PDA

View Full Version : Orton a winner, but not a keeper



TXBRONC
12-18-2009, 10:29 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14022796

Krieger: Orton a winner, but not a keeper
By Dave Krieger
Denver Post Columnist
Posted: 12/18/2009 01:00:00 AM MST

Kyle Orton is a winner. That's what you hear, from Denver to Chicago, and the numbers certainly back it up.

Orton is 29-16 as an NFL starter, including 8-4 with the Broncos. So, the thinking goes, he deserves a big new contract. After all, winning is the name of the game.

Brandon Marshall is a beast. In fact, he's now The Beast. He has two of the top four receiving days in NFL history by number of catches. Clearly, he too deserves a big new contract.

Josh McDaniels is an offensive genius. Maybe, as some of the older hands throughout the league now refer to him, the boy genius, but a prodigy nevertheless, architect of the most productive offense in NFL history in New England two years ago.

So, why is the Broncos' offense mediocre by just about every statistical measure? And what does that say about the advisability of a big new contract for the quarterback?

One could argue that the offense has nowhere to go but up. McDaniels installed a new system, and these things take time.

Of course, that's what people said last year too. Marshall, Eddie Royal, Tony Scheffler and Jay Cutler were still learning to play together. Give them time.

Except for the quarterback and running backs, this year's offense is pretty much the same group. The backs have certainly been healthier than they were a year ago. And yet, offensive production is down. Points are down and yardage is way down. First downs and third-down conversions are both way down.

The only significant difference between Cutler's stats last year and Orton's this year are the volume numbers. Cutler threw for 4,526 yards. Orton is on a pace to throw for about 3,575, or roughly 1,000 fewer.

Is this difference because of the change from Cutler to Orton, or the change from Mike Shanahan to McDaniels? Or both?

From outside the Broncos' meeting rooms, it's impossible to say for certain, but Orton's performance is reminiscent of Jake Plummer's last couple of years in Denver. Plummer threw for 4,089 yards in 2004, his second year with the Broncos, but he also threw 20 interceptions and completed only 58.2 percent of his passes.

The following year, Shanahan stressed efficiency and taking care of the ball. Plummer's passing yardage dropped to 3,366, but his completion percentage rose and his interceptions fell. The Broncos went 13-3 and made it to the AFC title game.

For Plummer, playing so carefully did not come naturally. He had been a risk-taker for most of his career. For Orton, it does seem to come naturally. It is the way he had to play in Chicago for lack of offensive firepower. When he arrived in Denver, his new coach emphasized taking care of the ball and he fit right in.

As in 2005, the Broncos appear poised to make the playoffs operating a careful, low-risk offense. The difference is they were second in the league in rushing that year. Their offense, while careful, was more productive, ranking seventh in scoring. They are 20th this year, scoring just less than 20 points a game.

So the question is whether a careful quarterback operating a statistically mediocre offense will get the Broncos where they want to go, either now or in the future. McDaniels will patiently explain that improved execution will produce more scoring, but at some point your level of execution is who you are.

Will the Broncos improve as they gain experience in McDaniels' system? No doubt. But there will also be player turnover and injuries and all the rest. No team executes perfectly. The fact remains that McDaniels' offense broke records with Tom Brady at the controls. It is in the middle of the pack with Orton.

The Broncos' surprising success this year has come mostly on the back of a dramatically improved defense. But if Super Bowl history is any guide, not to mention the success of the Colts, Saints and Vikings this season, there is a strong correlation between quarterbacking and success.

Orton has earned a new deal, but not a franchise deal. If he thinks he can do better on the open market, the Broncos should let him try. And that Chicago first-round draft pick McDaniels presciently kept could now be the Broncos' ticket to a quarterback of the future.

Dave Krieger: 303-954-5297 or dkrieger@denverpost.com or twitter.com/DaveKrieger

Shazam!
12-18-2009, 11:52 PM
Is Orton better than he gets credit for? Yes.

Did he prove a lot of people wrong? Yes.

Was he a good stop-gap at QB this Season? Yes.

Is he the future of the Denver Broncos? No.

claymore
12-18-2009, 11:56 PM
Is Orton better than he gets credit for? Yes.

Did he prove a lot of people wrong? Yes.

Was he a good stop-gap at QB this Season? Yes.

Is he the future of the Denver Broncos? No.

Is he worth more than 3 million dollars as a RFA? (CBA)

FanInAZ
12-19-2009, 12:21 AM
Is Orton better than he gets credit for? Yes.

Did he prove a lot of people wrong? Yes.

Was he a good stop-gap at QB this Season? Yes.

Is he the future of the Denver Broncos? No.

I'm in 100% agreement with you.

Its great that Orton doesn't make mistakes. Because of this, he doesn't scare us. Unfortunately, he doesn't scare the opponents either. A good QB is smart enough to not throw picks and lethal enough to keep defenses from flooding the box. He also need to be able to step up and engineer game winning drives when its do or die.

I hope that Brandstater is able to win the starting job during the off-season and that Orton is willing to except the #2 spot.

Foochacho
12-19-2009, 12:45 AM
"You play to win the game"

Orton wins games. don't let him test the open market plenty of teams would take him over the scrubs they have at qb.

Is Orton the future? I don't know, but only giving him one year isn't the way to find out. He might come out next year firing on all cylinders being more comfortable with this team. He might be exactly what we need. Plus he can grow a kickass neckbeard.

Shazam!
12-19-2009, 01:40 AM
I agree Fooch but I wouldn't want to see Denver invest a sicko amount of money in him either.

If McD truly is a QB magician, drafting another talented late rounder is a possibility.

We also don't know much about the kind of loyalty McD has to his players yet either. It's not like Orton was his guy. He was the best he could get for CutINT at the time. In hindsight it was a good move.

I like Orton and what he has done, but we must face the facts, he is not the longterm answer at QB and the future of the Broncos.

**** it. Just get the 9th ****ing win and we'll discuss this all in February.

silkamilkamonico
12-19-2009, 01:43 AM
LMAO

Denver won't be drafting a QB in the first couple rounds, probably at al lthis draft.

When are people going to figure that out?

getlynched47
12-19-2009, 01:44 AM
Fully agreed. I'd be down with Orton staying, but not on a huge salary.

Hopefully Orton and his agent aren't high when they walk into negotiations and they'll actually ask for a realistic contract for an average, efficient QB.

EDIT: People also assume that Orton will garner a lot of interest on the free agent market. Here's how this shakes out: Orton KNOWS this offense compensates for his weaknesses and makes him look better than he actually is. Other NFL teams KNOW this as well and see what happened to Matt Cassel (system QB). Orton probably wants to stay here, and hopefully his demands are reasonable.

honz
12-19-2009, 02:55 AM
LMAO

Denver won't be drafting a QB in the first couple rounds, probably at al lthis draft.

When are people going to figure that out?

Source?

broncofaninfla
12-19-2009, 03:26 AM
I'm going to wait until our last game this season before deciding if he's the long term answer. I'm hoping the remaining games will be the best games of his career and we make run at something "Super" this year.

silkamilkamonico
12-19-2009, 04:03 AM
Source?

Do you really need one?

McDaniels traded a pick so he could move up and grab Brandstater last year.

I'm not saying Brandstater is the future, but he isn't going to draft a QB in waiting, for another QB in waiting, especially in this god forsaken QB class.

There isn't a QB coming in that will be able to play right away next year, with the exception of Bradford if he didn't get injured.

IMO, Orton should sign a 2-3 year deal. He's young enough to play for a huge contract in that time frame, and he isn;t going to gegt a better oppurtunity than Denver. By then, Brandstater will likely take over/have taken over, or McDaniels will work wonders with some other malcontent starter.

bcbronc
12-19-2009, 04:42 AM
Do you really need one?

McDaniels traded a pick so he could move up and grab Brandstater last year.

I'm not saying Brandstater is the future, but he isn't going to draft a QB in waiting, for another QB in waiting, especially in this god forsaken QB class.

There isn't a QB coming in that will be able to play right away next year, with the exception of Bradford if he didn't get injured.

IMO, Orton should sign a 2-3 year deal. He's young enough to play for a huge contract in that time frame, and he isn;t going to gegt a better oppurtunity than Denver. By then, Brandstater will likely take over/have taken over, or McDaniels will work wonders with some other malcontent starter.

who said anything about right away next year? Bring Orton back as a starter, but if QB is BPA you take him and groom him behind Orton for 1-2 years.

Ziggy
12-19-2009, 06:19 AM
If Bradford has recovered from surgery, he could come in and start next season. Then again, if he proves that he is fully recovered from the injury, he will be long gone when the Broncos pick. He would be a great fit in this offense with his accuracy and quick release.

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 07:51 AM
LMAO

Denver won't be drafting a QB in the first couple rounds, probably at al lthis draft.

When are people going to figure that out?

I read everything up to this point and neither the article nor any poster has brought up drafting a quarterback this year other than you.

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 08:03 AM
I'm going to wait until our last game this season before deciding if he's the long term answer. I'm hoping the remaining games will be the best games of his career and we make run at something "Super" this year.

I don't think he'll be putting up big numbers over the last three games. I expect he'll be steady as has been all year.

NameUsedBefore
12-19-2009, 08:39 AM
Anyone have the amusing corollary article in their mind?

"Jay Cutler a keeper, but not a winner."

Northman
12-19-2009, 08:55 AM
Is Orton better than he gets credit for? Yes.

Did he prove a lot of people wrong? Yes.

Was he a good stop-gap at QB this Season? Yes.

Is he the future of the Denver Broncos? No.


Yep. He wont be the long term answer but there's no questioning the move to get him. The team is headed in the right direction.

Northman
12-19-2009, 09:05 AM
but he isn't going to draft a QB in waiting, for another QB in waiting, especially in this god forsaken QB class.




I wouldnt be so sure. Im not saying he would go first round for one but i know McDaniels isnt happy about the offensive production of this team. He is utilizing the skills that these players have at this moment but you can only go so far with this group. We found that out with Plummer and at the end of the day you need a Qb who can take over if need be. I mean, technically McD could draft more defensive guys, more Oline both of which are very important anyway but we also know he is an offensive guy so i dont think he will go the Ravens/Bucs direction. I dont think he will sell his soul for an allout offensive and ignore everything else like Shanahan but i just dont think he will be content with this type of offense. As for Orton coming out next year and letting it rip dont count on it.

Orton's ability to win and be consistent is doing exactly what he is doing this year and how he performed at Chicago in the same manner. When Orton tries to go outside that philosphy is when his weaknesses show up. So basically, if your sold on Orton than you have to build the team around him and win with great defense and a overpowering running game which could happen. But if you want to win with more balance and a QB who can take over at any given moment than you need a upgrade there. I just dont see McD being a 10-17 points kind of guy in the long run. He had to make a statement this year and having a careless Qb wasnt going to be good for his job security with all the turmoil this year.

Nomad
12-19-2009, 09:35 AM
I'm going to wait until our last game this season before deciding if he's the long term answer. I'm hoping the remaining games will be the best games of his career and we make run at something "Super" this year.

These last 3 games will define him as a BRONCO, imo, because what's at stake!! I just hope he takes off those brick shoes and hopefully his oline/blockers can give him the protection he needs as well!!

claymore
12-19-2009, 11:27 AM
These last 3 games will define him as a BRONCO, imo, because what's at stake!! I just hope he takes off those brick shoes and hopefully his oline/blockers can give him the protection he needs as well!!

The right side of our line reminds me of the levees in New Orleans. It aint stoppin shit.

WARHORSE
12-19-2009, 12:36 PM
Source?


Silkmilkcarton.com

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm in 100% agreement with you.

Its great that Orton doesn't make mistakes. Because of this, he doesn't scare us. Unfortunately, he doesn't scare the opponents either. A good QB is smart enough to not throw picks and lethal enough to keep defenses from flooding the box. He also need to be able to step up and engineer game winning drives when its do or die.

I hope that Brandstater is able to win the starting job during the off-season and that Orton is willing to except the #2 spot.

There have been at least a couple of times where Orton has lead a do or die drive but those were games where Denver was either tied or within one score. On the flip side when Denver has been down by more than one score they haven't been able to come back.

Brand
12-19-2009, 12:48 PM
It is amusing that most of the gurus here say that Oron is not the "Long term answer" in Denver. I don't think most of those gurus even knwo what the fricking questionswas to which he is not the "long term answer".

Asking as a more mature fellow, what is wrong with "steady and persistent"? Maybe even slow and steady. "Flash in the pan" QBs do not seem to always work out, do they now? How many hopes have been dashed by the Media-inspired-and-desigated "Can't miss QB"? You know, the "francise QB", whatever that is.....

Just what do people expect will comprise the elements of a "Long term answer"? Do you know the quesiton?


Orton has fit in well. What I think most people donot uderstnad is that the O style being pursued is not one that relies on a "super QB". And I think McD's O can win even a SB without a "long Term answer" QB.

The Broncos need to re-sign Orton. Brandy will need to study another three years.....

Lonestar
12-19-2009, 02:20 PM
I think Brand is closer to the truth than the rest.

Josh brought him in becuase he was the BPA in those trade teams out there.

He is invested in him and KO has done what is expected of him.

No running game means play action does not scare anyone.

Piss poor OLine protection does not help a drop back pocket passer to instill fear either.

Until the OLINE is upgraded for a drop back passer it matters not who is playing QB.

And Y'all seem to forget that Brady once said it takes 3 years to fully understand the scheme.

Why would josh think about taking another 2-3 years with a rookie "getting it ".

Unless KO is offered huge money elsewhere I expect him to be our QB next year as IMO he has picked up on the scheme quite well.
Others inculding OLINE have not.
Start where the obvious weakspot are and fix them first. OLG and Center.

Then and only then will the running game take some heat off the passing game.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Poet
12-19-2009, 02:24 PM
Orton's a keeper.

People still think he's bad because of his play in Chicago, which makes no sense.

If the question is "is he worth more than 3 million dollars," then the obvious answer is "Yes."

He gives you above average play and stability.

A lot of teams would kill for that.

Lonestar
12-19-2009, 02:53 PM
Orton's a keeper.

People still think he's bad because of his play in Chicago, which makes no sense.

If the question is "is he worth more than 3 million dollars," then the obvious answer is "Yes."

He gives you above average play and stability.

A lot of teams would kill for that.

I agree having a stud QB is great but it does not always lead to consistent wins..

If we add about 15 pounds of muscle on the OLINE across the board that will make a hell of a difference in the running game as well as pass protection..

it is hard to make a pass when you do not have the time and the DT/NT are collapsing the middle of the pocket..

KO has lead this team and has made some great drives to win the games or put them away..

to those that say he does not scare anyone deep, might be because he has not been called to do that when the plays are called on the sidelines..

you all forget this scheme does not call for deep passing but controlled passes to open men, that have the ability to break plays after the catch..

fix the LOS on both side and we will win alot more games next year nad beyond..

dogfish
12-19-2009, 03:33 PM
Orton's a keeper.

People still think he's bad because of his play in Chicago, which makes no sense.

If the question is "is he worth more than 3 million dollars," then the obvious answer is "Yes."

He gives you above average play and stability.

A lot of teams would kill for that.

okay, cool, we'll trade him to ya for palmer. . . .


:cool:

Poet
12-19-2009, 03:41 PM
okay, cool, we'll trade him to ya for palmer. . . .


:cool:

Only if we make it a three-way trade with Chicago....




















What? Hester would be great special teams player for the Bengals.:D

silkamilkamonico
12-19-2009, 03:47 PM
who said anything about right away next year? Bring Orton back as a starter, but if QB is BPA you take him and groom him behind Orton for 1-2 years.

Why? He doesn't even know if Brandstater has a future yet. Then we have 2 unproven rookies behinfd Orton next year. If we go through this same stuff next year, does he draft another QB the following draft and let him sit with the other 2.

At some point he's going to have to make a decision about the QB's on our roster now. Drafting another one next year only muffles that decision even more.

rcsodak
12-19-2009, 04:12 PM
I read everything up to this point and neither the article nor any poster has brought up drafting a quarterback this year other than you.
Geez, Tx. Do the words HAVE to be spelled out for you to get the gist of the article?
The author doesn't think Orton is a "franchise qb", whatever that is.

In the meantime, posters here are agreeing, and talking about a short, low dollar contract.

What picture does that paint for you? :confused:

rcsodak
12-19-2009, 04:18 PM
Myself, I like Orton.

For the most part, he plays within himself and doesn't make the big, tide-turning mistakes that a 'past qb' tended to do.

If he was mobile, and more willing to take a hit when scrambling, I'd like him even more.

LOL Last week, when he ran for that 8-9yds, when the team wasn't able to make 1st downs, you should have heard the people in the bar, next to me.
"C'mon, Orton, you *****!" :laugh:

It still looks to me like Kyle isn't comfortable. He looks tentative at times.

Is he afraid to make mistakes because of the lack of offense around him?
Is he afraid to lay out for a first down because he knows an injury will bring in Simms? :eek:

At the very least, he deserves to get a starting qb's contract for next year and beyond. He's shown enough to warrant that.

McD and co. can look at the QB position down the road.....it's not a do-or-die decision right now.

Brand
12-19-2009, 04:24 PM
Well some of us are talking about the proposition that Orton may be a h3lla lot better QB than he is given credit for. Further, there is an expressed belief that it just might be that if the LG is made into a larger monster (maybe like a Mankins), and the C grows about 20 poiunds more, then Orton might becomes a "Almost Franchise QB" (whatever that is), and the Broncos just might have something. Ya know? Maybe a playoff contender. Oh, wait......

Pretty high level stuff there, sparky.

claymore
12-19-2009, 08:27 PM
Well some of us are talking about the proposition that Orton may be a h3lla lot better QB than he is given credit for. Further, there is an expressed belief that it just might be that if the LG is made into a larger monster (maybe like a Mankins), and the C grows about 20 poiunds more, then Orton might becomes a "Almost Franchise QB" (whatever that is), and the Broncos just might have something. Ya know? Maybe a playoff contender. Oh, wait......

Pretty high level stuff there, sparky.

We dont know if its Orton,JMCD or the OC that doesnt have balls yet.

I hope its Orton that doesnt have any balls cause we have less invested in him.

Poet
12-19-2009, 08:28 PM
We dont know if its Orton,JMCD or the OC that doesnt have balls yet.

I hope its Orton that doesnt have any balls cause we have less invested in him.

And he's made a lot of pundits and fans look silly.

Buy his jersey.

claymore
12-19-2009, 08:31 PM
And he's made a lot of pundits and fans look silly.

Buy his jersey.

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll

No.

Poet
12-19-2009, 08:33 PM
Claymore, he's better than Jay Cutler ever has or ever will be.

Now be a good fan for once, loser.

topscribe
12-19-2009, 08:53 PM
I agree having a stud QB is great but it does not always lead to consistent wins..

If we add about 15 pounds of muscle on the OLINE across the board that will make a hell of a difference in the running game as well as pass protection..

it is hard to make a pass when you do not have the time and the DT/NT are collapsing the middle of the pocket..

KO has lead this team and has made some great drives to win the games or put them away..

to those that say he does not scare anyone deep, might be because he has not been called to do that when the plays are called on the sidelines..

you all forget this scheme does not call for deep passing but controlled passes to open men, that have the ability to break plays after the catch..

fix the LOS on both side and we will win alot more games next year nad beyond..

The "does not scare anyone deep" declaration is the figment of the imagination
of certain people. It is also laughable, especially when it came out of both
McDaniels' and Orton's mouths that Baltimore and Pittsburgh were playing their
safeties deep at times. If they weren't worried about anything deep, what the
hell were they doing all the way back there?

Orton has already passed deep this year. On the money.

It's time to put that myth to rest . . .

-----

hamrob
12-19-2009, 09:11 PM
Orton is an average QB. You can play o.k. with an average QB. If you have a good defense, you can win with an average QB. If you want to win a Superbowl, you have to have a franchise type QB. If you think you're going to win one with an average QB, you'd better have a defense like Baltimore did or the Bears had.

Bradford is the only kid/QB I'd take a chance on in this draft. I'd sign Orton to a 3yr deal at about $5m/yr with $10m signing bonus. Then I'd either draft Bradford or be willing to say that Brandstrater is the guy in a year or two.

You might also take a look around the league at a guy you could trade for....like a Leinart. I think he would excel under McDaniels...I really do.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 09:27 PM
It is amusing that most of the gurus here say that Oron is not the "Long term answer" in Denver. I don't think most of those gurus even knwo what the fricking questionswas to which he is not the "long term answer".

Asking as a more mature fellow, what is wrong with "steady and persistent"? Maybe even slow and steady. "Flash in the pan" QBs do not seem to always work out, do they now? How many hopes have been dashed by the Media-inspired-and-desigated "Can't miss QB"? You know, the "francise QB", whatever that is.....

Just what do people expect will comprise the elements of a "Long term answer"? Do you know the quesiton?


Orton has fit in well. What I think most people donot uderstnad is that the O style being pursued is not one that relies on a "super QB". And I think McD's O can win even a SB without a "long Term answer" QB.

The Broncos need to re-sign Orton. Brandy will need to study another three years.....

Steady and Persistent = Vinnie Testaverde. Steady and Persistent = Bernie Kosar. Steady and Persistent = Archie Manning. All were "good" QBs. All never won anything. In this league, it's all about the QB. The rules favor the offense and the passing game. You HAVE to have a QB who can put a team on his back and lead them to victory when they are down late in a game - not just by being a respected, liked player, but having the physical ability to make the defense defend every blade of grass.

If we want to be "close" we keep Orton. If we want to be "Championship Caliber" we need a "Champiosnship Caliber QB".

Poet
12-19-2009, 09:36 PM
Ok, I don't mean to be a dick, but I'll be blunt.

If you want Kyle Orton replaced, you're a fool. You had a 'franchise QB', you didn't go to the playoffs.

Now you have an average QB and you want him gone. Big Ben won the SB in 05 and he wasn't really a 'championship QB'. Tom Brady wasn't anything more than a game manager in his first two SBs. The Ravens didn't have a 'championship' quarterback. Hell, Eli Manning was suppossedly and average and overrated QB and Brady was a stat god and they LOST.

What games do you guys watch? I mean **** me running, drafting a QB early this draft would be retarded. A. Orton is showing you that he can get you to the playoffs and B. because if you threw your new QB into the fire you're probably not going to be winning that year.

A lot of what Orton does isn't going to show up in the stat sheet, but if the Orton bashers weren't almost universally retarded they'd realize he's playing in a new system, is being allowed to actually not run a conservative gameplan and has the trust of his coach.

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 09:43 PM
Steady and Persistent = Vinnie Testaverde. Steady and Persistent = Bernie Kosar. Steady and Persistent = Archie Manning. All were "good" QBs. All never won anything. In this league, it's all about the QB. The rules favor the offense and the passing game. You HAVE to have a QB who can put a team on his back and lead them to victory when they are down late in a game - not just by being a respected, liked player, but having the physical ability to make the defense defend every blade of grass.

If we want to be "close" we keep Orton. If we want to be "Championship Caliber" we need a "Champiosnship Caliber QB".

Super Bowls can be won with quarterback that isn't caliber of Manning or Brady because it has happened on several occassions. But the teams that have won without an elite quarterback have had a terrific supporting to get the job done.

If Orton's steady and presistent only continues to be 19 points per game I don't know if that will warrant a "franchise size" contract.

BroncoWave
12-19-2009, 09:52 PM
Ok, I don't mean to be a dick, but I'll be blunt.

If you want Kyle Orton replaced, you're a fool. You had a 'franchise QB', you didn't go to the playoffs.

Now you have an average QB and you want him gone. Big Ben won the SB in 05 and he wasn't really a 'championship QB'. Tom Brady wasn't anything more than a game manager in his first two SBs. The Ravens didn't have a 'championship' quarterback. Hell, Eli Manning was suppossedly and average and overrated QB and Brady was a stat god and they LOST.

What games do you guys watch? I mean **** me running, drafting a QB early this draft would be retarded. A. Orton is showing you that he can get you to the playoffs and B. because if you threw your new QB into the fire you're probably not going to be winning that year.

A lot of what Orton does isn't going to show up in the stat sheet, but if the Orton bashers weren't almost universally retarded they'd realize he's playing in a new system, is being allowed to actually not run a conservative gameplan and has the trust of his coach.

Best post I have read in a WHILE on here! A++ post!

It is a myth to say you need a "franchise QB" to win a Super Bowl.

Winning the Super Bowl is what made QB's like Big Ben, Eli, and Brady be considered "franchise QB's". No one would have said that any of those 3 were anything close to a franchise QB before they won their first SB, much like pretty no one thinks Orton is one.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 10:04 PM
Ok, I don't mean to be a dick, but I'll be blunt.

If you want Kyle Orton replaced, you're a fool. You had a 'franchise QB', you didn't go to the playoffs.

Now you have an average QB and you want him gone. Big Ben won the SB in 05 and he wasn't really a 'championship QB'. Tom Brady wasn't anything more than a game manager in his first two SBs. The Ravens didn't have a 'championship' quarterback. Hell, Eli Manning was suppossedly and average and overrated QB and Brady was a stat god and they LOST.

What games do you guys watch? I mean **** me running, drafting a QB early this draft would be retarded. A. Orton is showing you that he can get you to the playoffs and B. because if you threw your new QB into the fire you're probably not going to be winning that year.

A lot of what Orton does isn't going to show up in the stat sheet, but if the Orton bashers weren't almost universally retarded they'd realize he's playing in a new system, is being allowed to actually not run a conservative gameplan and has the trust of his coach.

So, you'd trade us Carson Palmer for Kyle Orton? C'mon King. If you haven't noticed, our defense isn't the 2000 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, or the '85 bears. In all the years surrounding those three teams (from 85 - today), how many SB winners didn't have a "great" QB? NONE.

I know it's more than just the QB, but seriously. Even with your defense playing like it is this year and Benson running as well as he is, would you be anywhere close to 9-4 if Palmer was out? Of course not. The Qb isn't the whole team but he's the one guy (other than the Center) who touches the ball every offensive snap. He's the centerpoint for your passing game.

Can you honestly say that you'd feel comfortable with Orton running the Cincy offense with 1:30 to go in the fourth qtr, no timeouts, down by 6, starting on your own 20? If you say yes, you're a damned liar.

That is my point. I'd take at least 2/3 and probably 3/4 of the starting QBs in the league right now over Orton.

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 10:24 PM
So, you'd trade us Carson Palmer for Kyle Orton? C'mon King. If you haven't noticed, our defense isn't the 2000 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, or the '85 bears. In all the years surrounding those three teams (from 85 - today), how many SB winners didn't have a "great" QB? NONE.

I know it's more than just the QB, but seriously. Even with your defense playing like it is this year and Benson running as well as he is, would you be anywhere close to 9-4 if Palmer was out? Of course not. The Qb isn't the whole team but he's the one guy (other than the Center) who touches the ball every offensive snap. He's the centerpoint for your passing game.

Can you honestly say that you'd feel comfortable with Orton running the Cincy offense with 1:30 to go in the fourth qtr, no timeouts, down by 6, starting on your own 20? If you say yes, you're a damned liar.

That is my point. I'd take at least 2/3 and probably 3/4 of the starting QBs in the league right now over Orton.

There have been several quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl that weren't great.

Stabler

Plunkett

Theismann

Rypien

Williams

McMahon

Dilfer

Simms

Johnson

Hostetler

I don't think any of these quarterbacks will go down as being great. It can be done but the supporting cast has to be very good especially the defense.

Poet
12-19-2009, 10:27 PM
I hate to say it but Carson Palmer isn't the 'elite' guy that he used to be. A lot of it stems from terrible coaches, offensive lines, and bad teams, but that's what he's become. I don't even know if he's as good as Tony Romo; he's a top ten guy, but he's closer to ten than he is to being 5.

Of course we wouldn't be 9-4 without Palmer, but that's because J.T. O'Sullivan is our backup. If you substitute Palmer with Orton our record would be the same. Both QB's would have won and lost different games, but I believe that.

FTR, I'm not confident in ANY QB in that situation you proposed.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 10:32 PM
I hate to say it but Carson Palmer isn't the 'elite' guy that he used to be. A lot of it stems from terrible coaches, offensive lines, and bad teams, but that's what he's become. I don't even know if he's as good as Tony Romo; he's a top ten guy, but he's closer to ten than he is to being 5.

Of course we wouldn't be 9-4 without Palmer, but that's because J.T. O'Sullivan is our backup. If you substitute Palmer with Orton our record would be the same. Both QB's would have won and lost different games, but I believe that.

FTR, I'm not confident in ANY QB in that situation you proposed.

I'd be confident in a lot of QBs in that situation. Do I expect that they'd be successful every time? Of course not, but I know that if we're in that position that the chances that Orton could lead us to a score border somewhere in the 5-10% range, in the words the game is over.

BroncoWave
12-19-2009, 10:34 PM
I'd be confident in a lot of QBs in that situation. Do I expect that they'd be successful every time? Of course not, but I know that if we're in that position that the chances that Orton could lead us to a score border somewhere in the 5-10% range, in the words the game is over.

Have you forgotten the Dallas and New England game this year? Both late 4th quarter/OT drives by Orton to win the game. And technically, even the Cincy game would count in that category. But even if you don't count that game, he is still WELL over 5-10% in that category.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 10:39 PM
There have been several quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl that weren't great.

Stabler

Plunkett

Theismann

Rypien

Williams

McMahon

Dilfer

Simms

Johnson

Hostetler

I don't think any of these quarterbacks will go down as being great. It can be done but the supporting cast has to be very good especially the defense.

You made a great list of QBs who A) had great defenses, and B) with the exception of Dilfer, played in a different era where Defenses could pretty much get away with anything. In today's NFL, is it fair to say that teams with the best QB's always seem to be winners and the ones that don't have consistent QB play always seem to struggle?

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 10:42 PM
Have you forgotten the Dallas and New England game this year? Both late 4th quarter/OT drives by Orton to win the game. And technically, even the Cincy game would count in that category. But even if you don't count that game, he is still WELL over 5-10% in that category.

Ha, ha. :rolleyes: Okay, the Cincy game should've been a pick, he terribly under threw Marshall. I can't comment on the NE game because I didn't see it (I was deployed). Either way, I think his performance over the last 6 weeks pretty much says it all. Every time we've really needed him to make a play, he hasn't.

BroncoWave
12-19-2009, 10:44 PM
You made a great list of QBs who A) had great defenses, and B) with the exception of Dilfer, played in a different era where Defenses could pretty much get away with anything. In today's NFL, is it fair to say that teams with the best QB's always seem to be winners and the ones that don't have consistent QB play always seem to struggle?

So Eli was a better QB than Brady? Brady was a better QB than Warner in 01? Big Ben was better than Hasselbeck in 05?

The best QB does NOT always win the SB. That is such a myth. If that were true, Peyton Manning would have WAY more than 1 SB.

Poet
12-19-2009, 10:47 PM
If being an elite QB stat wise was a huge deal Manning/s, Brees, McNabb, Romo, etc etc etc would have rings.

Big Ben's only had one big stat year.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

And the Pittsburgh Steelers had the best defense hands down last year. They won the SB. New England was a balanced offense great defense team when they won. They lost their SB when they were all about offense.

If winning is the objective you would in theory be replacing Orton with someone 'better', I'm sure you'll be signing Vince Young to a sweetheart deal.

Orton's an above QB.

You don't need a great QB to win the SB. It looks like your defense is climbing to the elite level, and your offense is solid. It's only going to get better, and that's after your team was 'crippled' by the loss of a 'franchise' QB.

topscribe
12-19-2009, 10:47 PM
Ha, ha. :rolleyes: Okay, the Cincy game should've been a pick, he terribly under threw Marshall. I can't comment on the NE game because I didn't see it (I was deployed). Either way, I think his performance over the last 6 weeks pretty much says it all. Every time we've really needed him to make a play, he hasn't.

That is not true. The pass was right on target. That was a fantastic defensive
play by a tall, superb defensive back who had to jump high to get to the ball.
But, had Hall not gotten his hand on the ball, it would have gone right into
Marshall's outstretched arms.

What is glossed over here is the pass Marshall dropped earlier: the one Orton
put 50 yards downfield, right into Marshall's numbers, with no one behind
Marshall. That would have been a long TD pass. So Stokely's epiphany simply
made up for that dropped pass that Orton also put on the money.

-----

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 10:58 PM
So Eli was a better QB than Brady? Brady was a better QB than Warner in 01? Big Ben was better than Hasselbeck in 05?

The best QB does NOT always win the SB. That is such a myth. If that were true, Peyton Manning would have WAY more than 1 SB.

I didn't say they always won the Superbowl, that's why you need a team, too. I said "consistent winners" meaning they're in the hunt every year. Be honest, if not for our defense being top 5 for most of the year, would we even be getting a sniff of the playoffs right now? Our offense doesn't put up enough points to win unless our defense has a great day. If our defense is even average (like against Washington and Indy), we really have no shot to win.

Name one game this year that our offense took charge of the game and gave the defense an easy victory? How many times have we won (or even competed in, meaning kept up) a shootout? Those happen from time to time. I have yet to see our offense play "playoff caliber football". Not once this year. Even the Chiefs game was a massacre by the defense. In a spread shotgun pass oriented offense, which we are, how many times (not due to a big turnover by the defense) has our offense scored more than 14 points in a half?

You guys can argue with me about Orton and how we can win with him, but if we do make the playoffs the chickens will come home to roost. Take off the glasses, put down the kool aid, and WATCH Orton play football. He's just not very good, sorry. :ohwell:

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 10:59 PM
You made a great list of QBs who A) had great defenses, and B) with the exception of Dilfer, played in a different era where Defenses could pretty much get away with anything. In today's NFL, is it fair to say that teams with the best QB's always seem to be winners and the ones that don't have consistent QB play always seem to struggle?

I don't know HP. I think it would be generally true but not in every instance. Look at Palmer the last few years or Roethlisberger this year.

BroncoWave
12-19-2009, 11:03 PM
I didn't say they always won the Superbowl, that's why you need a team, too. I said "consistent winners" meaning they're in the hunt every year. Be honest, if not for our defense being top 5 for most of the year, would we even be getting a sniff of the playoffs right now? Our offense doesn't put up enough points to win unless our defense has a great day. If our defense is even average (like against Washington and Indy), we really have no shot to win.

Name one game this year that our offense took charge of the game and gave the defense an easy victory? How many times have we won (or even competed in, meaning kept up) a shootout? Those happen from time to time. I have yet to see our offense play "playoff caliber football". Not once this year. Even the Chiefs game was a massacre by the defense. In a spread shotgun pass oriented offense, which we are, how many times (not due to a big turnover by the defense) has our offense scored more than 14 points in a half?

You guys can argue with me about Orton and how we can win with him, but if we do make the playoffs the chickens will come home to roost. Take off the glasses, put down the kool aid, and WATCH Orton play football. He's just not very good, sorry. :ohwell:

The first win over SD, and the NY game. There's 2 for you.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 11:05 PM
If being an elite QB stat wise was a huge deal Manning/s, Brees, McNabb, Romo, etc etc etc would have rings.

Big Ben's only had one big stat year.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

And the Pittsburgh Steelers had the best defense hands down last year. They won the SB. New England was a balanced offense great defense team when they won. They lost their SB when they were all about offense.

If winning is the objective you would in theory be replacing Orton with someone 'better', I'm sure you'll be signing Vince Young to a sweetheart deal.

Orton's an above QB.

You don't need a great QB to win the SB. It looks like your defense is climbing to the elite level, and your offense is solid. It's only going to get better, and that's after your team was 'crippled' by the loss of a 'franchise' QB.

No, our defense is built to win now. They'll be completely rebuilding in a year or two when Dawkins, Champ, Davis, Holliday, etc decide to retire. Our defense hangs by a thread right now. One or two big injuries and it's over. There isn't a whole lot of depth at any position. Right now, we look like the Panthers of the mid-90s under Dom Capers who brought in a lot of older vets to win right away. They then spent the better part of 5 years rebuilding the defense that got them to the Superbowl. Ours is no different. God Forbid we don't re-sign Dumervil. Right now, he's the only one who gets consistent pressure on the QB.

I hate to say it, but IMO if we still had that "franchise QB", we'd be winning the division right now.

topscribe
12-19-2009, 11:07 PM
I didn't say they always won the Superbowl, that's why you need a team, too. I said "consistent winners" meaning they're in the hunt every year. Be honest, if not for our defense being top 5 for most of the year, would we even be getting a sniff of the playoffs right now? Our offense doesn't put up enough points to win unless our defense has a great day. If our defense is even average (like against Washington and Indy), we really have no shot to win.

Name one game this year that our offense took charge of the game and gave the defense an easy victory? How many times have we won (or even competed in, meaning kept up) a shootout? Those happen from time to time. I have yet to see our offense play "playoff caliber football". Not once this year. Even the Chiefs game was a massacre by the defense. In a spread shotgun pass oriented offense, which we are, how many times (not due to a big turnover by the defense) has our offense scored more than 14 points in a half?

You guys can argue with me about Orton and how we can win with him, but if we do make the playoffs the chickens will come home to roost. Take off the glasses, put down the kool aid, and WATCH Orton play football. He's just not very good, sorry. :ohwell:

One game where the offense took charge? It wasn't a shootout, but in the
NE game, Orton engineered a 90-yard TD drive, then a 98-yard TD drive in the
same game. That only served notice that Orton's 98-yard TD drive last year
wasn't a fluke . . .

-----

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 11:13 PM
The first win over SD, and the NY game. There's 2 for you.

The first win over SD, Seriously? Funny, I thought we won that on two STs TDs. Once again, if not for them, the offense alone wouldn't have broken 20 points.

The Giants game was a defensive beat down. The Giants had under 100 yds of offense in the 1st half! The defense held them to what, 6 points? Sure our offense put up over 20 points on a tired defense, woo hoo! Not sa big win for the offense. Had the defense given up 21 points and the offense put up 26 to win, now you're talking. For all the help the Defense was giving them, Orton was still lackluster. We ran a lot and very well, but the passing game was all but non-existant.

In the playoffs, you have to be able to move the ball through the air at some point.

honz
12-19-2009, 11:16 PM
I'll be damned if any QB in the league grows a better neckbeard than Orton.

topscribe
12-19-2009, 11:17 PM
I'll be damned if any QB in the league grows a better neckbeard than Orton.

:laugh:


-----

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 11:20 PM
I don't know HP. I think it would be generally true but not in every instance. Look at Palmer the last few years or Roethlisberger this year.

Okay, you got me. If you can't play defense (like Cincy for so long), even the best QB won't help you (we, the Broncos, saw this last year first hand).

Roethlisberger was having a tremendous season until he got a concussion (hasn't been the same since) and his defense decided they didn't want to play football anymore if Polamalu wasn't on the field.

TXBRONC
12-19-2009, 11:22 PM
The first win over SD, and the NY game. There's 2 for you.

I'm guessing your answer to HP is in reference to the offense scoring more than 14 points in the first half of a game. If so against NY the offense scored 16 points in the first half. It's paper thin nonetheless they did score more than 14 points. However against San Diego the bulk of the first half points came from the kick off return and the punt return of Royal.

Timmy!
12-19-2009, 11:37 PM
Had 17 in the 1st half against the Redskins, 17 in the 2nd half against the Browns....

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 11:41 PM
I realize most of you don't agree with me, and that's fine. Do I root for Orton on Sundays? You bet your ass. He's a hard guy not to like and he's a Bronco. But here, among family, I just don't feel that he's our future. Kinda the way I felt about Brian Griese, even when we were winning.

I was very excited when we drafted a good QB to build around. I thought, "Finally we have a young stud to run this offense". I was willing to take the bad with the good and let him develop. That ended in january and now we have another "mercenary", "stop-gap", "game manager", "insert catchy phrase for free agent QB" running the show.

My hope is that we spend that nice first round pick the Bears gave us on what we should spend it on, a guy to replace the one we lost. I know McD doesn't seem to have that "franchise QB" mentality, but no matter what he says, even he knows it's the most important position on the team.

At this point, I'd almost rather lose a couple more games with Brandstater developing at the helm then have another season with Kyle that I feel will be fruitless. It's not that I hope Kyle doesn't succeed, it's just the contrary. I just don't see anything about his play so far that says he's future of my team.

Timmy!
12-19-2009, 11:44 PM
Winning seasons=fruitless.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/291244864_5ebed99d55.jpg

HORSEPOWER 56
12-19-2009, 11:50 PM
Winning seasons=fruitless.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/291244864_5ebed99d55.jpg

No, winning seasons with the knowledge we're one and done in the playoffs = fruitless.

Do you really think we have a chance of beating SD, Indy, or Cincy on the road in a playoff setting? There's faith and then there's blind faith. Blind faith is only really useful in religion. Faith requires a little bit of trust and familiarity. After Orton's performances against SD and Indy as of late, do you have that faith?

Timmy!
12-19-2009, 11:59 PM
No, winning seasons with the knowledge we're one and done in the playoffs = fruitless.

Do you really think we have a chance of beating SD, Indy, or Cincy on the road in a playoff setting? There's faith and then there's blind faith. Blind faith is only really useful in religion. Faith requires a little bit of trust and familiarity. After Orton's performances against SD and Indy as of late, do you have that faith?

1st of all, if the Broncos make the playoffs more than likely they get NE in the 1st round. I like the Broncos chances there, I mean, it's not like the Broncos have beaten them or anything. As for Cincy, see previous statement on already beaten them, same goes for SD. The Broncos played pretty terrible against the Colts and still had a chance. But, of course it's the offenses fault that Indy scored a TD the 1st three times they touched the ball. As for the SD game, Orton shouldn't even have been playing because of injury. This is not a question of faith, it's a question of blind hate and not letting go off a reckless gunslinger who has, and probably never will, win jack shit. Funny how you don't mention all the good performances by Orton. The Broncos are PROVING they are better of with Orton than they were with Cutler. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Is Orton the long term answer? I'd lean towards no. He's not worth some 8mil a year contract, but I'd love to have him for 3-5mil a year for the next 3 years or so. Seems pretty logical to me. Then again, with "knowledge" that the Broncos will go 1 and done in the playoffs (can you tell me the winning lottery #'s for next week please?), logic doesn't matter.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-20-2009, 12:20 AM
1st of all, if the Broncos make the playoffs more than likely they get NE in the 1st round. I like the Broncos chances there, I mean, it's not like the Broncos have beaten them or anything. As for Cincy, see previous statement on already beaten them, same goes for SD. The Broncos played pretty terrible against the Colts and still had a chance. But, of course it's the offenses fault that Indy scored a TD the 1st three times they touched the ball. As for the SD game, Orton shouldn't even have been playing because of injury. This is not a question of faith, it's a question of blind hate and not letting go off a reckless gunslinger who has, and probably never will, win jack shit. Funny how you don't mention all the good performances by Orton. The Broncos are PROVING they are better of with Orton than they were with Cutler. You don't have to like it, but it's true. Is Orton the long term answer? I'd lean towards no. He's not worth some 8mil a year contract, but I'd love to have him for 3-5mil a year for the next 3 years or so. Seems pretty logical to me. Then again, with "knowledge" that the Broncos will go 1 and done in the playoffs (can you tell me the winning lottery #'s for next week please?), logic doesn't matter.

There's a difference between playoff football and regular season football.

I disgree that the Broncos are "proving they are better with Orton". Our defense is light years better than last year. Our offense (which Orton runs) is worse, much worse. The team as a whole is better, but that's as far as I'll go. Did you know that even with all his INTs this year, Cutler has more TD passes than Orton? He doesn't have Brandon Marshall or Eddie Royal either. Matt Forte is also providing him no help in the running game.

It's not Orton's fault that Indy scored on their first three possessions, it is his fault that the Broncos offense went three and out on their first three. It's also his fault that when the defense atoned for their 3 TDs with 3 turnovers, the Broncos could only manage 10 points off of those turnovers.

Poet
12-20-2009, 12:40 AM
Your offense is statisitcally worse, but at the same point in time your offense doesn't just randomly sputter out on you and lose you games.

But last year.....

BroncoWave
12-20-2009, 12:43 AM
There's a difference between playoff football and regular season football.

I disgree that the Broncos are "proving they are better with Orton". Our defense is light years better than last year. Our offense (which Orton runs) is worse, much worse. The team as a whole is better, but that's as far as I'll go. Did you know that even with all his INTs this year, Cutler has more TD passes than Orton? He doesn't have Brandon Marshall or Eddie Royal either. Matt Forte is also providing him no help in the running game.

It's not Orton's fault that Indy scored on their first three possessions, it is his fault that the Broncos offense went three and out on their first three. It's also his fault that when the defense atoned for their 3 TDs with 3 turnovers, the Broncos could only manage 10 points off of those turnovers.

We're scoring 3.4 fewer points a game. I would hardly say that's "much worse" as you put it.

Timmy!
12-20-2009, 12:46 AM
There's a difference between playoff football and regular season football.

I disgree that the Broncos are "proving they are better with Orton". Our dfense is light years better than last year. Our offense (which Orton runs) is worse, much worse. The team as a whole is better, but that's as far as I'll go. Did you know that even with all his INTs this year, Cutler has more TD passes than Orton? He doesn't have Brandon Marshall or Eddie Royal either. Matt Forte is also providing him no help in the running game.

It's not Orton's fault that Indy scored on their first three possessions, it is his fault that the Broncos offense went three and out on their first three. It's also his fault that when the defense atoned for their 3 TDs with 3 turnovers, the Broncos could only manage 10 points off of those turnovers.

So, the team as a whole is better, but, the Broncos were better off with Cutler. Got it. ;)

:laugh: Let's compare the two QB's. Cutler has more TD passes than Orton. Yup. He sure does. He has 3 more TD's (19-16). He also has 14 MORE INT's. That's right. 14! (22-8). Cutler also has a lower QB rating (88.9-75.2), more sacks (21-29), more fumbles (4-1), a lower completion % (62.1-62.9) and a lower avg (7.1-6.6). That last one is pretty funny. The noodle arm is averaging more yards per completion than mr. rocket arm. Not to mention despite 47 more attempts Cutler has all of 119 more yards than Orton. I'm not even going to touch W-L records of the two. Hell, clearly Cutler>Orton. :heh:

So what have we learned? Each QB, in their 1 year in a new system are light years apart. Cutler is having his worst season ever, Orton his best season ever. Obviously the Broncos can't win a thing with Kyle Orton. Guy is a total loser.....

Blaming the offense's woes entirely on Orton is retarded. I mean, it's not like he threw for more yard than Manning that game. I'm pretty sure he doesn't call the plays. When it was 21-0 Orton was 4-4, for 40 yards. Obviously it was his fault. I mean, it couldn't have been the play calling, or the defense right?

Poet
12-20-2009, 12:49 AM
We're scoring 3.4 fewer points a game. I would hardly say that's "much worse" as you put it.

And your offensive line is play significantly worse.

Orton is clearly the worst QB ever.

BTB, when you watch Orton play, is it hard for you to not off yourself right then and there? Tell me how bad it hurts, I'm here for you man.

BroncoWave
12-20-2009, 12:55 AM
And your offensive line is play significantly worse.

Orton is clearly the worst QB ever.

BTB, when you watch Orton play, is it hard for you to not off yourself right then and there? Tell me how bad it hurts, I'm here for you man.

Yeah, it's a miracle that I haven't jumped out high window yet. I must be a masochist to continue to subject myself to his play!

You're a good friend for being here for me in this tough time!

BroncoWave
12-20-2009, 12:57 AM
So, the team as a whole is better, but, the Broncos were better off with Cutler. Got it. ;)

:laugh: Let's compare the two QB's. Cutler has more TD passes than Orton. Yup. He sure does. He has 3 more TD's (19-16). He also has 14 MORE INT's. That's right. 14! (22-8). Cutler also has a lower QB rating (88.9-75.2), more sacks (21-29), more fumbles (4-1), a lower completion % (62.1-62.9) and a lower avg (7.1-6.6). That last one is pretty funny. The noodle arm is averaging more yards per completion than mr. rocket arm. Not to mention despite 47 more attempts Cutler has all of 119 more yards than Orton. I'm not even going to touch W-L records of the two. Hell, clearly Cutler>Orton. :heh:

So what have we learned? Each QB, in their 1 year in a new system are light years apart. Cutler is having his worst season ever, Orton his best season ever. Obviously the Broncos can't win a thing with Kyle Orton. Guy is a total loser.....

Blaming the offense's woes entirely on Orton is retarded. I mean, it's not like he threw for more yard than Manning that game. I'm pretty sure he doesn't call the plays. When it was 21-0 Orton was 4-4, for 40 yards. Obviously it was his fault. I mean, it couldn't have been the play calling, or the defense right?

King I may have spoken too soon when I awarded you with post of the day. This one is right up there too!

Poet
12-20-2009, 01:04 AM
Yeah, it's a miracle that I haven't jumped out high window yet. I must be a masochist to continue to subject myself to his play!

You're a good friend for being here for me in this tough time!

BTB, whatever happens, don't end it man. I'm sure that Cutler will be a Bronco again, or maybe you guys will implement the wildcat or something.

Hang in there.

topscribe
12-20-2009, 01:12 AM
The first win over SD, Seriously? Funny, I thought we won that on two STs TDs. Once again, if not for them, the offense alone wouldn't have broken 20 points.

You need to do some simple math. The Broncos got 2 TDs on ST, and the
Chargers got one. If you take away the Broncos' side, you need to take away
the Chargers'. So do that: take away all the ST scoring.

The Broncos still win!

And Orton does 20/33, 274 yds, 1 TD, for a 97.3 QB rating.



The Giants game was a defensive beat down. The Giants had under 100 yds of offense in the 1st half! The defense held them to what, 6 points? Sure our offense put up over 20 points on a tired defense, woo hoo! Not sa big win for the offense. Had the defense given up 21 points and the offense put up 26 to win, now you're talking. For all the help the Defense was giving them, Orton was still lackluster. We ran a lot and very well, but the passing game was all but non-existant.

In the playoffs, you have to be able to move the ball through the air at some point.

Orton was lackluster? Let's see . . . 18/28, 245 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT. Average
gain per passing attempt: 8.1 (as opposed to Mannings' 4.9). Denver scored
26 points. Lackluster?

I like you, guy, but, my goodness, you're way off here . . .


-----

Lonestar
12-20-2009, 01:24 AM
I just have to wonder had Orton replaced any QB we have had other than John the GOAT and jay (a supposed franchise QB) how many of his haters today would not think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Just because jay had a rocket arm everyone want to think he was a franchise QB. The leader forever here.

Jay had a less than stellar record in DEN last year even with mike as a coach and it was not all just he played with a bad D.

But he may never live up to that franchise label.

There have been hundreds of "franchise" QB's drafted or so the fans thought. But very few ever became one.

A future HOF QB Brady was good but not great in his first few years. I only wonder how much better Orton may get ubder great coaching surrounded by better players he had with the bears.

Time will tell.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Watchthemiddle
12-20-2009, 01:49 AM
I just have to wonder had Orton replaced any QB we have had other than John the GOAT and jay (a supposed franchise QB) how many of his haters today would not think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Just because jay had a rocket arm everyone want to think he was a franchise QB. The leader forever here.

Jay had a less than stellar record in DEN last year even with mike as a coach and it was not all just he played with a bad D.

But he may never live up to that franchise label.

There have been hundreds of "franchise" QB's drafted or so the fans thought. But very few ever became one.

A future HOF QB Brady was good but not great in his first few years. I only wonder how much better Orton may get ubder great coaching surrounded by better players he had with the bears.

Time will tell.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Jay was surrounded by the same talent Orton has last year and how did that turn out for him? 8-8. He also had a HOF coach coaching him as well as his buddy Bates to hold his hand....and still sucked.

We are now seeing how a intelligent player will out play a strong armed QB any day of the week and that is what we have in Orton. Not too mention a great teammate and locker room guy. Urlacher is still pissed at the trade and I don't blame him...however I am so glad McDaniels pulled the strings and got it done.

Orton is still young, will have a full year in this system down...we need to hang on to him. We all saw his importance when he got hurt against WA...had that not happened we would be at 9-4 right now....but instead the team got down when Simms came in and we struggled in that game and the next game.

Lonestar
12-20-2009, 02:11 AM
Jay was surrounded by the same talent Orton has last year and how did that turn out for him? 8-8. He also had a HOF coach coaching him as well as his buddy Bates to hold his hand....and still sucked.

We are now seeing how a intelligent player will out play a strong armed QB any day of the week and that is what we have in Orton. Not too mention a great teammate and locker room guy. Urlacher is still pissed at the trade and I don't blame him...however I am so glad McDaniels pulled the strings and got it done.

Orton is still young, will have a full year in this system down...we need to hang on to him. We all saw his importance when he got hurt against WA...had that not happened we would be at 9-4 right now....but instead the team got down when Simms came in and we struggled in that game and the next game.


that is the way I see it but way to many fans are enamored with huge arm thinking that its the only way to win..

I have to wonder how this OLINE that we have today would have done in the AFCCG in 2005. IF that would have turned out differently.. with Jake not being beat to his drop back by a PIT blitzing LB..

but then that was a winning team unlike the past few ..

I repeat Brady was nothing super special the first couple of years he TOO was a game manager.. and he turned out pretty good with great coaching..

but we will always hear from those that hated Jake and now Orton.. because there were not John and jay respectively..

lets hope that they are all wrong.. now that we sems to have a winning team once again..

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 02:26 AM
Orton is an average QB. You can play o.k. with an average QB. If you have a good defense, you can win with an average QB. If you want to win a Superbowl, you have to have a franchise type QB. If you think you're going to win one with an average QB, you'd better have a defense like Baltimore did or the Bears had.

Bradford is the only kid/QB I'd take a chance on in this draft. I'd sign Orton to a 3yr deal at about $5m/yr with $10m signing bonus. Then I'd either draft Bradford or be willing to say that Brandstrater is the guy in a year or two.

You might also take a look around the league at a guy you could trade for....like a Leinart. I think he would excel under McDaniels...I really do.

LMAO!

Leinart is trash. He's almost as bad as Russell, except he's more into the "fame" than the money.

I'm still curious about this "franchise qb" everybody talks about.

Seems to me, denver just got rid of their "franchise qb" after failing to get to the playoffs.

And Chi has a "franchise qb" and yet they're sucking hind teat!

KC has their "franchise qb".
Oak drafted their "franchise qb".
Hou has their "franchise qb".
Sea has had a "franchise qb" for years.
Nyg/Phi have their "franchise qb's".
Dallas has their "franchise qb".
NO has their "franchise qb".
Bal has their "franchise qb".

10 teams, 1 SB ring/5 winning records.

Can anybody say 'overrated'? :coffee:

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 02:33 AM
So, you'd trade us Carson Palmer for Kyle Orton? C'mon King. If you haven't noticed, our defense isn't the 2000 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, or the '85 bears. In all the years surrounding those three teams (from 85 - today), how many SB winners didn't have a "great" QB? NONE.

I know it's more than just the QB, but seriously. Even with your defense playing like it is this year and Benson running as well as he is, would you be anywhere close to 9-4 if Palmer was out? Of course not. The Qb isn't the whole team but he's the one guy (other than the Center) who touches the ball every offensive snap. He's the centerpoint for your passing game.

Can you honestly say that you'd feel comfortable with Orton running the Cincy offense with 1:30 to go in the fourth qtr, no timeouts, down by 6, starting on your own 20? If you say yes, you're a damned liar.

That is my point. I'd take at least 2/3 and probably 3/4 of the starting QBs in the league right now over Orton.

What part of his 94yds passing do you want? :coffee:

Orton is playing BETTER than Palmer, this year. He's being more "consistant", and has driven the length of the field on more than one occasion.

Not to mention, Orton is younger and healthier than Palmer.

I'm actually looking forward to next year. I believe McD is going to have KO work on some things that'll make him an even better, more productive qb.

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 02:44 AM
No, our defense is built to win now. They'll be completely rebuilding in a year or two when Dawkins, Champ, Davis, Holliday, etc decide to retire. Our defense hangs by a thread right now. One or two big injuries and it's over. There isn't a whole lot of depth at any position. Right now, we look like the Panthers of the mid-90s under Dom Capers who brought in a lot of older vets to win right away. They then spent the better part of 5 years rebuilding the defense that got them to the Superbowl. Ours is no different. God Forbid we don't re-sign Dumervil. Right now, he's the only one who gets consistent pressure on the QB.

I hate to say it, but IMO if we still had that "franchise QB", we'd be winning the division right now.

:laugh:

Cutler envy much?

He's leading the league in int's, and is on his way to breaking the single season record!

And last time I looked, MOST teams ADD players every year through the draft, which in turn, adds YOUTH!

Look behind all those starters you mentioned, and you'll see all R/1/2yr players.

Your 'sky is falling' mantra has no teeth, imo.

Shazam!
12-20-2009, 02:48 AM
Carson Palmer is one of the most underrated and unappreciated QBs of the last 10 years.

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 02:58 AM
The first win over SD, Seriously? Funny, I thought we won that on two STs TDs. Once again, if not for them, the offense alone wouldn't have broken 20 points.

The Giants game was a defensive beat down. The Giants had under 100 yds of offense in the 1st half! The defense held them to what, 6 points? Sure our offense put up over 20 points on a tired defense, woo hoo! Not sa big win for the offense. Had the defense given up 21 points and the offense put up 26 to win, now you're talking. For all the help the Defense was giving them, Orton was still lackluster. We ran a lot and very well, but the passing game was all but non-existant.

In the playoffs, you have to be able to move the ball through the air at some point.

Wow....

..I believe that's the first time where I've seen someone actually CRITICIZE the team for NOT giving up more points! :shocked:

Need yards? He completed 73%, 330yds against NE.

Through 13 games, he's thrown for over 60% in all but 3; he's thrown for more TDs than Ints in 10; he's only thrown multiple Int's in 1 game

No passing game?

:lol: Ok....

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 03:03 AM
No, winning seasons with the knowledge we're one and done in the playoffs = fruitless.

Do you really think we have a chance of beating SD, Indy, or Cincy on the road in a playoff setting? There's faith and then there's blind faith. Blind faith is only really useful in religion. Faith requires a little bit of trust and familiarity. After Orton's performances against SD and Indy as of late, do you have that faith?

I remember how many times denver got blown out with a HALL of FAME QB!


And that the last "franchise qb" couldn't even get the team to a playoff game.

:coffee:

rcsodak
12-20-2009, 03:11 AM
that is the way I see it but way to many fans are enamored with huge arm thinking that its the only way to win..

I have to wonder how this OLINE that we have today would have done in the AFCCG in 2005. IF that would have turned out differently.. with Jake not being beat to his drop back by a PIT blitzing LB..

but then that was a winning team unlike the past few ..

I repeat Brady was nothing super special the first couple of years he TOO was a game manager.. and he turned out pretty good with great coaching..

but we will always hear from those that hated Jake and now Orton.. because there were not John and jay respectively..

lets hope that they are all wrong.. now that we sems to have a winning team once again..

It's obvious, jr, that unless the qb is drafted by denver, THEY SUCK!

Ironic how it's only that position, too.

BroncoSojia
12-20-2009, 11:58 AM
So, the team as a whole is better, but, the Broncos were better off with Cutler. Got it. ;)

:laugh: Let's compare the two QB's. Cutler has more TD passes than Orton. Yup. He sure does. He has 3 more TD's (19-16). He also has 14 MORE INT's. That's right. 14! (22-8). Cutler also has a lower QB rating (88.9-75.2), more sacks (21-29), more fumbles (4-1), a lower completion % (62.1-62.9) and a lower avg (7.1-6.6). That last one is pretty funny. The noodle arm is averaging more yards per completion than mr. rocket arm. Not to mention despite 47 more attempts Cutler has all of 119 more yards than Orton. I'm not even going to touch W-L records of the two. Hell, clearly Cutler>Orton. :heh:

So what have we learned? Each QB, in their 1 year in a new system are light years apart. Cutler is having his worst season ever, Orton his best season ever. Obviously the Broncos can't win a thing with Kyle Orton. Guy is a total loser.....



Wow, the level of Cutler hate in this post is just overwhelming.

Do you honest think that his stats would be like that if he was playing in Denver this year?

With our improved running game and defense, Cutler wouldn't feel the need to try and put the team on his back and force a lot of throws. Our passing attack would be one of the best in the league, and we would be competing with the elite teams.


Jay was surrounded by the same talent Orton has last year and how did that turn out for him? 8-8. He also had a HOF coach coaching him as well as his buddy Bates to hold his hand....and still sucked.



You know this isn't true. Last year we were without a run game for most the year. We had the worst defense in franchise history, it was a miracle that we finished 8-8. Our team just wasn't that good last year.

Lonestar
12-20-2009, 12:11 PM
It's obvious, jr, that unless the qb is drafted by denver, THEY SUCK!

Ironic how it's only that position, too.
:salute:
then with that logic, John Elway HOF QB sucked.. Yes I see your point.. Jake sucked, Bubby sucked, Morton Sucked, Tensi SUCKED and Kyle sucks, BUT Greise and Jay did not..

it makes more sense now..:salute:

Lonestar
12-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Wow, the level of Cutler hate in this post is just overwhelming.

Do you honest think that his stats would be like that if he was playing in Denver this year?

With our improved running game and defense, Cutler wouldn't feel the need to try and put the team on his back and force a lot of throws. Our passing attack would be one of the best in the league, and we would be competing with the elite teams.



You know this isn't true. Last year we were without a run game for most the year. We had the worst defense in franchise history, it was a miracle that we finished 8-8. Our team just wasn't that good last year.

not sure if you saw all the games but the run game was there IIRC we averaged something like 5.0 yards per carry we just chose not to run the ball, thus killing the clock, getting a TOP advantage and keeping the ball from the other Offense..

but mike decided to put the trust of the game in jays hands to win or lose the game.. and in the process toss alot of picks and few for 6 points..

Superchop 7
12-20-2009, 01:10 PM
He would be the best #2 we could find, he is worth Simms type money long term.

We need a franchise QB.

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 02:00 PM
No, our defense is built to win now. They'll be completely rebuilding in a year or two when Dawkins, Champ, Davis, Holliday, etc decide to retire. Our defense hangs by a thread right now. One or two big injuries and it's over. There isn't a whole lot of depth at any position. Right now, we look like the Panthers of the mid-90s under Dom Capers who brought in a lot of older vets to win right away. They then spent the better part of 5 years rebuilding the defense that got them to the Superbowl. Ours is no different. God Forbid we don't re-sign Dumervil. Right now, he's the only one who gets consistent pressure on the QB.

I hate to say it, but IMO if we still had that "franchise QB", we'd be winning the division right now.



LMAO at the notion of Jay Cutler being a "franchise" QB.

The dude is a system QB, and nothing more. He prospered in the same system that turned QB juggernauts Brian Griese and Jake Plummer (and he had more weapons mind you) into Pro Bowl QB's.

Unless you expected Josh McDaniels, or whomever was hired to replace the overrated Shanahan, to run Mike's system (which would be absurd), just call it how it is, and thank Mike Shanahan's system for allowing us to get 2 first round draft picks for a system QB.

Poet
12-20-2009, 02:03 PM
If you had Jay Cutler you would have a worse record.

I'm basing this on his knack for awfulness in the red zone, ability to make the big mistake, lack of winning at any form of level, and having stats that aren't as impressive as people make them out to be (ok seriously, TD to INT ratio is where it's at, he had a huge yard total, bleh). His stats were good, they weren't great, they weren't elite, and that's what his stats have to be if he's going to play the way that he does.

Orton> his haters.

honz
12-20-2009, 02:07 PM
If you had Jay Cutler you would have a worse record.

I'm basing this on his knack for awfulness in the red zone, ability to make the big mistake, lack of winning at any form of level, and having stats that aren't as impressive as people make them out to be (ok seriously, TD to INT ratio is where it's at, he had a huge yard total, bleh). His stats were good, they weren't great, they weren't elite, and that's what his stats have to be if he's going to play the way that he does.

Orton> his haters.

In summary, Jay Cutler sucks.

Poet
12-20-2009, 02:08 PM
In summary, Jay Cutler sucks.

Kyle Orton makes love to his mother every other Sunday.

honz
12-20-2009, 02:09 PM
...and his sister the other weeks.

Poet
12-20-2009, 02:16 PM
...and his sister the other weeks.

I like your style.

topscribe
12-20-2009, 02:22 PM
Kyle Orton makes love to his mother every other Sunday.


...and his sister the other weeks.

A good ol' boy from Arab, Alabama?

-----

Poet
12-20-2009, 02:22 PM
A good ol' boy from Arab, Alabama?

-----

Orton makes no apologies.

SM19
12-20-2009, 04:33 PM
It is amusing that most of the gurus here say that Oron is not the "Long term answer" in Denver. I don't think most of those gurus even knwo what the fricking questionswas to which he is not the "long term answer".

I believe the question is "What kind of quarterback do we want to have in Denver?" If the answer to that question, long-term, is Kyle Orton, then I think our aspirations are a lot lower than they should be. He's been a decent enough stopgap, but we shouldn't invest a lot of money in him knowing that our best-case scenario involves replacing him with someone better as quickly as possible.


Orton has fit in well. What I think most people donot uderstnad is that the O style being pursued is not one that relies on a "super QB". And I think McD's O can win even a SB without a "long Term answer" QB.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Where in the NFL has this offense succeeded, other than on a team quarterbacked by Tom Brady?

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 04:43 PM
I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Where in the NFL has this offense succeeded, other than on a team quarterbacked by Tom Brady?

uhh, Matt Cassell pretty much put that theory to rest.

SM19
12-20-2009, 04:49 PM
That's fair. For some reason Cassell's season slipped my mind.

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 05:09 PM
That's fair. For some reason Cassell's season slipped my mind.

I believe the system works, and you can see that.

Orton's been efficient, but he's not an answer to any system.

NameUsedBefore
12-20-2009, 08:08 PM
Yes. Matt Cassell put that notion to rest, quarterbacking a team that just went 16-0 and had monstrous offensive statistics the prior season...

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:11 PM
Yes. Matt Cassell put that notion to rest, quarterbacking a team that just went 16-0 and had monstrous offensive statistics the prior season...

LMAO at you thinking New England has some significant advantage in the skill position department on offense than Denver does.

I could even argue Denver has more talent at the skill positions.

cuzz4169
12-20-2009, 08:19 PM
LMAO

Denver won't be drafting a QB in the first couple rounds, probably at al lthis draft.

When are people going to figure that out?

So when did you start working for the front office? Did you think denver was gonna pick moreno? So whos the future QB? Stop putting faith that Mcdaniels can make any scrub qb a star. Cassell sucks in KC he had talent around him in NE. I hate to break it to people but tom brandstater is not the answer. I hate when fans jump on a player because he had a good half or game in the preseason against other players who are getting cut.

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:21 PM
So when did you start working for the front office? Did you think denver was gonna pick moreno? So whos the future QB? Stop putting faith that Mcdaniels can make any scrub qb a star. Cassal sucks in KC he had talent around him in NE. I hate to break it to people but tom brandstater is not the answer. I hate when fans jump on a player because he had a good half or game in the preseason against other players who are getting cut.

A little late to the party aren't you? We've already been through that.

cuzz4169
12-20-2009, 08:24 PM
LMAO at you thinking New England has some significant advantage in the skill position department on offense than Denver does.

I could even argue Denver has more talent at the skill positions.

Im a denver fan...but that is the dumbest thing ive heard. Look at the numbers. If our skillposition players are better how come our numbers arent better than NE?

TXBRONC
12-20-2009, 08:24 PM
Winning seasons=fruitless.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/291244864_5ebed99d55.jpg

So if fiinish 9-7 for the next two or three season but still don't make the playoffs you would consider that fruitful?

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:26 PM
Im a denver fan...but that is the dumbest thing ive heard. Look at the numbers. If our skillposition players are better how come our numbers arent better than NE?

Right, because surely a higher skillset = better production regardless of system or coaching.

Please just stop wasting my time.

topscribe
12-20-2009, 08:26 PM
So if fiinish 9-7 for the next two or three season but still don't make the playoffs you would consider that fruitful?

Who says the Broncos are going 9-7 the next two or three seasons?

-----

cuzz4169
12-20-2009, 08:28 PM
Right, because surely a higher skillset = better production regardless of system or coaching.

Please just stop wasting my time.

Uhhh same coach in denver was in NE.

I dont know why i am wasting my time?!

topscribe
12-20-2009, 08:29 PM
Im a denver fan...but that is the dumbest thing ive heard. Look at the numbers. If our skillposition players are better how come our numbers arent better than NE?

Ever hear the old saying football games are won in the trenches?

(To you, that's the offensive and defensive lines.)

Here: http://www.squidoo.com/learn-about-football

That should help . . . :coffee:

-----

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:29 PM
Uhhh same coach in denver was in NE.

I dont know why i am wasting my time?!

Then surely you understand the difference between a skillset player and a non skillset player?

cuzz4169
12-20-2009, 08:34 PM
One of the reasons I never post on here is because you have fans who have no credentials telling someone else that they know nothing about football. To funny, how about you have no clue who your talking to.

topscribe
12-20-2009, 08:37 PM
One of the reasons I never post on here is because you have fans who have no credentials telling someone else that they know nothing about football. To funny, how about you have no clue who your talking to.

Ask me if I care . . . :coffee:

-----

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:37 PM
One of the reasons I never post on here is because you have fans who have no credentials telling someone else that they know nothing about football. To funny, how about you have no clue who your talking to.

Another great argument.

How about offering one of your own, instead of just telling everyone they're wrong.

It's ok if you don't know what a skill position player is. But if you don't know, don't criticize.

cuzz4169
12-20-2009, 08:41 PM
A skill position player is mitch burger....

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 08:46 PM
A skill position player is mitch burger...

um, no

you'll figure it out someday.

Timmy!
12-20-2009, 08:56 PM
So if fiinish 9-7 for the next two or three season but still don't make the playoffs you would consider that fruitful?

Probably not, but you're assuming this team will never improve. Remember how the Broncos were going to win 4 games all year? How did that work out.

TXBRONC
12-20-2009, 09:07 PM
Probably not, but you're assuming this team will never improve. Remember how the Broncos were going to win 4 games all year? How did that work out.

I'm assuming nothing.

How did work out? It worked out to the tune of starting off 6-0 and being the first team since the realignment not win the division. I find that very disappointing more so than what happen last season.

Timmy!
12-20-2009, 09:13 PM
I'm assuming nothing.

How did work out? It worked out to the tune of starting off 6-0 and being the first team since the realignment not win the division. I find that very disappointing more so than what happen last season.

Sucks to be you then. :D Even at 6-0 I wasn't expecting 13-3, which is what the division winner will probably finish. After a 6-0 start I thought something like 10-6, which is still within reach. You're more than welcome to your doom and gloom though, there are many others to have a pity party with, enjoy. Despite serious frustration today, I'm thankful that the Broncos still control their playoff destiny in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year with no more than 5 wins according to 95% of the football world. Rome wasn't built in a day.

silkamilkamonico
12-20-2009, 09:22 PM
How did work out? It worked out to the tune of starting off 6-0 and being the first team since the realignment not win the division. I find that very disappointing more so than what happen last season.



Wow. Those are some big words. Not winning the division has been disappointing, but it's not a coach killer like how the end of last season was.

The only upper management complaint I have about how last season ended was Shanahan should have been fired as he was walking off the SD football field.

Overtime
12-20-2009, 09:26 PM
offload him after the season and start Brandstater.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-20-2009, 09:46 PM
Your offense is statisitcally worse, but at the same point in time your offense doesn't just randomly sputter out on you and lose you games.

But last year.....

You were saying...

Poet
12-20-2009, 09:49 PM
You were saying...

That was your entire team's MO last year.

Shazam!
12-20-2009, 09:53 PM
I miss Jake Plummer.

Watchthemiddle
12-20-2009, 10:05 PM
I miss Jake Plummer.

Funny at how when we had him I kept telling people they were going to miss him when he was gone.......not only do we miss Plummer, but since he has been gone we keep missing the playoffs. Coincidence? Yup. 4 straight years with him, 4 straight years (possibly) without him.

HORSEPOWER 56
12-20-2009, 10:07 PM
That was your entire team's MO last year.

No, it was our 31st ranked defense's MO last year. We had a QB and WR go to the probowl. In our last 4 games, we gave up over 30 points a game on average. A screen door stopped more wind than our defense stopped points.

The bottom line is, Orton is NOT a good QB, McDaniels is NOT an offensive genius and it's become blatantly obvious that he doesn't trust Orton to do anything more than just throw ******* bubble screens.

Our team, energized under new leadership with a lot of new faces, exploded early and took the league by surprise. 6-0! Then we hit the bye week and collapsed. What you've seen since then, a QB who can't move his offense and has maybe one or two scoring drives in him a game and a coach who won't adjust to shit offensively because he thinks he's a genius are what we are. We don't deserve to be 8-6. We will finish 8-8. If that's enough to make the playoffs, that's just ******* pathetic.

Poet
12-20-2009, 10:32 PM
Cutler was undeserving of the Pro Bowl, why Rivers didn't go is beyond me, but Cutler wasn't exactly that great last year for you.

Last year Cutler couldn't make the playoffs with a great set of WRs, a great line if not the best line in football, good tight ends, and the whole nine on offense.

This year Orton's line is significantly worse, his RBs are fumbling a good amount, and while his defense is better his supporting cast is worse. That crumble, which Cutler played a great part of, was much more epic than this one.

McDaniels is a rookie head coach who has exceeded everyone's expectations.

Orton's done well enough to make his haters ******* cry like girls.

Period.

TXBRONC
12-20-2009, 11:13 PM
Sucks to be you then. :D Even at 6-0 I wasn't expecting 13-3, which is what the division winner will probably finish. After a 6-0 start I thought something like 10-6, which is still within reach. You're more than welcome to your doom and gloom though, there are many others to have a pity party with, enjoy. Despite serious frustration today, I'm thankful that the Broncos still control their playoff destiny in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year with no more than 5 wins according to 95% of the football world. Rome wasn't built in a day.

You wasn't expecting Denver to go 13-3 would you like a cookie? Pity party? Nah just a fact. If you don't like it tough shit.

Timmy!
12-20-2009, 11:16 PM
You wasn't expecting Denver to go 13-3 would you like cookie? Pity party? Nah just a fact. If you don't like it tough shit.

:confused:

:lol:


Enlightening. And yes, I would like a cookie. :D :welcome:

NameUsedBefore
12-20-2009, 11:20 PM
Cutler was undeserving of the Pro Bowl, why Rivers didn't go is beyond me, but Cutler wasn't exactly that great last year for you.

Last year Cutler couldn't make the playoffs with a great set of WRs, a great line if not the best line in football, good tight ends, and the whole nine on offense.

This year Orton's line is significantly worse, his RBs are fumbling a good amount, and while his defense is better his supporting cast is worse. That crumble, which Cutler played a great part of, was much more epic than this one.

McDaniels is a rookie head coach who has exceeded everyone's expectations.

Orton's done well enough to make his haters ******* cry like girls.

Period.

Um.

Their casts are fairly similar on offense with the exception that Orton actually has a run-game as opposed to cell-phone hawkers and fullbacks toting the ball.

The way you pass of the defensive side of the ball made me laugh though. "Oh and Orton has a defense. Anyway what's important..." Last year Denver's defense gave up over a 100-points in three games. Were the defense the same this year, which many though it would be, Denver's record would be dismal. Orton can't win a game unless the Defense holds them to under 20 points or even a lesser breaking point than that. That's pathetic. With Denver, Cutler had one of the best records in the NFL when the team's defense plays crap. That's a difference maker. Of course, in Chicago that's not going to happen considering there is no offense there to speak of at any position.

People can rag all they want, which they will, but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if Cutler were still here we could seriously be going places. (And no, I don't particularly care about how Cutler is faring on a team that has not a single positive facet to its name. And yes, Rivers should have been in the Pro Bowl last year as much as I hate that *******.)

Poet
12-20-2009, 11:34 PM
Um.

Uh.


Their casts are fairly similar on offense with the exception that Orton actually has a run-game as opposed to cell-phone hawkers and fullbacks toting the ball.

Last year you were 16th in rushing, this year you're 13th, but your boys have been fumbling a lot and Moreno has had a lot of growing pains. That's hardly a difference.


The way you pass of the defensive side of the ball made me laugh though. "Oh and Orton has a defense. Anyway what's important..." Last year Denver's defense gave up over a 100-points in three games. Were the defense the same this year, which many though it would be, Denver's record would be dismal. Orton can't win a game unless the Defense holds them to under 20 points or even a lesser breaking point than that. That's pathetic. With Denver, Cutler had one of the best records in the NFL when the team's defense plays crap. That's a difference maker. Of course, in Chicago that's not going to happen considering there is no offense there to speak of at any position.

But on the flip side Cutler's playstyle also put you guys in the hole, a lot. It amazes that that you just look at Cutler's stats, go "he's better" when his stats don't show you exactly how hot and cold he was, or that he often hurt your offense. Cutler had the better offensive line. Orton had the marginally better running game. Hmmmmm....I wonder which one is more important....derf.




People can rag all they want, which they will, but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if Cutler were still here we could seriously be going places. (And no, I don't particularly care about how Cutler is faring on a team that has not a single positive facet to its name. And yes, Rivers should have been in the Pro Bowl last year as much as I hate that *******.)

But ironically Orton greatly outplayed Cutler when he was on an offense that sucked balls.

dogfish
12-20-2009, 11:40 PM
Funny at how when we had him I kept telling people they were going to miss him when he was gone.......not only do we miss Plummer, but since he has been gone we keep missing the playoffs. Coincidence? Yup. 4 straight years with him, 4 straight years (possibly) without him.

man, i have not missed jake plummer one single freakin' instant, and i never will. . . i miss the hell out of al wilson, gary kubiak and the zone blocking scheme, though. . .

NameUsedBefore
12-20-2009, 11:54 PM
Last year you were 16th in rushing, this year you're 13th, but your boys have been fumbling a lot and Moreno has had a lot of growing pains. That's hardly a difference.

Yes. I've seen the stats argument often. Denver did not have a consistent run-game last year. At all. Many games began with one runner and ended with another. However, the run-game could hardly be utilized anyway because the defense was getting steam-rolled. That is kind of a big deal, btw. Denver could have had Adrien Peterson last year but it matters zero if you are getting blown out.



But on the flip side Cutler's playstyle also put you guys in the hole, a lot. It amazes that that you just look at Cutler's stats, go "he's better" when his stats don't show you exactly how hot and cold he was, or that he often hurt your offense. Cutler had the better offensive line. Orton had the marginally better running game. Hmmmmm....I wonder which one is more important....derf.

Cutler wasn't perfect. Cutler also isn't an aged professional yet. Peyton Manning played mediocre football for five years until he hit his stride. Cutler frequently showed glimpses of a great QB, then he would play something like that Oakland game. Okay, that happens. But at least we could win games when our defense decided to sit them out. That would have only gotten better. What Cutler has showed us in Chicago is that he isn't John Elway and isn't going to carry a garbage team anywhere. This matters little.

What we have in Denver now is one of the most predictable and non-threatening offenses in the league that "plays it safe". This is truly what many people foresaw, the only difference is that we have a stellar defense instead of an abysmal one. And look at the difference that makes. You can take this paltry, mediocre offense and make it great simply by having the other side play some ball. Too bad we just exchanged one side's issues for the other's and oh so surprisingly find ourselves in the same goddam position we were in last year.



But ironically Orton greatly outplayed Cutler when he was on an offense that sucked balls.

Two different teams. Chicago's defense is flat out bad this year and it has neither the pass blocking nor run blocking it did last year. Forte was actually a capable runner last year, this year he's averaging what? Three yards a game? Whew. Every single game I've seen of the Bears is a display of a hilariously bad offense; in every way, including Cutler, and including the offensive coordinator who must run the most archaic offense in the NFL. I remember Aikman commented that anytime Cutler completed a pass he wouldn't even get to see it because he'd be on the ground. That Cutler isn't on injured reserve yet is beyond me considering how often I've seen him get totally blown up.

LoyalSoldier
12-21-2009, 12:39 AM
Orton wins games until it is actually time to win games.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 12:41 AM
Orton WINS, when the other team doesn't score. thats just a reality. He was fantastic when our defense was holding teams to nearly ZERO points. Funny how that works.

I don't see us drafting a QB, though. But as I've stated, I don't think he's a QB I would want our team to spend a long-term contract on or put big money up for. He's a career back-up.

Poet
12-21-2009, 02:50 AM
At this point in the year, Cutler had 7 more touchdowns than Orton and 7 more interceptions. That's a wash. He has about 700 more yards.

At this point in the year Orton is 8-6. Cutler was 8-6.

This is the big deal?

700 yards is the big deal?

Because what this is is nothing more than a "we want Cutler," and not a "we're upset because our QB is awful," because your QB isn't awful.

Orton's 14th in yards.

Orton's 16 in TDs.

He's 15th in QB rating.

He's 13th in pass attempts and 12th in completion percentage.

So he's obviously not the problem for your team; he's a scapegoat for fans.

So let's look at your offense further. Your interior line isn't that hot, your running game is solid, Marshall's a monster, Royal is slumping, your tight ends are non-existent as far as I can tell. Your running scheme seems to blow and Moreno should be running a little more decisively but, once again, the scheme blows.

So how is this on Orton? It isn't. The proof's in the numbers.

Overall he's a slightly above average QB. Yeah, you guys are just screwed over in your QB situation /sarcasm.

For the record, I don't think it'd be a bad idea for you guys to draft a QB early. Orton could help groom, and a star QB is a major asset, but not a necessity.

NameUsedBefore
12-21-2009, 03:21 AM
The proof's in the numbers.


No, it isn't.

How often must it be explained how radically different this year's defense is from last year's?

How often must it be explained that last year was pass happy for a reason and not because the run-obsessed Shanahan just randomly changed his tune? And must it really be explained again what opposing defenses do when your offense is forced to become one-sided?

Orton has not faced any of this. He's been told to take a sack if they're coming at you; throw it out of bounds if they're coming at you; dump it off repeatedly, play it safe. Think Cutler and Shanahan could do that last year? Of course not. And why? For the very reason Shanahan decided to go for two instead of overtime in the Chargers game.

This year? We're winning plenty of games where the offense is being passive and casual. Orton's stats look brilliant. Extraordinary. Except I can only think of one game -- versus the Patriots -- in which his play was a factor. Everything else and he's just there to protect the ball. That's nice, but that's also his ceiling. How many game-managers in the Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer vein win Superbowls?

Poet
12-21-2009, 03:40 AM
Jay Cutler was taking risks and making risky plays because he's Jay Cutler. I don't know if you've actually watched him play, but even when the Bears have been up this year, or when the game's tied, or, actually a simpler way of saying it is that CUTLER TAKES RISKS REGARDLESS OF THE GAME STATE.


And you're insane if you think Shanahan ever said "Hey Cutler, if you're about to get sacked and you could get rid of the ball, throw a retarded pass instead."

The defense isn't responsible for how Orton is playing. Dumveril is probably my pick for defensive player of the year, but he's not making Orton throw the ball.

Yes, your defense allows the Broncos to not have to try to force the ball down the field as much, but it works both ways. You can argue that the defense helps Orton and I can argue that Cutler's stats were also helped by his bad defense because he was allowed to let it rip.

It boils down to Cutler's play style; he's a risk taker, not all that great of one either, if you think he would change his style of play in Denver you're kidding yourself.

Orton isn't the problem on your team.

silkamilkamonico
12-21-2009, 07:18 AM
Orton isn't the problem on your team.

I certainly don't think he's a problem at all, but I don't think he's a solution either. He can't play throughout the course of the game. Far too many 3 and out's, and he leaves too many plays out on the field.

Northman
12-21-2009, 07:34 AM
Jay Cutler was taking risks and making risky plays because he's Jay Cutler. I don't know if you've actually watched him play, but even when the Bears have been up this year, or when the game's tied, or, actually a simpler way of saying it is that CUTLER TAKES RISKS REGARDLESS OF THE GAME STATE.


And you're insane if you think Shanahan ever said "Hey Cutler, if you're about to get sacked and you could get rid of the ball, throw a retarded pass instead."

The defense isn't responsible for how Orton is playing. Dumveril is probably my pick for defensive player of the year, but he's not making Orton throw the ball.

Yes, your defense allows the Broncos to not have to try to force the ball down the field as much, but it works both ways. You can argue that the defense helps Orton and I can argue that Cutler's stats were also helped by his bad defense because he was allowed to let it rip.

It boils down to Cutler's play style; he's a risk taker, not all that great of one either, if you think he would change his style of play in Denver you're kidding yourself.

Orton isn't the problem on your team.



You make some great points as always King but at the same time if Carson was playing in Denver i know our offense would not be anemic like it is. And for me thats what myself and some others are talking about in terms of Orton not being the ultimate solution at the QB position. Denver is NOWHERE close to being elite on the defensive side of the ball and in order for Orton to truly be successful with this style of play you have to hold opponents to under 17 points which they cant do on a regular basis if at all.

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 08:42 AM
One of the nuances about the spread offense is it doesnt require the QB to make alot of reads. It's very regimented in it's routes and the QB simply checks down. Basically...a robot could play QB in it. That's my assessment of Orton. He's a robot doing what the program says to do. That takes away the creative element and the "play-maker" element. That being said...he's the perfect prototype for this type of offense (assuming the rest of the team execute), but he's never going to roll out or evade a sack and make something out of nothing. That's what we're lacking from the QB position

SOCALORADO.
12-21-2009, 09:26 AM
I certainly don't think he's a problem at all, but I don't think he's a solution either. He can't play throughout the course of the game. Far too many 3 and out's, and he leaves too many plays out on the field.

So your sayin DEN is drafting a QB in any of the top 3 rounds of the draft. Got it.:D

SOCALORADO.
12-21-2009, 09:32 AM
You make some great points as always King but at the same time if Carson was playing in Denver i know our offense would not be anemic like it is. And for me thats what myself and some others are talking about in terms of Orton not being the ultimate solution at the QB position. Denver is NOWHERE close to being elite on the defensive side of the ball and in order for Orton to truly be successful with this style of play you have to hold opponents to under 17 points which they cant do on a regular basis if at all.

Yeah, great points KING, but i also agree with Northman. DEN would need the 2000 Ravens defense to win games consistently with Orton. Orton is a career backup that MCD has done wonders with cause thats whats he is specifically good at, taking a back up like Cassell and winning a bunch of games with him. DENs lack of a QB that actually scares a team with his ability to throw deep and accurate is the most glaring reason why the offense is so dead. And i DONT think Pickler is that QB. I like that Pickler was traded.

G_Money
12-21-2009, 10:04 AM
The question is whether Orton is maxed out, and if he is, if we can win big with the maxed-out Orton. Shanahan had the same question with Plummer, came to the conclusion that yes, Plummer WAS maxed out, and jumped to Cutler in midstream.

McDaniels' problem, especially if the Broncos don't make the playoffs, is that he doesn't have the time to wait out a rookie QB's growing pains. If Orton is gonna be a C+ QB whose limitations are well-covered by the system (which is what he should be) then Josh is going to have to ride that horse til it can't be ridden any longer, IMO. I could see him drafting somebody like Tony Pike in the draft, perhaps, but no Colt McCoy. Not unless Colt drops something fierce in the draft. Josh is on the clock, and picking Orton as his QB for Jay alienated a decent percentage of Broncos fans. He can't now go back and say, "Whoops, wrong guy" and then get the time to make a Colt McCoy work. He's got 2 more years to get this right, and a tank year in his 2nd or 3rd year (6-10, etc) would be a far worse blow than having had one this year.

At least, that's how I see it. I'm with Chaz - Orton will not win you games, but he's not the main problem. We still need to fix the middle of the OL, to figure out the Marshall situation (because Orton with no weapons = disaster), there's plenty of work left on the D, etc. Orton was the call that McDaniels made in his first month on the job, and I still believe it's the player personnel call that will define his career here.

The coaching call is Nolan. His defense has been nothing short of amazing for taking that rag-tag fugitive fleet he's working with and making a defense that performs better than Offensive Genius McDaniels' far higher-powered offense.

We'll see if McDaniels can suck up his pride (or continue to believe he's a miracle worker) and funnel the talent into the defense. I see us trying to go the Ravens route. Nolan ran that D once Marvin Lewis left and he ran it well. No sense drafting a Kyle Boller if you've already got your young-ish Trent Dilfer to play QB. Fix the middle of the OL, pound the rock, run the safe Spread O, and let your defense kill people. Which turns McDaniels in Billick, an offensive guru running a pretty average-to-poor offense and letting his D destroy people for him.

Or somebody tell Jake Locker to get in the draft and suck at the combine so we can take him.

Either way, I'd get used to Orton at QB unless he wants the moon in a contract. This is the corner Josh chose to paint himself into, so now we'll need to look at other positions for near-future improvement.

~G

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 10:15 AM
What I'll add to G's comment is I think it's being proven that we are to a certain degree better off with Orton than with Cutler. Sure...Cutler would make some bigger plays, but the mistakes that go with those plays...especially in this offense (and apparently any other) would hinder the progress as a team. I take the guy that manages the game over the guy that gets coaches fired any day of the week.

That being said...we will never win a Super Bowl with Orton at QB unless we have a #1 defense. So if Orton is the guy we have to live with for awhile, then we need to continue to improve the 2 lines. I think that's where we look in the off-season and I expect great things from this team in the near future

SOCALORADO.
12-21-2009, 10:24 AM
The question is whether Orton is maxed out, and if he is, if we can win big with the maxed-out Orton. Shanahan had the same question with Plummer, came to the conclusion that yes, Plummer WAS maxed out, and jumped to Cutler in midstream.

McDaniels' problem, especially if the Broncos don't make the playoffs, is that he doesn't have the time to wait out a rookie QB's growing pains. If Orton is gonna be a C+ QB whose limitations are well-covered by the system (which is what he should be) then Josh is going to have to ride that horse til it can't be ridden any longer, IMO. I could see him drafting somebody like Tony Pike in the draft, perhaps, but no Colt McCoy. Not unless Colt drops something fierce in the draft. Josh is on the clock, and picking Orton as his QB for Jay alienated a decent percentage of Broncos fans. He can't now go back and say, "Whoops, wrong guy" and then get the time to make a Colt McCoy work. He's got 2 more years to get this right, and a tank year in his 2nd or 3rd year (6-10, etc) would be a far worse blow than having had one this year.

At least, that's how I see it. I'm with Chaz - Orton will not win you games, but he's not the main problem. We still need to fix the middle of the OL, to figure out the Marshall situation (because Orton with no weapons = disaster), there's plenty of work left on the D, etc. Orton was the call that McDaniels made in his first month on the job, and I still believe it's the player personnel call that will define his career here.

The coaching call is Nolan. His defense has been nothing short of amazing for taking that rag-tag fugitive fleet he's working with and making a defense that performs better than Offensive Genius McDaniels' far higher-powered offense.

We'll see if McDaniels can suck up his pride (or continue to believe he's a miracle worker) and funnel the talent into the defense. I see us trying to go the Ravens route. Nolan ran that D once Marvin Lewis left and he ran it well. No sense drafting a Kyle Boller if you've already got your young-ish Trent Dilfer to play QB. Fix the middle of the OL, pound the rock, run the safe Spread O, and let your defense kill people. Which turns McDaniels in Billick, an offensive guru running a pretty average-to-poor offense and letting his D destroy people for him.

Or somebody tell Jake Locker to get in the draft and suck at the combine so we can take him.

Either way, I'd get used to Orton at QB unless he wants the moon in a contract. This is the corner Josh chose to paint himself into, so now we'll need to look at other positions for near-future improvement.

~G

I dont think anyone ever thought that Orton was the guy. Or MCDs guy.
I think everyone is of the understanding that Orton is in DEN because DEN had a cry-baby at Qb, who thought his poop dont stink, and he pouted his way outta town. But it was also because the FO and the new coach realized that Pickler was also not the answer anyways, so they made the best pick with what was available and DEN now has Orton.
Doesnt mean he cant stay as a back up, or that MCD has to try to ride him and make him a "sussessful" QB, whatever that means to DEN fans.
DEN fans know that Orton is a career back up and MCD is working miracles with him at that position. And thats great, but as a long term answer he can only do so much.
Wouldnt suprise me in the least to see Sam Bradford as a Bronco. I am not sayin i want Bradford. It just wouldnt suprise me at all.

G_Money
12-21-2009, 10:36 AM
There are some DTs in this draft I would love to have. I could see us dropping the Bears' pick on Cody - with Suh killin it and Gerald McCoy still being pretty monstrous, Cody would/should be available. He would immediately upgrade our size.

I think we're in line for a non-sexy draft of lines as well. We need it. My problem is that I'm not sure what McDaniels thinks is a good offensive lineman, and whether he can find the interior OL we need in this draft.

I don't think Kris O'Dowd is coming out (he'll want a full healthy season to maximize his income) so the centers this year look pretty slim to me. If Pouncey doesn't come out either then we'd be looking at a bunch of guys not really any better as prospects than Lichtensteiger, who we cut already.

Since our problem is a lack of heft and strength, going with a guy who is "too small, needs to bulk up" as most of the other options will be doesn't work well.

I don't expect great things in the near future, but I'm certainly hoping Josh can find the offensive linemen he needs to run the offense he wants.

If he fails, I want it to be with all the things he needed or wanted in place. Because that's also the only way he's gonna succeed. Go get the trench-work done and then see how we look.

~G

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 10:45 AM
There are some DTs in this draft I would love to have. I could see us dropping the Bears' pick on Cody - with Suh killin it and Gerald McCoy still being pretty monstrous, Cody would/should be available. He would immediately upgrade our size.

I think we're in line for a non-sexy draft of lines as well. We need it. My problem is that I'm not sure what McDaniels thinks is a good offensive lineman, and whether he can find the interior OL we need in this draft.

I don't think Kris O'Dowd is coming out (he'll want a full healthy season to maximize his income) so the centers this year look pretty slim to me. If Pouncey doesn't come out either then we'd be looking at a bunch of guys not really any better as prospects than Lichtensteiger, who we cut already.

Since our problem is a lack of heft and strength, going with a guy who is "too small, needs to bulk up" as most of the other options will be doesn't work well.

I don't expect great things in the near future, but I'm certainly hoping Josh can find the offensive linemen he needs to run the offense he wants.

If he fails, I want it to be with all the things he needed or wanted in place. Because that's also the only way he's gonna succeed. Go get the trench-work done and then see how we look.

~G

Matt Tennant and Eric Olsen are the best available if O'Dowd stays. I'd be happy with either one.

But I agree. The main focus in Draft and FA has to be the lines.

SOCALORADO.
12-21-2009, 10:58 AM
Matt Tennant and Eric Olsen are the best available if O'Dowd stays. I'd be happy with either one.

But I agree. The main focus in Draft and FA has to be the lines.

What about the PENN ST guy? Weisnewski? Is he staying?

topscribe
12-21-2009, 11:05 AM
You make some great points as always King but at the same time if Carson was playing in Denver i know our offense would not be anemic like it is.

To the contrary, my friend, I believe it would. A quarterback--any quarterback--
is at the mercy of the line in front of him. So are the RBs. I agree with what
Coach has been saying, that the problem is execution, primarily in the lines.

-----

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 11:06 AM
What about the PENN ST guy? Weisnewski? Is he staying?

I hadnt even heard he was considering entering.

topscribe
12-21-2009, 11:10 AM
What I'll add to G's comment is I think it's being proven that we are to a certain degree better off with Orton than with Cutler. Sure...Cutler would make some bigger plays, but the mistakes that go with those plays...especially in this offense (and apparently any other) would hinder the progress as a team. I take the guy that manages the game over the guy that gets coaches fired any day of the week.

That being said...we will never win a Super Bowl with Orton at QB unless we have a #1 defense. So if Orton is the guy we have to live with for awhile, then we need to continue to improve the 2 lines. I think that's where we look in the off-season and I expect great things from this team in the near future

The Broncos will never win a Super Bowl with anybody unless they have a
strong defense. And the lines do need improvement. That has got to be the
number one priority in the offseason . . .

-----

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 11:13 AM
I will say it right here and now. McD has made it clear that the execution of the lines has been the #1 problem. We can see that too. But if he chooses to ignore that problem and doesnt sign/draft improvements (assuming the value is there), he will lose my support as well.

Northman
12-21-2009, 11:48 AM
One of the nuances about the spread offense is it doesnt require the QB to make alot of reads. It's very regimented in it's routes and the QB simply checks down. Basically...a robot could play QB in it. That's my assessment of Orton. He's a robot doing what the program says to do. That takes away the creative element and the "play-maker" element. That being said...he's the perfect prototype for this type of offense (assuming the rest of the team execute), but he's never going to roll out or evade a sack and make something out of nothing. That's what we're lacking from the QB position

Bingo, hit the nail on the head.

Buff
12-21-2009, 12:29 PM
Kyle Orton has the athleticism of an 8 year old school girl.

I've never seen someone who is so completely crippled by the pass rush. If you give him time to throw from the pocket, the guy is all you can ask for in an NFL QB. The second he gets even the slightest hint of a pass rush, he goes in the tank.

Screw working on mechanics in the offseason. He ought to be jumping rope, running sprints and doing yoga or something to work on his balance and mobility. He is a statue back there and it's crippling the offense's capabilities.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 12:37 PM
Kyle Orton has the athleticism of an 8 year old school girl.

I've never seen someone who is so completely crippled by the pass rush. If you give him time to throw from the pocket, the guy is all you can ask for in an NFL QB. The second he gets even the slightest hint of a pass rush, he goes in the tank.

Screw working on mechanics in the offseason. He ought to be jumping rope, running sprints and doing yoga or something to work on his balance and mobility. He is a statue back there and it's crippling the offense's capabilities.

EVERY QB in the NFL can throw the ball. ANY QB can be 'everything you ask for' if he has time to sit in a pocket.

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 12:41 PM
EVERY QB in the NFL can throw the ball. ANY QB can be 'everything you ask for' if he has time to sit in a pocket.

...and again we come back to the play of the OL.

Buff
12-21-2009, 12:43 PM
EVERY QB in the NFL can throw the ball. ANY QB can be 'everything you ask for' if he has time to sit in a pocket.

That's not entirely true. Jay Cutler threw how many INTs vs. how many sacks last year? Not to make this a Jay vs. Kyle debate, because that is played out, but I think Kyle is actually an above average QB in many areas... But watching him try to sidestep the passrush or scramble is painful to watch--it's like night and day. Jekkyl and Hyde.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 12:48 PM
That's not entirely true. Jay Cutler threw how many INTs vs. how many sacks last year? Not to make this a Jay vs. Kyle debate, because that is played out, but I think Kyle is actually an above average QB in many areas... But watching him try to sidestep the passrush or scramble is painful to watch--it's like night and day. Jekkyl and Hyde.

Our OL wasn't as bad last year WITH Cutler. Orton does NOT help his OL out, and thus its a HUGE result. Cutler MADE our OL better... because he's able to sidestep, step up, and move. He put the ball down field. Kyle is above average in not taking a chance. I'm not really sure thats what I want in a QB.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 12:49 PM
...and again we come back to the play of the OL.

Thats an easy excuse. Didn't seem to be a problem last year. Strange how we went from having the best OL in the entire NFL to having a TERRIBLE one in a single season. In 2008's offseason, NO ONE was talking about needing to rebuild the OL.. now.. its yet ANOTHER weakness this team has.

Buff
12-21-2009, 12:52 PM
Our OL wasn't as bad last year WITH Cutler. Orton does NOT help his OL out, and thus its a HUGE result. Cutler MADE our OL better... because he's able to sidestep, step up, and move. He put the ball down field. Kyle is above average in not taking a chance. I'm not really sure thats what I want in a QB.

No argument there.

Now we just need to find a happy medium between the guy who never took sacks and always threw INTs and the guy who never throws INTs and always takes sacks. :frusty:

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Thats an easy excuse. Didn't seem to be a problem last year. Strange how we went from having the best OL in the entire NFL to having a TERRIBLE one in a single season. In 2008's offseason, NO ONE was talking about needing to rebuild the OL.. now.. its yet ANOTHER weakness this team has.

If you watch the games, you'll see there is a reason why it's an easy excuse...because it's true. There is no doubt we have talent on the line, but there are areas where we are weak. Polumbus sucks at RT, Hamilton and Hochstein are bad at LG and Wiegmann seems to have quit since getting his contract. If 3 of 5 spots on the line are failing...it has little to do with the scheme or the players.

but beyond that, the strengths have been weaker too. How many sacks has Clady given up this year? 8 or so? Harris has been hurt and Kuper looks lost at times. Hard to blame pass protection on the lack of a ZBS.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 01:01 PM
If you watch the games, you'll see there is a reason why it's an easy excuse...because it's true. There is no doubt we have talent on the line, but there are areas where we are weak. Polumbus sucks at RT, Hamilton and Hochstein are bad at LG and Wiegmann seems to have quit since getting his contract. If 3 of 5 spots on the line are failing...it has little to do with the scheme or the players.

but beyond that, the strengths have been weaker too. How many sacks has Clady given up this year? 8 or so? Harris has been hurt and Kuper looks lost at times. Hard to blame pass protection on the lack of a ZBS.

But we knew that the OL wasn't going to have THAT kind of phenomenal repeat performance. But falling off the cliff is something different. Injuries? Maybe. Scheme? maybe. Combination of everything, absolutely.

But I find it troubling that such a strength has turned to such a weakness in such a short time... and now its just one more thing that we have to try and "rebuild" when it was working fantastically.

CoachChaz
12-21-2009, 01:20 PM
But we knew that the OL wasn't going to have THAT kind of phenomenal repeat performance. But falling off the cliff is something different. Injuries? Maybe. Scheme? maybe. Combination of everything, absolutely.

But I find it troubling that such a strength has turned to such a weakness in such a short time... and now its just one more thing that we have to try and "rebuild" when it was working fantastically.

I dont think it has to be rebuilt. It just needs holes filled. Clady, Kuper, a healthy Harris and a solid LG and C and we're fine.

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 01:30 PM
I dont think it has to be rebuilt. It just needs holes filled. Clady, Kuper, a healthy Harris and a solid LG and C and we're fine.

well..40% of anything isn't a small percentage that needs to be changed. But I agree.

dogfish
12-21-2009, 01:35 PM
But we knew that the OL wasn't going to have THAT kind of phenomenal repeat performance. But falling off the cliff is something different. Injuries? Maybe. Scheme? maybe. Combination of everything, absolutely.

But I find it troubling that such a strength has turned to such a weakness in such a short time... and now its just one more thing that we have to try and "rebuild" when it was working fantastically.

it was going to happen anyway. . . the writing's been on the wall for hamilton for the last two years-- quite frankly he was pretty bad last year, and IMO the combination of strong play to either side of him plus a mobile QB was the only thing that kept him from getting entirely exposed. . . and weigmann is just old-- we were lucky to get as strong a season as we did from him last year, and this year that luck ran out. . . and harris was considered an injury risk due to his back before he was even drafted, so losing him isn't shocking. . .

it's just unfortunate that all three of those came at once. . . and the fact that we weren't prepared for it has to at least partially go back to shenanigans and sundquist, because they mostly ignored the line for years. . . of course the present FO does have to take some of the blame for the lack of depth there, but you can only flip so much of a relatively weak roster in one offseason, especially when you need to find half a dozen starters on defense if you want to even be competitive. . .

but it's not as bad as it looks right now, IF we retain kuper. . . interior O-line is traditionally a position where rookies can contribute right away, and can generally be filled with competent players in the middle rounds of the draft. . . also, we still need to see if we have something with olsen-- if he proves capable of handling a starting OG spot, all we need to do is draft a center and pick up a serviceable backup OT in free agency, and we should be in fine shape. . .

of course, it really WOULD help to have a QB who can move around a bit and make it easy on the line, but i'm not so sure that's happening. . . i think orton could help some if he was a bit more decisive. . . to me he looks a little gun shy. . . the guy's been told to throw it away, don't make mistakes his whole pro career, and i think that as a result he's somewhat reluctant to throw it with anticipation as opposed to waiting for guys to uncover, and that split second of hesitation can make all the difference. . . playing conservative is all well and good, but you have to know when to let it rip, and not be afraid to do it. . .

as for the rest of this year, i'm afraid our best option is to assign dan graham as polumbus' fulltime babysitter, because the guy shits the bed whenever the training wheels come off. . . :tsk:

Buff
12-21-2009, 01:48 PM
Graham will just false start or hold. But yeah, at least he can block...

weazel
12-21-2009, 02:29 PM
I think I'm going to have a ham sandwich for lunch

Ravage!!!
12-21-2009, 03:45 PM
How did they ignore the problem for 'years' when we just drafted Harris and Clady, both of whom is starting? When is some of the 'depth' issues going to be blamed on the guy putting the personnel together THIS season? Depth couldn't be found in FA or draft? We were too concerned with getting blocking TEs and long snappers? There wasn't any back-up NE OL entering FA?

claymore
12-21-2009, 03:47 PM
How did they ignore the problem for 'years' when we just drafted Harris and Clady, both of whom is starting? When is some of the 'depth' issues going to be blamed on the guy putting the personnel together THIS season? Depth couldn't be found in FA or draft? We were too concerned with getting blocking TEs and long snappers? There wasn't any back-up NE OL entering FA?
We did address or short CB situation though. In all fairness.

Lonestar
12-21-2009, 03:52 PM
it was going to happen anyway. . . the writing's been on the wall for hamilton for the last two years-- quite frankly he was pretty bad last year, and IMO the combination of strong play to either side of him plus a mobile QB was the only thing that kept him from getting entirely exposed. . . and weigmann is just old-- we were lucky to get as strong a season as we did from him last year, and this year that luck ran out. . . and harris was considered an injury risk due to his back before he was even drafted, so losing him isn't shocking. . .

it's just unfortunate that all three of those came at once. . . and the fact that we weren't prepared for it has to at least partially go back to shenanigans and sundquist, because they mostly ignored the line for years. . . of course the present FO does have to take some of the blame for the lack of depth there, but you can only flip so much of a relatively weak roster in one offseason, especially when you need to find half a dozen starters on defense if you want to even be competitive. . .

but it's not as bad as it looks right now, IF we retain kuper. . . interior O-line is traditionally a position where rookies can contribute right away, and can generally be filled with competent players in the middle rounds of the draft. . . also, we still need to see if we have something with olsen-- if he proves capable of handling a starting OG spot, all we need to do is draft a center and pick up a serviceable backup OT in free agency, and we should be in fine shape. . .

of course, it really WOULD help to have a QB who can move around a bit and make it easy on the line, but i'm not so sure that's happening. . . i think orton could help some if he was a bit more decisive. . . to me he looks a little gun shy. . . the guy's been told to throw it away, don't make mistakes his whole pro career, and i think that as a result he's somewhat reluctant to throw it with anticipation as opposed to waiting for guys to uncover, and that split second of hesitation can make all the difference. . . playing conservative is all well and good, but you have to know when to let it rip, and not be afraid to do it. . .

as for the rest of this year, i'm afraid our best option is to assign dan graham as polumbus' fulltime babysitter, because the guy shits the bed whenever the training wheels come off. . . :tsk:


hamilton has been blocking on roller skates for years.. that I have stated for a long time.. great in ZBS but to light in the shorts to take on NT and big DTs one on one.. having Clady there and Nails and then Casey covered his ass using the ZBS but this year he went into the toilet when the DC figured out he was the weak link..

yo can only fool some of the folks some of the time..

replacing him was the answer but now we have a issue with cohesiveness the center is not sure what Hock is doing and the same applies to Ryan it causes indecision of their parts also..

If you look at all the great OLINES, KC is a good example they for almost a decade had all the same players on the that line and they were the best because everyone trusted and knew what the guys next to them were going to do. the same thing applied here for years but then they all got old or in this case we started replacing them with bigger stronger OLINE this year.. now their is a trust/knowledge issue between them..

I used to play RG and after a couple of years with the same guy left and right of me we knew what the guy next to us were going to do in any situation.. it was automatic for all of us.. but when a new guy came in there was hesitation and that hurt our effectiveness..

this will take time to build the cohesiveness again..


not sure about Harris as a long term guy hopefully the injury stuff is not going to be an issue down the line..

From what I have heard Kuper is a big mean nasty SOB that we need as a OG, Clady well he is pretty damned good for a sophomore those three can be a solid starting point and as you said rookies can come in and compete for starting positions on this OLINE.. Center is a bit harder to do but it is a workable thing.. we will still suffer a bit next year but we need the BEEF up there to play pocket passing offense..

Poet
12-21-2009, 03:56 PM
Didn't you guys also go from having an awful situation at safety to being fairly strong there?

McDaniels offensive play calling probably does suck. I think some of the struggles that are being put on him aren't his fault. Going into the season I thought Denver had the best overall offensive line in football. Yeah, he changed the scheme, but I watched the Denver Pittsburgh and Baltimore game, it didn't matter what scheme you guys ran, your boys were just getting beat.

The results of McDaniel's coaching is a mixed bag, but he worked his magic to get you to this point, you weren't supposed to be here. If he gets you to the playoffs you honestly can't be upset with him at all.

claymore
12-21-2009, 03:58 PM
Didn't you guys also go from having an awful situation at safety to being fairly strong there?

McDaniels offensive play calling probably does suck. I think some of the struggles that are being put on him aren't his fault. Going into the season I thought Denver had the best overall offensive line in football. Yeah, he changed the scheme, but I watched the Denver Pittsburgh and Baltimore game, it didn't matter what scheme you guys ran, your boys were just getting beat.

The results of McDaniel's coaching is a mixed bag, but he worked his magic to get you to this point, you weren't supposed to be here. If he gets you to the playoffs you honestly can't be upset with him at all.

Unless we see Hillis at QB, then we know he was sandbagging this whole time.

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:11 PM
Unless we see Hillis at QB, then we know he was sandbagging this whole time.

I suspect that McDaniels will put Clady in as your QB.

Domination, Clay, Domination.

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:19 PM
I suspect that McDaniels will put Clady in as your QB.

Domination, Clay, Domination.

He is our new WR.... We will trade Royal and Marshall for another short CB..... and dominate with a NEW system. A dumb FB QB., and an WR with the best feet in the NFL.

Lonestar
12-21-2009, 04:19 PM
I suspect that McDaniels will put Clady in as your QB.

Domination, Clay, Domination.


he still will not be the biggest Qb in the AFCW:laugh::laugh:

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:20 PM
he still will not be the biggest Qb in the AFCW:laugh::laugh:

Touche!

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:21 PM
he still will not be the biggest Qb in the AFCW:laugh::laugh:

Russell......oh lord....Russell.

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:22 PM
He is our new WR.... We will trade Royal and Marshall for another short CB..... and dominate with a NEW system. A dumb FB QB., and an WR with the best feet in the NFL.

No way. You'll trade Royal and Marshall for a...

Wait, I forgot that you and I are still feuding.

Nevermind. :mad::mad:

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:28 PM
No way. You'll trade Royal and Marshall for a...

Wait, I forgot that you and I are still feuding.

Nevermind. :mad::mad:

Why are we feuding?>

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Claymore, you either need to decide to be a troll or not a troll. I don't care which you choose, but you're sending me mixed signals and I'm tired of trying to figure out what you want.

Think of the children.

Now, onto more pressing matters; Orton is a keeper for the right price. There are guys who have more ability than Orton does who would probably fail in Denver, and vice versa. Someone may end up paying him big bucks, and he isn't worth a huge contract unless it's short term and heavily incentive laden.

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Claymore, you either need to decide to be a troll or not a troll. I don't care which you choose, but you're sending me mixed signals and I'm tired of trying to figure out what you want.

Think of the children.

Now, onto more pressing matters; Orton is a keeper for the right price. There are guys who have more ability than Orton does who would probably fail in Denver, and vice versa. Someone may end up paying him big bucks, and he isn't worth a huge contract unless it's short term and heavily incentive laden.

I think Im over my troll stuff. This has been the worst football year of my life. Ive learned to not really care to much about it.

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:35 PM
I think Im over my troll stuff. This has been the worst football year of my life. Ive learned to not really care to much about it.

You're now on probation.

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:38 PM
You're now on probation.

I need an ankle device.

Gamechanger
12-21-2009, 04:41 PM
i'm still trying to figure out how you let JaMarcus Russell matriculate down the field for a score

Poet
12-21-2009, 04:42 PM
I need an ankle device.

And a beer.

Claymore, I'm going to start a thread for us.

Back on topic.

Orton is comeback player of the year.

claymore
12-21-2009, 04:42 PM
i'm still trying to figure out how you let JaMarcus Russell matriculate down the field for a score

Thats a great ten dollar word for a ten dollar question.

Gamechanger
12-21-2009, 04:44 PM
Thats a great ten dollar word for a ten dollar question.

I learned it in english class :werd:

Buff
12-21-2009, 04:47 PM
i'm still trying to figure out how you let JaMarcus Russell matriculate down the field for a score

Oh really? Well I'm still trying to figure out why you don't S_TFU and ****!

Colts fans... psshhh :tsk:

Gamechanger
12-21-2009, 04:50 PM
Oh really? Well I'm still trying to figure out why you don't S_TFU and ****!

Colts fans... psshhh :tsk:

just to let you guys know, I lost $20 in my pool picking your team :mad:

dogfish
12-21-2009, 07:09 PM
How did they ignore the problem for 'years' when we just drafted Harris and Clady, both of whom is starting? When is some of the 'depth' issues going to be blamed on the guy putting the personnel together THIS season? Depth couldn't be found in FA or draft? We were too concerned with getting blocking TEs and long snappers? There wasn't any back-up NE OL entering FA?

how did i KNOW you were gonna take that approach?

:laugh:

when i typed that post, i considered whether i needed to distinguish that the line was, as i said, MOSTLY ignored for years until they drafted harris and clady-- which, quite obviously, does nothing to address the interior of the line, where kupes in the 5th round was the only quality interior OL shenanigans and co. added in what, the better part of the last decade? dating back to whenever we drafted hamilton, pretty much?

and the present regime DID do what they could to address OL depth-- they picked a solid OG prospect in the 4th, and went back for a developmental center with our last pick. . . oh, and there was a new england interior OL available, and he's currently starting at left guard for us. . .

i'm not going to get backed into defending the quinn pick or the paxton signing when i questioned them myself, but with chef being on his way out most likely, there was probably as much need for depth there as there was at center, where weigmann just came off a pro bowl year, and we had just drafted a highly-regarded center prospect in the 4th the previous year. . . i can't tell you why lichtensteiger didn't make the cut after camp, nor can i tell you why we haven't seen olsen yet other than assuming that JMFMCD doesn't want to throw a rookie starter out there while we're trying to lock up a playoff spot. . .

bottom line, there were only so many picks and so many free agent dollars to go around, and i guess rebuilding a historically bad defense looked like a more immediate priority than spending more than a 4th and a 7th to "shore up" one of the league's best offensive lines. . . i'm sorry, but IMO blaming a regime in its first year for depth issues is just ridiculous, especially when they inherited one of the most disastrous excuses for a defense i've ever seen-- you can only change so much of the roster in one offseason! okay, sure, you can go back with the benefit of hindsight and nitpick every decision, but they didn't have a crystal ball when they were drafting-- no way of knowing that harris would get hurt, or that weigs would fall off so badly. . . nor did they have anywhere near enough film to make a decision on lichtensteiger-- if they spent a pick on a backup center instead of alphonso smith and then goodman tore an ACL, people would have been bitching about why we didn't have more depth at corner, and why the hell did we draft an interior OL with no proven options behind champ and andre? all they can do is work with the information at hand and try to make the best decisions possible. . . nobody hits a hundred percent of the time, and typically it's only the truly established top franchises (indy, new england, philly and pitt, for the most part) that don't struggle with depth issues at some position, at some point in the season. . . we're nowhere close to that level, and bill frickin' walsh couldn't have gotten us there in one offseason. . .

DenBronx
10-14-2011, 12:20 AM
I think Brand is closer to the truth than the rest.

Josh brought him in becuase he was the BPA in those trade teams out there.

He is invested in him and KO has done what is expected of him.

No running game means play action does not scare anyone.

Piss poor OLine protection does not help a drop back pocket passer to instill fear either.

Until the OLINE is upgraded for a drop back passer it matters not who is playing QB.

And Y'all seem to forget that Brady once said it takes 3 years to fully understand the scheme.

Why would josh think about taking another 2-3 years with a rookie "getting it ".

Unless KO is offered huge money elsewhere I expect him to be our QB next year as IMO he has picked up on the scheme quite well.
Others inculding OLINE have not.
Start where the obvious weakspot are and fix them first. OLG and Center.

Then and only then will the running game take some heat off the passing game.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.



Yeah I know....that's what I've been sayin all along. He gives us the best chance to win!!!

DenBronx
10-14-2011, 12:21 AM
I agree having a stud QB is great but it does not always lead to consistent wins..

If we add about 15 pounds of muscle on the OLINE across the board that will make a hell of a difference in the running game as well as pass protection..

it is hard to make a pass when you do not have the time and the DT/NT are collapsing the middle of the pocket..

KO has lead this team and has made some great drives to win the games or put them away..

to those that say he does not scare anyone deep, might be because he has not been called to do that when the plays are called on the sidelines..

you all forget this scheme does not call for deep passing but controlled passes to open men, that have the ability to break plays after the catch..

fix the LOS on both side and we will win alot more games next year nad beyond..

I knowwwwww......duh!!!

DenBronx
10-14-2011, 12:22 AM
The "does not scare anyone deep" declaration is the figment of the imagination
of certain people. It is also laughable, especially when it came out of both
McDaniels' and Orton's mouths that Baltimore and Pittsburgh were playing their
safeties deep at times. If they weren't worried about anything deep, what the
hell were they doing all the way back there?

Orton has already passed deep this year. On the money.

It's time to put that myth to rest . . .

-----

Dayyyyummm I know!!!! Hez so money!!!!1111 one !!!!

TXBRONC
10-14-2011, 09:49 AM
Good grief Den this thread is nearly two years old.


Talk about being a little late to the party. :lol:

BroncoStud
10-14-2011, 10:10 AM
Forgotten about this but that was a damn good and prophetic article by Kreiger.

I Eat Staples
10-14-2011, 08:23 PM
What's up with the bumping of old threads lately?

Juriga72
10-15-2011, 08:44 AM
What's up with the bumping of old threads lately.

Its funny how close to the truth they are. Everyone shouted down the talk of Orton being a "below average starting QB" because he "won" in Chicago.

he "Won" in Chicago, because they had a great defense, Running game, oh... and they almost led the NFL in punts with "Kyle as our quarterback"

Hmmmmm "Kyle Orton qb = Punting leader".....

Ravage!!!
10-15-2011, 09:50 AM
It is amusing that most of the gurus here say that Oron is not the "Long term answer" in Denver. I don't think most of those gurus even knwo what the fricking questionswas to which he is not the "long term answer".

Asking as a more mature fellow, what is wrong with "steady and persistent"? Maybe even slow and steady. "Flash in the pan" QBs do not seem to always work out, do they now? How many hopes have been dashed by the Media-inspired-and-desigated "Can't miss QB"? You know, the "francise QB", whatever that is.....

Just what do people expect will comprise the elements of a "Long term answer"? Do you know the quesiton?


Orton has fit in well. What I think most people donot uderstnad is that the O style being pursued is not one that relies on a "super QB". And I think McD's O can win even a SB without a "long Term answer" QB.

The Broncos need to re-sign Orton. Brandy will need to study another three years.....


The only two to agree? Wiz and top!! :lol:

Northman
10-15-2011, 09:54 AM
The only two to agree? Wiz and top!! :lol:

And thats not saying much.

chazoe60
10-15-2011, 09:57 AM
Orton isn't even a winner. Winners don't shit themselves in crunch time.

chazoe60
10-15-2011, 10:09 AM
The funny thing is that the title of the thread may be more appropriate if we change Orton to Tebow.

We know Tebow's a winner, I know his record in the NFL is below 500 but there's really no denying that there is something special about the kid. But, is he a keeper at QB for the Denver Broncos? Who knows. At least we finally get to find out.

Ravage!!!
10-15-2011, 10:11 AM
The funny thing is that the title of the thread may be more appropriate if we change Orton to Tebow.

We know Tebow's a winner, I know his record in the NFL is below 500 but there's really no denying that there is something special about the kid. But, is he a keeper at QB for the Denver Broncos? Who knows. At least we finally get to find out.

We don't know know that Tebow is a winner. Not yet. He hasn't won at the professional level, and all these guys were winners in college.

chazoe60
10-15-2011, 10:15 AM
We don't know know that Tebow is a winner. Not yet. He hasn't won at the professional level, and all these guys were winners in college.

I meant in more of a cheesy general way of speaking. Tebow is a special person who I don't think you can call a loser. It goes beyond football, was kind of the point I was trying to make.

Also, even the games we've lost with him at the helm, other than the Raiders game, he has come in and played his best football at crunch time. Winners do their best work under pressure, IMO.