PDA

View Full Version : John Elway edged by Colts GM for NFL executive of the year award



Denver Native (Carol)
01-28-2013, 06:50 PM
NEW ORLEANS — Apparently, acquiring Andrew Luck with the NFL's No. 1 draft pick was more impressive than recruiting Peyton Manning from free agency.

John Elway was not named the NFL's executive of the year in a Sporting News poll of league executives. He finished second — by one vote — to Indianapolis Colts' general manager Ryan Grigson.

The voting totals from NFL executives:

Ryan Grigson, Colts, 9
John Elway, Broncos, 8
John Schneider, Seahawks, 3
Bruce Allen, Redskins, 2
Rick Smith, Texans, 2

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_22468059/john-elway-edged-by-colts-gm-nfl-executive

Denver Native (Carol)
01-28-2013, 06:54 PM
I definitely do not understand this one. Yes, the Colts had a bigger turn around this year from last; however, due to where they finished, they were handed the #1 pick.

topscribe
01-28-2013, 06:59 PM
I read something about this several weeks ago. It seemed (IIRC - I don't remember
a lot about it now) that Elway might suffer some backlash because of his
acquisition of Manning. Their loss was his gain type of thing.
.

BroncoWave
01-28-2013, 07:02 PM
Ridiculous. Any GM could have picked Andrew Luck with the first draft pick. That's essentially what turned Indy around. Elway had to out-maneuver tons of other teams to win the Manning sweepstakes. I think even Seattle's GM should have been higher than Indy's for picking Wilson where he did.

WTE
01-28-2013, 07:05 PM
Cam Neely is still better than John Elway.

Krugan
01-28-2013, 07:12 PM
Cam Neely is still better than John Elway.

Kick his ass Sea Bass...

Poet
01-28-2013, 07:13 PM
Who the **** voted for the Texans?

BroncoJoe
01-28-2013, 07:33 PM
Eh - like the MVP, I don't really care.

Going from the 1st pick in the draft to making the playoffs is a big deal - Andrew Luck or not. Plenty of 1st round picks don't make the playoffs.

That said, I'm more impressed with the coaching as opposed to the GM.

Nomad
01-28-2013, 07:38 PM
Getting rid of Tebow should have automatically made him Exec of the Year!

Signed

claymore
:lol:

NightTrainLayne
01-28-2013, 11:19 PM
Getting rid of Peyton > signing Peyton. . .

At least in the eyes of GMs huh?

DenBronx
01-29-2013, 12:09 AM
This is a sham.

Screw who ever voted.

Canmore
01-29-2013, 03:08 AM
This is a sham.

Screw who ever voted.

Pretty much my thoughts. What a sham!

zbeg
01-29-2013, 05:24 AM
I definitely do not understand this one. Yes, the Colts had a bigger turn around this year from last; however, due to where they finished, they were handed the #1 pick.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. If it's all Andrew Luck, then he should be handed the MVP going away, since the Colts improved by 9 games. If one player can do that, then that's absurd. I don't think that's the case here.

On the other hand, I don't know how much to attribute to Luck, how much to attribute to the other players, and how much to attribute to (lower case-l)uck. This is a tough one to evaluate, but I don't think it's crazy. Denver, Seattle, and Indy are the only acceptable options here.

Dirk
01-29-2013, 06:44 AM
Maybe those that voted for Grigson figured they would give it to him because he had the balls to part ways with Manning and go with a rookie. And it worked.

zbeg
01-29-2013, 06:59 AM
Maybe those that voted for Grigson figured they would give it to him because he had the balls to part ways with Manning and go with a rookie. And it worked.

Also, he had a very good draft (not counting Luck) and traded for Vontae Davis. It wasn't all Luck.

Chef Zambini
01-29-2013, 10:50 AM
Getting rid of Tebow should have automatically made him Exec of the Year!

Signed

claymore
:lol:
THIS !
how many execs would have been brave enough to dump the #1 story in sports? !!!
JFE deservedit not only for his AQUISITIONS, but also for taking out the trash !
tebow
goodman
tuten
unloading this dead weight, getting draft picks for tebow?
c'mon, thats better than cool hand luke !

JDR, PFM, a new strength and conditioning program, a solid draft , including the next aaron rodger!
the colts?
they took LUCK and he might be the third best QB of the draft !
this vote blows chunks of rancid dog vomit!

Chef Zambini
01-29-2013, 10:52 AM
who did OZZIE vote for?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:12 AM
I'm not sure how to feel about this. If it's all Andrew Luck, then he should be handed the MVP going away, since the Colts improved by 9 games. If one player can do that, then that's absurd. I don't think that's the case here.

On the other hand, I don't know how much to attribute to Luck, how much to attribute to the other players, and how much to attribute to (lower case-l)uck. This is a tough one to evaluate, but I don't think it's crazy. Denver, Seattle, and Indy are the only acceptable options here.

I think that 11-5 mark is really deceiving. They did have 3 nice wins against Minny, GB, and Houston, but the rest were against Cleveland, Tennessee (x2) , Miami, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Detroit, and KC. I think any QB with a pulse would have gotten at least 7 or 8 wins out of that schedule.

They were MINUS 30 POINTS for the season. The fact that they were outscored by 30 and went 11-5 is a huge statistical anomaly. 9 of their wins were by a TD or less, while their losses were mostly blowouts. Talent and production-wise they were an 8-8 team that just happened to have every close game go their way. They were really exposed in their playoff game. Not saying their GM didn't do a good job, but I would say Elway and Seattle's guy did better.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 11:13 AM
I think that 11-5 mark is really deceiving. They did have 3 nice wins against Minny, GB, and Houston, but the rest were against Cleveland, Tennessee (x2) , Miami, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Detroit, and KC. I think any QB with a pulse would have gotten at least 7 or 8 wins out of that schedule.

You could say the exact same thing about the Broncos.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:14 AM
You could say the exact same thing about the Broncos.

Not even close. Denver was +189 in points this season. Indy was -30. That is lightyears apart. Denver mostly blew out the bad teams they played. Indy was in a nail-biter every week.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 11:16 AM
They (as did we) still won those games.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:20 AM
They (as did we) still won those games.

So? If they make it a habit of getting outscored by 30 points every season they won't be sniffing 11-5 most years. I'm just saying that record is deceiving. You give they a schedule of even average difficulty I think they regress to 7 or 8 wins. You give Denver a tougher schedule and I still think we are easily a double-digit win team this year.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 11:27 AM
I don't take anything away from INdy's wins... they were 2-14 last year. THats a HUGE improvement and jump from the season prior. The NFL is pretty even across the board, and if you win games, you win games.

Wasn't that the argument you were making after last year's season, A win is a win, right?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:30 AM
I don't take anything away from INdy's wins... they were 2-14 last year. THats a HUGE improvement and jump from the season prior. The NFL is pretty even across the board, and if you win games, you win games.

Wasn't that the argument you were making after last year's season, A win is a win, right?

Denver actually regressed pretty close to the record they should have had last season based on +/-. We had the +/- of about a 6 or 7 win team. The colts had a +/- of a 7 or 8 win team. Yeah they won the games they won, but their playoff game did a pretty good job of exposing how good of a team they really are, much like Denver's against NE last season.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:33 AM
I forget the exact source, but there was a guy on Bill Simmons' podcast (maybe football outsiders?) who said based on their model that they have been using to track seasons since 1990, the Colts are either the worst or right at the bottom of teams who have made the playoffs since then.

zbeg
01-29-2013, 11:33 AM
So? If they make it a habit of getting outscored by 30 points every season they won't be sniffing 11-5 most years. I'm just saying that record is deceiving. You give they a schedule of even average difficulty I think they regress to 7 or 8 wins. You give Denver a tougher schedule and I still think we are easily a double-digit win team this year.

I agree that Indy overachieved, but that's still an expected improvement of ~5 wins, which is significant. Denver might have improved by roughly the same amount, but I think that had a lot to do with the quarterback acquisition, and while Elway deserves some credit for that, it wasn't some ridiculous scouting job - everyone on the planet knew that if Manning was healthy, he was going to be effective. That was a big if and certainly Elway gets credit for being willing to take the risk, but he had a decent idea of what he was getting if the bet paid off.

Honestly, I would have voted for Schneider in Seattle if I had a vote, but Grigson isn't a crazy choice at all. (Incidentally, I'm having this identical debate with my Seattle friends.)

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 11:34 AM
Denver actually regressed pretty close to the record they should have had last season based on +/-. We had the +/- of about a 6 or 7 win team. The colts had a +/- of a 7 or 8 win team. Yeah they won the games they won, but their playoff game did a pretty good job of exposing how good of a team they really are, much like Denver's against NE last season.

I don't see your point. You are using their wins AGAINST them for your points. They won the games they played, and they improved (despite releasing a LOT of talent from that team) from a 2-14 to an 11-5. You can claim the "they were exposed" all you want, but no one expected that team to do well in the playoffs because of the young age of that team. DENVER on the other hand.........

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:37 AM
I agree that Indy overachieved, but that's still an expected improvement of ~5 wins, which is significant. Denver might have improved by roughly the same amount, but I think that had a lot to do with the quarterback acquisition, and while Elway deserves some credit for that, it wasn't some ridiculous scouting job - everyone on the planet knew that if Manning was healthy, he was going to be effective. That was a big if and certainly Elway gets credit for being willing to take the risk, but he had a decent idea of what he was getting if the bet paid off.

Honestly, I would have voted for Schneider in Seattle if I had a vote, but Grigson isn't a crazy choice at all. (Incidentally, I'm having this identical debate with my Seattle friends.)

It's not that Elway knew something about Manning that no one else did. It's that he convinced him to come to Denver over all the other teams going after him.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 11:38 AM
I forget the exact source, but there was a guy on Bill Simmons' podcast (maybe football outsiders?) who said based on their model that they have been using to track seasons since 1990, the Colts are either the worst or right at the bottom of teams who have made the playoffs since then.

I don't th ink I'm understanding this post. You mean the Colts have made the playoffs fewer times than any other team since 1990? What about Cleveland, the Chargers, the Falcons, the Saints, the Cardinals, the Lions, and the Bengals?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:39 AM
I don't see your point. You are using their wins AGAINST them for your points. They won the games they played, and they improved (despite releasing a LOT of talent from that team) from a 2-14 to an 11-5. You can claim the "they were exposed" all you want, but no one expected that team to do well in the playoffs because of the young age of that team. DENVER on the other hand.........

I'm not using wins against them. I'm using their -30 against them. When you go -30 but 9-1 in games decided by 7 or less that is just fluky. If I'm being a hypocrite so are you, because you did nothing but yell about how Tebow's wins were a fluke and we can't sustain that.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 11:40 AM
I don't th ink I'm understanding this post. You mean the Colts have made the playoffs fewer times than any other team since 1990? What about Cleveland, the Chargers, the Falcons, the Saints, the Cardinals, the Lions, and the Bengals?

Of teams who have made the playoff since 1990, the 2012 Colts are the worst, according to football outsider's model that tracks teams.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 11:41 AM
I'm not using wins against them. I'm using their -30 against them. When you go -30 but 9-1 in games decided by 7 or less that is just fluky. If I'm being a hypocrite so are you, because you did nothing but yell about how Tebow's wins were a fluke and we can't sustain that.

I claimed that Tebow's wins were a fluke from WATCHING him play and having the inability to complete a pass. The -30 you keep bringing up doesn't show on the scoreboard at the end of the day, and that's what matters..... right? I mean, this is what I've heard.

If they aren't as good as their record shows, then ok. I'm sure their win record will come back down to earth next season. But the voting on this year isn't based on some -30 stat that means nothing, nor some hypothetical "They aren't as good as people say they are"...thing.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 11:43 AM
Of teams who have made the playoff since 1990, the 2012 Colts are the worst, according to football outsider's model that tracks teams.

worst at what.. winning? Thats probably true, since they have a losing record once getting to the playoffs.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 12:17 PM
worst at what.. winning? Thats probably true, since they have a losing record once getting to the playoffs.

Worst performance on the field during the regular season. It's easy to just look at the record and stop there. People way smarter than either you or me actually dug deeper than just looking at the record and actually analyzed what happened on the field to come to this conclusion.

The guy specifically said they were even a worse team than the 2011 Broncos and that 7-9 Seahawks team.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 01:27 PM
Worst performance on the field during the regular season. It's easy to just look at the record and stop there. People way smarter than either you or me actually dug deeper than just looking at the record and actually analyzed what happened on the field to come to this conclusion.

The guy specifically said they were even a worse team than the 2011 Broncos and that 7-9 Seahawks team.

BFD. It's all opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 01:34 PM
BFD. It's all opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own.

Yeah you're right, opinion is the exact same thing as statistical analysis.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 01:40 PM
Yeah you're right, opinion is the exact same thing as statistical analysis.

Probably the most idiotic response you've given yet. The statistical analysis shows what exactly? Did it take away wins from them? Did they somehow lose those games they won because of that statistical analysis?

You're being stupid now.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 01:56 PM
Probably the most idiotic response you've given yet. The statistical analysis shows what exactly? Did it take away wins from them? Did they somehow lose those games they won because of that statistical analysis?

You're being stupid now.

It's easy to just look at wins and stop there when analyzing a team. I don't blame you for the lazy analysis, that's what most people do. The record doesn't always tell the whole picture. If wins are the one and only measure of what makes a good team then why does the team with the best record almost never win the Super Bowl?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 01:57 PM
When I have time I'm going to go find the podcast with the football outsiders guy and post his reasoning for why the Colts are so bad.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 02:04 PM
Statistics show Elway was a slightly above average QB. Let's just forget that he retired with more wins than any QB before him.

You can show me any statistic you want - the only one that matters is the end result. Wins.

And I'm not lazy. I just don't take this shit too seriously. Probably because I have much better things to do with my free time.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 02:06 PM
When I have time I'm going to go find the podcast with the football outsiders guy and post his reasoning for why the Colts are so bad.

I can hardly wait. What a surprise! Someones OPINION that correlates with your OPINION.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:11 PM
It's easy to just look at wins and stop there when analyzing a team. I don't blame you for the lazy analysis, that's what most people do. The record doesn't always tell the whole picture. If wins are the one and only measure of what makes a good team then why does the team with the best record almost never win the Super Bowl?

Its just as easy to base your opinions on "statistical analysis." I mean, how many times did people try to brag that Plummer had a better season "statistically"...than Elway? Stats NEVER tell the whole story, and what the stats you bring up don't tell (especially when comparing to past teams)... is the competition. We don't know how good the competition is/was compared to who they are playing now. The "statistics" are just numbers on a piece of paper that doesn't tell ANYTHING about the game. It doesn't talk about weather, injuries, situations, turnovers, where the ball starts, missed opportunities...or flat out LUCK from either side.

Stats lie.

Poet
01-29-2013, 02:18 PM
Stat's don't lie if they are in context. So yes, in the context of just sheer numbers, Plummer may have had a better season than Elway (I'm not familiar with the numbers of every Plummer season in Denver). When you put the contexts of their numbers in regards to their eras and teams, most likely not. I do get a bit tired of people complaining about numbers, it's not the fault of the numbers, it's the fault of the people who suck with context. Stats tell about everything you listed. Turnovers is a stat, if you turn the ball over, it's on your stat sheet for both the individual and the team. Injured players are recorded as well. As far as luck goes, that's too subjective. Some people think the play in 2009 between our teams was flukey, remember Stokely at the end of the game? Other's say it's not a fluke, it's not lucky because a tipped ball is up for grabs and Stokley played it perfect. Others might say that the Ravens got lucky. I'd argue that the Ravens forced Denver to play to the last few seconds of the game and that Denver didn't, not luck. In other words, since we can't really agree on what luck is -we meaning football fans in general- it's kind of silly to complain that it's not recorded.

As far as weather goes, it's not really a big deal after-the-fact because both teams played in it. Part of your skillset as a player, coach, trainer, whatever, is to deal with the elements. Who cares? In today's dome heavy NFL, the elements mean less and less. I think complaining about weather is grasping at straws.

I really don't get it because I've seen you quote stats over and over again when it's good for you. I'm not knocking you, stats tell more of the truth than people think.

The Colts were a pretty bad playoff team. They beat a bunch of teams that we know now to be average or subpar. The AFC is just really weak, the Bengals and the Colts probably weren't a better team than the Bears who missed the playoffs.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 02:19 PM
Its just as easy to base your opinions on "statistical analysis." I mean, how many times did people try to brag that Plummer had a better season "statistically"...than Elway? Stats NEVER tell the whole story, and what the stats you bring up don't tell (especially when comparing to past teams)... is the competition. We don't know how good the competition is/was compared to who they are playing now. The "statistics" are just numbers on a piece of paper that doesn't tell ANYTHING about the game. It doesn't talk about weather, injuries, situations, turnovers, where the ball starts, missed opportunities...or flat out LUCK from either side.

Stats lie.

So why does the team with the best record rarely win the Super Bowl?

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:24 PM
Stat's don't lie if they are in context. So yes, in the context of just sheer numbers, Plummer may have had a better season than Elway (I'm not familiar with the numbers of every Plummer season in Denver). When you put the contexts of their numbers in regards to their eras and teams, most likely not. I do get a bit tired of people complaining about numbers, it's not the fault of the numbers, it's the fault of the people who suck with context.

The Colts were a pretty bad playoff team. They beat a bunch of teams that we know now to be average or subpar. The AFC is just really weak, the Bengals and the Colts probably weren't a better team than the Bears who missed the playoffs.

Stats DO lie if stats are the only things used. Numbers, alone, can absolutely be twisted to show any side of any argument. Stats are no different than any other fact, and facts can just as much be a "fibber" than anything else...depending on how/when I use them.

After all, if I wanted to make an argument that Dilfer is better than Marino, all I have to do is stick with the "fact" that Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings. End of argument, you can't challenge my stance. If I wanted to say that Plummer was a better QB for the Broncos, then I just have to bring up the number of wins while he was a Bronco and compare them (statistically) to the % of wins to Elway's.

Stats DO lie. When you using "numbers" to tell whether a sports figure is better than another, then stats ABSOLUTELY can lie. The quarterback rating is the biggest sham in football. But because its a "statistic"...people want to take it as fact.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 02:25 PM
So why does the team with the best record rarely win the Super Bowl?

Define rare? A quick look shows me the winner of the Superbowl often had the best record, or tied for the best record.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:26 PM
So why does the team with the best record rarely win the Super Bowl?

What does that have to do with anything? Because football is a game played on the field, and not with the numbers on a piece of paper? Because "thats why they play the game" instead of going by "what should happen" according to what the analysis says? Because every NFL team can beat another on any given day? Every example I gave could make a difference as to why one team beat another... so I'm pretty quite confused as to what your question has to do with anything?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 02:29 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Because football is a game played on the field, and not with the numbers on a piece of paper? Because "thats why they play the game" instead of going by "what should happen" according to what the analysis says? Because every NFL team can beat another on any given day? Every example I gave could make a difference as to why one team beat another... so I'm pretty quite confused as to what your question has to do with anything?

Well according to you wins are the ONLY thing that matters when determining how good a team is. If that were the case shouldn't the team with the most wins always win the Super Bowl?

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 02:29 PM
Define rare? A quick look shows me the winner of the Superbowl often had the best record, or tied for the best record.

Not in recent years.

Poet
01-29-2013, 02:31 PM
Stats DO lie if stats are the only things used. Numbers, alone, can absolutely be twisted to show any side of any argument. Stats are no different than any other fact, and facts can just as much be a "fibber" than anything else...depending on how/when I use them.

After all, if I wanted to make an argument that Dilfer is better than Marino, all I have to do is stick with the "fact" that Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings. End of argument, you can't challenge my stance. If I wanted to say that Plummer was a better QB for the Broncos, then I just have to bring up the number of wins while he was a Bronco and compare them (statistically) to the % of wins to Elway's.

Stats DO lie. When you using "numbers" to tell whether a sports figure is better than another, then stats ABSOLUTELY can lie. The quarterback rating is the biggest sham in football. But because its a "statistic"...people want to take it as fact.

Stop saying they lie. Stop that. The numbers aren't lying. What you're talking about is people being dishonest with the numbers. You're literally vilifying numbers and I don't get it.

Let's use your Dilfer example. I can't argue that he has a ring and Marino does not. What I can point to then is the massive difference in TD's, yards, completion percentage, attempts, it goes on and on. So on your side you would have one ring. I would have everything else. Neither of us lied, neither of us were being dishonest, one of us has an argument that would be clearly better accepted than the other.

If you want to talk about Plummer v. Elway, it works that way as well. You can cite that the percentage of Plummer is higher than Elway's. I can cite the five SB's for Elway, including two victories. I would also probably laugh at whoever made that argument because they're giving too much credit to single players about team success, but that's not really the point.

If you have the right context with the numbers, it's fine. In other words, you're concerned about sophistry, which I can understand.

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 02:33 PM
Not in recent years.

So, now we have to qualify "Superbowl winner" to fit your analysis?

BroncoJoe
01-29-2013, 02:35 PM
Stop saying they lie. Stop that. The numbers aren't lying. What you're talking about is people being dishonest with the numbers. You're literally vilifying numbers and I don't get it.

I think what Rav is trying to say that "facts" can be manipulated to suit one's argument. Especially statistics.

Poet
01-29-2013, 02:36 PM
I think what Rav is trying to say that "facts" can be manipulated to suit one's argument. Especially statistics.

Yeah, but he's acting like someone forming an argument with a stat that is 'wrong' is a sin. He's wrong all the time, why does he hate himself?

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:36 PM
Well according to you wins are the ONLY thing that matters when determining how good a team is. If that were the case shouldn't the team with the most wins always win the Super Bowl?

The only thing that matters.... in regards to what??? The season? Making the playoffs? Judging the team? I'm saying that when a team goes from 2-14 to 11-5... you can throw at all your numbers and tell me "yeah, but stats show they weren't really that good" alllllllllll you want. But it doesn't matter. Those stats didn't make a damn bit of difference during the season or on the scoreboard as the W kept going next to the Colts side of the card.

I'm also saying that even though the Colts will probably come back down to reality next season, when judging THIS team.. THIS year... those "probably's"... don't mean diddly squat. I'm saying that anyone looking at the improvment from THIS year's colts team...especially compared to what they were GUESSED to do with the lost talent... no one CARES what some stupid "statistical analysis" shows! In fact, I find it funny to think anyone would give a RATS-ASS what some statistical analysis says about the team, when the team FINISHED with an 11-5 record... period. What did the "statistical analysis" say that the Colts SHOULD finish at the beginning of the year??

Who cares what some numbers on a piece of paper says as to "this is what they really are".. when what they REALLY are is an 11-5 team?

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:39 PM
Stop saying they lie. Stop that. The numbers aren't lying. What you're talking about is people being dishonest with the numbers. You're literally vilifying numbers and I don't get it.



Oh for pete's sake.. go defend "number's" feelings in a different thread. I'm not going to change the discussion because you want to defend the semantics of how things are worded when it comes to how stats are used to lie. Please, this is just silly.

Poet
01-29-2013, 02:39 PM
Oh for pete's sake.. go defend "number's" feelings in a different thread. I'm not going to change the discussion because you want to defend the semantics of how things are worded when it comes to how stats are used to lie. Please, this is just silly.

I'm sorry that you're blatantly wrong and don't understand the basics of numbers and arguments. ;)

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 02:43 PM
I'm sorry that you're blatantly wrong and don't understand the basics of numbers and arguments. ;)

Hah..ok. I"m sorry that I hurt the feelings of some numbers and hope that someday they can grow to forgive me.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 03:00 PM
The only thing that matters.... in regards to what??? The season? Making the playoffs? Judging the team? I'm saying that when a team goes from 2-14 to 11-5... you can throw at all your numbers and tell me "yeah, but stats show they weren't really that good" alllllllllll you want. But it doesn't matter. Those stats didn't make a damn bit of difference during the season or on the scoreboard as the W kept going next to the Colts side of the card.

I'm also saying that even though the Colts will probably come back down to reality next season, when judging THIS team.. THIS year... those "probably's"... don't mean diddly squat. I'm saying that anyone looking at the improvment from THIS year's colts team...especially compared to what they were GUESSED to do with the lost talent... no one CARES what some stupid "statistical analysis" shows! In fact, I find it funny to think anyone would give a RATS-ASS what some statistical analysis says about the team, when the team FINISHED with an 11-5 record... period. What did the "statistical analysis" say that the Colts SHOULD finish at the beginning of the year??

Who cares what some numbers on a piece of paper says as to "this is what they really are".. when what they REALLY are is an 11-5 team?

It's laughable how hypocritical you are coming across as right now. You did nothing but scream about what a fluke all Tebow's wins were and how his record as a starter is deceiving.

Poet
01-29-2013, 03:01 PM
Hah..ok. I"m sorry that I hurt the feelings of some numbers and hope that someday they can grow to forgive me.

They do.

zbeg
01-29-2013, 03:05 PM
Hah..ok. I"m sorry that I hurt the feelings of some numbers and hope that someday they can grow to forgive me.

It's not a matter of hurting the numbers' feelings. What this boils down to is essentially this:

You: "2+2 = 5 and don't use your fancy math to tell me otherwise"
Everyone else: "2+2 = 4"
You: "OH I'M SORRY I HURT THE FEELINGS OF NUMBERS"

We're just dealing with a very complicated math problem, but it's still math.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 03:11 PM
It's not a matter of hurting the numbers' feelings. What this boils down to is essentially this:

You: "2+2 = 5 and don't use your fancy math to tell me otherwise"
Everyone else: "2+2 = 4"
You: "OH I'M SORRY I HURT THE FEELINGS OF NUMBERS"

We're just dealing with a very complicated math problem, but it's still math.

Hardly z.. if you aren't keeping up with the discussion, then scroll back and read some. I didn't argue with numbers themselves. Nice try though. Keep punching away. :beer:

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 03:16 PM
It's laughable how hypocritical you are coming across as right now. You did nothing but scream about what a fluke all Tebow's wins were and how his record as a starter is deceiving.

Dude, and all you've done is gone back and forth in changing the subject everytime you've been pushed to the corner.

I absolutely said that Tebow's win's were a fluke. No dobout about it, and I'm not straying away from that statement.

But we aren't talking about that. The topic was the GM winning and who did a better job of GM'ing their teams. You keep trying to say that the Colts weren't as good as their record shows, and then try to bring in some statistical analysis by some writer that says so.... and I'm telling you that NO ONE CARES what that statistical analysis says. Who cares? The Colts are 11-5. No one cares that for the season they were -30 in points? No one cars that they got crushed by anyone in the playoffs. The point is they were a 2-14 team last year, release a LOT of talent, and went 11-5 the following year with a rookie QB.

That stat stuff you are trying to ride on just doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes down to it. I'm not talking about MY perception on how good the colts are as I was when talking bout Tebow's wins. This is a different discussion completely. YOU are the one that seems to be flip flopping on the "winning only matters" discussion.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 03:25 PM
The stats I am referencing come from the creator of Football Outsiders, Aaron Schatz. Say what you want about FO, but they look WAAAYYY deeper into the stats than any fan on this message board, and I would say they are much more objective as well.

This formula takes into account offense, defense, ST, and SOS. They have been tracking this since 1991. It analyzes every single play in a game and compares it to the average result of a play in that situation. For example, let's say on average you gain 4 yards on 1st and 10 from your own 20. If a team gains 5 in that situation, they get a plus in that column. This is adjusted for how strong the opposing defense is.

If you have a completely average year on every play your DVOA is 0.0. A good team tends to have a DVOA around 10-20. The Colts' was -16. The Colts' DVOA was the worst of any team to ever win at least 10 games since they started tracking this in 1991. They had the easiest schedule in the league according to the model. Their defense was ranked 31st, only ahead of the Saints, who they were behind heading into week 17. Offense was 18th and ST was 12th. I was wrong about this being the worst playoff team since they have tracked it. They say it's the 4th worst (since 1991).

You can say what you want about it just being this guy's OPINION and how his stats are lying, but they are a hell of alot more accurate than "They won 11 games and nothing else matters". Go ahead and keep sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling about how stats are wrong and the Colts' record wasn't a fluke. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't even come close to stacking up to what I have provided.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 03:28 PM
Dude, and all you've done is gone back and forth in changing the subject everytime you've been pushed to the corner.

I absolutely said that Tebow's win's were a fluke. No dobout about it, and I'm not straying away from that statement.

But we aren't talking about that. The topic was the GM winning and who did a better job of GM'ing their teams. You keep trying to say that the Colts weren't as good as their record shows, and then try to bring in some statistical analysis by some writer that says so.... and I'm telling you that NO ONE CARES what that statistical analysis says. Who cares? The Colts are 11-5. No one cares that for the season they were -30 in points? No one cars that they got crushed by anyone in the playoffs. The point is they were a 2-14 team last year, release a LOT of talent, and went 11-5 the following year with a rookie QB.

That stat stuff you are trying to ride on just doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes down to it. I'm not talking about MY perception on how good the colts are as I was when talking bout Tebow's wins. This is a different discussion completely. YOU are the one that seems to be flip flopping on the "winning only matters" discussion.

Released a LOT of talent? :lol: What talent did they release from that 2-14 team? Sorry I'm not overly impressed with the Colts picking Luck first (which any team would have done) and winning a bunch of fluky games against bad teams. I would say the emotion from ChuckStrong played a WAAAYYYY bigger factor in how good the Colts were than anything their GM did.

Elway built this team from what many (including you) say is the mess that McD left us with, and outfoxed every GM going for Manning to land the biggest FA prize ever. Sorry, but that's more impressive than what the Colts GM did.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 03:32 PM
I also think the 2-14 thing is way overblown. They were reeling from losing Manning and had no competent QB to replace him. The talent around the QB was not 2-14 bad. I think last year's team was not as bad as 2-14 and this year's wasn't was good as 11-5.
Whereas Denver should have won 6 or 7 last year, and won about what they were expected to this season.

Chef Zambini
01-29-2013, 03:44 PM
JFE took the colts CAST-OFF and won 13 games with him !

so these brilliant voters give the award to the colts?
yes, that makes perfect sense !



if the jets won 13 games with TEBOW, do you think they would vote JFE exec of the year?

Chef Zambini
01-29-2013, 03:47 PM
this outcome is retarded! if the seahawks GM had won, I would be comfortable with that!

slim
01-29-2013, 03:51 PM
Load of crap.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 03:53 PM
I also think the 2-14 thing is way overblown. They were reeling from losing Manning and had no competent QB to replace him. The talent around the QB was not 2-14 bad. I think last year's team was not as bad as 2-14 and this year's wasn't was good as 11-5.
Whereas Denver should have won 6 or 7 last year, and won about what they were expected to this season.

Wait.. so you think that the voters should look at denver as a team that SHOULD have won 13 games this season?

So its overblown that the Colts didn't do well last year, and were a better team than their 2-14 record, but then say "what talent did they lose from a 2-14 team?" I'm confused. :confused: THey didn't have good QB play last year, thus went 2-14..but got a rookie to go 11-5, and its not because of Luck but because the team wasn't reeling from the Manning loss? I do agree that is part true... for sure.

You may not think it was a lot of talent, but losing many of the reliable weapons from over the years, and starting a rookie QB without those veteran starters, was pretty significant. Jeff Saturday, Dallas Clark, Pierre Garcon, Jacob Tamme were just some of the top of my head that were let go. Collie missed almost the entier season to IR if I'm not mistaken.

You can make an argument for both, which is why Elway was in the running. But NO ONE is taking that silly statistical analyis into consideration, because it just doesn't matter. As every coach and player has stolen (and used in interviews) over the last few years.... "you are what your record says you are." No one is going to take this "statisticaly analysis" thing into consideration when at the end of the day...or end of the sunday.... the statatistical analysis numbers that say we aren't very good doesn't matter when the "W" still goes in the column.

I GET what you are saying, and not really saying that I disagree with you as far as what Elway has done in Denver. I'm just saying that I can understand the choice for the Colts pick, and I believe that improving from 2-14 team is damn impressive..... and I don't GIVE a toots about some analysis that tries to tell me just how good they are or are not. Because that -30 points for the year, doesn't mean anything when all said and done.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-29-2013, 04:08 PM
some things from article:


In 2012, Executive Vice President of Football Operations John Elway became the first executive in the Super Bowl era to post consecutive four-win improvements and division titles in his first two years with a team.

Elway's banner year began in the offseason, when he helped bring four-time NFL MVP Peyton Manning to Denver. In all, Elway secured -- via the draft, free agency or contract extensions -- 23 of the 33 players that started for the Broncos in 2012.

In addition, 15 of the team's 16 draft picks from Elway's first two seasons on the job are currently with the team in some capacity, along with four college free agents.

full article - http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Elway-Runner-Up-for-Executive-of-the-Year/34ae9f40-857f-4439-90a9-b1d092371885

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 04:09 PM
Wait.. so you think that the voters should look at denver as a team that SHOULD have won 13 games this season?

Yes, because every relevant statistic points toward Denver having been an elite team. I know most people in the football world don't look at stats like Football Outsiders, but that doesn't mean they hold no merit. To say those stats are absolutely useless is discounting 22 years of extensive work and research done to make them. Are they the only argument that can be used? No, but I think they make a strong case that the Colts' 11-5 record may be a bit deceiving.

Does that mean their turnaround is not impressive? Absolutely not. They did a great job rebounding from last season. I just think their success had more to do with Luck (Andrew, not the word "luck" meaning chance) and the inspiration from their coach, while Denver's success had more to do with Elway beating out several other GMs in landing the big fish that is Manning.

As far is this conversation is concerned, I think Elway did much more to make the Broncos what they were this season than Grigson did for the Colts.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 04:18 PM
Yes, because every relevant statistic points toward Denver having been an elite team. I know most people in the football world don't look at stats like Football Outsiders, but that doesn't mean they hold no merit. To say those stats are absolutely useless is discounting 22 years of extensive work and research done to make them. Are they the only argument that can be used? No, but I think they make a strong case that the Colts' 11-5 record may be a bit deceiving.

Does that mean their turnaround is not impressive? Absolutely not. They did a great job rebounding from last season. I just think their success had more to do with Luck (Andrew, not the word "luck" meaning chance) and the inspiration from their coach, while Denver's success had more to do with Elway beating out several other GMs in landing the big fish that is Manning.

As far is this conversation is concerned, I think Elway did much more to make the Broncos what they were this season than Grigson did for the Colts.

My BIGGEST problems with stats and football, is that people try to use numbers to tell how good a player/team is. Number just never tell the whole story, and there are just tooooo many other factors that cant' be calculated into some mathmatical formula.

Its like the QB rating. It was designed to help people back in 1970 to tell if a player is good or not. People that never got to watch much football, and NEVER got to see all the games like we can today. They read the papers, and listened to people tell them who was who and which team was doing what. People, generally of course, weren't as educated in the game as they are today... so they tried to come up with a "number" (like baseball batting average). This number was purely to give people a fast, visual, means to compare the "play" of one QB compared to the other.

Now we know that there is NO WAY that some mathmatical formula can tell me what QB is better than another. THere are just wayyyyy too many factors involved. Yet, we still TRY to use that number (numbers that are still derived from 1970 averages, btw)?

So statistical analysis, to me, is a place that can start a discussion...... but rarely is it enough to end one. It can't be the start and end, it can't be the only thing that surrounds a discussion, and we can't cmpare football players with numbers like people do with baseball players.

So when I read someone has "statistical analysis" that shows us one team isn't as good as another team from 5 years back.... I just immediately call out BS.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 04:39 PM
My BIGGEST problems with stats and football, is that people try to use numbers to tell how good a player/team is. Number just never tell the whole story, and there are just tooooo many other factors that cant' be calculated into some mathmatical formula.

Its like the QB rating. It was designed to help people back in 1970 to tell if a player is good or not. People that never got to watch much football, and NEVER got to see all the games like we can today. They read the papers, and listened to people tell them who was who and which team was doing what. People, generally of course, weren't as educated in the game as they are today... so they tried to come up with a "number" (like baseball batting average). This number was purely to give people a fast, visual, means to compare the "play" of one QB compared to the other.

Now we know that there is NO WAY that some mathmatical formula can tell me what QB is better than another. THere are just wayyyyy too many factors involved. Yet, we still TRY to use that number (numbers that are still derived from 1970 averages, btw)?

So statistical analysis, to me, is a place that can start a discussion...... but rarely is it enough to end one. It can't be the start and end, it can't be the only thing that surrounds a discussion, and we can't cmpare football players with numbers like people do with baseball players.

So when I read someone has "statistical analysis" that shows us one team isn't as good as another team from 5 years back.... I just immediately call out BS.

I still say FO give stats that are MUCH closer to reflecting reality than generic stats like passer rating and yards and things of that nature. There is a reason they have been around for 22 years and are often referenced in high regard.

The reason is because they analyze games on a play-by-play basis and compare the result to an average play run in that situation, and adjust based on how tough the defense is. So for example, in regular NFL stats, 7 yards gained on 3rd and 20 will show up identically in the stat sheet to 7 yards gained on 3rd and 6. But in this model, more weight is given to the yards gained on 3rd and 6. Is this model perfect? Probably not. But wouldn't you say that it probably paints a little clearer of a picture than a generic stat like QB rating?

I would see your point if the Colts were only shown as slightly below average, but their ranking is SO low, that even if you don't think stats tell the whole story, it has to raise a red flag and make you give them a second look. When looking at the FO data, as well as the quality of the teams the Colts beat and how close their games were, I just don't see how you can come away with the conclusion that the Colts are really as good as their record shows.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 04:43 PM
When looking at the FO data, as well as the quality of the teams the Colts beat and how close their games were, I just don't see how you can come away with the conclusion that the Colts are really as good as their record shows.

I don't. But I'm saying t hat doesn't matter. Next year I'm sure they will drop down a little. But next year's record doesn't have relevance to this team's accomplishments. I'm saying that the statistical analysis that you find to be valuable, or viable, just doesn't matter. I'm saying that although YOU find it to be worthy, the stat itself (no matter how reliable), isn't taken into consideration because it's just a stat that doesn't mean anything.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 05:02 PM
I don't. But I'm saying t hat doesn't matter. Next year I'm sure they will drop down a little. But next year's record doesn't have relevance to this team's accomplishments. I'm saying that the statistical analysis that you find to be valuable, or viable, just doesn't matter. I'm saying that although YOU find it to be worthy, the stat itself (no matter how reliable), isn't taken into consideration because it's just a stat that doesn't mean anything.

It means something if you want to improve your own personal knowledge. I know it was not factored into the voting for the award, but that doesn't mean I can't use it to supplement my opinion of why the voting was wrong.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 05:59 PM
It means something if you want to improve your own personal knowledge. I know it was not factored into the voting for the award, but that doesn't mean I can't use it to supplement my opinion of why the voting was wrong.

Of course.

But it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, its an interesting stat, but I wouldn't use it to determine how good I think a team is, was, or will be.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 06:29 PM
Of course.

But it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, its an interesting stat, but I wouldn't use it to determine how good I think a team is, was, or will be.

And that's not all I used either. I also considered their opponents, the -30 points, and having watched a few of their games. Watching them on TV with no other context I wouldn't think I was watching an 11-5 team.

wayninja
01-29-2013, 06:29 PM
I think it was real ballsy of that dude I never heard of in Indy to take Luck in the first round. Who saw that coming?

Good show, voters.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 06:32 PM
I think it was real ballsy of that dude I never heard of in Indy to take Luck in the first round. Who saw that coming?

Good show, voters.

I know right? That took some real GM acumen. I mean, not everyone with the first pick would take a guy that everyone is calling the highest rated prospect since Elway or Manning.

And that's nothing against Grigson, but come on. Other than maybe the deceased Al Davis pretty much anyone would have taken Luck in that spot. I'm not seeing what other big roster moves he made that really turned the team around.

wayninja
01-29-2013, 06:35 PM
Without getting into the argument, I agree with you too. The Colts did not look like an 11 win team. Taking all the stats away, I saw a bunch of their games and they simply aren't that good.

A big turnaround after a season that, coincidentally, netted you the most salivated after rookie QB in a decade... Sounds less impressive than it does suspicious. But maybe I'm just cynical in my middle age.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 06:52 PM
If you are going to make statements like that, then you can get just as general with Denver. I mean, snagging a sure HoF QB to your team, doesn't exactly speak "volumes" as to the decision making. Improving upon last year by bringing in Manning over Tebow, doesn't exactly scream out "shocking" either. I mean, if we are going to get so general and cynical, by basing PURELY on the one thing, then its pretty easy to take away from everything Elway has done.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 06:52 PM
Without getting into the argument, I agree with you too. The Colts did not look like an 11 win team. Taking all the stats away, I saw a bunch of their games and they simply aren't that good.

A big turnaround after a season that, coincidentally, netted you the most salivated after rookie QB in a decade... Sounds less impressive than it does suspicious. But maybe I'm just cynical in my middle age.

Yeah, I won't go as far as to say they tanked on purpose, but they certainly were better than 2-14 IMO. They still had guys like Wayne, Freeny, and Mathis. I think they just had no idea how to win without Manning. I would say last year's team had the talent of a 5 win team and this year's had the talent of an 8 win one. This is just strictly my opinion of course, but I just don't buy into the whole "9 games better" thing.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 06:54 PM
If you are going to make statements like that, htne you can get just as general with Denver. I mean, snagging a sure HoF QB to your team, doesn't exactly speak "volumes" as to the decision making. Improving upon last year by bringing in Manning over Tebow, doesn't exactly scream out "shocking" either. I mean, if we are going to get so general and cynical, by basing PURELY on the one thing, then its pretty easy to take away from everything Elway has done.

I've mentioned multiple times why bringing in Manning was more impressive than drafting Luck. The Colts had the first pick in their lap. They were the only team with a chance at Luck. There were a good 7-8 other teams going hard after Manning, but Elway won that sweepstakes. THAT's what makes getting Manning more impressive than getting Luck.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 07:10 PM
I've mentioned multiple times why bringing in Manning was more impressive than drafting Luck. The Colts had the first pick in their lap. They were the only team with a chance at Luck. There were a good 7-8 other teams going hard after Manning, but Elway won that sweepstakes. THAT's what makes getting Manning more impressive than getting Luck.

I hear you. I'm saying that if you are going to break down and simplify people's job, and use the QB as your only criteria as to what the GM did...then its very easy to take away from what Elway did. Manning didn't really have that many people that were in a "viable" position to get Manning, and (although I'm thrilled with how Elway handled and brough him in)..it could be simplified that Elway didn't exactly do something that would be considered "genius" by wanting (going after) a sure HoF QB to take over for Tebow. I mean, just as it was stated "how hard is it to sign Luck".. how hard is it to choose to go after Manning?

Our record improved because of that signing. The Colt's record improved with the signing of Luck. If one wants to take away from someone else, and simplify by critiquing what was done by stating down to the basics.... it can just as easily be done with Elway. I mean, one could point out that the Colts OVER achieved, while (as you said) the Broncos simply accomplished what they were expected to.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 07:14 PM
While I know this isn't a valid comparison since the award is only for one season, you could also compare how each GM handled having a high draft pick. The Colts picked the guy everyone said they should, which is fine, but with Denver pretty much every Bronco fan wanted Dareus and many pundits expected us to go that way. He took a bit of a chance passing him up for Miller and that paid off big time.

Ravage!!!
01-29-2013, 07:20 PM
While I know this isn't a valid comparison since the award is only for one season, you could also compare how each GM handled having a high draft pick. The Colts picked the guy everyone said they should, which is fine, but with Denver pretty much every Bronco fan wanted Dareus and many pundits expected us to go that way. He took a bit of a chance passing him up for Miller and that paid off big time.

Ehh.. not really sure I buy into that.

I mean, there were a lot of people that thought the colts should take RGIII. Even early in this season, people were saying the Colts made the wrong decision.

As far as Miller goes.... I think there were a lot of people HERE (bronco fans on message boards) that wanted to go DT, but the mjority of people (draft nics) that were talking draft, said Denver woudl take Miller because of the speciman he was.

So I think you could make that same argument for both.

BroncoWave
01-29-2013, 07:23 PM
Ehh.. not really sure I buy into that.

I mean, there were a lot of people that thought the colts should take RGIII. Even early in this season, people were saying the Colts made the wrong decision.

As far as Miller goes.... I think there were a lot of people HERE (bronco fans on message boards) that wanted to go DT, but the mjority of people (draft nics) that were talking draft, said Denver woudl take Miller because of the speciman he was.

So I think you could make that same argument for both.

The RG3 thing was big time revisionist history. I don't really remember anyone pre-draft saying the Colts should take RG3. I still say that was the obvious call. As proved again and again, small running QBs are just to fragile to last long term.

wayninja
01-29-2013, 07:35 PM
If you are going to make statements like that, then you can get just as general with Denver. I mean, snagging a sure HoF QB to your team, doesn't exactly speak "volumes" as to the decision making. Improving upon last year by bringing in Manning over Tebow, doesn't exactly scream out "shocking" either. I mean, if we are going to get so general and cynical, by basing PURELY on the one thing, then its pretty easy to take away from everything Elway has done.

I didn't realize we had the #1 FA pick...

Denver Native (Carol)
01-29-2013, 08:10 PM
IMO, based on the following article on the Broncos' website, which I posted earlier, to me, it states more than enough for Elway to have been voted the GM for NFL executive of the year award

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Elway-Runner-Up-for-Executive-of-the-Year/34ae9f40-857f-4439-90a9-b1d092371885

I wonder if what the Colt's HC went thru also played a part for those who voted for the Colts GM - even though it should not have.

Poet
01-29-2013, 09:50 PM
Ravage, I recall you using a ton of stats over these years to support your argument. You only call out people when they use stats that disagree with you. When you use stats, you never add in "take it with a grain of salt," or offer context behind it. Come on man.

Gamechanger
01-30-2013, 12:21 PM
I mean it's not like it was a landslide, whether people like it or not, fact is he was lauded for making the ballsy move to lose the legend in Peyton, seeing that most thought he was coming back to the team, and then banked on a 1st round rookie for the future. had they not won those 11 games, 7 by comebacks and go in the playoffs with a first overall quarterback then no one would have considered him.

Denver was already an established team with the tagline of "one QB away from..."

besides, if you really want to talk about strength of scheduling, Denver also had a very easy schedule and almost paralleled the 2007 Colts with their play

Denver Native (Carol)
01-30-2013, 01:50 PM
I mean it's not like it was a landslide, whether people like it or not, fact is he was lauded for making the ballsy move to lose the legend in Peyton, seeing that most thought he was coming back to the team, and then banked on a 1st round rookie for the future. had they not won those 11 games, 7 by comebacks and go in the playoffs with a first overall quarterback then no one would have considered him.

Denver was already an established team with the tagline of "one QB away from..."

besides, if you really want to talk about strength of scheduling, Denver also had a very easy schedule and almost paralleled the 2007 Colts with their play

Bringing in Manning was not the only thing Elway did last year


Elway's banner year began in the offseason, when he helped bring four-time NFL MVP Peyton Manning to Denver. In all, Elway secured -- via the draft, free agency or contract extensions -- 23 of the 33 players that started for the Broncos in 2012.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Elway-Runner-Up-for-Executive-of-the-Year/34ae9f40-857f-4439-90a9-b1d092371885

Gamechanger
01-30-2013, 01:53 PM
Bringing in Manning was not the only thing Elway did last year

I get that, but Manning was the "big prize" bought in though, which others see.

wayninja
01-30-2013, 02:00 PM
I mean it's not like it was a landslide,

Yeah, that's the problem, it really should have been. For Elway.


whether people like it or not, fact is he was lauded for making the ballsy move to lose the legend in Peyton, seeing that most thought he was coming back to the team, and then banked on a 1st round rookie for the future.

Ballsy? Any GM would have done that. C'mon. Even if PM comes back, they know he's on his way out of the league and they will be drafting a QB again in a few years tops to replace him. They somehow ended up with the chance to draft the most sought after rookie QB in a decade. It's not really all that ballsy of a move. It's a fairly safe hedge against something you know is coming. They also had the choice in their hands. It was completely up to them what to do, no real gamesmanship other than making the choice. Elway not only had to make the choice, but actually convince his prospect to choose Denver over several other high powered suitors.


had they not won those 11 games, 7 by comebacks and go in the playoffs with a first overall quarterback then no one would have considered him.

Manning won 13, and by a greater margin. Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one is better than the other. One might even argue that the Colts made a mistake letting Manning go based on that.


Denver was already an established team with the tagline of "one QB away from..."

Yes, and getting that QB without a high draft pick is what makes Elway the better exec.


besides, if you really want to talk about strength of scheduling, Denver also had a very easy schedule and almost paralleled the 2007 Colts with their play

The colts schedule was easier and they made it look harder. Nuff said.

BroncoWave
01-30-2013, 02:02 PM
If this award were given over two years it would definitely be a landslide for Elway. To come into a 4-12 team and improve their win total by 4 games in year one and 5 games in year two is incredible. Especially given that fact that 23 of 33 starters were brought in by him. I think it's safe to say he has gone above and beyond expectations so far. The guy just seems to be good at whatever he does.