a multitude of formations to confuse the defense... thats NOT smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrrors, is the wildcat. See how long that lasts and has success, and you'll see exactly why Tned is saying that you can't have sustained success by simply having 'smoke and mirrors' to somehow hide the deficiencies of a QB.

Its ludicrous to think that the offense was somehow developed, and executed, year after year after year by running some kind of 'trick' offense to hide a problem QB.... when in reality, its using your teams strengths and formations, combined with the offensive scheme, to get the most out of what is/was available..... hence what is known as 'game planning.'

Unfortunately, it is/was a completely wasted effort, but you did an excellent job of explaining why it was not 'smoke and mirrors'. :2thumbs:

Tned

07-22-2009, 06:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_and_mirrors

Notice the emphasis on deception and refer back to my assertion that smoke and mirrors and scheming are not mutually exclusive.

Its ok if you dont understand...just like its ok if you dont agree with it.

It appears there is only 'one' person that doesn't understand. :cough: Spagnuolo worshiper :cough:

Ravage!!!

07-22-2009, 06:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_and_mirrors

Notice the emphasis on deception and refer back to my assertion that smoke and mirrors and scheming are not mutually exclusive.

Its ok if you dont understand...just like its ok if you dont agree with it.

So by your definition of football... EVERY team succeeds by smoke and mirrors because they use deception in their formations, using crossing routes, men in motion... the running back starting one direction and cutting through another hole... anytime there is a draw play.. or a screen pass. Basically, by what you are saying... ANYTIME the offense doesn't tell the defense what they are doing, its deception. Thats the PURPOSE of huddling up and not simply telling the team what you are doing. Thats why teams scheme, have more than on play, and make pass plays look like run plays and run plays look like pass plays.

If THIS is what you call using "smoke and mirrors"... than the entire game of football is purely using smoke and mirrors. The next time you watch the Pittsburgh defense use their zone blitzes, or when a team fakes a blitz, comes rushing when it looks like they aren't, or... perhaps show man-to-man when indeed they are playing zone..... then you have yet again, spotted more 'smoke and mirror' style of football in the NFL. :beer:

lex

07-22-2009, 06:45 PM

Unfortunately, it is/was a completely wasted effort, but you did an excellent job of explaining why it was not 'smoke and mirrors'. :2thumbs:

Check out the link. It seems you might be stumbling on terminology. And then refer back to my assertion that scheming and "smoke and mirrors" are not mutually exclusive.

lex

07-22-2009, 06:48 PM

So by your definition of football... EVERY team succeeds by smoke and mirrors because they use deception in their formations, using crossing routes, men in motion... the running back starting one direction and cutting through another hole... anytime there is a draw play.. or a screen pass. Basically, by what you are saying... ANYTIME the offense doesn't tell the defense what they are doing, its deception. Thats the PURPOSE of huddling up and not simply telling the team what you are doing. Thats why teams scheme, have more than on play, and make pass plays look like run plays and run plays look like pass plays.

If THIS is what you call using "smoke and mirrors"... than the entire game of football is purely using smoke and mirrors. The next time you watch the Pittsburgh defense use their zone blitzes, or when a team fakes a blitz, comes rushing when it looks like they aren't, or... perhaps show man-to-man when indeed they are playing zone..... then you have yet again, spotted more 'smoke and mirror' style of football in the NFL. :beer:

I think the aversion to the term "smoke and mirrors" was misplaced. I think it was more about the notion of gimmicry. Deception is not gimmicry.

Tned

07-22-2009, 06:52 PM

I think the aversion to the term "smoke and mirrors" was misplaced. I think it was more about the notion of gimmicry. Deception is not gimmicry.

And nothing the Broncos were doing was gimmickry. The first time in years that you could say the Broncos implemented a trick/gimmick play was when they ran the option with Cutler.

lex

07-22-2009, 06:55 PM

And nothing the Broncos were doing was gimmickry. The first time in years that you could say the Broncos implemented a trick/gimmick play was when they ran the option with Cutler.

I dont know. Having the bootleg as part of the passing game, isnt gimmickry. Having the bootleg as the bulk of your passing game is possibly gimmickry. Its debateable. But its most certainly good scheming. You do what you have to do--gimmickry or whatever-- and thats what they did to make it work.

BTW, that was the first play of 2007. It was Travis Henry's longest run that year. LOL.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:01 PM

I dont know. Having the bootleg as part of the passing game, isnt gimmickry. Having the bootleg as the bulk of your passing game is possibly gimmickry. Its debateable. But its most certainly good scheming. You do what you have to do--gimmickry or whatever-- and thats what they did to make it work.

BTW, that was the first play of 2007. It was Travis Henry's longest run that year. LOL.

Big ben rolling right, throwing back across the field to Randall El, who then launches a bomb is a gimmick. Running a bootleg five times or fifty time's in a game cannot be a 'gimmick'.

Since you like to use 'web definitions', here is one for a 'gimmick play'.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gimmick%20play

gimmick play
An offensive football play that involves trickery and deception, intended to give the offensive team an advantage by confusing the defense.

Gimmick plays are easy to defend against if the defense sees it coming, so they are only run once in a while.

Gimmick plays are also known as gadget plays.
The flea flicker, the halfback pass, and the double reverse are some examples of gimmick plays.

See the bolded part. It is 'common sense', but it seems a tough concept for you to grasp.

You can't run a 'gimmick' as your predominant play, because it will no longer be trick or gimmick. It won't continue to catch the defense by surprise.

The longer you argue your point, the further you get from proving it.

lex

07-22-2009, 07:08 PM

Big ben rolling right, throwing back across the field to Randall El, who then launches a bomb is a gimmick. Running a bootleg five times or fifty time's in a game cannot be a 'gimmick'.

Since you like to use 'web definitions', here is one for a 'gimmick play'.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gimmick%20play

See the bolded part. It is 'common sense', but it seems a tough concept for you to grasp.

You can't run a 'gimmick' as your predominant play, because it will no longer be trick or gimmick. It won't continue to catch the defense by surprise.

The longer you argue your point, the further you get from proving it.

If you were Josh McDaniels and you ran your entier offense out of the swinging gate, would you call it gimmickry?

slim

07-22-2009, 07:10 PM

Sometimes I like to smoke in front of a mirror.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:14 PM

If you were Josh McDaniels and you ran your entier offense out of the swinging gate, would you call it gimmickry?

First, it is unlikely that any NFL head coach would do that, because when it is used (never seen it in the NFL) it is meant to catch the defense by surprise.

Second, if a team were able to run their entire offense that way, all year long, for three years, it would not be a 'gimmick', because by definition gimick or gadget or trick plays are run very rarely and intended to catch a defense by surprise. If every play was run from it, it wouldn't be a gimmick, it would be a 'scheme'.

Third, the Broncos didn't run from only one formation, and didn't run exclusively one play. They used multiple formations and personell groupings, ran multiple running plays, multiple passing plays (drop back, drop back play action, play action boot legs, etc.).

You are reaching so far now that it's probably best to just to let it go.

lex

07-22-2009, 07:20 PM

First, it is unlikely that any NFL head coach would do that, because when it is used (never seen it in the NFL) it is meant to catch the defense by surprise.

Second, if a team were able to run their entire offense that way, all year long, for three years, it would not be a 'gimmick', because by definition gimick or gadget or trick plays are run very rarely and intended to catch a defense by surprise. If every play was run from it, it wouldn't be a gimmick, it would be a 'scheme'.

Fair enough.

Third, the Broncos didn't run from only one formation, and didn't run exclusively one play. They used multiple formations and personell groupings, ran multiple running plays, multiple passing plays (drop back, drop back play action, play action boot legs, etc.).

You are reaching so far now that it's probably best to just to let it go.

Not really. Youre basically reconciling back to what I was saying about "smoke and mirrors" not being mutually exclusive. Now, here you are saying that deception is part of scheming. Maybe you should let it go.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Not really. Youre basically reconciling back to what I was saying about "smoke and mirrors" not being mutually exclusive. Now, here you are saying that deception is part of scheming. Maybe you should let it go.

I have said from the beginning (I know you never go back and read posts for fear of being proven wrong -- foot in mouth syndrome) that the Kubiak/Shanahan offense relied on misdirection. Deception, like all offensive/defensive schemes, in terms of trying to disguise what play has been called.

None of that supports your contention of smoke and mirrors or gimmickry (aka ludicrous).

While I have never seen you do it on any message board, not might be a good time for a first and just admit you were wrong.

lex

07-22-2009, 07:25 PM

I have said from the beginning (I know you never go back and read posts for fear of being proven wrong -- foot in mouth syndrome) that the Kubiak/Shanahan offense relied on misdirection. Deception, like all offensive/defensive schemes, in terms of trying to disguise what play has been called.

None of that supports your contention of smoke and mirrors or gimmickry (aka ludicrous).

While I have never seen you do it on any message board, not might be a good time for a first and just admit you were wrong.

Smoke and mirrors is using deception yet you were averse to this. LOL. I love your flip flopping and double talk. If I go back, chances are Ill find something that you were saying that doesnt reconcile with what you are saying.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:27 PM

Smoke and mirrors is using deception yet you were averse to this. LOL. I love your flip flopping and double talk. If I go back, chances are Ill find something that you were saying that doesnt reconcile with what you are saying.

Go for it spags, read through my posts.

lex

07-22-2009, 07:29 PM

Go for it spags, read through my posts.

Perhaps I will, fish.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:31 PM

Perhaps I will, fish.

That's a poodle in my avatar, not Bill Parcells or some Ram's coach.

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:37 PM

Perhaps I will, fish.

Still looking?

lex

07-22-2009, 07:39 PM

Still looking?

???

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:45 PM

???

:laugh: Ok, you are going to bow out gracefully. Wise move.

lex

07-22-2009, 07:46 PM

:laugh: Ok, you are going to bow out gracefully. Wise move.

Bowing out?

Tned

07-22-2009, 07:58 PM

Bowing out?

:2thumbs:

lex

07-22-2009, 07:59 PM

:2thumbs:

I dont know what youre fishing for, fish.

CHARLIEADAMSFAN

07-22-2009, 08:07 PM

Jake really shouldn't be doing much talking

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:10 PM

Jake really shouldn't be doing much talking

Long time no see. Thank God football season is almost here.

nevcraw

07-22-2009, 08:16 PM

Jake really shouldn't be doing much talking

no doubt! how about a simple thanks to shanny for 2 fat contracts.. The guy played as good as could and shanny / kubes eeked every ounce of talent and stretched the playbook as far as they could to make him productive. but it wasnt enough and shanny deserves credit for pulling the plug.. Too bad Jake's ego will not allow himself to be thankfull for what he was given.. money and his best seasons as a pro.

lex

07-22-2009, 08:20 PM

:2thumbs:

No not really. Ive pretty responded to the bulk of your arguments to the point where youre now agreeing with me because you didnt know what the term "smoke and mirrors" means. Now youre saying the same thing I was at the outset and proclaiming some imaginary victory. Maybe you should go back and look at your own posts and look at how youve once again flip-flopped, waffle boy.

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:26 PM

No not really. Ive pretty responded to the bulk of your arguments to the point where youre now agreeing with me because you didnt know what the term "smoke and mirrors" means. Now youre saying the same thing I was at the outset and proclaiming some imaginary victory. Maybe you should go back and look at your own posts and look at how youve once again flip-flopped, waffle boy.

Lex, I have never agreed with you on this subject, because you are simply wrong. The offense was not "smoke and mirrors" and it wasn't "gimmickry". You dug your logic hole SOOOOOO much deeper when you tried to go down the gimmickry route, which is laughable.

lex

07-22-2009, 08:28 PM

Lex, I have never agreed with you on this subject, because you are simply wrong. The offense was not "smoke and mirrors" and it wasn't "gimmickry". You dug your logic hole SOOOOOO much deeper when you tried to go down the gimmickry route, which is laughable.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/lexlucid/tned.jpg

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:30 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/lexlucid/tned.jpg

So, once again, you don't address facts, you throw up 'smoke and mirrors'.

The irony is that while the Broncos did not use smoke and mirrors, you do routinely on the forums. Irony at its best :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

lex

07-22-2009, 08:32 PM

I have said from the beginning (I know you never go back and read posts for fear of being proven wrong -- foot in mouth syndrome) that the Kubiak/Shanahan offense relied on misdirection. Deception, like all offensive/defensive schemes, in terms of trying to disguise what play has been called.

None of that supports your contention of smoke and mirrors or gimmickry (aka ludicrous).

While I have never seen you do it on any message board, not might be a good time for a first and just admit you were wrong.

I said it was smoke and mirrors. It wasnt my contention that it was gimmicry. I brought that up in suggesting thats what some would call it. But I matter of factly pointed out that it was smoke and mirrors, via using deception. And then you circle back and agree with this notion. Oy vay. Its easy to be right if you flip flop and take both sides.

And then to add to the amusement you pound your chest proclaiming some imaginary victory. LOL.

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:34 PM

I said it was smoke and mirrors. It wasnt my contention that it was gimmicry. I brought that up in suggesting thats what some would call it. But I matter of factly pointed out that it was smoke and mirrors, via using deception. And then you circle back and agree with this notion. Oy vay. Its easy to be right if you flip flop and take both sides.

And then to add to the amusement you pound your chest proclaiming some imaginary victory. LOL.

Once again, go back and find my post where I said the offense was smoke and mirrors. Come on Lex, give it up.

lex

07-22-2009, 08:35 PM

Once again, go back and find my post where I said the offense was smoke and mirrors. Come on Lex, give it up.

You said they use deception which was by definition smoke and mirrors. LOL. Wow. THe entire time, I have been telling you that they have been using deception. You said, "no thats scheming". I said, the two arent mutually exclusive.

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:40 PM

You said they use deception which was by definition smoke and mirrors. LOL. Wow. THe entire time, I have been telling you that they have been using deception. You said, "no thats scheming". I said, the two arent mutually exclusive.

That is among the most ridiculous statements you have made. Every team in the NFL uses deception, so therefore your contention is that EVERY NFL team uses smoke and mirrors? :confused:

Don't you see the circular logic that you attempt to put forth? Sorry, silly question, of course you don't.

lex

07-22-2009, 08:42 PM

That is among the most ridiculous statements you have made. Every team in the NFL uses deception, so therefore your contention is that EVERY NFL team uses smoke and mirrors? :confused:

Don't you see the circular logic that you attempt to put forth? Sorry, silly question, of course you don't.

And so in the end you resort to posturing. What a shock. But you admitted Denver was better at it no (remember your reference to Parcells)?

Tned

07-22-2009, 08:55 PM

And so in the end you resort to posturing. What a shock. But you admitted Denver was better at it no (remember your reference to Parcells)?

These are simple questions, I will type them slowly. Try and answer each one.

Does every team in the NFL use some form of deception, whether on defense and offense, to try and disguise the plays they are calling, whether the deception is via formations, formation shifts, fake blitzes, etc?
Is deception "smoke and mirrors"?
If the answers to number 1 and 2 are 'yes', then does every team in the NFL rely on "smoke and mirrors"?

No dodging the question as usual, just answer them. They are simple questions.

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 09:42 PM

Well I see we are still trying to define smoke and mirrors.. this is how I always saw it playing and winning when you should not be winning..

Taking hacks and over the hill players and making things out of nothing..

Taking min RB and succeeding year after year in having a 1000 rusher..

taking an OLINE that could not be big enough in Division football and win in the NFL..

winning in spite of having eh lousiest drafting record over a 5 year period..

Winning because you are able to scheme with second rate players.. that my friends is how I define smoke and mirrors..

I have always said mike was an offensive genius. I also wonder what he could have done if 50% of his day one picks, were good enough to stayed with the team more than 4 years..

lex

07-22-2009, 10:18 PM

Lonestar

07-22-2009, 10:18 PM

There was also a fraud element in the definition I provided.

tell/ask some one that cares..

lex

07-22-2009, 10:24 PM

tell/ask some one that cares..

In that case, maybe you should delete 90% of your post. LOL.

Actually, the fraud element speaks to a lot of what you were saying. Like they really werent that good. Like the results belied the talent.

Your tactical belligerence was kind of a swing and a miss there, killer.

Tned

07-22-2009, 10:48 PM

There was also a fraud element in the definition I provided.

These are simple questions, I will type them slowly. Try and answer each one.

Does every team in the NFL use some form of deception, whether on defense and offense, to try and disguise the plays they are calling, whether the deception is via formations, formation shifts, fake blitzes, etc?
Is deception "smoke and mirrors"?
If the answers to number 1 and 2 are 'yes', then does every team in the NFL rely on "smoke and mirrors"?

No dodging the question as usual, just answer them. They are simple questions.

Simple questions. Why are you afraid to answer them? :confused:

lex

07-22-2009, 11:11 PM

Simple questions. Why are you afraid to answer them? :confused:

Ive already answered them.

Shazam!

07-23-2009, 12:01 AM

Do not bother Tned. Do not bother.

Tned

07-23-2009, 06:44 AM

Ive already answered them.

No, you have not. So, for all of us that don't understand this concept you a presenting. Please answer these three simple questions.

Or, do you continue to avoid answering these simple questions, because once you do, you will have to admit the flaw in your argument?

These are simple questions, I will type them slowly. Try and answer each one.

Does every team in the NFL use some form of deception, whether on defense and offense, to try and disguise the plays they are calling, whether the deception is via formations, formation shifts, fake blitzes, etc?
Is deception "smoke and mirrors"?
If the answers to number 1 and 2 are 'yes', then does every team in the NFL rely on "smoke and mirrors"?

No dodging the question as usual, just answer them. They are simple questions.

lex

07-23-2009, 10:20 AM

No, you have not. So, for all of us that don't understand this concept you a presenting. Please answer these three simple questions.

Or, do you continue to avoid answering these simple questions, because once you do, you will have to admit the flaw in your argument?

Actually, I have. Youve brought up the same issues previously. Maybe you should take your own advice.

Tned

07-23-2009, 10:55 AM

Actually, I have. Youve brought up the same issues previously. Maybe you should take your own advice.

I'll take that as you finally agreeing (through acknowledgement that answering the questions will destroy your stance) that the Broncos didn't win with smoke and mirrors for three years.

lex

07-23-2009, 11:00 AM

I'll take that as you finally agreeing (through acknowledgement that answering the questions will destroy your stance) that the Broncos didn't win with smoke and mirrors for three years.

You can take it that way but youd be wrong. All you have to do is take your own advice to know that.

Northman

07-23-2009, 11:02 AM

Jesus, your guys going to continue this circle jerk for another 10 pages?

Overtime

07-23-2009, 01:36 PM

here's all that need be said about Plummer and his never was even a has been of a career.

Plummer continues to take shots at Shanahan, despite being nearly 3 years removed from this event. (LET IT GO. IT'S OVER. MOVE ON.)

Shanahan continues to let the comments bounce off as though he has mighty armor on. (Good man Shanny, don't let that piece of slug bait bring you down to his level).

Plummer = TRASH

Shanahan = CLASS

BroncoWave

07-23-2009, 01:57 PM

Northman

07-23-2009, 02:03 PM

By the same token, Jake has been gone 3 years and you continue to bitch about him. I think you should take your own advice that I kindly bolded for you. :coffee:

True, but to be fair he didnt start the thread. So far recently the people who have been starting threads about Jake are the ones who keep bringing him up. If you dont bring him up than there's nothing to debate or argue about right?

Shazam!

07-23-2009, 02:41 PM

here's all that need be said about Plummer and his never was even a has been of a career.

Plummer = TRASH

Are you jealous of Jake Plummer's life or something? Plummer may have been slightly better than mediocre, but he was a starting NFL QB, and if he was never starting material he would've never been a stater. That 'piece of trash' did a job we'd do for free.

This has gotten out of control.

lex

07-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Are you jealous of Jake Plummer's life or something? Plummer may have been slightly better than mediocre, but he was a starting NFL QB, and if he was never starting material he would've never been a stater. That 'piece of trash' did a job we'd do for free.

This has gotten out of control.

Where do you get out of that that he is jealous? Youre reaching.

Overtime

07-23-2009, 04:17 PM

By the same token, Jake has been gone 3 years and you continue to bitch about him. I think you should take your own advice that I kindly bolded for you. :coffee:

I didn't start the thread as Northman stated. so kindly take your bolded advice and shove it up your ass.

True, but to be fair he didnt start the thread. So far recently the people who have been starting threads about Jake are the ones who keep bringing him up. If you dont bring him up than there's nothing to debate or argue about right?

well said Northman.

Are you jealous of Jake Plummer's life or something? Plummer may have been slightly better than mediocre, but he was a starting NFL QB, and if he was never starting material he would've never been a stater. That 'piece of trash' did a job we'd do for free.

This has gotten out of control.

Jealous of what? Jealous of a life of fail, topped off with a whole load of butthurt, and anti-Shanahanism? i think not. I may not be as rich as Jake, or have played in the NFL, but my life has a hell of a lot more meaning, than just football, and being butthurt over what happened in the past.

WARHORSE

07-23-2009, 05:46 PM

I think you all should smoke, then look in the mirror.

heh heh:cool:

Simple Jaded

07-23-2009, 07:55 PM

If Jay Cutler were still taking shots at McDaniels, the same people defending Plummer would be murdering Cutler.

Maybe OaklandRaider was right about Broncos fans.......

Tned

07-23-2009, 08:30 PM

If Jay Cutler were still taking shots at McDaniels, the same people defending Plummer would be murdering Cutler.

Maybe OaklandRaider was right about Broncos fans.......

I wouldn't be, I supported both Cutler and Plummer. Cutler was a hell of a lot more talented QB, and I am still dissapointed in how things went down, but it's a pretty big generalization to assume that if you support one you have to trash the other.

Lonestar

07-23-2009, 10:04 PM

I wouldn't be, I supported both Cutler and Plummer. Cutler was a hell of a lot more talented QB, and I am still dissapointed in how things went down, but it's a pretty big generalization to assume that if you support one you have to trash the other.

:dito:

ChairmanBron

07-23-2009, 11:01 PM

True, but to be fair he didnt start the thread. So far recently the people who have been starting threads about Jake are the ones who keep bringing him up. If you dont bring him up than there's nothing to debate or argue about right?

Right! But it is VERY entertaining to see people get all bent out of shape for ONE guy! I bet if someone brings him up 25 years from now, we'd still have this same type of conversation! :eek:

Reidman

07-23-2009, 11:17 PM

Speaking of Jake Plummer, he is leading in an old televised QB challenge on NFL network right now from like 2000 or something...lol...

Northman

07-23-2009, 11:27 PM

Right! But it is VERY entertaining to see people get all bent out of shape for ONE guy! I bet if someone brings him up 25 years from now, we'd still have this same type of conversation! :eek:

Im not sure its entertaining as i see it more as baiting but to each his own.

BroncoWave

07-24-2009, 12:33 AM

I didn't start the thread as Northman stated. so kindly take your bolded advice and shove it up your ass.

No one made you read or respond to the thread. So once again, I direct you to your own advice: :coffee:

"LET IT GO. IT'S OVER. MOVE ON"

ChairmanBron

07-24-2009, 01:00 AM

Im not sure its entertaining as i see it more as baiting but to each his own.

Baiting? What? This is lull in the season. What else do we have to talk about, McD's wisecrack moves? Brandon Marshall's F-ups... Come on now!

Northman

07-24-2009, 01:16 AM

Baiting? What? This is lull in the season. What else do we have to talk about, McD's wisecrack moves? Brandon Marshall's F-ups... Come on now!

Im sure there is plenty. Although i know that Tned and mods will never see this as a baiting it certainly falls under the category. Simply because the Jake Wars create a lot of animosity more than any other subject and will continue to do so. I personally dont care that you threw this article up here. Im just saying that without it there is no circle jerk arguements that continue to go nowhere. You said it yourself, that you did it for thrills and laughs which to me tells me you did it for all the wrong reasons, hence baiting.

Nature Boy

07-24-2009, 02:59 AM

Nevermind that he absolutely stank the year he was benched. I guess he's not willing to look at his role in his exit from Denver.

The O-Line was horrendous in 2006. Matt Lepsis, protector of the blind side was completely doped out even during games as he admitted to later on. He was too out of it to even yell, "Duck Jaaaaake!". No QB in the world can do anything with less that 2 seconds in the pocket. Anyone that paid any attention would know this in 2006 but everyone just loves to bash Jake Plummer who I might add has a better regular season win percentage that John Elway as a Broncos Quarterback.

Also, had we let Jake Plummer finish the season in 2006, we would have made the playoffs, thus Shanahan would surely still be the Broncos head coach and Cutler still the QB,(with 1 less season under his belt but still a learning Broncos QB).

Making the playoffs in the NFL is an accomplishment in it's own so please don't reply back with, "Even if Jake did take us to the playoffs in 2006, we wouldn't have made it all the way...blah, blah, blah."

All hind sight of course.

Plummer has a point however. Call it karma or what have you; how Shanahan yanked Jake is very similar to how he himself was yanked. I knew it from the start, yanking Jake and inserting Cutler prematurely was the worst move Mike Shanahan ever made. It's not over yet, Pat Bowlen will bite the last bullet as firing Shanahan and hiring McDummass and the resulting off season fiasco with Cutler is the worst move Pat Bowlen's ever made in his Broncos ownership. I hope the later will not come true but my crystal ball say it will be.

Dam I hate Josh McDummass.

.