Plummer not worried...

[listopencil]

...didn't see this posted:



http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9614855/rss



Broncos: Five things to know

ENGLEWOOD, Col. -- There's Jake Plummer. There's Jay Cutler. But where's the quarterback controversy in Denver?

There isn't one. At least not now there isn't.

[ludo21]

jake is a stud.

[Sassy]

"Fans always like change; I understand that," Plummer said. "It's almost like having an old girlfriend. You always think the pasture may be greener on the other side. But until Jay is ready they're going to have to deal with me."

;D

[Archie]

Jake is a stud and he's playing awesome this year. After watching him against Tenn, I'm psyched...

[Malcontent]

Thanks Listo! Good read. Jake will be just fine this season. IMO he will be top 10 at least. Bootleg!!!:D

[WaffleBoy]

...didn't see this posted:



http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9614855/rss



Broncos: Five things to know

ENGLEWOOD, Col. -- There's Jake Plummer. There's Jay Cutler. But where's the quarterback controversy in Denver?

There isn't one. At least not now there isn't.

Same thing Maddox said.

The Boy Wonder :super:

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Why should he be worried? He'll be getting a fat new contract from another team next year.

[Kaylore]

This article paints things a little prettier than they probably really are...

[TheChamp247]

I'm not worried about jake, should have a pretty good year this year regardless

[Lidderer]

This article paints things a little prettier than they probably really are...


He's right, the truth of the matter is that a guy who is 'batting' a 130+ qb rating as a starter against 1st strings in the preseason is probably in a whole world of trouble from bronco nation(by which I mean Jocko Tahn and Co.).

[Taco John]

One thing that I've always admired about Jake is his tenacity. It doesn't bother me when he flips off the fans, or lashes out in the media at how Broncos fans aren't so great. The guy holds his ground, and that is something that I can admire.

[Kaylore]

One thing that I've always admired about Jake is his tenacity. It doesn't bother me when he flips off the fans, or lashes out in the media at how Broncos fans aren't so great. The guy holds his ground, and that is something that I can admire. Yes. He definitely plays with fire and isn't someone who'll back down from crap. I love that he's so laid back about stuff too, so he's not some crazed rage machine. The only time I don't like it is when he cops an attitude during press conferences like "whatever, dude." I'll gladly deal with that for a guy that wants to win on game day.

[Lidderer]

Ya know what I hate? You know what just gets my gall? Guys that hate...and I mean absolutely HATE...winning on gameday! I mean what's WITH these guys?

[Taco John]

Ya know what I hate? You know what just gets my gall? Guys that hate...and I mean absolutely HATE...winning on gameday! I mean what's WITH these guys?


There's such a thing as being *too* cynical...

[Lidderer]

There's such a thing as being *too* cynical...


Exactly. Couldn't agree more. My definition of overly cynical starts with someone who believes that pro athletes do NOT care about winning.

[Taco John]

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. My definition of overly cynical starts with someone who believes that pro athletes do NOT care about winning.



Merriam AND Webster are doing their impressions of a pull-shade in their graves.

[Lidderer]

Merriam AND Webster are doing their impressions of a pull-shade in their graves.

a : contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives <those cynical men who say that democracy cannot be honest and efficient -- F. D. Roosevelt> b : based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest <a cynical ploy to cheat customers>

Given the above topics, it would be hard to argue that Merriam and Webster meant anything besides what I suggested w/r/t cynicism.

I can break it down if you'd like:

Kaylore is DISTRUSTFUL of the MOTIVES of pro athletes, which one would figure their main goal would be to win...but nuh-uh, he doesn't think so, ergo my claim

Wanna deal with def. b? Sure, let's.

These athletes who don't want to win are just playing for self-interest! It is not about the team result, rather the only matter of importance is how well the individual performs!

Care to paint a more accurate picture of what Merriam et al. intended?

[Taco John]

Oh my God, I couldn't think of anything more boring than getting into a battle with you over the definition of cynic. How about I go shoot myself in the face and we call it even?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Why should he be worried? He'll be getting a fat new contract from another team next year.

and Denver will be getting a nice draft pick in return

[Lidderer]

Oh my God, I couldn't think of anything more boring than getting into a battle with you over the definition of cynic. How about I go shoot myself in the face and we call it even?

Or how about you stop starting petty arguements you can't back up? I mean that's a start.

If you can't dish out petty junk and stick around, then just leave it alone. It'll save you face, promise.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

and Denver will be getting a nice draft pick in return

I'm not even up on his roster status. There's no way Denver can cut him?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm not even up on his roster status. There's no way Denver can cut him?

Why would Denver cut a player that they can trade?

[Kaylore]

I'm not even up on his roster status. There's no way Denver can cut him?
They could, he has no more guaranteed money so the cap hit wouldn't be bad but why do that when you can trade for draft or player compensation?

[24champ]

The perception at the time was that coach Mike Shanahan, frustrated by the loss in the AFC Championship Game, decided he'd gone as far as he could with Plummer, and that if he were to return to a Super Bowl he'd have to make a change at quarterback.

"It's totally untrue," Shanahan said. "I thought Jay Cutler was the best quarterback in the draft, and to get him with that pick -- the 11th pick -- was something we couldn't pass up. You want as much depth at the quarterback position as you can have."

Basically Shanny said that he drafted Cutler because of Depth and for the future. He still thinks Jake is going to lead us to the promised land.:strong:

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Makes sense.

[listopencil]

I liked this part:


Shanahan has a history in this department. When he was offensive coordinator in San Francisco he had almost too much depth at quarterback. There was Joe Montana, Steve Young and Steve Bono, and there wasn't just a quarterback controversy; there was quarterback turmoil, with Shanahan guiding his passers through the mess until Montana's elbow injury and subsequent trade to Kansas City resolved the problem.


"You know what I learned from that?" Shanahan said. "Don't listen to what anyone says. Just communicate with your guys and be honest with them. Just let them know: 'We're going to let you compete, and it's going to be a healthy competition.'

[Kaylore]

Given the above topics, it would be hard to argue that Merriam and Webster meant anything besides what I suggested w/r/t cynicism.

I can break it down if you'd like:

Kaylore is DISTRUSTFUL of the MOTIVES of pro athletes, which one would figure their main goal would be to win...but nuh-uh, he doesn't think so, ergo my claim

Wanna deal with def. b? Sure, let's.

These athletes who don't want to win are just playing for self-interest! It is not about the team result, rather the only matter of importance is how well the individual performs!

Care to paint a more accurate picture of what Merriam et al. intended?
Yeah, that's what I meant! See, when you say you like that someone plays with fire and tenacity, that immediately means that you are saying other players don't want to win! Great call, Lidderer. You sure summed up my views pretty well!::)

Here's another one: I really enjoy players who are passionate about being successful. That means that I think there are players that don't want to be successful.

Should I keep going for you?

[Lidderer]

Yeah, that's what I meant! See, when you say you like that someone plays with fire and tenacity, that immediately means that you are saying other players don't want to win! Great call, Lidderer. You sure summed up my views pretty well!::)

Here's another one: I really enjoy players who are passionate about being successful. That means that I think there are players that don't want to be successful.

Should I keep going for you?

I like what you do and all, but there's a rah-rah element to certain platitudes(and perhaps we're not even conscious of it a lot of the time) that come out in defense of particular players, namely Jake--a player I'm quite a fan of. It's just that it strikes me as redundant to laud a player for wanting to win("a guy who wants to win on gameday").

And while the intial quip was mostly in jest, taco's follow-up screed led me to frame my opinion more sharply, with no real intent directed at you after the fact.

[Kaylore]

I like what you do and all, but there's a rah-rah element to certain platitudes(and perhaps we're not even conscious of it a lot of the time) that come out in defense of particular players, namely Jake--a player I'm quite a fan of. It's just that it strikes me as redundant to laud a player for wanting to win("a guy who wants to win on gameday").

And while the intial quip was mostly in jest, taco's follow-up screed led me to frame my opinion more sharply, with no real intent directed at you after the fact.


Well since you're the only person here who didn't get what I meant, I don't really feel like explaining it to you but here goes; Would all players like to win? Of course. Do all players play every down like they have to win? Nope. Jake plays with fire and desire. He's passionate about what he does. Some players see what they do as work - work that they enjoy - but it's still work. That's ok, because it technically is work, but it's nice to have players that see and play like it's more than that. Players that put winning games above other things like stats, money and awards. Jake is one of those players.

[Atlas]

One thing that I've always admired about Jake is his tenacity. It doesn't bother me when he flips off the fans, or lashes out in the media at how Broncos fans aren't so great. The guy holds his ground, and that is something that I can admire.


why would that bother you. Most bronco fans are A-holes!!!!

[Taco John]

Well since you're the only person here who didn't get what I meant, I don't really feel like explaining it to you but here goes; Would all players like to win? Of course. Do all players play every down like they have to win? Nope. Jake plays with fire and desire. He's passionate about what he does. Some players see what they do as work - work that they enjoy - but it's still work. That's ok, because it technically is work, but it's nice to have players that see and play like it's more than that. Players that put winning games above other things like stats, money and awards. Jake is one of those players.



Here, you're going to need this...

http://www.safearms.com/g-sa2x.jpg

Your temple is that soft spot between the eyes and the ears.

[epicSocialism4tw]

One thing that I've always admired about Jake is his tenacity. It doesn't bother me when he flips off the fans, or lashes out in the media at how Broncos fans aren't so great. The guy holds his ground, and that is something that I can admire.

Jake's an admirable, principled guy and is successful in his profession. Alot to admire there.

But Taco, I think that it was you that he was giving the bird. I think that he's still got the metaphorical middle finger posed between your eyes.

Maybe that explains your unabashed anti-jake-everything bias?

[Atlas]

Yes. He definitely plays with fire and isn't someone who'll back down from crap. I love that he's so laid back about stuff too, so he's not some crazed rage machine. The only time I don't like it is when he cops an attitude during press conferences like "whatever, dude." I'll gladly deal with that for a guy that wants to win on game day.

You know what Kahn I think with the death of his friend Pat Tillman Jake has found peace within himself. He is rich he is healthy and if he loses his job well........ B.F.D.... Being QB of the Denver Broncos doesn't define what a man is. Being a man is much more than just playing football. Maybe Lelie will learn this lesson.

[Taco John]

But Taco, I think that it was you that he was giving the bird. I think that he's still got the metaphorical middle finger posed between your eyes.

Maybe that explains your unabashed anti-jake-everything bias?

*shrug*

I'll be here long after Jake is gone. If anything that I say gets under the guy's skin, then we're in for some trouble.

[Atlas]

It's just that it strikes me as redundant to laud a player for wanting to win("a guy who wants to win on gameday").
.


Some players want to win more than others. Some players are driven to win. Some players are extrodinary leaders and can command people to follow them.

I'm not talking about Rick Mirer here!!!!

[Lidderer]

Here, you're going to need this...



Your temple is that soft spot between the eyes and the ears.

so which is it exactly that you want to do:

a) run roughshod ignorance
b) cower

I mean you can't choose both all the time.

where's your will to win, taco?

[epicSocialism4tw]

*shrug*

I'll be here long after Jake is gone. If anything that I say gets under the guy's skin, then we're in for some trouble.

Oh, I wasnt saying that it got under his skin.

It's more like something along the lines of "I dont give a crap what you think, you stuck-in-Elway-era jerk. Shut up and sit down." With a little of "Haha, Im a starting NFL QB on a division champion and you talk about me all day. Who is the loser?" thrown in for good measure.

[listopencil]

Well. This thread has taken a decidedly pissy turn. Most unexpected.

[Taco John]

Holy cow! I'm stuck in between an angryllama/Lidderer hate sandwich. I'm either going to get whined to death, or die from boredom!

Where's my God now!?

[Lidderer]

Well since you're the only person here who didn't get what I meant, I don't really feel like explaining it to you but here goes; Would all players like to win? Of course. Do all players play every down like they have to win? Nope. Jake plays with fire and desire. He's passionate about what he does. Some players see what they do as work - work that they enjoy - but it's still work. That's ok, because it technically is work, but it's nice to have players that see and play like it's more than that. Players that put winning games above other things like stats, money and awards. Jake is one of those players.


It's funny how we always hover over psychology. Myers-Briggs, on a base level, and Gilbert's recent work have shown that there is no real correlation b/w external and internal drives, and though that sounds counterintuitive to suggest when dealing with sports, I'm sure we can only look to players like Shaun Alexander, Phil Simms, Joe Montana(etc.) to see how this proves to be mostly true.

I, of course, love watching Jake pump his fist in the air and spill out the ol' yarn in pre-game about 'doing it' and 'for the coach' and whatnot, but the truth of the matter is that he's hard-wired, in a sense, to express his desires in that fashion. Others not so much.

It doesn't seem right to fault a player for his genetic and/or psychological make-up.

Does their outwardness potentially affect their teammates ability to rally around them? That's another question entirely, but one that likely gets closer to what you're speaking of.

[Lidderer]

Holy cow! I'm stuck in between an angryllama/Lidderer hate sandwich. I'm either going to get whined to death, or die from boredom!

Where's my God now!?

Peyton Manning just put up 21 pts on Moses' ass in 15 minutes, and it's all your God's fault.

[Taco John]

so which is it exactly that you want to do:

a) run roughshod ignorance
b) cower

I mean you can't choose both all the time.

where's your will to win, taco?


My quip about being too cynical was in response to your jab at Kaylore. His point, as I understood it, was that there are players who don't demonstrate the will to win, something that Jake doesn't have a problem with.

But enough about us.

How about that Jake Plummer? What a guy! :thumbsup:

[Lidderer]

My quip about being too cynical was in response to your jab at Kaylore. His point, as I understood it, was that there are players who don't demonstrate the will to win, something that Jake doesn't have a problem with.

But enough about us.

How about that Jake Plummer? What a guy! :thumbsup:

I understood your point, and I only intended to, against my greater urge obviously, show how maybe that's a backhanded compliment, or at any rate not a compliment at all.

But yes, Jake Plummer, he's a swell sort.

[epicSocialism4tw]

How about that Jake Plummer? What a guy!


He's no Griese, but he's alright.

[Kaylore]

It's funny how we always hover over psychology. Myers-Briggs, on a base level, and Gilbert's recent work have shown that there is no real correlation b/w external and internal drives, and though that sounds counterintuitive to suggest when dealing with sports, I'm sure we can only look to players like Shaun Alexander, Phil Simms, Joe Montana(etc.) to see how this proves to be mostly true.

I, of course, love watching Jake pump his fist in the air and spill out the ol' yarn in pre-game about 'doing it' and 'for the coach' and whatnot, but the truth of the matter is that he's hard-wired, in a sense, to express his desires in that fashion. Others not so much.

It doesn't seem right to fault a player for his genetic and/or psychological make-up.

Does their outwardness potentially affect their teammates ability to rally around them? That's another question entirely, but one that likely gets closer to what you're speaking of.


http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/digitalvision/dv297/dv297002.jpg

[Lidderer]

http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/digitalvision/dv297/dv297002.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/300000/images/_301411_kevorkian150.jpg

[BroncoMan4ever]

This article paints things a little prettier than they probably really are...

I don't think so. I honestly feel that Jake just doesn't care that much. Statistically even though he gets railed all the time he is 1 of the best QB's in the league. Denver served him up a major deal when he came here and he just got better under the guidance of Shanny and his staff. He knows that next season or the season after he is going to cash in when he leaves Denver. So why would he be worried or upset, he has a solid chance at winning a Super Bowl this year and is basically guaranteed a huge contract when he leaves.
If anything Plummer might be the happiest guy on the team.

[Atlas]

Holy cow! I'm stuck in between an angryllama/Lidderer hate sandwich. I'm either going to get whined to death, or die from boredom!

Where's my God now!?

TJ is involved in a threesome

[Taco John]

I don't think so. I honestly feel that Jake just doesn't care that much. Statistically even though he gets railed all the time he is 1 of the best QB's in the league. Denver served him up a major deal when he came here and he just got better under the guidance of Shanny and his staff. He knows that next season or the season after he is going to cash in when he leaves Denver. So why would he be worried or upset, he has a solid chance at winning a Super Bowl this year and is basically guaranteed a huge contract when he leaves.
If anything Plummer might be the happiest guy on the team.


Well, rumors I've heard say that Plummer wont even work out around Jay. Out of sheer happiness, I'm sure.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well, rumors I've heard say that Plummer wont even work out around Jay. Out of sheer happiness, I'm sure.


The rumors Ive heard say that the Pentagon was attacked by George Bush on 9/11, and that Bush himself wired and packed the twin towers. ;D

[Clockwork Orange]

Well, rumors I've heard say that Plummer wont even work out around Jay. Out of sheer happiness, I'm sure.

Then I guess Cutler is lying when he said that Plummer has helped him out quite a bit in training camp.

I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe, rumors or Jay Cutler.

[Clockwork Orange]

Oh, and Mike Heimerdinger.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/article/0,2777,DRMN_23918_4929175,00.html

Thursday, sharing a field with only the Broncos receivers, Plummer went through some basic footwork with Cutler after the rookie struggled some early in a drill.

"Once Jay did what Jake showed him, it was like, 'Oh, that's it,' and every ball after that was accurate," Heimerdinger said. "(Plummer) shows (Cutler) what's worked for him over the years, he tells him what's given him trouble. Jake's been on the learning curve before; he's been great."

[24champ]

Then I guess Cutler is lying when he said that Plummer has helped him out quite a bit in training camp.

I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe, rumors or Jay Cutler.
Yeah also didnt Plummer WELCOME Jay Cutler to Denver when Jay got drafted?

[worm]

even if the rumors of jake not wanting to work out with jay were true...can we really expect someone to care so much what happens between the lines and then turn around and help out the young stud trying to take your spot.

It will be a sad day when jake stops being the starting qb for the broncos...and it will be a great day when jayc fulfills his potential.

Why the need to be so bipolar?

[DBroncos4life]

Good he shouldn't be, EVER. He is talented he enough to win in the NFL he just needs to learn to say hey I can't make that play.

[DBroncos4life]

Well, rumors I've heard say that Plummer wont even work out around Jay. Out of sheer happiness, I'm sure.
And old Grieseball tripped in the driveway.

[watermock]

Well, rumors I've heard say that Plummer wont even work out around Jay. Out of sheer happiness, I'm sure.

What I READ was that Jake invited Jay over TWICE for BBQ so if he is in a hissy fit...don't let the door hit you in the ass ala Ms. Lilly.

[watermock]

"Once Jay did what Jake showed him, it was like, 'Oh, that's it,' and every ball after that was accurate," Heimerdinger said. "(Plummer) shows (Cutler) what's worked for him over the years, he tells him what's given him trouble. Jake's been on the learning curve before; he's been great."

that seems to slightly contradict your assertion that Jake is standoffish towards Jay, since he's allready had two bbq confirmed and maby a couple more. Your contempt is so obvious stop trying to hide it T.J.

"Once Jay did what Jake showed him, it was like, 'Oh, that's it,' and every ball after that was accurate," Heimerdinger said. "(Plummer) shows (Cutler) what's worked for him over the years, he tells him what's given him trouble. Jake's been on the learning curve before; he's been great."

Yep, it seems like Jake is doing everything he can to impede Jay's progress...WTF are you talking about Taco...this is a quote directly from the OC.

[Taco John]

Then I guess Cutler is lying when he said that Plummer has helped him out quite a bit in training camp.

I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe, rumors or Jay Cutler.



Just relaying something that I've heard... which is that everything is all smiles and slaps on the back in front of the cameras... But behind the scenes things might not be so peachy...

Take it for what it's worth: a wild rumor on an Internet message board.

It only makes sense. Especially if it's true that Cutler desires to be the starter *this* season... which is how the rumor goes. Of course, I heard it prior to the Tennessee game, where Plummer had a very good outing. If he keeps coming out like that, he could pull a Najeh Davenport in Cutler's locker and still keep his job as the starter.

[denver5459]

How would you feel if your boss hired someone to take your job at some point. Especially someone who from all accounts is better and smarter than you. Would you be all hunky dory with that? I am sure Plummer has some resentment but it seems he has handled it great. Other players would throw a fit, hold out, and demand to be traded (Does Lelie ring a bell?)

[Northman]

I read just the part with Wilson's comment and stopped. Thats all i needed to hear.

[Taco John]

How would you feel if your boss hired someone to take your job at some point. Especially someone who from all accounts is better and smarter than you. Would you be all hunky dory with that? I am sure Plummer has some resentment but it seems he has handled it great. Other players would throw a fit, hold out, and demand to be traded (Does Lelie ring a bell?)



Yup. I'd probably harbor resentment about it, but put on a brave face and do my best to come out on top.

[Northman]

Holy cow! I'm stuck in between an angryllama/Lidderer hate sandwich. I'm either going to get whined to death, or die from boredom!

Where's my God now!?


Dont look at me. Ha!

[riiiiick]

all this love/hate aside from the Big 3..that was a great article. i like this,
"Plummer is so confident of where he is and who he is that he never asked to meet with Shanahan after the draft, never spoke to him on the subject and did not demand an explanation. " competition brings out the best in jake.

[obediah]

I dont know how many times i have seen this. The Blue and orange somehow soak into the players skin and most of them accept it and turn into some of the finest and most honorable players in the NFL. Jake has absorbed and accepted the blue and orange, there is no turning back for him now, that is awesome. Great Article! we can only be thankful that the blue and orange could not penatrate the grease from that trippin over a poodle dumba$$, Brian, and be glad he sucked somewhere else.

I just hopes this opens a few more of the Jake hater's eyes. Like he said Cutler will have his chance to shine, he is young and needs some learnin, and will be a great player one day, but not right now...

God i love Bronco football!

Obediah

[Bladerunner]

yeah well I wouldn't want to work out with some mop headed freak that can bench 225 almost 30 times either...

but that doesn't mean he's trying to hold the guy back...by all (until I saw this thread) accounts, Jake and Jay seem to be getting along swimmingly

[Kaylore]

yeah well I wouldn't want to work out with some mop headed freak that can bench 225 almost 30 times either...

but that doesn't mean he's trying to hold the guy back...by all (until I saw this thread) accounts, Jake and Jay seem to be getting along swimmingly
I don't think Jake would try and "hold someone back." How would he do that even if he wanted to?

That said, what makes more sense? Jake and Jay are holding hands sprinkiling dandylions on the grass singing nursery rymes in harmony every practice or Jake and Jay are two men who want the same job and see each other as competition? Jake has his own film to study, throws to practice and general work to do. He doesn't have time to hold Jay's hand through everything. Cutler is puting in enough extra time and work on his own that he doesn't need much help anyway. They aren't causing a distraction but I don't buy that they're just bussom buddies that can't stop hugging each other, either.

[BroncoInferno]

Then I guess Cutler is lying when he said that Plummer has helped him out quite a bit in training camp.

I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe, rumors or Jay Cutler.

Don't expect Taco to be objective about Plummer. Expect him to claim objectivity, and expect the smell of **** when he does.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

The regular season can't get here soon enough. Too many cat fights here while we are waiting to begin the Superbowl quest

[BroncoFiend]

Why should he be worried? He'll be getting a fat new contract from another team next year.

Could even be with the Chiefs if Trent gets killed this year...wouldn't that be funny.

In all seriousness, I think Jake is bummed he won't get to finish his career in Denver, he has had so much more sucess here than in the past, I bet he's not looking forward to starting over again.

[orange 4 life]

I don't think Jake would try and "hold someone back." How would he do that even if he wanted to?

That said, what makes more sense? Jake and Jay are holding hands sprinkiling dandylions on the grass singing nursery rymes in harmony every practice or Jake and Jay are two men who want the same job and see each other as competition? Jake has his own film to study, throws to practice and general work to do. He doesn't have time to hold Jay's hand through everything. Cutler is puting in enough extra time and work on his own that he doesn't need much help anyway. They aren't causing a distraction but I don't buy that they're just bussom buddies that can't stop hugging each other, either.

so plummer, cutler, and their offensive coordinator are all lying?

man, you and taco should join forces and start a conspiracy theory club.

[orange 4 life]

I don't think Jake would try and "hold someone back." How would he do that even if he wanted to?


by not showing him a damn thing.
by not giving him any advice or any help.

....and if you dont think the kid needs it, then youre just as delusional as every other "cutler homer".

[Taco John]

so plummer, cutler, and their offensive coordinator are all lying?

man, you and taco should join forces and start a conspiracy theory club.


I don't know that I'd use the word "lying." This is a business here, and in business there's a thing called "public relations." I think they're all doing their part to put the best public face on this situation as possible. OR ELSE!

[Atlas]

I don't know that I'd use the word "lying." This is a business here, and in business there's a thing called "public relations." I think they're all doing their part to put the best public face on this situation as possible. OR ELSE!

IF this is the case it will only make Cutler study more and work harder.

[12th man]

That was a great article. As a Bronco fan you have to love the situation we are in. We have plummer who is working out great, is coming off his best season, and lookes poised to have an even better season. We can definatley win the sb with this guy and this team.

Then on the other hand, we have Jay Culter who just looks like a stud so far, and when his turn comes to lead this offense, will do a great job.

Untill it's jay's turn to tear some sh1t up, right now it's plummer offenese and things look great.

Man, we are in a great situation with qbs!

[Circle Orange]

Then I guess Cutler is lying when he said that Plummer has helped him out quite a bit in training camp.

I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe, rumors or Jay Cutler.


Jay may be telling the truth, but wild and unsubstantiated rumors are more fun. ROFL!

[Cito Pelon]

TJ the sh*t-stick. Always stirring sh*t up. Or should I say "TJ the Herm-stick" (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=45377&page=2).

[Rock Chalk]

Why should he be worried? He'll be getting a fat new contract from another team next year.
You pay that bet yet?

For those with sensitive eyes, you might want to skip over this part...


Bitch?

[Rock Chalk]

Wow. You know, I got the most prominent of the Cutler [censored] suckers on ignore but I can tell you, this board is growing more and more like America. Very partisan.

The liberals vs the conservatives. The Cutlers vs the Plummers.

Its growing more and more polarized over what? The fact that on our roster we have the rare chance of having two QBs that can kick ass in our system.

The last team I remember having such talent at QB...SF with Joe and Steve. Now, Im not saying Plummer/Cutler is Joe/Steve, not by a long shot, just saying that's the last team I remember having talent good enough to win a Superbowl with TWO different QBs on the same roster.

First of all, you Cutler's will just have to wait TWO years. Im sorry, but since we are bringin home the Lombardi this year, Plummer is going to be given one more year.

Second of all, you Plummer's need to stop fretting what the Cutler's are saying. Who cares? Your boy is starting and either way, we are bringing home the Lombardi THIS year.

Now stop.

Before I quit [censored]ing censoring myself and start [censor]ing cussing you all out.

[orange 4 life]

I don't know that I'd use the word "lying." This is a business here, and in business there's a thing called "public relations." I think they're all doing their part to put the best public face on this situation as possible. OR ELSE!

yeah, and im sure all their talking, smiling, and going over plays together on the sideline was just staged for television?

youre delusional taco.

plummer has been fantastic about the situation, but i wouldnt expect you to see that through all the hate.

or should i say "strong dislike"? :~ohyah!:

[DrFate]

Plummer IS the guy for 06. Not much doubt about it. He shouldn't be worried.

(Cutler will get the job next year, but Jake has the whole season to excel)

[orange 4 life]

Wow. You know, I got the most prominent of the Cutler [censored] suckers on ignore but I can tell you, this board is growing more and more like America. Very partisan.

The liberals vs the conservatives. The Cutlers vs the Plummers.

Its growing more and more polarized over what? The fact that on our roster we have the rare chance of having two QBs that can kick ass in our system.

The last team I remember having such talent at QB...SF with Joe and Steve. Now, Im not saying Plummer/Cutler is Joe/Steve, not by a long shot, just saying that's the last team I remember having talent good enough to win a Superbowl with TWO different QBs on the same roster.

First of all, you Cutler's will just have to wait TWO years. Im sorry, but since we are bringin home the Lombardi this year, Plummer is going to be given one more year.

Second of all, you Plummer's need to stop fretting what the Cutler's are saying. Who cares? Your boy is starting and either way, we are bringing home the Lombardi THIS year.

Now stop.

Before I quit [censored]ing censoring myself and start [censor]ing cussing you all out.

great post my friend.

i'd prefer THREE years so plummer can retire as a superbowl champion bronco quarterback, but 2 would be alright also.

[Rock Chalk]

great post my friend.

i'd prefer THREE years so plummer can retire as a superbowl champion bronco quarterback, but 2 would be alright also.
I think if Jake does start this year and next, he will stay here in Denver as a backup to Cutler just to finish out his career with a great organization that game him the chance to succeed where his first team did not.

Jake doesn't seem like a money guy to me. I dont believe he will want to stay if only given one year as a starter and thrusting Cutler ahead of him, but I believe he might stay on that last year (cap permitting) as a backup/mentor to Cutler and in case of emergency break glass kind of situation.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

great post my friend.
i'd prefer THREE years so plummer can retire as a superbowl champion bronco quarterback, but 2 would be alright also.Get use to seeing Plummer in his final year this year cause that's what it is.

I think if Jake does start this year and next, he will stay here in Denver as a backup to Cutler just to finish out his career with a great organization that game him the chance to succeed where his first team did not.


LOL

Please join the real world (NFL QBs don't settle for backup jobs).

[Rock Chalk]

Get use to seeing Plummer in his final year this year cause that's what it is.



LOL

Please join the real world (NFL QBs don't settle for backup jobs).
Is that right?

Want me to start naming some? Because I can. Dilfer, Moon, Brad Johnson has and will again, Steve DeBerg, Doug Flutie, et. al.

You are so going to hate when Plummer starts next year aren't you? Almost as much as you hate the fact that BUSH won a second term. Ha!

Makes me giddy thinking about your frustration already.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Is that right?

Want me to start naming some? Because I can. Dilfer, Moon, Brad Johnson has and will again, Steve DeBerg, Doug Flutie, et. al.

You are so going to hate when Plummer starts next year aren't you? Almost as much as you hate the fact that BUSH won a second term. Ha!

Makes me giddy thinking about your frustration already. Ah, I see, you're comparing Plummer to these great QBs, gotcha. IN that case then maybe he will settle for a backup job Hilarious!

[Kaylore]

so plummer, cutler, and their offensive coordinator are all lying?

man, you and taco should join forces and start a conspiracy theory club. Or maybe there's more to this than meets the eye but everyone is being professional about and puting on a good face to keep things calm? You decide.
by not showing him a damn thing.
by not giving him any advice or any help.

....and if you dont think the kid needs it, then youre just as delusional as every other "cutler homer". My, you're quite sensitive aren't you? All I'm saying is that Jake has his own film to study, an entire season to prepare for and his own body to take care of. You think he has time to walk this kid around? Jake isn't a coach and isn't paid to coach so Cutler gets most of his info from Shanahan, Heimerdinger and Pat McPherson. I'm sure Jake has a tidbit or two, but I'd be willing to bet that most of what Cutler learns is from observation.

Many many QB's have developed without the advice of Jake Plummer and many many more will, so it's not delusional to believe that Cutler doesn't need Jake for anything. If anything, I hope Cutler completely ignores some aspects of how Jake plays because his style is rooted in a gunslinger, sidearm style that is technically poor mechanics and wouldn't translate to other players very well.

[Kaylore]

yeah, and im sure all their talking, smiling, and going over plays together on the sideline was just staged for television?

youre delusional taco.
I was there everday and there was none of that. In fact, what TV program are you referring to that showed them so joyfully enjoying each other's company? Practice doesn't even work that way. Most of the time when the first unit is on the field the second is on the sideline and vice-versa. Since they play on different units they'd hardly even see each other. During drills every unit is running so they're too busy geting plays, running drills and talking to coaches to "laugh and look at plays together." The only time during practices that they both could talk to each other is during move the ball at the end, and there was not a single day I was there where Jake and Jay even stood ten feet close to each other during the third team's move the ball-ever.

I saw BVP and Jake talk to each other a lot. BVP would sometimes talk to Jay, but not a lot of Jake and Jay interaction. Does that mean that they hate each other? Not necessarily. But does that mean that these reports of these two being best friends and tatooing each other's names on their scrotums might be overstating things a bit? Absolutely.

[Rock Chalk]

Im pretty sure Jake has talked to Jay. I saw no reporting of them being best friends or tatooing each other's names on their scrotums (sounds painful, hope they didnt do that) but I do not discount that Jake and Jay have probably had good conversation in the lockerroom. Pretty sure QBs are close by in terms of where lockers are.

But, thats just speculation on my part.

[BroncoBuff]

This part was interesting:

In Plummer's three years of quarterbacking the Broncos, they have been to the playoffs each season. Plus, the club is an astounding 32-11 when he starts, a record bettered by only two NFL quarterbacks.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, come on down.
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9614855/rss

[Taco John]

You've got to be pretty good friends to get a name tattooed on your scrotum...

[Popps]

by not showing him a damn thing.
by not giving him any advice or any help.

....and if you dont think the kid needs it, then youre just as delusional as every other "cutler homer".

"Cutler homer."

Pretty funny.

Plenty of reasons to be excited for the kid, though. I couldn't be happier we landed the guy. But this "Jake hates him" stuff is yet to be seen. Now, I know guys like Taco WANT that to be true with everything in their soul, but I've seen no real evidence. Jake seems business as usual. He's a competitive guy. I doubt he'll shun the kid, but I also doubt he wants to help him steal his job. It's probably like any other situation where a young guy comes in, but it's Denver, and the QB spot has to be a soap opera at all times.

Plummer could be the Superbowl MVP this year, and you'll still have the same contingent around here calling for his head. It's just the way it is.
Personally, I don't care who is throwing the ball, at this point. Just give me a defense that can hold a team to under 21 points in the first half of a playoff game, and I'll be happy.

[Taco John]

I could care less whether Jake hates Cut or not. I don't see where it matters. I'm the guy who has been calling for quarterback competition for five years now. Whether they're friends or enemies doesn't matter to me so long as they're competing.

[BroncoBuff]

I think Plummer's a bona-fide 100% team-first great-teammate kinda guy ... i agree w/ Popps - he's not giving the kid any cold shoulder here.

But next year is Cutler's year - no two ways about it, in my mind anyway. I've seen enough - not just in his play - but in his approach and his poise.

And Alec, it doesnt matter whether Plummer WILL play backup ... we can't pay him to play it here. That's why BVP is set. He knows the offense and he's cheap. He'll back up Cutler for several/many years.

We are all SO FREAKING LUCKY we have Cutler ...

[Watchthemiddle]

I think Plummer's a bona-fide 100% team-first great-teammate kinda guy ... i agree w/ Popps - he's not giving the kid any cold shoulder here.

But next year is Cutler's year - no two ways about it, in my mind anyway. I've seen enough - not just in his play - but in his approach and his poise.

And Alec, it doesnt matter whether Plummer WILL play backup ... we can't pay him to play it here. That's why BVP is set. He knows the offense and he's cheap. He'll back up Cutler for several/many years.

We are all SO FREAKING LUCKY we have Cutler ...


We are lucky to have Cutler, but what if Jake messes around and wins the Super Bowl this season?? Kind of throws a kink in the whole plan. That is unless Shanahan pulls a Billick and gets rid of his Super Bowl winning QB.

[Taco John]

We are lucky to have Cutler, but what if Jake messes around and wins the Super Bowl this season?? Kind of throws a kink in the whole plan. That is unless Shanahan pulls a Billick and gets rid of his Super Bowl winning QB.


One of those might be worth a first round draft pick to a team like the Texans... Or someone...

[Popps]

I could care less whether Jake hates Cut or not. I don't see where it matters. I'm the guy who has been calling for quarterback competition for five years now. Whether they're friends or enemies doesn't matter to me so long as they're competing.

Taco, a few years ago, you were telling us all the the QB position was an "afterthought," bashing anyone who said Griese needed to be replaced.

Let's not re-write history. This "we need competition" thing was a product of Jake coming in to replace Brian, and will likely be something that goes away with Jake.

So, you've been saying nothing of the sort for "five years." Anyone who has been here longer than 3 years can attest to that.

[Popps]

One of those might be worth a first round draft pick to a team like the Texans... Or someone...


There's your proof.

Let's trade away a SB winning QB for a draft pick.

Like I said, Jake could win the SB, cure cancer and beat up Chuck Norris this year, and guys like Taco will continue to retain their hard-on for him.

It happened in San Francisco with Young/Montana, and it could happen in Denver. Jake could win a SB, and still have a considerable percentage of this board calling for his head.

But, back to reality... unless our defense is drastically upgraded from last year, we won't need to worry about any of that.

[Killericon]

The last team I remember having such talent at QB...SF with Joe and Steve. Now, Im not saying Plummer/Cutler is Joe/Steve, not by a long shot, just saying that's the last team I remember having talent good enough to win a Superbowl with TWO different QBs on the same roster.

You honestly think we could win with a Rookie at QB? ROFL!

[Odysseus]

I am very disappointed that some posters continue to take pot shots at Plummer for no other reason than that it's something to do. It lacks integrity character, maturity, and says more about them than about Plummer.

I am very high on Cutler and am very excited by his potential and Shanahan's smarts for picking up this quality player but the continuing debate over the Plummer has gotten very old.

I am niether blind to Plummer's fault or immune to my own real excitement about Plummer. I pretty much all of America is bi polar. You either love or hate something and there is nothing in between.

Will all you competition nazi who have claimed Jihad on Plummer please choke yourselves out for a couple of weeks. I promise Jake will give you plenty to play with later in the season.

[Kaylore]

You know, Alec pointed out that Joe Montana and Steve Young were on the same team (ironically also under Shanahan) for years and it worked. I agree that they are exactly comparable to our situation (because obviously Cutler is no Steve Young ;D) but if they can make it work with two HOF QB's on the roster, we can be fine with Cutler and Plummer on the roster.

I have high hopes for Plummer. He finally has some decent receivers outside of Rod to throw to, and I think this set of running backs is the deepest talent wise we've had in some time. Couple that with an O-line that has it's first season returning all the same starters since who knows and you have the makings of some great things for Plummer. Cutler will do better polishing his game and learning the playbook anyway.

[Taco John]

There's your proof.

Let's trade away a SB winning QB for a draft pick.

Like I said, Jake could win the SB, cure cancer and beat up Chuck Norris this year, and guys like Taco will continue to retain their hard-on for him.

It happened in San Francisco with Young/Montana, and it could happen in Denver. Jake could win a SB, and still have a considerable percentage of this board calling for his head.

But, back to reality... unless our defense is drastically upgraded from last year, we won't need to worry about any of that.


The reality is, Shanahan drafted a replacement who is scheduled to make some hefty dough.

You guys can argue about whether my motives are pure or not. I couldn't care less about what you think my motives are. My motives weren't any different last October when I first predicted Ashley would hold out or demand a trade this season. I was bashed over the head for hating Jake when I made that prediction too... But lo and behold!

And personally, I could care less if you think my motives for not liking Jake ahve anything to do with Griese or not. It's patently false, but I'm not going to get all hot and bothered about people grasping at straws to protect their guy. But in the end, Griese has no bearing on Jake's inability to get through big games without throwing an interception, which is my biggest criticism of Jake.

But the reality is this: Jake is on his way out the door. Shanahan has punched his ticket out of town by drafting a guy to replace him, and the salary cap isn't going to accommodate for both guys being on our roster for very long at all. ESPECIALLY when you consider the kind of money that Javon is scheduled to start making should he pan out, and combine that with the fact that Jake's contract gets nothing but inflated each and every year from here on out.

Even a Superbowl scenario isn't a safe one for Jake with this kind of talent looking over his shoulder. That's just the facts. I'm not the one who decided to draft Jay Cutler in the first round when we have a popular quarterback with yearS left on his contract. Though I did applaud the move.

[orange 4 life]

Or maybe there's more to this than meets the eye but everyone is being professional about and puting on a good face to keep things calm? You decide.
My, you're quite sensitive aren't you? All I'm saying is that Jake has his own film to study, an entire season to prepare for and his own body to take care of. You think he has time to walk this kid around? Jake isn't a coach and isn't paid to coach so Cutler gets most of his info from Shanahan, Heimerdinger and Pat McPherson. I'm sure Jake has a tidbit or two, but I'd be willing to bet that most of what Cutler learns is from observation.

Many many QB's have developed without the advice of Jake Plummer and many many more will, so it's not delusional to believe that Cutler doesn't need Jake for anything. If anything, I hope Cutler completely ignores some aspects of how Jake plays because his style is rooted in a gunslinger, sidearm style that is technically poor mechanics and wouldn't translate to other players very well.

wow. i dont even know where to start.
at the beginning i suppose.

1) "you decide"

i did. right when i read EVERYONES comments (tension finds its way to the surface one way or another, and NOTHING has come to the surface here.....other than you and taco) about the situation and when i saw them interacting on the sidelines.

did you watch favre with his "qb of the future" replacement?
he was awful, and it showed. he didnt even speak to the kid let alone cheer him on and/or go over plays with him during the game.
plummer did. its EASY to see them interacting and see that its not forced or faked.

2) im not sensitive at all. not in this case anyway. just making a joke.

3) they watch film together, they have meetings together, and they go through gameplans together. they have no CHOICE but to interact, so its not a matter of jake "walk(ing) this kid around."
its a matter of jake taking the time to simply explain what he's thinking and/or doing since theyre in the same place at the same time anyway.

4) you missed the point. its not that the kid needs JAKES advice or help. just that he needs SOMEONES help, and it is a HUGE benefit for cutler to have a vet (with a similar playing style) like jake there to mentor him along with the info he gets from the coaches.

5) if you hope cutler "completely ignores some aspects of how jake plays...gunslinger" then youve misread cutlers bio. the guy is pure gunslinger. he admittedly tries to squeeze in some ill advised passes, he tries to create something out of nothing, and he's a fierce competitor. you know, EXACTLY like plummer. he's got weaker legs and a stronger arm, but he's the same type of player (elway was also in this mold by the way) that plummer is, and if and when he become the franchise qb, i doubt youll want to change that. plummer is EXACTLY the kind of guy we want tutoring this kid, because plummer has ALL the right characteristics, but NOT all of the arm strength. his legs compensate for ALOT of it, but not all. cutler HAS the gun, and with time, study, blood, and sweat he very well might be able to COMPLETE alot of those "ill advised" passes, just like 'ol number 7 did.

6) on the same topic, but in addition, the "sidearm style....poor mechanics" is ALSO the way cutler plays. he wasnt on the best team in college, but he PLAYED against the best, so he had to adapt. he has the ability to throw off his back foot, throw while running (which plummer does better than ANYONE in the game right now), and throw sidearm or loft one over a defender who's beat his man on the line.
why would you want to take that away?
HARNESS it (much like plummer has learned to do), but for God's sake dont try to take away the characteristics that make him so promising.

....and lastly, i still love you. :kiss: LOL

[orange 4 life]

I was there everday and there was none of that. In fact, what TV program are you referring to that showed them so joyfully enjoying each other's company? Practice doesn't even work that way. Most of the time when the first unit is on the field the second is on the sideline and vice-versa. Since they play on different units they'd hardly even see each other. During drills every unit is running so they're too busy geting plays, running drills and talking to coaches to "laugh and look at plays together." The only time during practices that they both could talk to each other is during move the ball at the end, and there was not a single day I was there where Jake and Jay even stood ten feet close to each other during the third team's move the ball-ever.

I saw BVP and Jake talk to each other a lot. BVP would sometimes talk to Jay, but not a lot of Jake and Jay interaction. Does that mean that they hate each other? Not necessarily. But does that mean that these reports of these two being best friends and tatooing each other's names on their scrotums might be overstating things a bit? Absolutely.

wow.
now youre talking about testicle tattoos. nice.

the television (and live) i was referring to was during the GAME.
lots of interaction, and CLEARLY loose, friendly, priductive communication.
again, friction rises to the surface. it cant be hidden.
why is it so hard for you to simply accept that there isnt any?

[Northman]

I dont think Jake has a problem helping Jay out and showing him the ropes. Ive never had a issue with Jake's character so i dont see him giving the cold shoulder to Cutler.

[orange 4 life]

This part was interesting:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9614855/rss

ive pointed that out on about ten different threads. so many times that azbroncoahole has memorized it.

people dont care. its easier to just blame plummer for the fact that we cant play defense in the playoffs.

[Northman]

ive pointed that out on about ten different threads. so many times that azbroncoahole has memorized it.

people dont care. its easier to just blame plummer for the fact that we cant play defense in the playoffs.

We did fine in the Pats game, what are you talking about?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

people dont care. its easier to just blame plummer for the fact that we cant play defense in the playoffs.

Just as easy as it is to absolve Jake of all blame because the defense was ****.

4 playoff games- 19 points in the 1st half. That's the not the defense's fault.

[azbroncfan]

ive pointed that out on about ten different threads. so many times that azbroncoahole has memorized it.

people dont care. its easier to just blame plummer for the fact that we cant play defense in the playoffs.

I'm not the only one who has called you a Plummer homer or as you phrase it your passionate for plummer. Jakie is quick to use cuss words and get all worked up and get into name calling. You are shorting yourself, you have repeated yourself about 30-40 times on Probowl qb, 90 qb rating, best winning record other than the posterboys, 2-1 INT ratio etc... :thumbs:

[ØrangeÇrush]

As long as we win, I don't care if they get together and sing Kumbaya or completely ignore each other. They are both professionals and they seem like they are behaving like one.

[Popps]

And personally, I could care less if you think my motives for not liking Jake ahve anything to do with Griese or not. It's patently false, but I'm not going to get all hot and bothered about people grasping at straws to protect their guy.

"Their guy?"

I've said all along I'm thrilled with the Cutler pick. If he starts next year, fantastic! I like what Jake brings, but if we can upgrade at ANY position, great! Cutler is clearly more physically gifted than Plummer. Can he execute on a regular basis and win like Jake has for us? We'll see... my guess would be that he can.

There's no grasping at straws. My stance around here since Plummer got to town (and really before) has been that our defense has not been championship caliber, hence... we won't win a championship, no matter who is at QB.

My stance has also been that Jake is more than capable of delivering the goods if he's not put in a 21 point ****-hole every 1st half of every playoff game.

My stance has not been so much in support of Jake as it has been in criticism of this not being a complete team. (Though I DO believe Plummer is a great fit, which is wins/stats support.)

You are the guy who defended an awful QB for years, while continually downplaying the importance of the QB spot. ("Afterthought")
Then, when the guy you supported got dumped because he was awful, you changed your tune to... "we need competition"... and eventaully... "we need a top tier QB."

So, it just keeps changing with you, which will surprise no one around here.

There's no grasping, Taco. I'll leave that for people with agendas.

[Kaylore]

why is it so hard for you to simply accept that there isnt any?
A very good question that someday I will answer. ;)

[Kaylore]

6) on the same topic, but in addition, the "sidearm style....poor mechanics" is ALSO the way cutler plays. he wasnt on the best team in college, but he PLAYED against the best, so he had to adapt. he has the ability to throw off his back foot, throw while running (which plummer does better than ANYONE in the game right now), and throw sidearm or loft one over a defender who's beat his man on the line.
why would you want to take that away?
HARNESS it (much like plummer has learned to do), but for God's sake dont try to take away the characteristics that make him so promising.

....and lastly, i still love you. :kiss: LOL

I love you too. On Jake, I didn't say that I felt that Jake could teach Cutler nothing, just that there are some skills he has that wouldn't transfer and thus could mess up Cutler's development.

Cutler's release is uniquely high. He gets full extension of his arm and it is over the top of his head. Plummer has good extension but tends to side-arm his throws and doesn't plant his feet very well. Despite these "poor mechanics" Plummer still throws with great short and medium ranged accuracy and is the most accuracte QB when it comes to throwing on the run.

I don't want Jay to alter his throwing motion and it would be good for Jay to work on his footwork so he can actually hit players down field which is something that Plummer still struggles with. When it comes to making something out of nothing, something Plummer is great at, Cutler should take notes and see how he buys himself time (though a lot of what the Snake does when he's "snaking" isn't really teachable either)I hope that Cutler pays attention because good QB's can make something out of nothing.

[Popps]

Just as easy as it is to absolve Jake of all blame because the defense was ****.

4 playoff games- 19 points in the 1st half. That's the not the defense's fault.

Herc,

There's no question that Jake did not have a good game against Pitt.

But, did you watch the game? Pitt was all over his ass on every play. We abandoned the running game and our defense did not make a stop for the entire first HALF.

Now, this franchise has won at a ridiculous clip over the last three years, so we've got a clear blueprint to look at....

Jake Plummer is not the guy you want to put 21 points behind. He' a guy who manages the game well, makes plays, executes our offense and puts points on the board.

But, he's not Tom Brady. He's not John Elway. He's not a "bring you back from 21 points" type guy.

WE KNOW THIS.

So, if we know this... why would we be surprised when he can't do it?

CONVERSELY, when we kept a game close (against NE)... we won. Jake didn't play great, but he didn't play bad. Our D made a big play (which championship D's do.) and we got in the endzone offensively a few times.

Point is, Jake has won big games when the team shows up around him.
If our defense could have kept us in that game, my guess is that it would have been a nail-biter. But, when we've got to open it up right away because we're down 21 points immediately (3 playoff losses in a row) it's just not going to work out with Jake at the helm.

In reality, very few QBs in the history of the game are going to be able to bring you back from 21+ first half deficits. So, why people would expect something like that from Plummer confuses me.

What I'm saying is, there's a formula for winning with Plummer, and really.. that formula jives very well with winning playoff games in GENERAL.

If we don't improve our front 7, we'll be having this same conversation in 3 years, when Jake is gone... and the Cutler era is in effect. Jay can't run out there on 3rd down and rush the passer, and I doubt Jay will be able to carry the team back from 21 point holes every playoff game. It just doesn't happen.

Plummer threw his first INT near half-time when that game was already out of hand. Our defense hadn't made A SINGLE STOP to that point.

C'mon.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I was at the game, I saw everything that happened that day very clearly. The defense sucked and so did the offense. Jake deserves as much blame as the D, and his total inability to produce in the 1st half of playoff games is getting real old. The only TD he's led the team to was the product of a fortuitous PI penalty on the Pats. You're right, he's a game manager now. He's Griese. Everyone else has to be playing at a high level for Jake to succeed. When that isn't happening, Jake cannot be relied upon to lead the team to victory. Yes they were down 21 points, but it's not like the Steelers had the ball for 3 straight possessions that day. Jake couldn't get the offense in the endzone. He is not a good enough QB to go TD for TD with any team. I've also said this team's pass rush is a joke (to go along with the coverage ability of the safeties), hence my 9 to 10 win prediction for the team at this point.

[Circle Orange]

LOL, Jake's one bad tempered sucker...but again, we'll see what happens after a pick or two in the regular season.

[Popps]

Yes they were down 21 points, but it's not like the Steelers had the ball for 3 straight possessions that day. Jake couldn't get the offense in the endzone.

Playoff winning teams REGULARLY go through most of the first half without scoring. That's playoff football.

I can give you hundreds of examples, but let's just start with the very next game, where Pittsburgh's offense came out flat as a pancake against Seattle.

Pittsburgh's First four Drives

1. Punt
2. Punt
3. Punt
4. INT

2 of those 3 Punts were 3 and out drives.

That's about as bad as you can start off, offensively.

Yet, they won. Why? Because they have a true playoff team. They have a dominating defense, an ass-kicking front seven and they can stay in games when their offense starts out slowly.

Conversely, teams like Denver and Indy with pretender-defenses sat at home and watched.

So, I can give you countless of examples of teams winning playoff games with limited offensive output. I'll bet you can't give me 10 examples in the history of the NFL where teams came back in playoff games from 21+ first half holes.

[orange 4 life]

Just as easy as it is to absolve Jake of all blame because the defense was ****.

4 playoff games- 19 points in the 1st half. That's the not the defense's fault.

maybe some people absolve jake and the offense of all blame, but i certainly dont.
the pitt game was an entire team collapse, and as jake is the leader of the offense so he shoulders plenty of blame.
that said, the lack of a pass rush was the MOST glaring weakness.

as for the indy games the two prior years, they reminded me of the 80's superbowls.
not a damn thing the offense did wouldve made a difference. the defense was a complete sieve, and the downward spiral, the quicksand is too much to escape.

[Popps]

as for the indy games the two prior years, they reminded me of the 80's superbowls.
not a damn thing the offense did wouldve made a difference.


Funny the difference a real running game and a real defense makes, huh?

The "we have to score big in the first half" crowd must not remember one of the franchises biggest victories... one that came in Kansas City by the score of 14-10.

Again, that's playoff football.

It may be hard for people to remember, or even believe... but Elway was regarded in many circles as a choker. C'mon, if you're a true-blue fan, you had to take **** from friends back in the day about how he couldn't win the big one, right? I know I did.

Yet, amazingly... we put a real D and a running game in place, and he won a couple of SBs.

John no longer had to try to dig his team out of ****-holes. He was part of a playoff winning team structure.

John could also count on still being in a game if the offense came out flat in the first half of a playoff game, which happens regularly... DID happen, and will ALWAYS happen, no matter how good your offense is in the regular season.

We've had no such defense since those SB days.

[Popps]

It's probably also important to remember that the offense was vastly more talented back then than it is now, outside of Plummer.

Three top tier receiving threats, the best O-line in the game and the best RB in the game, at the time.

I suppose that makes a little difference in how a QB performs, as well.

Still, our offense had slow starts in more than one playoff game, and we managed to win those games.

[Ron Mexico]

But the reality is this: Jake is on his way out the door. Shanahan has punched his ticket out of town by drafting a guy to replace him, and the salary cap isn't going to accommodate for both guys being on our roster for very long at all. ESPECIALLY when you consider the kind of money that Javon is scheduled to start making should he pan out, and combine that with the fact that Jake's contract gets nothing but inflated each and every year from here on out.

Even a Superbowl scenario isn't a safe one for Jake with this kind of talent looking over his shoulder. That's just the facts. I'm not the one who decided to draft Jay Cutler in the first round when we have a popular quarterback with yearS left on his contract. Though I did applaud the move.

The truth might hurt a few feelings, but TJ is telling the truth.

BTW, TJ - I would like some Potato Ole's.

[orange 4 life]

Funny the difference a real running game and a real defense makes, huh?

The "we have to score big in the first half" crowd must not remember one of the franchises biggest victories... one that came in Kansas City by the score of 14-10.

Again, that's playoff football.

It may be hard for people to remember, or even believe... but Elway was regarded in many circles as a choker. C'mon, if you're a true-blue fan, you had to take **** from friends back in the day about how he couldn't win the big one, right? I know I did.

Yet, amazingly... we put a real D and a running game in place, and he won a couple of SBs.

John no longer had to try to dig his team out of ****-holes. He was part of a playoff winning team structure.

John could also count on still being in a game if the offense came out flat in the first half of a playoff game, which happens regularly... DID happen, and will ALWAYS happen, no matter how good your offense is in the regular season.

We've had no such defense since those SB days.

isnt it frustrating to have what should be SUCH simple logic fall on deaf ears?

as usual, youre right on the money popps.
hope all is well my friend. i love the avatar pic.

[Atlas]

Funny the difference a real running game and a real defense makes, huh?

The "we have to score big in the first half" crowd must not remember one of the franchises biggest victories... one that came in Kansas City by the score of 14-10.

Again, that's playoff football.

It may be hard for people to remember, or even believe... but Elway was regarded in many circles as a choker. C'mon, if you're a true-blue fan, you had to take **** from friends back in the day about how he couldn't win the big one, right? I know I did.

Yet, amazingly... we put a real D and a running game in place, and he won a couple of SBs.

John no longer had to try to dig his team out of ****-holes. He was part of a playoff winning team structure.

John could also count on still being in a game if the offense came out flat in the first half of a playoff game, which happens regularly... DID happen, and will ALWAYS happen, no matter how good your offense is in the regular season.

We've had no such defense since those SB days.

I agree with what you said but it's funy how Robinson was run out of town when the defense started to fail in 2001. Gee no one thought that maybe It wasn't Robinson's fault that maybe the talent just wasn't as good as in 1997 and 98.

In 1998 playoff run Robinson's defense gave up 3 points to the Dolphins, 10 points to the Jets and 19 to the Falcons even though that is misleading because Denver was up 31-3 and Denver gave a up a TD on a kickoff.

Against the Dolphins and Jets the Broncos gave up a total of 28 yards rushing.

[Lidderer]

I love how the TJ backers say stuff like ron mexico's "The truth hurts but TJ is telling it" and other useless opinions, whereas the naysayers actually give cogent arguements and proofs.

[azbroncfan]

The Defense on the SB teams was above average but not great, but it was the OLINE and the pounding of TD that caused teams to kill over like cheap hookers. Elways job was to pick up 3rd and 5's and the O would get a big lead and the D was built for playing with a lead and getting TO's which lead to blowouts. KC game was one of the close games the D stepped up when they had to and Marty helped out with fake FG and starting Elvis. Gannon would of probably made a difference in the game as Denver kept shooting themselves and the D especially Traylor had a good game.

[Cito Pelon]

Every unit on the team is going to have to be more productive this year, and the staff has to have them ready for primetime. To play so poorly in the playoffs after reasonably solid reg seasons, how does that happen? Even the lone playoff win since 98 was very touch and go, a nail biter. It's hard for me to put my finger on what exactly causes some teams to not even compete once they make the playoffs.

Something I saw last week is an indication of little things that need to be corrected - Ferguson intercepts, there's 3 Broncos near the ball, two of them just stand there rather than immediately go into return mode looking to block so Nick can get a good runback. Sometimes I wonder how hard-nosed this team - and coaching staff - really is. Don't kill me, folks, it's just hard for me to fathom why the team can fold so badly under the lights.

[Los Broncos]

I think we might be the best team in the afc. Im not a plummer fan really, but hes our best chance out there. Its gonna be hard to repeat what we did last year.

[Cito Pelon]

I think we might be the best team in the afc. Im not a plummer fan really, but hes our best chance out there. Its gonna be hard to repeat what we did last year.

Denver has a good team, no doubt. They'll have to be better than last year if they want a title beyond the Div. That +20 TO differential made the 13-3 last year. I don't have the stats, but I don't think +20 TO differentials happen back-to-back very often. It can't be counted on anyway, and that means each unit is going to have to get a little more out of themselves.

[Ron Mexico]

I love how the TJ backers say stuff like ron mexico's "The truth hurts but TJ is telling it" and other useless opinions, whereas the naysayers actually give cogent arguements and proofs.

Seems so obvious to me. If you look at the NFL like a business (which it is) instead of getting a man-crush on a favorite player, it will start to make sense.

[Pontius Pirate]

Minor revelation for anyone who cares (which admittedly may be no one): the day I became a Broncos fan was the day Jake joined the team. When he leaves, I'll still be a fan - but will also be a fan of the new team he is on. Can't help it.

I couldn't care less about Jay Cutler.

[Lidderer]

Seems so obvious to me. If you look at the NFL like a business (which it is) instead of getting a man-crush on a favorite player, it will start to make sense.

You do realize this is a perfect example of what I criticized you for in the last post, right?

[Dagmar]

Minor revelation for anyone who cares (which admittedly may be no one): the day I became a Broncos fan was the day Jake joined the team. When he leaves, I'll still be a fan - but will also be a fan of the new team he is on. Can't help it.

I couldn't care less about Jay Cutler.

I support the Denver Broncos. Can't help it. Not individual players.

[Taco John]

isnt it frustrating to have what should be SUCH simple logic fall on deaf ears?

as usual, youre right on the money popps.
hope all is well my friend. i love the avatar pic.



As soon as Jake can make it through a big game in the post season without throwing an interception, you guys are going to have some really great points! I hope it happens, because we're not going to win many postseason games until he manages to control his erraticness on a big stage. Thankfully, we have a good enough defense to bail him out some of the time... Just not ALL of the time, like he seems to need.

Keep in mind... Even when that happens, the salary cap isn't going to accommodate both guys. Plummer will still be on his way out of town. Get used to that idea. It's just the way it is. You can thank Shanahan for that. It's not my fault.

[Northman]

Funny the difference a real running game and a real defense makes, huh?

The "we have to score big in the first half" crowd must not remember one of the franchises biggest victories... one that came in Kansas City by the score of 14-10.

Again, that's playoff football.

It may be hard for people to remember, or even believe... but Elway was regarded in many circles as a choker. C'mon, if you're a true-blue fan, you had to take **** from friends back in the day about how he couldn't win the big one, right? I know I did.

Yet, amazingly... we put a real D and a running game in place, and he won a couple of SBs.

John no longer had to try to dig his team out of ****-holes. He was part of a playoff winning team structure.

John could also count on still being in a game if the offense came out flat in the first half of a playoff game, which happens regularly... DID happen, and will ALWAYS happen, no matter how good your offense is in the regular season.

We've had no such defense since those SB days.



Your kidding me right? You cant even compare Jake and John. Sure, we were totally outmatched in 2 of the Super Bowl losses that John was a part of. But you seem to have a memory loss of how we got to those points to begin with. John at times could make a mistake and yet still find a way to win the game. Your right about one thing, Jake needs a LOT of help to reach the goal that we all want. Even though i heard people say John was a choker i knew he wasnt cause he never had the type of team that Jake has today. The Steelers defense was good, but not all that it was cracked up to be. Keep in mind the Seahawks had some calls go against them early. That is why the Steelers were still in the game. Had Elway played in the AFCC game last year we would have beaten them. But please, continue to put the spin job on why everyone else is letting down poor Jake Plummer when he was the only one to turn the ball over that day. ::)

[Rock Chalk]

Your kidding me right? You cant even compare Jake and John. Sure, we were totally outmatched in 2 of the Super Bowl losses that John was a part of. But you seem to have a memory loss of how we got to those points to begin with. John at times could make a mistake and yet still find a way to win the game. Your right about one thing, Jake needs a LOT of help to reach the goal that we all want. Even though i heard people say John was a choker i knew he wasnt cause he never had the type of team that Jake has today. The Steelers defense was good, but not all that it was cracked up to be. Keep in mind the Seahawks had some calls go against them early. That is why the Steelers were still in the game. Had Elway played in the AFCC game last year we would have beaten them. But please, continue to put the spin job on why everyone else is letting down poor Jake Plummer when he was the only one to turn the ball over that day. ::)


Jake and John have a lot of similarities. There are a lot of differences too, but you are taking the Taco line of refusing to accept that there are similarities between the two QBs.

Both need a team around them to win a SB.

This common denominator stands true for ALL quarterbacks.

John Elway would not have been able to lead us out of that hole PIttsburgh put us in. What you and Taco seem to forget is that John made some very very stupid decisions in his Quarterbacking career, costing us games as well as winning us games. He was a scrambler but not even john would have been able to avoid the pressure that Pittsburgh placed on Plummer last year and its ludicrous that you people have Elway on such a high pedastal that you forget the fact that the man was sacked an incredible amount of times even with his scrambling abilities.

This is the reason i have Taco on ignore. He refuses to accept the facts in front of his face. Plummer played poorly in the playoff losses yes, but the entire team played poorly alongside with him which makes the Denver teams of prior years absolutely no different than the Superbowl teams of the 80s that got their asses handed to them by poor play from the whole team.

[rovolution]

Jake and John have a lot of similarities. There are a lot of differences too, but you are taking the Taco line of refusing to accept that there are similarities between the two QBs.

Both need a team around them to win a SB.

This common denominator stands true for ALL quarterbacks.

John Elway would not have been able to lead us out of that hole PIttsburgh put us in. What you and Taco seem to forget is that John made some very very stupid decisions in his Quarterbacking career, costing us games as well as winning us games. He was a scrambler but not even john would have been able to avoid the pressure that Pittsburgh placed on Plummer last year and its ludicrous that you people have Elway on such a high pedastal that you forget the fact that the man was sacked an incredible amount of times even with his scrambling abilities.

This is the reason i have Taco on ignore. He refuses to accept the facts in front of his face. Plummer played poorly in the playoff losses yes, but the entire team played poorly alongside with him which makes the Denver teams of prior years absolutely no different than the Superbowl teams of the 80s that got their asses handed to them by poor play from the whole team.

I have always had respect for plummer after this.

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/sbxxxiii/rev/nfc10299.asp

The man decimated the heavily favored Dallas Cowboys almost single handedly in the playoffs.

Anyone who can take the Arizona Cardinals to a divisional playoff game gets the nod in my book.

[Northman]

Jake and John have a lot of similarities. There are a lot of differences too, but you are taking the Taco line of refusing to accept that there are similarities between the two QBs.

Both need a team around them to win a SB.

This common denominator stands true for ALL quarterbacks.

John Elway would not have been able to lead us out of that hole PIttsburgh put us in. What you and Taco seem to forget is that John made some very very stupid decisions in his Quarterbacking career, costing us games as well as winning us games. He was a scrambler but not even john would have been able to avoid the pressure that Pittsburgh placed on Plummer last year and its ludicrous that you people have Elway on such a high pedastal that you forget the fact that the man was sacked an incredible amount of times even with his scrambling abilities.

This is the reason i have Taco on ignore. He refuses to accept the facts in front of his face. Plummer played poorly in the playoff losses yes, but the entire team played poorly alongside with him which makes the Denver teams of prior years absolutely no different than the Superbowl teams of the 80s that got their asses handed to them by poor play from the whole team.




Denver wouldnt have been 21 points down if not for Jake's turnovers. The only similarity that they share is they are both mobile Qb's. Other than that they are nothing alike. And again, although the defense played bad against the Steelers it became much worse when Jake started turning the ball over. The other difference is John's playmaking ability vs Jake's. John was far more accurate than Jake. John was a better scrambler than Jake. And John wouldnt have turned the ball over 4 times at home with the game on the line. If you want to believe that John Elway was a average Qb that is certainly your perogative but there is no way Jake Plummer is as good a Qb than John was.

[Taco John]

I have always had respect for plummer after this.

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/sbxxxiii/rev/nfc10299.asp

The man decimated the heavily favored Dallas Cowboys almost single handedly in the playoffs.

Anyone who can take the Arizona Cardinals to a divisional playoff game gets the nod in my book.

For my part, I couldn't care less what Jake did in Arizona... That's why I don't even go there. Things like having only one season where he had more touchdowns than interceptions come into the picture. He turned that around once he became a Bronco, which is what is significant for me. I'm more interested in what he has/hasn't accomplished as a Bronco and for the most part don't consider what he did as a Cardinal.

[Pontius Pirate]

I support the Denver Broncos. Can't help it. Not individual players.


Interesting. So you don't have guys you root for? Weird.

[Lidderer]

Interesting. So you don't have guys you root for? Weird.

I never understood this either. I suppose it's a geographic thing, maybe. Or a fashion loyalty.

[JPEZ]

"Fans always like change; I understand that," Plummer said. "It's almost like having an old girlfriend. You always think the pasture may be greener on the other side. But until Jay is ready they're going to have to deal with me."

;D

Few INT's and he'll be singing another tune!
Plummers going down this year!
Go J-Cut :strong:

[Northman]

Few INT's and he'll be singing another tune!
Plummers going down this year!
Go J-Cut :strong:

Dont know about that. Jake should still have a great year. But, if he tanks than Cutler will get a earlier start but i dont see that happening and i pray it doesnt happen this year.

[-Slap-]

Jake and John have a lot of similarities. There are a lot of differences too, but you are taking the Taco line of refusing to accept that there are similarities between the two QBs.

Both need a team around them to win a SB.

This common denominator stands true for ALL quarterbacks.

John Elway would not have been able to lead us out of that hole PIttsburgh put us in. What you and Taco seem to forget is that John made some very very stupid decisions in his Quarterbacking career, costing us games as well as winning us games. He was a scrambler but not even john would have been able to avoid the pressure that Pittsburgh placed on Plummer last year and its ludicrous that you people have Elway on such a high pedastal that you forget the fact that the man was sacked an incredible amount of times even with his scrambling abilities.

This is the reason i have Taco on ignore. He refuses to accept the facts in front of his face. Plummer played poorly in the playoff losses yes, but the entire team played poorly alongside with him which makes the Denver teams of prior years absolutely no different than the Superbowl teams of the 80s that got their asses handed to them by poor play from the whole team.

Wow. I managed to avoid this thread before the grotesquely stupid Elway/Plummer comparisons started.

Jake's playoff record. Two wins and four losses. Seven TDs and ten interceptions, with zero rushing touchdowns.

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
1998 dal W,20-7 | 19 36 213 2 2 | 3 1 0
1998 min L,21-41 | 23 41 242 0 2 | 4 9 0
2003 ind L,10-41 | 23 30 181 1 2 | 3 18 0
2004 ind L,24-49 | 24 34 281 2 1 | 1 0 0
2005 nwe W,27-13 | 15 26 197 1 1 | 7 8 0
2005 pit L,17-34 | 18 30 223 1 2 | 6 29 0
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 122 197 1337 7 10 | 24 65 0

John Elway. 14 wins and 8 losses. 27 touchdowns and 21 interceptions. Six rushing touchdowns. Five Super Bowls. Back to Back Championships. Super Bowl MVP Award.

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
1983 sea L,7-31 | 10 15 123 0 1 | 3 16 0
1984 pit L,17-24 | 19 37 184 2 2 | 4 16 0
1986 nwe W,22-17 | 13 32 257 1 2 | 5 18 1
1986 cle W,23-20 | 22 38 244 1 1 | 4 56 0
*1986 nyg L,20-39 | 22 37 304 1 1 | 6 27 1
1987 hou W,34-10 | 14 25 259 2 1 | 4 8 1
1987 cle W,38-33 | 14 26 281 3 1 | 11 36 0
*1987 was L,10-42 | 14 38 257 1 3 | 3 32 0
1989 pit W,24-23 | 12 20 239 1 1 | 7 44 0
1989 cle W,37-21 | 20 35 385 3 0 | 5 39 0
*1989 sfo L,10-55 | 10 26 108 0 2 | 4 8 1
1991 hou W,26-24 | 19 33 257 1 1 | 6 39 0
1991 buf L,7-10 | 11 21 121 0 1 | 4 10 0
1993 rai L,24-42 | 29 47 302 3 1 | 5 23 0
1996 jax L,27-30 | 25 38 226 2 0 | 5 30 0
1997 jax W,42-17 | 16 24 223 1 0 | 1 0 0
1997 kan W,14-10 | 10 19 170 0 0 | 1 -1 0
1997 pit W,24-21 | 18 31 210 2 1 | 2 9 0
*1997 gnb W,31-24 | 12 22 123 0 1 | 5 17 1
1998 mia W,38-3 | 14 23 182 1 0 | 3 19 0
1998 nyj W,23-10 | 13 34 173 1 0 | 3 13 0
*1998 atl W,34-19 | 18 29 336 1 1 | 3 2 1
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 355 650 4964 27 21 | 94 461 6

You're right, Alec. The similarities are mind boggling. Its just like Lincoln having a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy having a secretary named Lincoln. Somebody get Ripley's on the phone.

[Northman]

Wow. I managed to avoid this thread before the grotesquely stupid Elway/Plummer comparisons started.

Jake's playoff record. Two wins and four losses. Seven TDs and ten interceptions, with zero rushing touchdowns.

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
1998 dal W,20-7 | 19 36 213 2 2 | 3 1 0
1998 min L,21-41 | 23 41 242 0 2 | 4 9 0
2003 ind L,10-41 | 23 30 181 1 2 | 3 18 0
2004 ind L,24-49 | 24 34 281 2 1 | 1 0 0
2005 nwe W,27-13 | 15 26 197 1 1 | 7 8 0
2005 pit L,17-34 | 18 30 223 1 2 | 6 29 0
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 122 197 1337 7 10 | 24 65 0

John Elway. 14 wins and 8 losses. 27 touchdowns and 21 interceptions. Six rushing touchdowns. Five Super Bowls. Back to Back Championships. Super Bowl MVP Award.

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
1983 sea L,7-31 | 10 15 123 0 1 | 3 16 0
1984 pit L,17-24 | 19 37 184 2 2 | 4 16 0
1986 nwe W,22-17 | 13 32 257 1 2 | 5 18 1
1986 cle W,23-20 | 22 38 244 1 1 | 4 56 0
*1986 nyg L,20-39 | 22 37 304 1 1 | 6 27 1
1987 hou W,34-10 | 14 25 259 2 1 | 4 8 1
1987 cle W,38-33 | 14 26 281 3 1 | 11 36 0
*1987 was L,10-42 | 14 38 257 1 3 | 3 32 0
1989 pit W,24-23 | 12 20 239 1 1 | 7 44 0
1989 cle W,37-21 | 20 35 385 3 0 | 5 39 0
*1989 sfo L,10-55 | 10 26 108 0 2 | 4 8 1
1991 hou W,26-24 | 19 33 257 1 1 | 6 39 0
1991 buf L,7-10 | 11 21 121 0 1 | 4 10 0
1993 rai L,24-42 | 29 47 302 3 1 | 5 23 0
1996 jax L,27-30 | 25 38 226 2 0 | 5 30 0
1997 jax W,42-17 | 16 24 223 1 0 | 1 0 0
1997 kan W,14-10 | 10 19 170 0 0 | 1 -1 0
1997 pit W,24-21 | 18 31 210 2 1 | 2 9 0
*1997 gnb W,31-24 | 12 22 123 0 1 | 5 17 1
1998 mia W,38-3 | 14 23 182 1 0 | 3 19 0
1998 nyj W,23-10 | 13 34 173 1 0 | 3 13 0
*1998 atl W,34-19 | 18 29 336 1 1 | 3 2 1
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 355 650 4964 27 21 | 94 461 6

You're right, Alec. The similarities are mind boggling. Its just like Lincoln having a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy having a secretary named Lincoln. Somebody get Ripley's on the phone.




Exactly. Im amazed that Elway even got into the HOF at all. Jake should have been put there before he even retires he is so damn good. Its amazing how Jake has carried this team on his back to the playoffs the last 3 years. I dont know how you can even put Elway in the same league as Jake.

[Odysseus]

If Plumer is good as dead why do you guys have to act like ghouls about it? Let's dig up the body and play with it. You can't show more class that this? You have to act like trailer trash and rationalize every tiny area where you are correct? Is being correct that new an experience for you? Those are very Bob like sentiments.

Why does Elway come in any discussion about Plummer as if that makes any sense at all ever?

There seems no middle ground only this ascerbic wasteland of stupid comparisons. You are either a wide eyed moron for having any sense of honor or some jaded evil business slut if you all you see if the money part of this.

Hey Business sluts! You are not getting paid to waste hours trying to defend your precious point of view. You are getting screwed on this deal! Nobody is giving you money! LOSERS!

Hey Wide eyed moralists! You are trying to convert whores into virgins. They don't have a freaking heart. What are you doing? They are the all knowing insiders. They know everything about the business and look down upon you lunch buckets. Get a clue. They aren't going to say it. Drink your beer and buy another hot dog. They can't hear a thing you are saying.

No more Plummer debates for me. This is just very disappointing to see so many people I respect debase themselves, this site, the team all for the sake of being right.

[Popps]

Why does Elway come in any discussion about Plummer as if that makes any sense at all ever?

Tiger...

I think he comes into the discussion because of the SITUATION being similar, not the QBs.

No one in their right mind would actually COMPARE the two, from a TALENT perspective.

But, the situations do bare some resemblance. In fact, Elway's superior skill-set even illuminates the point further, in that we had the best QB in the history of the game, but couldn't play any defense and couldn't run the ball... so we lost.

Yet, you had fans calling for Elway's head. You had fans calling him a choker, even our OWN fans.

So, it's a situational comparison, not a comparison of Jake v. John.

Yes, sometimes it can be interesting to look at what Jake has done, with less talent around him... but that still doesn't mean someone is saying "Jake is as good as John."

Conversely, what you'll find whenever Elway's name is mentioned, a common tactic is for the logic-challenged to start name-calling and singing the whole "how can you compare Plummer to Elway" song.

I've seen two people on this thread mention Elway's name, and both didi it as a SITUATIONAL comparison. A very simple A/B comparison of two stages in team history where a lack of defense and or running game held back a team that was very close to Superbowl success.

Now, if someone wants to read that very clear set of points and interpret it as "you compare Jake to John BAD!" ... well, they're either very slow, or purporting to be very slow.

You're a great poster and a objective guy, so I'm sure you understand the difference.

[BroncoSoja]

which makes the Denver teams of prior years absolutely no different than the Superbowl teams of the 80s that got their asses handed to them by poor play from the whole team.

How the hell do you Compare a team that has been BLOWN away by the Colts twice and a team that was handled easily by Pitt last year (all three times getting Horrible play out of Plummer) to (Hall of Famer) lead John Elway AFC CHAMPION Superbowl teams with a HELL OF alot less talent then the current team....???

Keep thinking we would have lost the Pitt game last year if we had Elway or any other decent QB who shows up for the big game. ROFL!


You Plummer fanatics are worse then the idiots over at BroncosFreak several years ago that were all up on GrieseBalls nuts when he had that one good season. But all I have to wait is one more year and finally you Plummer fans will be muzzled.. ONE MORE FREAKING YEAR, cant wait. !Booya!

[Taco John]

If Plumer is good as dead why do you guys have to act like ghouls about it? Let's dig up the body and play with it. You can't show more class that this? You have to act like trailer trash and rationalize every tiny area where you are correct? Is being correct that new an experience for you? Those are very Bob like sentiments.

Why does Elway come in any discussion about Plummer as if that makes any sense at all ever?

There seems no middle ground only this ascerbic wasteland of stupid comparisons. You are either a wide eyed moron for having any sense of honor or some jaded evil business slut if you all you see if the money part of this.

Hey Business sluts! You are not getting paid to waste hours trying to defend your precious point of view. You are getting screwed on this deal! Nobody is giving you money! LOSERS!

Hey Wide eyed moralists! You are trying to convert whores into virgins. They don't have a freaking heart. What are you doing? They are the all knowing insiders. They know everything about the business and look down upon you lunch buckets. Get a clue. They aren't going to say it. Drink your beer and buy another hot dog. They can't hear a thing you are saying.

No more Plummer debates for me. This is just very disappointing to see so many people I respect debase themselves, this site, the team all for the sake of being right.


I don't know what any of this means. I do know this: people don't like controversey. This thread melted down when I made the suggestion that there might be more to the Jake/Cutler feel-good story than what the media is widely reporting. I made the suggestion because a very trusted source shared the information with me. I had been sitting on the information, because I knew how well it would be received, especially coming from a Plummer critic. Later in the thread, Kaylore shared his views on the situation coming from his experience at training camp WATCHING them in action. People were shocked and disappointed at his views because they didn't reflect the sing-song tone that people want to believe.

So I'm here to tell you: take it for what it's worth. Believe what you want. I'm not here to try and change anybody's mind. I'm here to express my opinion and share information. My only agenda is to discuss the Broncos with the best information that we have available.

If people have a problem with other people having discussions about the players on the team, their performance, and their long term viability, I'm not sure what to say. That's been the daily operation of this site since its existence, and the fact that the quarterback is at the center of the discussion is nothing new... even if this time it's a quarterback that you happen to like.

[Taco John]

I think he comes into the discussion because of the SITUATION being similar, not the QBs.


So how is the situation similar? That's what I don't understand. Elway was a superior talent troubled by inferior coaching and inferior talent around him when a superior coach came in and installed a system and found the right personnel to man that system. I don't understand how the Plummer situation correlates.

[Odysseus]

Ain't love grand?

[Popps]

So how is the situation similar? That's what I don't understand. Elway was a superior talent troubled by inferior coaching and inferior talent around him when a superior coach came in and installed a system and found the right personnel to man that system. I don't understand how the Plummer situation correlates.

Why was Reeves inferior?

Because he didn't install the proper mechanism around Elway to be effective. Actually, it's not even just "around Elway"... it's in general.

So, Elway and a few other quality players were at a lack of a proper support system to achieve their goal. Yet, Elway (the QB always being the focus, as you just said) was blamed.

Plummer has had a lot of regular season success, and trouble in the playoffs. His defense has collapsed in nearly every playoff game. (Early, and in a major way.)

Elway was good enough to make up for a sub-par defense/running game to a point... but once it was SB time, he simply couldn't function without the proper mechanism in place.

Our defense has been horrific in the playoffs. Yet, some just point the finger at Jake. Elway's early experiences in the SB were the same. People called him a choker. People actually blamed him for those losses. They said he wasn't a big game QB.


I mean, you can disagree with the analogy... but to pretend you don't understand it is kind of silly. It's fairly obvious. We don't have a proper mechanism in place to win a championship. Replace Plummer with Cutler, and we still don't.

Was Elway better than Plummer? Of course.

Did they both suffer from an improper structure around them? Of course.

It's a simple comparison of two stages in the franchise's history where we had glaring problems on defense (and with the run game) ... and yet some fans can only blame the QB.

It's not rocket science.

[Taco John]

I mean, you can disagree with the analogy... but to pretend you don't understand it is kind of silly. It's fairly obvious.

It has nothing to do with pretending. I think you're making a huge stretch in reason here and I am having a hard time understanding the analogy. I just think it's a huge stretch, and I know I'm not alone. You said it yourself: Elway was good enough to make up for a sub/par defense. On the other hand, Plummer needed the defense to bail him out and get him his only playoff win as a Bronco. If it weren't for Champ Bailey tricking the best young quarterback in the league today into believing he had him beat, we wouldn't have even had the opportunity to host the Steelers.


We don't have a proper mechanism in place to win a championship. Replace Plummer with Cutler, and we still don't.

I disagree. Not only do I think we could have beaten the Steelers last year, but I also believe we could have beaten the Seahawks. I think our defense let us down early. I think our offense did what they typically do in the playoffs and showed up with a too little too late inconsistent effort.

Do I blame the entire loss on the quarterback? No. But I blame plenty of it on him based on how he's performed in big games for us. At least with Elway, we got HUGE performances out of the guy to get us to the miserable losses. With Jake, the only reason we're even there is because he's being asked to play WITHIN the support structure around him... AND PLEASE DO NO MORE! Because the minute he starts trying to do more, he kills the team with interceptions. Never once did Dan Reeves or Mike Shanahan have to limit Elway's decision making ability because it was hurting the team.

Our defense let us down, there isn't a doubt. They got us down 17 points early. But if you take away the drives that originated in Denver territory due to offensive turnovers, they gave up 13 points. So for you to sit there and tell me that our team lacks the defensive infrastructure to win a Championship is laughable. Further it's laughable for you to complain about people "blaming only the quarterback" while you're putting the blame squarely on the defense with no consideration for THE SITUATION THAT THE DEFENSE IS IN. The Steelers only managed 13 points on drives starting in their own territory. Hence my challenge to Jake: Control the ball and give the defense a chance.

It would be one thing if the offensive drives were just stalling, while the defense is giving up drive after drive after drive. THEN you'd have a righteous argument. But that's not what's happening at all. Our offense is losing the field position battle through TURNOVERS and putting our defense on their heels.

All I want is to see the turnovers go away. That's it. Control the ball. Watch what happens. That was the formula to a 13 win season. Why should it be any different for the playoffs?

Control the ball. It's not rocket science AND it's a proven winning formula for our team, hence the 13-3 record.

[BroncoInferno]

Taco, what you don't get (or, what I suspect you do get, but choose to ignore because it exposes you biases), and what Popps is trying to get at, is that in very similar situations NOT EVEN ELWAY could pull the team to victory. Yet you blame an inferior QB for doing what not even Elway could do in similar situations. This includes games where not only did the defense give up a lot of points, but Elway turned the ball over. Now, if you had any consistency at all, you would have to blame Elway for the first three SB losses. I mean, yeah, the defense gave up a lot of points, but, c'mon, he left them with a short field! Where are your charts proving that, had Elway led a scoring drive in the 2nd quarter, and not thrown an interception in the early going, San Fran would not have scored 55 points and we would have won? It's that kind of absurdity you are using to blame Plummer for the last three playoff losses. The situations on game basis are the exact same thing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Every game that goes by that Cutler plays in it's easier to see why he will be starting next year.

[Circle Orange]

It has nothing to do with pretending. I think you're making a huge stretch in reason here and I am having a hard time understanding the analogy. I just think it's a huge stretch, and I know I'm not alone. You said it yourself: Elway was good enough to make up for a sub/par defense. On the other hand, Plummer needed the defense to bail him out and get him his only playoff win as a Bronco. If it weren't for Champ Bailey tricking the best young quarterback in the league today into believing he had him beat, we wouldn't have even had the opportunity to host the Steelers.




I disagree. Not only do I think we could have beaten the Steelers last year, but I also believe we could have beaten the Seahawks. I think our defense let us down early. I think our offense did what they typically do in the playoffs and showed up with a too little too late inconsistent effort.

Do I blame the entire loss on the quarterback? No. But I blame plenty of it on him based on how he's performed in big games for us. At least with Elway, we got HUGE performances out of the guy to get us to the miserable losses. With Jake, the only reason we're even there is because he's being asked to play WITHIN the support structure around him... AND PLEASE DO NO MORE! Because the minute he starts trying to do more, he kills the team with interceptions. Never once did Dan Reeves or Mike Shanahan have to limit Elway's decision making ability because it was hurting the team.

Our defense let us down, there isn't a doubt. They got us down 17 points early. But if you take away the drives that originated in Denver territory due to offensive turnovers, they gave up 13 points. So for you to sit there and tell me that our team lacks the defensive infrastructure to win a Championship is laughable. Further it's laughable for you to complain about people "blaming only the quarterback" while you're putting the blame squarely on the defense with no consideration for THE SITUATION THAT THE DEFENSE IS IN. The Steelers only managed 13 points on drives starting in their own territory. Hence my challenge to Jake: Control the ball and give the defense a chance.

It would be one thing if the offensive drives were just stalling, while the defense is giving up drive after drive after drive. THEN you'd have a righteous argument. But that's not what's happening at all. Our offense is losing the field position battle through TURNOVERS and putting our defense on their heels.

All I want is to see the turnovers go away. That's it. Control the ball. Watch what happens. That was the formula to a 13 win season. Why should it be any different for the playoffs?

Control the ball. It's not rocket science AND it's a proven winning formula for our team, hence the 13-3 record.


LOL, that baby TJ posted looks familiar...ROFL!


Popps makes some reasonable and sensible points. I choose to disagree with them, however. Why? Because they make too much sense. Jake was supposed to lift the team, and all that jazz we hear about qbs. Yes, he isn't John, but that shouldn't be an excuse. ONE LOUSY PLAY...that's all we needed in the title game. Maybe someone should have given John a call to come on the sidelines for one play, then go back into retirement. :clown:

[bendog]

Every game that goes by that Cutler plays in it's easier to see why he will be starting next year.

Plus Cutler's easier to take on road games.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148105/?nav=tap3

[Odysseus]

Every game that goes by that Cutler plays in it's easier to see why he will be starting next year.

Cutler is starting before the end of this year. I would bet Baja's money on it.

[Ron Mexico]

You do realize this is a perfect example of what I criticized you for in the last post, right?

I am sorry. I underestimated your ability to draw a line between the dots. You draft a QB in the first round to lead your team. Cutler is in the same position that Big Ben was in with the Steelers. He is not expected to start this year but if Jake goes down injured or even trips over his dog, Jake may not start again.

Arguing that I do not present a cogent argument (backed by the inability to draw a conclusion) is an opinion of yours...which shoots down your 2nd criticism of my post: opinion.

[Popps]

Taco, what you don't get (or, what I suspect you do get, but choose to ignore because it exposes you biases), and what Popps is trying to get at, is that in very similar situations NOT EVEN ELWAY could pull the team to victory. Yet you blame an inferior QB for doing what not even Elway could do in similar situations. This includes games where not only did the defense give up a lot of points, but Elway turned the ball over. Now, if you had any consistency at all, you would have to blame Elway for the first three SB losses. I mean, yeah, the defense gave up a lot of points, but, c'mon, he left them with a short field! Where are your charts proving that, had Elway led a scoring drive in the 2nd quarter, and not thrown an interception in the early going, San Fran would not have scored 55 points and we would have won? It's that kind of absurdity you are using to blame Plummer for the last three playoff losses. The situations on game basis are the exact same thing.


Like I said, at this point... people are just pretending not to understand, or disagree and can't simply admit it.

Disagreeing is fine, but anyone who honestly "can't understand" the analogy at this stage should really just log off and take up another hobby.

[Popps]

Every game that goes by that Cutler plays in it's easier to see why he will be starting next year.

That's nice.

Cutler will be our eventual starter. That's not debatable.

So, you posting that is like throwing a rock up in the air, predicting it will come back down, and then congratulating yourself when it does. It's true, but it doesn't really mean anything.

The real issue here is if this team will ever install the proper mechanism around WHATEVER quarterback to win a SB. John Elway needed it, and Jay Cutler will need it.

[Popps]

All I want is to see the turnovers go away. That's it. Control the ball. Watch what happens. That was the formula to a 13 win season. Why should it be any different for the playoffs?

If you've watched any reasonable amount of playoff football, you know that even the best offenses will break down in at least one playoff game.

Pick an offense in the history of the game, and I'll show you a playoff game where they came out flat... or, do you not remember our 14-10 win in K.C.?

Like I said, you can point to the very next week in Pittsburgh where the Steelers started out with 2 three and outs, another punt, then an INT. That's no points, no sustained drives and a turnover on their FIRST FOUR drives.

Yet, they have a real, championship caliber defense, so they were kept in the game.

We, on the other hand... do not have one, so we get blown out if our offense stumbles in the first half of any playoff game.

Once again, it's playoff football 101. You can look through the course of football history and see the same thing over and over. Defense trumps offense. There's a reason the cliches about defense winning championships exist, Taco.

You'll find all sorts of average offenses with SB rings, but very, very few average defenses.

You've GOT to be able to stop other teams when your offense isn't in a groove.

[bendog]

The Jets beat what is commonly thought to be one of the best all-time teams, the 69 Colts, but Namath had a fairly ordinary game. Good game management and efficiency, but the Jets wore em down with Snell and Boozer.

Can anyone think of a qb of a pretty much outgunned team winning a superbowl?

[bendog]

can popps and TJ both be right?

Den's def isn't strong enough up front. With Pitt they "almost" made the plays with Wilson and Champ that would've kept the Off in the game. But get behind by two scores, and Jake ain't the guy.

[Taco John]

Taco, what you don't get (or, what I suspect you do get, but choose to ignore because it exposes you biases), and what Popps is trying to get at, is that in very similar situations NOT EVEN ELWAY could pull the team to victory.


Actually, I believe we'd have won at home against Pittsburgh is Elway were playing. At the very least, I know we wouldn't have turned the ball over four times.

I'm suprised that anyone believes that Elway wouldn't have been capable of victory at home against the Steelers.

[Taco John]

If you've watched any reasonable amount of playoff football, you know that even the best offenses will break down in at least one playoff game.


Yeah, but we're talking about ALL FOUR playoff appearances... Whereas, at least the defense can be thanked for one playoff win.

[Popps]

Yeah, but we're talking about ALL FOUR playoff appearances... Whereas, at least the defense can be thanked for one playoff win.

Three of those playoff appearances featured some of the worst defensive melt-downs in playoff history. Manning set a playoff record, if you'll recall.

It's not as if those were tight games and one turnover made the difference. Those were three of the most embarrassing things I've ever had to sit through, as a Bronco fan. To expect your offense to dig you out of something like that is absolute insanity, and simply goes against a well established history of playoff football.

As for the one game the "defense won" for us, yea... they showed up and did their job. They faced a fairly depleted Patriots offense and Brady made a questionable throw, Champ made a great play. Let's remember that our offense did punch the ball in a couple of times that day, too.

Odd what happens when your defense shows up, huh Taco? Kind of like us winning 14-10 in K.C..

Playoff football.

[Popps]

Actually, I believe we'd have won at home against Pittsburgh is Elway were playing. At the very least, I know we wouldn't have turned the ball over four times.

Taco, one turnover was a FORCED, DEFENSIVE turnover. That was the biggest swing in the game.

That's right, a DEFENSIVE LINEMEN rushed in and stripped the ball from Plummer, who was under duress all day long.

It's not like Jake made a crappy decision, he was getting his ass kicked all afternoon, and a crafty linemen STRIPPED the ball.

Even YOU can admit that Jake is pretty good at eluding pressure, so let's not pretend that was on him. That was a championship defense doing its job.

The first INT he threw was at the end of the first half when we were in deep, deep trouble against a top notch defense.. trying to make up a big deficit in a hurry.

Quit trying to paint this as something it wasn't. Even when the offense DID control some time on the clock and got a few points on the board, Pitt's O come right out... and marched 90 YARDS to punch in another on our hapless defense.

You can't spin this one off the defense, man.. no matter how hard you try. If the only thing you can focus on is the QB (which has been your history here) ... that's your thing. But, our defense was an utter embarrassment that day, and John Elway couldn't have saved them.

[Taco John]

can popps and TJ both be right?

Den's def isn't strong enough up front. With Pitt they "almost" made the plays with Wilson and Champ that would've kept the Off in the game. But get behind by two scores, and Jake ain't the guy.



I think we are both right... to a degree.

For my part, I agree that the Denver defense needs to improve the pressure up front. I think they let us down on the two drives where they couldn't get off the field. That said, I think that the fact that the Steelers only scored 13 points the entire game when starting drives from their own territory speaks loudly about the defense... a point that Popps and co refuse to acknowledge.

So there's my concession. But in return, I couldn't get a word from them about Plummer needing to quit hanging our defense out to dry by continually turning the ball over in enemy territory. In fact, it's the opposite. They wont even admit that Plummer hung anybody out to dry. They claim it's the other way around.

The debate can go on and on and on when one side refuses to acknowledge that the other side has points. In the end, though, it doesn't matter because Shanahan has provided the ultimate solution to the problem. Whether some want to believe it was a move that is mutually exclusive of Plummer's performance or not, the bottom line is still the same.

[bendog]

Well, Plummer's fumble ... Lepsis didn't even slow the guy down, and Jake got blindsided. He saw the guy at the last minute and tried to get down, but .... I've never, never seen a broncos team in an AFC championship game come out flat on offense until that game. Not under Reeves or Shanny. I'm really not over it yet. I let go sure, but I have some serious questions about the team. It's Jake's team no doubt. He came to play, imo, but the oline didn't.

I didn't really fault the D. But I thought they were outschemed. Pitt kept the blockers in and knew they'd get receivers open if they gave the FacePlant enough time.

Nevertheless, behind two scores, Jake will make bad decsions if he has to pass 30 times.

[Popps]

Well, Plummer's fumble ... Lepsis didn't even slow the guy down, and Jake got blindsided. He saw the guy at the last minute and tried to get down, but .... I've never, never seen a broncos team in an AFC championship game come out flat on offense until that game. Not under Reeves or Shanny. I'm really not over it yet. I let go sure, but I have some serious questions about the team. It's Jake's team no doubt. He came to play, imo, but the oline didn't.

I didn't really fault the D. But I thought they were outschemed. Pitt kept the blockers in and knew they'd get receivers open if they gave the FacePlant enough time.

Nevertheless, behind two scores, Jake will make bad decsions if he has to pass 30 times.

Perfectly logical.

Yes, that INT Jake threw near half-time was a poor throw.

But, we should have never been in that position. Our defense has to step up and makes stops when the offense comes out flat. That's just the way playoff football goes. It's historically written in stone and to try to argue with it is just futile.

[Popps]

The debate can go on and on and on when one side refuses to acknowledge that the other side has points. .

Nearly everyone on this board has acknowledged that Plummer has limitations.

That's not the issue.

The issue is which problem is negatively effecting the other to the degree that it should be addressed first. Again, a simple glance through football history will tell you that average offenses can win championships, but average defenses have little or no chance.

We've been trying to pull the horse with the cart for a long time, and replacing the QB is nice... but we'll be right were we have been if we don't address this team's needs properly.

[Taco John]

Well, Plummer's fumble ... Lepsis didn't even slow the guy down, and Jake got blindsided. He saw the guy at the last minute and tried to get down, but .... I've never, never seen a broncos team in an AFC championship game come out flat on offense until that game. Not under Reeves or Shanny. I'm really not over it yet. I let go sure, but I have some serious questions about the team. It's Jake's team no doubt. He came to play, imo, but the oline didn't.

I didn't really fault the D. But I thought they were outschemed. Pitt kept the blockers in and knew they'd get receivers open if they gave the FacePlant enough time.

Nevertheless, behind two scores, Jake will make bad decsions if he has to pass 30 times.


You're right... That's a mistake I make because my argument has been pigeon-holed to be just Plummer bashing... So where I mentioned Plummer in my last post, I should have said "offense." I think our offense let us down, including but not limited to Plummer. Neither fumble can be considered Plummer's fault.

[Taco John]

The issue is which problem is negatively effecting the other to the degree that it should be addressed first.




Actually, that's not an issue. The Broncos addressed the offense this past offseason.

The issue is whether you agree with Shanahan's solutions or not.

[Northman]

Perfectly logical.

Yes, that INT Jake threw near half-time was a poor throw.

But, we should have never been in that position. Our defense has to step up and makes stops when the offense comes out flat. That's just the way playoff football goes. It's historically written in stone and to try to argue with it is just futile.


thats hilarious, when we won our two Super Bowls our offense was light years better than our defense. Guess that just shot a hole in your theory.

[Taco John]

Again, a simple glance through football history will tell you that average offenses can win championships, but average defenses have little or no chance.


And just a side note: we won two champioships with average defenses. One of them even in a shoot-out.

[Popps]

Can anyone think of a qb of a pretty much outgunned team winning a superbowl?

Exactly.

Start examining football history and you'll find your answer to this debate.

Even easier, just look at this year.

Who has the best defense between these 4 teams:

Pitt
Indy
Denver
Seattle

Answer: Pittsburgh

Who has the worst offense?

Answer: Pittsburgh

Who won the Superbowl? Answer: Pittsburgh

So, the three best offenses in the league couldn't get over on Pitt's defense, and their so-so offense managed to get over on those other three team's defenses.

Starting to catch on, Taco?

[BroncoInferno]

thats hilarious, when we won our two Super Bowls our offense was light years better than our defense. Guess that just shot a hole in your theory.

Wrong. Our defense played a big role in both Super Bowl runs. The defense bailed out Elway and the boys 14-10 in Kansas City during the Revenge Tour, then in the Super Bowl they forced 3 key TOs and pressured Favre all day. Hell, the '98 defense did not allow a TD in the playoffs until Chandler threw a meaningless score to Mathis after the Super Bowl was already decided. They were fantasic. To say the offense was "light years" ahead of the defense suggests you weren't paying close enough attention.

[BroncoInferno]

And just a side note: we won two champioships with average defenses.

No, we didn't. Our defense was excellent during both playoff runs. The '97 team had some regular season lapses, true, but by the playoffs they were playing great football. You are just trying to rewrite history here. Absolutely not true at all.

One of them even in a shoot-out.

Huh? We were never in a playoff shootout during those runs. I guess you are referring to SB 32? Yeah, GB scored 24 points, big time shootout there. You are really stretching. We don't win that game without the D pressuring Favre all day and forcing him to turn it over.

[orange 4 life]

The Jets beat what is commonly thought to be one of the best all-time teams, the 69 Colts, but Namath had a fairly ordinary game. Good game management and efficiency, but the Jets wore em down with Snell and Boozer.

Can anyone think of a qb of a pretty much outgunned team winning a superbowl?

another good post on a page with a few. popps, bendog, inferno.
too many people making sense all at the same time!! strange?

popps,
youre making perfect sense as always, but like always, it will fall on deaf ears.
if taco is nuts enough to blame plummer for the colts losses (and even pitt), then he must ALSO blame elway for the 80's superbowl losses......but he wont.
sensibility is NOT the norm around here, though it is refreshing to see a few like you left who actually have it. well done as usual.

bendog,
namath guaranteed the win, and he looked real nice in his fur coat, but he did VERY little to get that win. sure, he was the leader, and he gets credit for that, but the defense and matt snell won that game. typical of games in january.

[Northman]

Wrong. Our defense played a big role in both Super Bowl runs. The defense bailed out Elway and the boys 14-10 in Kansas City during the Revenge Tour, then in the Super Bowl they forced 3 key TOs and pressured Favre all day. Hell, the '98 defense did not allow a TD in the playoffs until Chandler threw a meaningless score to Mathis after the Super Bowl was already decided. They were fantasic. To say the offense was "light years" ahead of the defense suggests you weren't paying close enough attention.


Obviously closer attention than you. The Broncos offense averaged 35 points a game during that stretch. Yes, they ran into a snag in K.C and the defense helped out. But Denver's defense used a ****LOAD of blitz packages during that stretch as well. How ironic shortly after teams caught on to those that Greg Robinson was cut loose both here and in K.C. Go back and watch the tapes most of those turnovers were on blitz packages.

[BroncoInferno]

Obviously closer attention than you. The Broncos offense averaged 35 points a game during that stretch. Yes, they ran into a snag in K.C and the defense helped out. But Denver's defense used a ****LOAD of blitz packages during that stretch as well. How ironic shortly after teams caught on to those that Greg Robinson was cut loose both here and in K.C. Go back and watch the tapes most of those turnovers were on blitz packages.


So? Are you saying the method (blitzing) takes away from the results? That's silly. I don't even see your point here. The blitz packages worked during those two seasons. What happened in future seasons is irrelevant. And yes, the offense averaged a lot of points during the regular season, but we are talking about playoff football here. Remember that windy day in the AFC Championship against the Jets. The offense got shut out in the first half! But, the defense held strong. The Jets only TD came after a blocked punt was recovered at the one yard line. To say the defenses from those two seasons did not play a major role in us winning a pair of championships is flat wrong.

[Northman]

So? Are you saying the method (blitzing) takes away from the results? That's silly. I don't even see your point here. The blitz packages worked during those two seasons. What happened in future seasons is irrelevant. And yes, the offense averaged a lot of points during the regular season, but we are talking about playoff football here. Remember that windy day in the AFC Championship against the Jets. The offense got shut out in the first half! But, the defense held strong. The Jets only TD came after a blocked punt was recovered at the one yard line. To say the defenses from those two seasons did not play a major role in us winning a championship is flat wrong.

Oh my, your not going to use the Jets game as a example are you? LMAO! dude, there was so much wind that day hardly anyone could a damn thing out there. If not for some VERY lucky bounces we may have not even won that game. And looking at the stats for those years the Denver offense averaged 35 points a game and the defense averaged almost 25-30 points a game. I hardly call that Dominant. A dominant defense is what a team like the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs had. Sure, they dont come around a lot but to sit there and say the Defense was the catalyst for our Super Bowl wins is ludicrous.

[BroncoInferno]

And looking at the stats for those years the Denver offense averaged 35 points a game and the defense averaged almost 25-30 points a game.

LOL You are just making things up now:

NFL Final Standings - 1997

West W L T PF PA
Kansas City Chiefs 13 3 0 375 232
Denver Broncos 12 4 0 472 287
Seattle Seahawks 8 8 0 365 362
Oakland Raiders 4 12 0 324 419
San Diego Chargers 4 12 0 266 425

NFL Final Standings - 1998

West W L T PF PA
Denver Broncos 14 2 0 501 309
Oakland Raiders 8 8 0 288 356
Seattle Seahawks 8 8 0 372 310
Kansas City Chiefs 7 9 0 327 363
San Diego Chargers 5 11 0 241 342

I'll let you do the math regarding PA (hint: the results will be less than 25-30 points a game).

[BroncoInferno]

Sure, they dont come around a lot but to sit there and say the Defense was the catalyst for our Super Bowl wins is ludicrous.

I didn't say they were the catalyst; I said they played a major role. And they did.

[Northman]

LOL You are just making things up now:

NFL Final Standings - 1997

West W L T PF PA
Kansas City Chiefs 13 3 0 375 232
Denver Broncos 12 4 0 472 287
Seattle Seahawks 8 8 0 365 362
Oakland Raiders 4 12 0 324 419
San Diego Chargers 4 12 0 266 425

NFL Final Standings - 1998

West W L T PF PA
Denver Broncos 14 2 0 501 309
Oakland Raiders 8 8 0 288 356
Seattle Seahawks 8 8 0 372 310
Kansas City Chiefs 7 9 0 327 363
San Diego Chargers 5 11 0 241 342

I'll let you do the math regarding PA (hint: the results will be less than 25-30 points a game).


I was looking at the score results and basing off of that. If you look at the scores teams were still scoring over 20 points a game. Maybe i was a little high but the defense wasnt dominant like you make it out to be. And you are insinuating the defense played a bigger role than it did. The defense was just a bonus to a powerful offense.




1998

1 | New England Patriots | W | 27-21 |
| 2 | Dallas Cowboys | W | 42-23 |
| 3 | at Oakland Raiders | W | 34-17 |
| 4 | at Washington Redskins | W | 38-16 |
| 5 | Philadelphia Eagles | W | 41-16 |
| 6 | at Seattle Seahawks | W | 21-16 |
| 7 | |
| 8 | Jacksonville Jaguars | W | 37-24 |
| 9 | at Cincinnati Bengals | W | 33-26 |
| 10 | San Diego Chargers | W | 27-10 |
| 11 | at Kansas City Chiefs | W | 30- 7 |
| 12 | Oakland Raiders | W | 40-14 |
| 13 | at San Diego Chargers | W | 31-16 |
| 14 | Kansas City Chiefs | W | 35-31 |
| 15 | at New York Giants | L | 16-20 |
| 16 | at Miami Dolphins | L | 21-31 |
| 17 | Seattle Seahawks | W | 28-21 |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------







1997

| Week | Opponent | Result | Score |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Kansas City Chiefs | W | 19- 3 |
| 2 | at Seattle Seahawks | W | 35-14 |
| 3 | St. Louis Rams | W | 35-14 |
| 4 | Cincinnati Bengals | W | 38-20 |
| 5 | at Atlanta Falcons | W | 29-21 |
| 6 | New England Patriots | W | 34-13 |
| 7 | |
| 8 | at Oakland Raiders | L | 25-28 |
| 9 | at Buffalo Bills | W | 23-20 |
| 10 | Seattle Seahawks | W | 30-27 |
| 11 | Carolina Panthers | W | 34- 0 |
| 12 | at Kansas City Chiefs | L | 22-24 |
| 13 | Oakland Raiders | W | 31- 3 |
| 14 | at San Diego Chargers | W | 38-28 |
| 15 | at Pittsburgh Steelers | L | 24-35 |
| 16 | at San Francisco 49ers | L | 17-34 |
| 17 | San Diego Chargers | W | 38- 3 |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+

[BroncoInferno]

I was looking at the score results and basing off of that. If you look at the scores teams were still scoring over 20 points a game.

The 287 PA in 1997 was sixth best in the leage. You're argument was that we won with average defenses. 6th best in PA is hardly "average". You were wrong.

Maybe i was a little high but the defense wasnt dominant like you make it out to be.

I never used the word dominant. You said we won with average defenses, insinuating they played little or no role in our success. That simply is not true, and the record (especially the playoff record) bears that out.

They d And you are insinuating the defense played a bigger role than it did. The defense was just a bonus to a powerful offense.

Well, if you don't consider the '98 defense not allowing a playoff TD until the the Super Bowl was already decided and the '97 defense bailing out the offense in Kansas City and pressuring the 3 time MVP into a mediocre performance in SB 32 as "playing a big role", then I don't know what to tell you.

[Northman]

Well, if you don't consider the '98 defense not allowing a playoff TD until the the Super Bowl was already decided and the '97 defense bailing out the offense in Kansas City and pressuring the 3 time MVP into a mediocre performance in SB 32 as "playing a big role", then I don't know what to tell you.

No, i dont see it as a " big role " because we would have beaten the pack anyway. The defense was " Good Enough " to get some stops but they didnt play a huge role in our Championships. The Denver offense kept putting up points and all the defense had to do was get a couple of stops throughout the game. I guess it just boils down to what you and i believe are average D's and and Stellar D's. The Rams in 99' had a average D but still made the plays when they needed to. But it wasnt like they were shutting teams out. I wont say they played a big role in our wins but they did play " a role ".

[BroncoInferno]

No, i dont see it as a " big role " because we would have beaten the pack anyway. The defense was " Good Enough " to get some stops but they didnt play a huge role in our Championships. The Denver offense kept putting up points and all the defense had to do was get a couple of stops throughout the game. I guess it just boils down to what you and i believe are average D's and and Stellar D's. The Rams in 99' had a average D but still made the plays when they needed to. But it wasnt like they were shutting teams out. I wont say they played a big role in our wins but they did play " a role ".

Well, I've given you the facts; I don't know what else to tell you except they prove you wrong.

On the '99 Rams, I'm afraid you are wrong again:

NFL Final Standings - 1999

West W L T PF PA
St. Louis Rams 13 3 0 526 242
Carolina Panthers 8 8 0 421 381
Atlanta Falcons 5 11 0 285 380
San Francisco 49ers 4 12 0 295 453
New Orleans Saints 3 13 0 260 434

That 242 PA total was good for 4th in the league. In the future, you might want to try to do at least a rudimentary fact check before you make claims that can be proven wrong in a matter of seconds.

[Hulamau]

Every game that goes by that Cutler plays in it's easier to see why he will be starting next year.

Spoken for truth!

[Northman]

Well, I've given you the facts; I don't know what else to tell you except they prove you wrong.

On the '99 Rams, I'm afraid you are wrong again:

NFL Final Standings - 1999

West W L T PF PA
St. Louis Rams 13 3 0 526 242
Carolina Panthers 8 8 0 421 381
Atlanta Falcons 5 11 0 285 380
San Francisco 49ers 4 12 0 295 453
New Orleans Saints 3 13 0 260 434

That 242 PA total was good for 4th in the league. In the future, you might want to try to do at least a rudimentary fact check before you make claims that can be proven wrong in a matter of seconds.




Again, their defense really had to do nothing in order for them to be successful but it was their offense that did the damage. Its hard for any team to play catch up when your offense is railing off 30-40 points a game. Look at their division, only one team is at .500 and only that team was able to break 400 points. Stats can be deceiving but i guess your not too quick to know that. For example, you pointed to the win at Arrowhead in the playoffs. But you didnt account for the fact that Gannon was replaced by Grbac who hadnt played in weeks. In the future you might want to look at the broad picture and not just what the numbers tell you so you dont look foolish.

[Cito Pelon]

You have to score more points than the other guy. I personally don't give a Herm how it happens. But I do think a solid team in all three phases with a sharp coaching staff is what you shoot for. Like Pittsburgh last year, NE before them, DENVER before NE's run.

You can't hang your hat on one unit and say, "This is gonna get the overall Title for me."

[Popps]

The 287 PA in 1997 was sixth best in the leage. You're argument was that we won with average defenses. 6th best in PA is hardly "average". You were wrong..

I can't fathom how football illiterate one would have to be to think our SB defense was average.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

[Popps]

Again, their defense really had to do nothing in order for them to be successful but it was their offense that did the damage. In the future you might want to look at the broad picture and not just what the numbers tell you so you dont look foolish.

Yea, and we managed TWO scores that entire game.

They really "did the damage," huh?

Our defense won that game for us, including a big-time stop on a final drive that could have cost us a SB appearance.

But, you're right... it was "average."

Unreal.

[Taco John]

Our defenses during the Superbowls secondary to our powerful offense. That' just fact.

[Popps]

Our defenses during the Superbowls secondary to our powerful offense. That' just fact.

Secondary, fine. "Average".... of course not.

We still had a championship defense. We were loaded with playmakers and savvy vets, and our front four controlled the line of scrimmage. We weren't hte 85 Bears, but we were light years better than we are now.

You want to talk average? Look at what we're trotting out there now. THAT is average.

Like I said, Taco... of the NFL final four this year, the team with the BEST defense and the WORST offense won it all. The BEST quarterback in the league was sent home by Pittsburgh. The BEST offenses in the league, shut down.

So, you and Beerslug can keep repeating yourselves that Cutler is going to eventually be the starter... great! Meanwhile, unless we address the real problems on this team, we'll still be playoff pretenders... only with a slighly better QB. (In theory.)

That's playoff football... always has been, always will be.

[Dagmar]

I love the threads where you guys go at it. I'd love to sit between you in a bar!

[Dagmar]

Like I said, Taco... of the NFL final four this year, the team with the BEST defense and the WORST offense won it all. The BEST quarterback in the league was sent home by Pittsburgh. The BEST offenses in the league, shut down.


Actually, the best QB in the league was sent off the field on a stretcher by Pittsburgh. But I am not getting into a football knowledge battle with either of you in a million years...

[Popps]

Actually, the best QB in the league was sent off the field on a stretcher by Pittsburgh. But I am not getting into a football knowledge battle with either of you in a million years...

That could be true. Hope so, I just drafted him on Sunday.

:approve:

[Taco John]

Well again... Our defense gave up only 13 points on drives that originated from Steeler territory. We had a good enough defense to beat Pittsburgh at home if our offense had just executed the game plan. Apparently, this is how Shanahan sees it too, because he targeted offense this year.

We can disagree what the Broncos problems are personally. But at the end of the day, the man with the final say made moves to improve the offense, signalling that is where he saw our chief weaknesses.

Personally, I think he got it right.

[Popps]

We had a good enough defense to beat Pittsburgh at home if our offense had just executed the game plan.

Says who? At what stage of them allowing scores on every single drive did you formulate that comical theory?

the man with the final say made moves to improve the offense, signalling that is where he saw our chief weaknesses.

Big deal. He also dumped gobs of picks and free agent signings into our defense over the last few years. That's what coaches do. You think because he drafted a QB he liked, it means he's on board with your goofy debate?

Plus, this is the same coach you blasted a couple of years back for bad play-calling, not giving Griese enough supporting cast, etc.

Which is it, Taco? You just can't decide... can you. I guess that's why it's always changing, with you.

[Northman]

Yea, and we managed TWO scores that entire game.

They really "did the damage," huh?

Our defense won that game for us, including a big-time stop on a final drive that could have cost us a SB appearance.

But, you're right... it was "average."

Unreal.


Our defense was Opportunistic. Your talking one game against a Qb who hadnt played in weeks. Your talking about one game where our offense didnt put up 30 points. what about the following week when we were up 21-3 on Pitt only to see the defense let us down and allow Pitt back in the game? Oh thats right, your too stupid to look beyond one game. I forgot.

[Popps]

Oh thats right, your too stupid to look beyond one game. I forgot.



Hilarious!

Yea, you're calling our championship defense "average," and then branding other people "stupid."

Classic.

As for your question, I've given dozens of examples, so your little name calling routine really holds no water. A couple of other people on this thread have also given examples of that defense stepping up. (And our current NOT stepping up.)

You've already had your clock cleaned by someone else on this thread regarding that topic. Why would you want to go through it again?

[Northman]

Hilarious!

Yea, you're calling our championship defense "average," and then branding other people "stupid."

Classic.

As for your question, I've given dozens of examples, so your little name calling routine really holds no water. A couple of other people on this thread have also given examples of that defense stepping up. (And our current NOT stepping up.)

You've already had your clock cleaned by someone else on this thread regarding that topic. Why would you want to go through it again?



Never said it was average, said it didnt play a major role as opposed to the offense. Learn to read. And by the way genius, if you guys are going by stats only to support your arguements than the fact that Jake had 4 turnovers only proves that he is at fault for the loss to Pitt last year. Although i know it was much more than that going by your theory that is essentially what your saying. If Stats are all you look at and not the broad picture than you have no basis to argue that point. We turned the ball over more than the opposing team and lost. That is fact. Now, go ahead and spin away.

[Northman]

A couple of other people on this thread have also given examples of that defense stepping up. (And our current NOT stepping up.)


So in the Pats game the defense did nothing? Talk about lack of intelligence.

[Popps]

Never said it was average, said it didnt play a major role as opposed to the offense. Learn to read.

Let me help you out...

That defense allowed an average of 14 points per game. ]

14 points. Still want to say they didn't matter?

Our current playoff defense allows that much before you can return to your seat with a pretzel and a beer.

Just because our offense was high flying, doesn't mean the defense didn't play an equal or greater role.

As I've said before.... do a little homework, and you'll find that the history of the NFL tells us that defense trumps offense in the playoffs. I mean, it happened again this year.

How much more proof do you people need?

[Popps]

So in the Pats game the defense did nothing? Talk about lack of intelligence.

Just keep name calling, kid. It's all you've got. I've already addressed the New England game. Talk about not reading.

Yea, our defense actually showed up that day. Amazingly, we won.

Bizarre coincidence, huh?

[Northman]

Let me help you out...

That defense allowed an average of 14 points per game. ]

14 points. Still want to say they didn't matter?

Our current playoff defense allows that much before you can return to your seat with a pretzel and a beer.

Just because our offense was high flying, doesn't mean the defense didn't play an equal or greater role.

As I've said before.... do a little homework, and you'll find that the history of the NFL tells us that defense trumps offense in the playoffs. I mean, it happened again this year.

How much more proof do you people need?




Again, show me where i said they were average? I said they played their role and supported a great offense. Now your just grasping at straws here. I never said they were average.

[Popps]

Again, show me where i said they were average? I said they played their role and supported a great offense. Now your just grasping at straws here. I never said they were average.

Actually, here was your quote...

thats hilarious, when we won our two Super Bowls our offense was light years better than our defense.

Patently false, but you're right.. the "average" quote wasn't you....

it was TACO!

I should have known. He's one of very few capable of misrepresenting history to that extent. But, I have to admit... even for him, that surprises me.

Just another Taco gem we can add to the pile, along with "the QB position is an afterthought," etc.

[Popps]

And just a side note: we won two champioships with average defenses. One of them even in a shoot-out.

Wow, quoted for amazement.

This might be the worst post I've ever seen regarding this team, and by the guy who runs the site, no less.

Neil Smith, Alfred Williams, Keith Traylor, Trevor Pryce, Ray Crockett, Steve Atwater, Tryrone Braxton, Bill Romanowski, John Mobley.....

Average.

You really have outdone yourself, dude. It's nothing short of fascinating how far you'll warp the truth to make a point.

[Killericon]

We weren't hte 85 Bears, but we were light years better than we are now.

You want to talk average? Look at what we're trotting out there now. THAT is average.

:spit:

Neil Smith, Alfred Williams, Keith Traylor, Trevor Pryce, Ray Crockett, Steve Atwater, Tryrone Braxton, Bill Romanowski, John Mobley.....

John Lynch, Al Wilson, DJ Williams, Champ Bailey, Ian Gold, Darrent Williams...The Difference is light years? This is average?

Please.

The defense in the SB years was marginally better than the one we field now. The primary difference is the offenses, which of course are incomparable.

[BroncoInferno]

Again, their defense really had to do nothing in order for them to be successful but it was their offense that did the damage. Its hard for any team to play catch up when your offense is railing off 30-40 points a game. Look at their division, only one team is at .500 and only that team was able to break 400 points. Stats can be deceiving but i guess your not too quick to know that. For example, you pointed to the win at Arrowhead in the playoffs. But you didnt account for the fact that Gannon was replaced by Grbac who hadnt played in weeks. In the future you might want to look at the broad picture and not just what the numbers tell you so you dont look foolish.

LOL Whatever, man. I gave you more than one game as an example. In fact, I gave you a 16 game sample where the '97 team allowed the 6th fewest points in the league. If you want to say the defense was secondary to the offense for the most part, fine, but to say they didn't play a big role in winning two championships is, quite simply, wrong. If all all you needed was a great offense, we would have won the Super Bowl in 2000 as well. That team scored more points than the '97 squad. Just goes to show...you've got to play tough defense in the playoffs...no matter how good your offense is. Even the '99 Rams offense had to be bailed out of the NFC Championship game. They only scored 11 points. Fortunately for them, the D only allowed 6. See how it works?

[BroncoInferno]

Well again... Our defense gave up only 13 points on drives that originated from Steeler territory.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes the points scored orginating in Bronco territory would not have occured had they started elsewhere. Why? Our defense could not stop a 3rd down to save their lives. You also fail to consider that Cowher went into Marty mode in the second half. Who knows how many points they would have scored if they had continued to play agressively? The defense would have allowed more points than they should have no matter how you slice it. The were terrible on that day.

[fontaine]

The problem with your logic is that it assumes the points scored orginating in Bronco territory would not have occured had they started elsewhere. Why? Our defense could not stop a 3rd down to save their lives.

That's a damn good point. Our Defense got schooled on third downs period, regardless of field position.

The last time I checked our defense on third downs isn't reliant on what Jake Plummer does or doesn't do.

[Popps]

The defense in the SB years was marginally better than the one we field now. .

Wow.

That defense allowed 14 ppg in the playoffs and REGULARLY had the ability to keep us in games if our offense came out flat.

Our current defense has absolutely collapsed in 3 of the last 4 playoff games. They've collapsed early and embarrassingly.

Smith/Traylor/Tanuvassa-Pryce/Williams

You're coming to compare the garbage front 4 we have now to THOSE guys and say it's the same?



I think Quiettiger nailed this whole thing. There is really no length people won't go to around here to be right. Calling our championship defense "average," or even worse... comparing it to the TRULY average defense we trot out there these days is a perfect example.

... and before anyone starts in with the Elway stuff, no one has ever said Elway was "average" or that Plummer was anywhere near as good. That was a situational analogy proving that even a GREAT QB like John needed the right mechanism in place.

These are really new levels, even for this forum.

[Popps]

LOL Whatever, man. I gave you more than one game as an example. In fact, I gave you a 16 game sample where the '97 team allowed the 6th fewest points in the league. If you want to say the defense was secondary to the offense for the most part, fine, but to say they didn't play a big role in winning two championships is, quite simply, wrong. If all all you needed was a great offense, we would have won the Super Bowl in 2000 as well. That team scored more points than the '97 squad. Just goes to show...you've got to play tough defense in the playoffs...no matter how good your offense is. Even the '99 Rams offense had to be bailed out of the NFC Championship game. They only scored 11 points. Fortunately for them, the D only allowed 6. See how it works?

It really is amazing/disappointing that you would have to explain that to Broncos fans. They of all people should understand this simple concept.

Our biggest disappointment as a franchise came in a game where we scored 27(!) points, and yet or defense gave up 30. (Jacksonville)

We went out and improved the defense... and won a couple of SBs.

[Taco John]

Which is it, Taco? You just can't decide... can you. I guess that's why it's always changing, with you.


I don't understand this criticism...

I never once made the criticism that Shanahan used Griese wrong. I did, however, Criticize him for starting a back-up center as a starting left tackle. Also, Shanahan has deserved criticism for his talent evaluation when it comes to drafting wide receivers. But his use of Griese? He used Griese pretty well in my estimation... I just didn't like some of the personnel moves he made at the time.

But aside from that, what is with this criticism that "It's always changing with me?" Perhaps you have another, more accurate example than the one you just made up.

[Popps]

I don't understand this criticism...

I never once made the criticism that Shanahan used Griese wrong. I did, however, Criticize him for starting a back-up center as a starting left tackle. Also, Shanahan has deserved criticism for his talent evaluation when it comes to drafting wide receivers. But his use of Griese? He used Griese pretty well in my estimation... I just didn't like some of the personnel moves he made at the time.

But aside from that, what is with this criticism that "It's always changing with me?" Perhaps you have another, more accurate example than the one you just made up.

Maybe "used Griese wrong" was improper language. But, you had plenty of criticism for Shanahan/Kubiak for playcalling, offensive choices, etc. You were absolving Griese of responsibility by blaming Shanahan.

Now, I'd need to dig this forum more than I care to, but I'd even swear you were starting to toss around scenarios where Shanahan might need to go.
Maybe someone else of long tenure can help out on that one.

In any case, you've had plenty bad to say about Shanahan, so you're new "see, Shanny got a QB so I'm right" routine holds no water. You've had plenty bad to say about his choices in the past. Him making one you agree with doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

[Taco John]

LOL Whatever, man. I gave you more than one game as an example. In fact, I gave you a 16 game sample where the '97 team allowed the 6th fewest points in the league. If you want to say the defense was secondary to the offense for the most part, fine, but to say they didn't play a big role in winning two championships is, quite simply, wrong. If all all you needed was a great offense, we would have won the Super Bowl in 2000 as well. That team scored more points than the '97 squad. Just goes to show...you've got to play tough defense in the playoffs...no matter how good your offense is. Even the '99 Rams offense had to be bailed out of the NFC Championship game. They only scored 11 points. Fortunately for them, the D only allowed 6. See how it works?



Our defense definitely played a big role, but the scheme only worked because the offense did their job. We wouldn't have been able to blitz as much as we did if it weren't for the offense executing the game plan. In fact, coming into the playoffs, the biggest concern on our team WAS the defense due to the 28-25 loss to the Raiders where we let them score a touchdown in every quarter of football... followed by the 23-20 overtime win against the Buffalo Bills where we let them score 20 fourth quarter points to disrupt a 20-0 blow-out up to that point... followed by the 30-27 shoot-out win against the Seahawks that we pulled out with a late field goal... The 24-22 loss against the KC Chiefs that knocked us from clenching the division... followed by the 38-28 win in San Diego where we let them score 14 points in the fourth quarter and make it a game... followed by a 35-24 LOSS to the Steelers that REALLY got people talking... Which carried over to the next week where we took a 35-24 LOSS to the San Francisco 49ers...

This idea that our defense was this great machine that we knew we could count on going into the playoffs is nothing more than history revision. We were scared stiff as a fan base, remembering the loss to the Jaguars the year previous... And people were already calling for Greg Robinson's head coming into the post season. Our defense started the season looking great, and indeed, they had some great games that year... But their great games were larggely due to the fact that they could play agressive with a huge lead against their backs.

[BroncoInferno]

Our defense definitely played a big role, but the scheme only worked because the offense did their job. We wouldn't have been able to blitz as much as we did if it weren't for the offense executing the game plan. In fact, coming into the playoffs, the biggest concern on our team WAS the defense due to the 28-25 loss to the Raiders where we let them score a touchdown in every quarter of football... followed by the 23-20 overtime win against the Buffalo Bills where we let them score 20 fourth quarter points to disrupt a 20-0 blow-out up to that point... followed by the 30-27 shoot-out win against the Seahawks that we pulled out with a late field goal... The 24-22 loss against the KC Chiefs that knocked us from clenching the division... followed by the 38-28 win in San Diego where we let them score 14 points in the fourth quarter and make it a game... followed by a 35-24 LOSS to the Steelers that REALLY got people talking... Which carried over to the next week where we took a 35-24 LOSS to the San Francisco 49ers...

This idea that our defense was this great machine that we knew we could count on going into the playoffs is nothing more than history revision. We were scared stiff as a fan base, remembering the loss to the Jaguars the year previous... And people were already calling for Greg Robinson's head coming into the post season. Our defense started the season looking great, and indeed, they had some great games that year... But their great games were larggely due to the fact that they could play agressive with a huge lead against their backs.

And they turned it up in the playoffs. Yeah, I mean, every team has regular season ups and downs. That's why you look at the broad picture. Had they played like they did against the Steelers (the 35-24 game you mentioned) in the playoffs, we wouldn't have won the SB. I mean, yeah, the offense was a well oiled machine scoring 14 whole points in Kansas City; that wrecks you whole theory that the defense was only good playing from well ahead. The point is that in the playoffs, even a truly great offense is going to run into a defense that has its number. When that happens, your defense has to gut it out. It's been proven over and over. Even the '99 Rams had that ugly 11-6 win in the NFC championship that their D had to gut out for them.

[Taco John]

Maybe "used Griese wrong" was improper language. But, you had plenty of criticism for Shanahan/Kubiak for playcalling, offensive choices, etc. You were absolving Griese of responsibility by blaming Shanahan.


Absolutely. I love Shanahan, but he's not above criticism. I think it was a terrible idea to start a back-up center as a starting left tackle. Don't you? I don't remember hearing you praising Shanahan for Travis McGriff, Marcus Nash, and the myriad of other miserable talent that he selected to take our offense into the new age. Shanahan absolutely deserves criticism for how he handled the transition away from an Elway led team. He's recovered by now, but much of what was wrong in those days were due to arrogant moves that lacked real foresight. Thankfully, he took the criticism well and that's when Sundquist started taking a more seriously active role in the personnel moves.


Now, I'd need to dig this forum more than I care to, but I'd even swear you were starting to toss around scenarios where Shanahan might need to go.

That's nothing short of a desperate lie. I'm suprised you'd even stoop so low.


In any case, you've had plenty bad to say about Shanahan, so you're new "see, Shanny got a QB so I'm right" routine holds no water. You've had plenty bad to say about his choices in the past. Him making one you agree with doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

Shanahan deserves criticism as much as anyone else deserves it when he makes poor choices. I just think his choices of late have been brilliant. He needed a fresh start after the Griese debacle and Plummer and Coyer gave him that. The fact that you disagree with his choices to ignore defense and focus on what he apparently believes is the real problem is no reason to make up stories about me and my make believe hate for Shanahan. The guy is my idol as a professional, and has been for ten years. I seriously asked my wife if I could name my kid after him. Michael Shanahan Lopez. She refused. This imagination that I've somehow flipped on him is nothing short of desperate invention on your part.

[Taco John]

And they turned it up in the playoffs. Yeah, I mean, every team has regular season ups and downs. That's why you look at the broad picture. Had they played like they did against the Steelers (the 35-24 game you mentioned) in the playoffs, we wouldn't have won the SB. I mean, yeah, the offense was a well oiled machine scoring 14 whole points in Kansas City; that wrecks you whole theory that the defense was only good playing from well ahead. The point is that in the playoffs, even a truly great offense is going to run into a defense that has its number. When that happens, your defense has to gut it out. It's been proven over and over. Even the '99 Rams had that ugly 11-6 win in the NFC championship that their D had to gut out for them.




Hey, like I said... I think our defense let us down. Obviously it's a team sport and both units need to be playing. But like I said before, when the Steelers had to score from their own territory, they put up only 13 points. We GAVE them the ball on turnovers in our own territory on offense during drives that we needed to come away with at least 3 points on. You wanted to make the case that stat doesn't count because there's no telling if the defense could have stopped them from anywhere on the field. All that argument does is pardon the offense for turning the ball over in enemy territory. I reject the line of thinking that says we can pardon the offense for their mistakes, but will give absolutely no leeway to the defense for theirs.

13 points. That's all the Steelers scored that entire game from drives originating from their own territory. You can ignore it if you want, but it's an eyebrow raising stat regardless.

Finally, as I said before, if Shanahan thought the defense was the problem, wouldn't he have put his efforts into improving the defense? The evidence is that he thinks that the offense is what hurt us the most, given the direction he went this offseason. I realize that Popps is trying to cloud this point by inventing accusations that I once hated Shanahan... Nothing more than spin, and irrelevant even if it were true... The bottom line is, Shanahan made his moves by and large on the offensive side of the ball.

[BroncoInferno]

Hey, like I said... I think our defense let us down. Obviously it's a team sport and both units need to be playing. But like I said before, when the Steelers had to score from their own territory, they put up only 13 points. We GAVE them the ball on turnovers in our own territory on offense during drives that we needed to come away with at least 3 points on. You wanted to make the case that stat doesn't count because there's no telling if the defense could have stopped them from anywhere on the field. All that argument does is pardon the offense for turning the ball over in enemy territory. I reject the line of thinking that says we can pardon the offense for their mistakes, but will give absolutely no leeway to the defense for theirs.

13 points. That's all the Steelers scored that entire game from drives originating from their own territory. You can ignore it if you want, but it's an eyebrow raising stat regardless.

Finally, as I said before, if Shanahan thought the defense was the problem, wouldn't he have put his efforts into improving the defense? The evidence is that he thinks that the offense is what hurt us the most, given the direction he went this offseason. I realize that Popps is trying to cloud this point by inventing accusations that I once hated Shanahan... Nothing more than spin, and irrelevant even if it were true... The bottom line is, Shanahan made his moves by and large on the offensive side of the ball.


Which proves that Shanny understood the offense didn't have the talent to keep up when the defense falls apart...the same thing I've said all along in response to your blanket blame of Plummer.

[Taco John]

Which proves that Shanny understood the offense didn't have the talent on offense to keep up when the defense falls apart...the same thing I've said all along in response to your blanket blame of Plummer.


Now comes the spin... :thumbsup: :rofl:

[BroncoInferno]

Now comes the spin... :thumbsup: :rofl:

Nope. You know damn well I've said all along the offensive talent was mediocre...hence the reason your blaming of Plummer for not keeping up in a shootout is totally absurd. The only spinning is your ridiculous hand-wringing over "only 13 points scored on drives starting in Bronco territory"...any fool who saw the game knows that with the way the defense was bending over on 3rd downs, the Steelers would have scored plenty of points regardless of field position. Also, they clearly went into Marty ball mode in the second half. They could have scored 50 if they had kept their foot on the gas. Waffle John criticizing someone for 'spin'...classic Ha!

[orange 4 life]

I was looking at the score results and basing off of that. If you look at the scores teams were still scoring over 20 points a game. Maybe i was a little high but the defense wasnt dominant like you make it out to be. And you are insinuating the defense played a bigger role than it did. The defense was just a bonus to a powerful offense.




1998

1 | New England Patriots | W | 27-21 |
| 2 | Dallas Cowboys | W | 42-23 |
| 3 | at Oakland Raiders | W | 34-17 |
| 4 | at Washington Redskins | W | 38-16 |
| 5 | Philadelphia Eagles | W | 41-16 |
| 6 | at Seattle Seahawks | W | 21-16 |
| 7 | |
| 8 | Jacksonville Jaguars | W | 37-24 |
| 9 | at Cincinnati Bengals | W | 33-26 |
| 10 | San Diego Chargers | W | 27-10 |
| 11 | at Kansas City Chiefs | W | 30- 7 |
| 12 | Oakland Raiders | W | 40-14 |
| 13 | at San Diego Chargers | W | 31-16 |
| 14 | Kansas City Chiefs | W | 35-31 |
| 15 | at New York Giants | L | 16-20 |
| 16 | at Miami Dolphins | L | 21-31 |
| 17 | Seattle Seahawks | W | 28-21 |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------







1997

| Week | Opponent | Result | Score |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Kansas City Chiefs | W | 19- 3 |
| 2 | at Seattle Seahawks | W | 35-14 |
| 3 | St. Louis Rams | W | 35-14 |
| 4 | Cincinnati Bengals | W | 38-20 |
| 5 | at Atlanta Falcons | W | 29-21 |
| 6 | New England Patriots | W | 34-13 |
| 7 | |
| 8 | at Oakland Raiders | L | 25-28 |
| 9 | at Buffalo Bills | W | 23-20 |
| 10 | Seattle Seahawks | W | 30-27 |
| 11 | Carolina Panthers | W | 34- 0 |
| 12 | at Kansas City Chiefs | L | 22-24 |
| 13 | Oakland Raiders | W | 31- 3 |
| 14 | at San Diego Chargers | W | 38-28 |
| 15 | at Pittsburgh Steelers | L | 24-35 |
| 16 | at San Francisco 49ers | L | 17-34 |
| 17 | San Diego Chargers | W | 38- 3 |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+


the AVERAGE (both mean and median) in both seasons was under 20, let alone the 25-30 you proposed.
its nice that you highlighted the scores over 20, but ignored the ones at 0, 3, 10, etc.

also, do you remember how many games were put away before the 4th quarter even started?
we had a few games (KC, CAR, SD, etc.) where we kept 'em down the whole game, but we also had a number of games where we gave up junk time points, which makes the average points per game allowed even BETTER than it looks.

lastly, you simply cant ignore the simple fact that those defenses played better in the playoffs.
the kept us in the games where the offense started slow.
they kept the jets at bay (unlike the steelers last year) long enough for the offense to get going (we were losing at halftime).
they kept kc down the whole game.
they made the big stops against green bay.
remember the final drive of the first superbowl win?

now, tell me with last years defense how you wouldve felt in that situation?
in that superbowl, mobley broke up a 4th down pass and we won the game, and you had the sense that thats exactly what was going to happen.

has that been the case since?

it sure hasnt. miami, indy, new england, oakland...the list just goes on and on and on.
games where our defense gave up a score in the final minutes, and you KNEW we were going to give it up.

then, on to the playoffs.
we played one solid defensive game the last three years, and we won that game. what a surprise.
the other three werent close game losses, and they werent games where we were even marginally effective on defense.
we were a frigin sieve in all three, kinda like those three superbowls.
i dont blame elway for those superbowls, so i sure as sh!t dont blame plummer for the last three playoff losses.
elway wasnt great in those superbowls, and plummer wasnt great in the last three losses.
it didnt matter. the defense COLLAPSED.

is that comparing the two qbs?

not at all.
its SIMPLY saying that in both cases it was defensive collapses that led to our departure.
it aint rocket science, and if you think cutler would have different results, then youre going to be very disappointed.
until our defense steps up in the playoffs, the qb will just be a lamb to the slaughter.

jake

[Taco John]

Also, they clearly went into Marty ball mode in the second half. They could have scored 50 if they had kept their foot on the gas. Waffle John criticizing someone for 'spin'...classic Ha!


Actually, that's not even true at all... Starting the third quarter, the Steelers had a 9 play drive in which they passed 5 times, and ran it 4 times. They were forced to punt. The Broncos offense promptly went 3 and out. The next drive, the Steelers went three and out on 2 six yard runs and a broken up pass by Champ Bailey out of the Shotgun formation. The Broncos answered back with their first touchdown of the game to Ashley Lelie. The Steelers answered back with a well balanced drive that included 4 passes and 4 runs. Hardly Martyball. Our defense held them to 3 points. Plummer answered back by throwing an interception on the very next play.

That's not Martyball...

[BroncoInferno]

Actually, that's not even true at all... Starting the third quarter, the Steelers had a 9 play drive in which they passed 5 times, and ran it 4 times. They were forced to punt. The Broncos offense promptly went 3 and out. The next drive, the Steelers went three and out on 2 six yard runs and a broken up pass by Champ Bailey out of the Shotgun formation. The Broncos answered back with their first touchdown of the game to Ashley Lelie. The Steelers answered back with a well balanced drive that included 4 passes and 4 runs. Hardly Martyball. Our defense held them to 3 points. Plummer answered back by throwing an interception on the very next play.

That's not Martyball...

A few passes does not equate to "aggressiveness". They stopped going downfield, which is precisely what they did so well in the first half. They were throwing low risk pases to try and keep drives going. Cowher was clearly playing it close to the vest in that second half.

[Popps]

...any fool who saw the game knows that with the way the defense was bending over on 3rd downs, the Steelers would have scored plenty of points regardless of field position.

Our longest sustained drive of the first half resulted in Pitt following it up with a NINETY yard TD drive.

So, our O controls the clock a little, gives our D a rest, puts a few points on the board... then Pitt is forced to start from bad position.

What happens? You guessed it! Our D laid down, as usual.

Good starting position, bad starting position... it didn't matter. They were scoring from everywhere and on EVERY drive in the first half, save maybe one right at half-time.

No offense can work under that kind of pressure. That's not playoff football.

Conversely, nearly ALL Superbowl winning teams CAN function when their offenses start off bad, and I mean MUCH worse than we started off. Again, check out Pitt's SB performance. Offense came out and looked horrible.
Yet, their championship defense kept them in the game.

That's why they're hoisting a trophy, and we're sitting here with our thumbs parked, arguing about Jake Plummer. They have a proper championship structure, we do not.

[Taco John]

That's genius...

"The field position battle doesn't matter."

Pure genius.

[Popps]

That's genius...

"The field position battle doesn't matter."

Pure genius.

Taco, I know all you have is spin and misrepresentation, but...

when you want to put "quotes" around something, make sure it's something somebody said. That's not remotely what said, and you certainly know that wasn't my point.

But, someone else on this thread said it best. You just make one liners and misrepresent people, while the people opposing you use logic and reasoning.

I guess that's what you do when you're over your head on a subject. I mean, why else would you need to put something in quotes that I did not say? It can't be because you're confident in what you're saying, that's for sure.

Here's my actual quote...


Good starting position, bad starting position... it didn't matter. They were scoring from everywhere and on EVERY drive in the first half, save maybe one right at half-time.

You really are in rare form, man.

[Taco John]

Taco, I know all you have is spin and misrepresentation, but...

Actually, I simply used one of your tactics and changed the words to mean what I wanted them to mean.

when you want to put "quotes" around something, make sure it's something somebody said. That's not remotely what said, and you certainly know that wasn't my point.

I'm aware of this, and ahd to explain it to you once. I figured what's good for the goose...


And for what it's worth... The field position battle does matter.

[Popps]

Actually, I simply used one of your tactics and changed the words to mean what I wanted them to mean.


You'll note that my quotes are quotes, taco. They're actual statements... like... "the QB position is an afterthought"... or (our championship defense "average."

I take your actual words, you have to change people's. That says a lot.

And for what it's worth... The field position battle does matter.

That's nice. We couldn't stop them, regardless of where they started. (See 90 yard TD after sustained offensive drive.) So, once again, your one-liner might feel good to say, but has little to do with what actually happened.

[Odysseus]

Posting to existing threads:
Jay Cutler wants to start right now and doesn't care about what he knows or doesn't know. It's just football to him. He feels confident he can learn whatever it is that he doesn't know. He's not afraid of any of this stuff. Plummer isn't worried because worry won't change a thing. If Cutler gets his hands on the reigns he's letting the ball fly and not looking back.

Coyer's defense hasn't shown crap in the preseason. I'm not buying that this is all this team is hitting with. This defensive line is for real. We haven't seen them even kick a gear yet.

This whole thing is about balance not about one side or the other. It's a one two punch. If one side lets you down you are wide open on the other. The Bears were one of the best teams in defense last year. No offense. All the high powered offenses got smoked in the playoffs. No balance. Their defenses could not keep them in it.

Broncos lost focus and failed on both sides of the ball last year in the playoffs. They both tried to battle back but you can't drop three or four series in the playoffs and win. It doesn't work like that.

The reason the Broncos fixed the offense is that was the easiest part of the team to fix and they were due a makeover. You get a new coach (Dinger) and don't let him make changes? What sense does that make? They took the new defenisve line they paid for decided to stand that up. Losing Pryce was a bonus because now you'll get to see something a little better. They have not even stretched their legs yet.

[Popps]

This whole thing is about balance not about one side or the other. It's a one two punch. If one side lets you down you are wide open on the other. The Bears were one of the best teams in defense last year. No offense. All the high powered offenses got smoked in the playoffs. No balance. Their defenses could not keep them in it.


It's definitely about balance. I just think we have an offense on par with many I've seen win Superbowls. Our defense? Not so much.

People love to point to the Broncos/Rams as offensive teams who have won it all, but they were definitely the exceptions and BOTH of them had very, very good defenses. Neither was the 85 Bears, but they were attacking, play-making defenses who put a ton of pressure on opposing offenses.

Our current defense has done nothing of the such in the playoffs.

You definitely have to have balance... all the great teams do. But, if you're going to lean in one direction, history shows us that defense is where you make sure you're solid first.

For some reason, that simple, historical fact is lost on a few people on this board, who insist you just keep replacing quarterbacks as the answer to everything.

[Popps]

This defensive line is for real. We haven't seen them even kick a gear yet.

I hope to god you're right, man.

We'll win a SB if you are, and then we'll win a couple with Cutler.

If they're not for real, we'll lose with both QBs, no matter how well they play.

[Taco John]

You'll note that my quotes are quotes, taco. They're actual statements... like... "the QB position is an afterthought"... or (our championship defense "average."

I take your actual words, you have to change people's. That says a lot.


Actually, that's the point. I never said "the QB position is an afterthought." It's not a quote. It's something that you put quotes around, along with half the other stuff you've attributed to me.

[Natedogg]

This is a thread for the ages. I love it! For what its worth, my two cents is that we have an elite D and elite O. Losing the AFC championship doesnt mean that the Broncos are chumps. It was Jakes fauld for throwing some pics. It was champs fault for not holding on the potentially game changing int. It was the o lines fault (imo esp foster) for not blockingat all. It was nick Ferguson's fauld for not having a pic in the endzone. Hell even Rod had a drop.

The team layed a donut. I was as pissed as could be after. But that's the cycle. It happened 5 times to elway before he won. It happened 4 times to Cower. All you can do is field competitive teams year after year and if you do that you might catch some luck and win a sb.

Personally I love the Snake because he plays with passion and heart. I dont think his deep ball is as poor as its made out to be. His descision making is damn good imo. Cutler will in all probablity be a better qb though. That will be fun. This season I have a good feeling. Let's kick some ass, at the very least sweep the chiefs and raiders.

[Pontius Pirate]

Here is a crazy thought: what if we cut Jake loose, and he winds up kicking ass on another team, and Cutler turns out to be a bust?

Keep on bringing on new QB's who can't live up to Elways' legend then cut them loose too!!!! YAY!!!!

[Natedogg]

Here is a crazy thought: what if we cut Jake loose, and he winds up kicking ass on another team, and Cutler turns out to be a bust?

Keep on bringing on new QB's who can't live up to Elways' legend then cut them loose too!!!! YAY!!!!

Concievable.

[ZONA]

Jake can't help but to have an even better year this year. With additions of Walker and Schefler, if he doesn't have 25 TD's, 3500 yards and 10 or fewer picks, he should hang up his cleats.

[Popps]

Actually, that's the point. I never said "the QB position is an afterthought." It's not a quote. It's something that you put quotes around, along with half the other stuff you've attributed to me.

Wow, now you just resort to flat out lying.

How far does the archive go back, Taco? Not only did you SAY that, you admitted you said it, and said that you later changed your stance on it.

Now you're going to go back on that, too? I actually gave you credit for at least finally admitting to being wrong on something.

Seriously, man... you're either bi-polar, or you think we're all complete idiots.

You said the QB position was "an afterthought" in the modern day NFL. It was said as part of your overall defense strategy for Griese's crappy play.

I seriously can't believe you are going to deny this, now.... after admitting to saying it here probably less than 6 months ago. You're truly amazing.

[Popps]

The Taco timeline...

The QB is an afterthought phase

Griese is fine, everyone else on the team sucks including Shanahan's playcalling.

The We Need Competition phase

No coincidence, after Griese was run out of town... we suddenly needed "competition" at the QB spot, this after countless droves of posts about how the QB spot was an afterthought and how the modern NFL was won by systems, not QBs.

The We Need an Elite QB phase

Finally, full circle... the QB is not only not just an afterthought... we don't just need competition for Plummer, we now need an elite QB!

That's right, in less than two years... gone from QBs being an afterthought, to demanding a franchise QB, and all of this done with the verve of a born again Christian, insistent that his way is the right way.

Where will Taco go next? Stay tuned.

[Sassy]

Beautiful!!!!






http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1043&dateline=1156919964
Not the argument...but this!

[Popps]

Beautiful!!!!






http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1043&dateline=1156919964
Not the argument...but this!

lol! ("not the argument")

Thanks, Sassy. I think so, but I'm kind of biased.

But, c'mon... the argument is kind of fun, you have to admit. :)

[Sassy]

lol! ("not the argument")

Thanks, Sassy. I think so, but I'm kind of biased.

But, c'mon... the argument is kind of fun, you have to admit. :)

Yeah ok...but I'm trying to hijack all the threads on Jake here! ROFL!

[Odysseus]

Yeah ok...but I'm trying to hijack all the threads on Jake here! ROFL!

This thread is about Jake? Really? Do tell? Can you detail more about this?

Popps! What a cute kid!

Taco! Where is that ultrasound picture you promised instead that ugly baby in your sig.

Look a butterfly! A cat chasing a butterfly!! :twokisses

[Sassy]

This thread is about Jake? Really? Do tell? Can you detail more about this?

Popps! What a cute kid!

Taco! Where is that ultrasound picture you promised instead that ugly baby in your sig.

Look a butterfly! A cat chasing a butterfly!! :twokisses

It's magic...after 30 seconds...they all turn into Jake is god or I hate Jake threads or Lelie threads...sometimes, if the magic is really powerful they return to the land of Brian Griese and go back in time...Sometimes, the magic even blurrs fans vision to the point that they are seeing "Elway" in young Jay Cutler. ROFL!

Dang...Patswin posted another "Lelie" thread at the same time I posted this! Exactly! Hilarious!

[Taco John]

The Taco timeline...

The QB is an afterthought phase

Griese is fine, everyone else on the team sucks including Shanahan's playcalling.

The We Need Competition phase

No coincidence, after Griese was run out of town... we suddenly needed "competition" at the QB spot, this after countless droves of posts about how the QB spot was an afterthought and how the modern NFL was won by systems, not QBs.

The We Need an Elite QB phase

Finally, full circle... the QB is not only not just an afterthought... we don't just need competition for Plummer, we now need an elite QB!

That's right, in less than two years... gone from QBs being an afterthought, to demanding a franchise QB, and all of this done with the verve of a born again Christian, insistent that his way is the right way.

Where will Taco go next? Stay tuned.



Yeah see... Apparently we're allowed to make things up.

I did say that in that age of the NFL, where guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were winning Superbowls that ON THOSE TEAMS the QB was PRACTICALLY an afterthought (hence, teams could win without the QB being the strength of the team, the very same argument that YOU ARE NOW MAKING). Because *gasp* the defenses were getting it done for their teams. You want to talk full circle: YOU are the one who is now making the argument that the QB is an afterthought. You said it yourself: we're not going to win many games if we have to rely on Plummer to do it.

Secondly, you can't keep your argument straight. Either I thought Griese was the bee's knees, or I thought he was an afterthought. Talk about changing your argument. Which is it? Did I think he was the alpha and omega of quarterbacks, or did I think he was an adequate game manager when he had good protection? (hint: it's always been the latter)

Thirdly, I criticized KUBIAK'S playcalling, because the papers were reporting that he was the guy calling the plays. I took heat from people because I WASN'T blaming Shanahan. Whoever thought it was a great idea to put Griese in 5 wide sets... I thought that was moronic. Griese didn't have the mobility to handle that set, and we didn't have the offensive line to protect him.

Fourthly, I don't believe we need an elite QB at all to win. We won 13 games last season with a gunslinger converted into a game manager. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to handle the role in the playoffs. I'm still in favor of competition and letting the best arm win. But the reality is, the best arm isn't going to win... That's ok with me. At least he's waiting in the wings for when we need him.


Finally... That's a damn cute baby... I'm happy to see your wife's genes dominating her looks. ;)

[Odysseus]

"Don't stop him now. He's on a roll." -- Pezman starring as Bluto in Animal House

[Taco John]

Practically: Not necessarily... for all practical purposes but not completely