Could Jake have won yesterday?

[azbroncfan]

Hell no, I was listening to Denver Sports radio yesterday because I didn't get to watch the 2nd half and people were screaming to put Jake back in. This would be the Orange 4 Life after the draft thread title. Jake isn't going back in barring injury. Did Cutler play bad? His numbers looked okay except I see a lot of threads saying Jake > Jay? Jake probably wins against Seattle but unless he plays on D he wouldn't of changed a 48 point effort by the opponent. So I ask the question of the title....

[Disco Man]

Better chance of Detroit winning the Super Bowl next year.

[Hotrod]

The only way Jake sees the field again for Denver is if he learns to play Dline or return kicks.

Jay looked pretty good on the road against a very good 3-4 team that had a large lead.

[Crushaholic]

Cutler almost led the team to the greatest comeback in years. He wasn't the problem at all. The defense laid down like a 10-cent ho...

[Popps]

I agree. Jake probably couldn't have saved us from our defense yesterday. I do think he would have won last week, though. But, I even think Jay may have been comfortable to win last week had he started against K.C..

Hindsight.

[azbroncfan]

I just cannot understand why people are screaming to put Jake back in after they couldn't get him out of there quick enough.

[bloodsunday]

I agree. Jake probably couldn't have saved us from our defense yesterday. I do think he would have won last week, though. But, I even think Jay may have been comfortable to win last week had he started against K.C..

Hindsight.

Clearly this poll needs more options. I agree with you, once again. No I don't think we were gonna beat San Diego yesterday with or without Plummer. But that alone doesn't mean that Cutler does or does not give us the best chance to win, which is clearly what is implied in the options.

One thing that was apparent was a lack of effort, at least in the first half. Is that a function of San Diego wanting it more? Is it a product of Denver quitting because of the QB-controversy? Is it just a team that is in a funk and has lost their will to fight? I don't know. San Diego is not a 4 TD better team than us, I know that.

[Hotrod]

I just cannot understand why people are screaming to put Jake back in after they couldn't get him out of there quick enough.

Lack of IQ would be my guess.

Besides people just need to vent and point fingers when our Broncos are not living up to expectations. I try to give fellow fans myself included until Wednesday to cool down after a loss.......If they are still speaking stupid after that I just shake my head.

[Arkie]

I think we could have beat Seattle last week, but the results would have been the same at San Diego.

[Hotrod]

You know whats really strange....maybe even telling is that our #1 problem by far is the D and most importantly the Dline yet 99.5% of the threads are about Jake/Jay......

[Bronco Bob]

The only way Jake sees the field again for Denver is if he learns to play Dline or return kicks.



What about if Jake holds the ball for Elam field goals and point afters?
Would that get Jake on the field?

:~ohyah!:

[BroncoMatt]

Would this team have won with Jake? Hard to say, but there is a different mentality on the team now. The team has quit.

[Hotrod]

Would this team have won with Jake? Hard to say, but there is a different mentality on the team now. The team has quit.

Yep that could not have been more obvious then by the 3rd qtr mini comeback.

[Smiling Assassin27]

he would've won the home game at seattle but nobody had a chance yesterday.

[ludo21]

Easy win ;D

I still dont think we would have been in a 25 point hole, but yeah, that was still a loss.

[That One Guy]

Would this team have won with Jake? Hard to say, but there is a different mentality on the team now. The team has quit.

I see the exact opposite. If you just look at the run D lately and you can tell there's a new hope in the defense. Every loss probably takes it's toll but when Cutler came in, so did a whole new wave of optimism.

[Bronx33]

You really need to add a (who the **** knows) option

[Popps]

yes Denver would of won 51-48

LOL

[Northman]

No way in Hades.

[telluride]

No.

[Dagmar]

Are you on crack?

[400HZ]

Jake couldn't win in Mile High, why would he have won in San Diego?

[Blueflame]

In my humble opinion, the only ones calling for Plummer yesterday were probably the "sour grapes" Plummer homers who opposed the QB change in the first place... you know, those fans who thought a 50 QB rating was just fine as long as the defense could keep the other team in single digits (which we all knew they weren't gonna be able to do through 16 games) and as a direct result of outstanding defensive performance, the team was winning. Plummer would not have "saved the day" yesterday, and I do not believe he would have changed the outcome last Sunday either. Last year's version of Plummer might have... but this year, we'd have been more likely to see "Bad Jake" than "Good Jake" (this "take" based on 3 respectable games; 5 abysmal ones... out of 11).

At any rate, injuries (particularly at the safety position) are the biggest factor in our losing streak, from my point of view.

[Bronx33]

Truthfully i would rather have an investment on the future/nextseason then have an early exit (again) from the playoffs. (The first option has the potential of being a little more long term)

[Broncoman13]

Hell no, I was listening to Denver Sports radio yesterday because I didn't get to watch the 2nd half and people were screaming to put Jake back in. This would be the Orange 4 Life after the draft thread title. Jake isn't going back in barring injury. Did Cutler play bad? His numbers looked okay except I see a lot of threads saying Jake > Jay? Jake probably wins against Seattle but unless he plays on D he wouldn't of changed a 48 point effort by the opponent. So I ask the question of the title....


I agree. I said last week that I was happy for the decision and was glad that we finally made a move in the right direction. True enough, Jake Plummer at QB probably wins against the Shehawks... but the only way we win yesterday is with the Duke and a healthy sprinkling of Alfred Williams, Neil Smith, and Steve Atwater... and even then, there's no guarantee. San Diego is a good team. No doubt about it.

[orange 4 life]

Hell no, I was listening to Denver Sports radio yesterday because I didn't get to watch the 2nd half and people were screaming to put Jake back in. This would be the Orange 4 Life after the draft thread title. Jake isn't going back in barring injury. Did Cutler play bad? His numbers looked okay except I see a lot of threads saying Jake > Jay? Jake probably wins against Seattle but unless he plays on D he wouldn't of changed a 48 point effort by the opponent. So I ask the question of the title....

is there any time frame in which your obsession with me will come to an end?

do you need to come over and boil a rabbit on my stove for closure?

as for the answer to your question, its clearly
c) does he play defense?

jake wouldnt have made any difference yesterday, and anyone screaming to put him in at halftime clearly needs to make peace with the fact that cutler is getting reps now so that we'll be better off next season.

jake wouldve led us to a win against seattle, but then what?

the likely answer is another road game blowout in the playoffs.
frankly, im glad we may be spared that, and like ive said many times, this time next year we may just be looking back on these games and giving thanks that the rook shook the rust off and took his lumps now so that he may be better prepared for next season.

[Rascal]

Elway could not have won that game yesterday with the way the _efense was playing.

Frankly I'm not looking forward to their performance against Arizona or Cincy either.

[Garcia Bronco]

heck no..because the defense gave up 40 plus.

[azbroncfan]

is there any time frame in which your obsession with me will come to an end?

do you need to come over and boil a rabbit on my stove for closure?

as for the answer to your question, its clearly
c) does he play defense?

jake wouldnt have made any difference yesterday, and anyone screaming to put him in at halftime clearly needs to make peace with the fact that cutler is getting reps now so that we'll be better off next season.

jake wouldve led us to a win against seattle, but then what?

the likely answer is another road game blowout in the playoffs.
frankly, im glad we may be spared that, and like ive said many times, this time next year we may just be looking back on these games and giving thanks that the rook shook the rust off and took his lumps now so that he may be better prepared for next season.


I was just saying and trying to use as much passion as you in your best voice The stupidest move in franchise history would be to put Jake back in. I laughed at some of the callers on the radio that want jake back in and suggest to rotate QB's every other series. Sometimes you are too thin skinned man.

:peace:

[Kaylore]

I agree. Jake probably couldn't have saved us from our defense yesterday. I do think he would have won last week, though. But, I even think Jay may have been comfortable to win last week had he started against K.C..

Hindsight.

Or earlier. I think we should have made the change at the bye, but what's done is done and it's time to move on.

[mosca]

I just cannot understand why people are screaming to put Jake back in after they couldn't get him out of there quick enough.
People just like to scream. Same way that people were screaming to put in Jay early in the season when it was obvious that he wasn't going to be put in right away. Whether or not I agreed with the timing of Jay being inserted as starter, screaming for Jake to be put back in is pointless... barring injury it's not gonna happen, whether or not Jake starting would be better for this team right now.

Neither guy was getting adequate protection from the OL anyway... If you're gonna scream at anyone I say scream at them.

[fontaine]

Jake has sucked twice as much as usual on the road, so there's no way in hell he would have done squat except for his usual 4/5 turnover game on the road.

I see some Jake lovers have a lot of getting over to do!

Get over it people, he has a new calling now and that's being the cheerleader on the sidelines.

[Blueflame]

People just like to scream. Same way that people were screaming to put in Jay early in the season when it was obvious that he wasn't going to be put in right away. Whether or not I agreed with the timing of Jay being inserted as starter, screaming for Jake to be put back in is pointless... barring injury it's not gonna happen, whether or not Jake starting would be better for this team right now.

Neither guy was getting adequate protection from the OL anyway... If you're gonna scream at anyone I say scream at them.

Well, again, anyone who was screaming for Plummer to be put back in was very likely one of those fans who vehemently opposed a QB change in the first place.

[BroncoMatt]

The game was lost before they even stepped on the field. I have said the team quit, that might be a stretch but they certainly have a confidence problem. I don't think anybody on that team believes they have a better chance with Jay than with Jake. It makes the fans happy and in the long run it will be for the best. But for right now, I think it's obvious the team has zero faith in the kid.

[orange 4 life]

I was just saying and trying to use as much passion as you in your best voice The stupidest move in franchise history would be to put Jake back in. I laughed at some of the callers on the radio that want jake back in and suggest to rotate QB's every other series. Sometimes you are too thin skinned man.

:peace:

ehh, read my post again buddy.
i was talking about boiling rabbits for Gods sake. i was just messing around.

...and youre right, it is laughable to want to rotate qb's and/or think jake wouldve won that game against san diego.

we of course WOULDVE won the game against seattle, but again, then what?
it WAS unfair to the vets to "pull the rug out" like shanahan did, because at 8-5 we'd at least have a CHANCE of going on a steelers like run, but that chance was just SOOOOOO SO small that looking to the future, while frustrating, is also understandable.

[orange 4 life]

Well, again, anyone who was screaming for Plummer to be put back in was very likely one of those fans who vehemently opposed a QB change in the first place.

just the opposite actually.

the fans screaming for plummer to go back in are probably the EXACT same fans that screamed to have plummer REPLACED earlier in the year.
fairweather ADD fans.

ive supported plummer as much as anyone, and i think its laughable to have called for him at halftime.

[Blueflame]

just the opposite actually.

the fans screaming for plummer to go back in are probably the EXACT same fans that screamed to have plummer REPLACED earlier in the year.
fairweather ADD fans.

ive supported plummer as much as anyone, and i think its laughable to have called for him at halftime.

Here on the Mane, absolutely none of the fans who welcomed the move to Cutler has advocated the return of Plummer at all.

[Kaylore]

Here on the Mane, absolutely none of the fans who welcomed the move to Cutler has advocated the return of Plummer at all.

Yeah. It's been said many-a-time, but most of the ones upset about it are just upset they were wrong and don't want to admit it. I happen to think BMF actually thinks Plummer is better, though.

[Rohirrim]

I guess it depends. Do you think Jake would be able to tackle LT?

[Blueflame]

Yeah. It's been said many-a-time, but most of the ones upset about it are just upset they were wrong and don't want to admit it. I happen to think BMF actually thinks Plummer is better, though.

If he were performing at 2005 levels, Plummer probably would give the team its best chance of winning... and there were rare flashes of "good Jake" this year (against Pittsburgh and NE) but that's the problem... it was just rare flashes of "good Jake" mixed in with mostly "bad Jake". It is too bad, too because I would have liked the kid to have more time to get comfortable with the offensive system. Unfortunately, reality (in the form of game stats) says that this year, Plummer has not been the better option, as Cutler has already put up better numbers. Sure, he'll make some mistakes... all rookies do. But he's shown improvement from one game to the next and has a lot of potential... there's a lot of reason for optimism about the team's future.

[skpac1001]

Thats a good question. I think he would have been able to, he could just keep handing it off, and they would have a good chance. He would have thrown some interceptions though, so maybe not.
Oh wait, you meant if we traded him before the game and he was on the Chargers, right?

[orange 4 life]

flame, you have ALOT to learn about football if you look at stats from cutlers 2 game career and deduce that because of that he has performed better than plummer.
wow.

did you watch either of the games?

do you think maybe something BESIDES the qb changed from '05 to '06?

cutler is dealing with all the same issues plummer did, and despite what you think you know from a stat sheet, he's not dealing with them as well.

cutler is a great talent, and its good that he's getting some reps in this season. leave it at that.
your flimsy statistical "analysis" doesnt PROVE anything, except maybe that you have to rely on stats to tell you the story because you cant do the analysis with your own two eyes.

[orange 4 life]

Here on the Mane, absolutely none of the fans who welcomed the move to Cutler has advocated the return of Plummer at all.

here in town, ive heard more than a couple people (granted people that have no idea what theyre watching) that wanted cutler to play right up until the point when he did, and then they jumped ship back to plummer.
completely idiotic i know, but its out there.

[Blueflame]

flame, you have ALOT to learn about football if you look at stats from cutlers 2 game career and deduce that because of that he has performed better than plummer.
wow.

did you watch either of the games?

do you think maybe something BESIDES the qb changed from '05 to '06?

cutler is dealing with all the same issues plummer did, and despite what you think you know from a stat sheet, he's not dealing with them as well.

cutler is a great talent, and its good that he's getting some reps in this season. leave it at that.
your flimsy statistical "analysis" doesnt PROVE anything, except maybe that you have to rely on stats to tell you the story because you cant do the analysis with your own two eyes.

Why do you keep asking me if I watched the games, O4L? ??? You know I do... and I usually watch them more than once. :thumbs:

Unfortunately for the team, Plummer set the bar very low this season and it's my opinion that Cutler has outperformed him. Any rookie mistakes Cutler could possibly make, well, we've seen Plummer make them too this year. I know some don't like to admit that, but it's true nonetheless.

[Blueflame]

here in town, ive heard more than a couple people (granted people that have no idea what theyre watching) that wanted cutler to play right up until the point when he did, and then they jumped ship back to plummer.
completely idiotic i know, but its out there.

I'm sure there are some like that... but I think they're in the minority (of the group of people who were ready to move on to Cutler). However, I have seen fans here on the Mane who were so desperate to find a way to keep Plummer that they were advocating a ludicrous trade with Chicago that would send our QBOTF to the Bears for their DE who recently suffered a season-ending injury...

[orange 4 life]

Why do you keep asking me if I watched the games, O4L? ??? You know I do... and I usually watch them more than once. :thumbs:

Unfortunately for the team, Plummer set the bar very low this season and it's my opinion that Cutler has outperformed him. Any rookie mistakes Cutler could possibly make, well, we've seen Plummer make them too this year. I know some don't like to admit that, but it's true nonetheless.

i keep asking because its a new phenomenon for you to post stats and somehow assume that they actually tell a realistic story.

youre entitled to you opinion (however silly it may be :kiss: ), but just state it without throwing out meaningless stats like passer rating.
do YOU think cutler played to the level a 90+ passer rating would suggest?
i know you dont, so why bother throwing the stat out?

[OrangeShadow]

does he play safety?

[Blueflame]

i keep asking because its a new phenomenon for you to post stats and somehow assume that they actually tell a realistic story.

youre entitled to you opinion (however silly it may be :kiss: ), but just state it without throwing out meaningless stats like passer rating.
do YOU think cutler played to the level a 90+ passer rating would suggest?
i know you dont, so why bother throwing the stat out?

The stats pretty much back up and support what's occurred on the field... and what I've seen (what we all know, really) is that at the start of the season, Shanahan was committed to Plummer as his starting QB throughout '06. It took a massive dropoff in performance on Plummer's part for Shanahan to even consider making the change. Let's get real... we would never have seen Cutler starting if Plummer hadn't struggled so badly that he allowed 28 other starting QBs in the league to outperform him.

As to Cutler's QB rating, I think the kid earned every point of it, with help from his teammates (with special credit given to Tatum for rushing for over 100 yards and recovering 2 fumbles @ SD). Nothing was given to him on a silver platter, and certainly not by the Bolts' defense. Whether one likes the QB rating stat or not, it is the formula used by the league to measure and define QB performance and that is what makes the stat relevant until they make a new one. :)

[orange 4 life]

actually blue, that DOESNT make the stat relevant.

fact is, its NOT a good indicator of success......unless you wanna agree that jake plummer (as a bronco), jim everett, dave krieg, and even brian griese were all better than john elway. ;D

qb rating rewards a guy for taking a sack, and it punishes a guy for saving his team yards by throwing it away.

it rewards a qb (like griese) who would often take an 8 yard completion on 3rd and 12 and punishes the qb (like elway, plummer, or cutler) who will try and find the guy that will move the chains.

it ignores fumbles, but CRUCIFIES a qb for int's.

it ignores evasiveness, yards after catch, ability to throw on the run, running yards, running td's, and a host of other things that contribute to a qb's success or failure.

bottom line is qb rating has ZERO bearing on who is or isnt the best.

in a sport like baseball, where its pitcher against batter, you can gain ALOT of knowledge looking at stats.
sure, the pitchers in some leagues and/or divisions may be tougher than others, but by and large its all up to the individual, so batting average, on base pct, etc. ARE good measuring sticks for talent.

regardless of whether or not the league endorses it, the passer (notice its not "qb", but "passer" rating?) rating is a joke.

college football endorses the BCS. you wanna tell me that it works and/or we should give a rip about it simply because its endorsed by the NCAA?

a qb's performance is subjective, which is unfortunate, because too many people just dont look deep enough to really evaluate accurately.
too many ADD fans just look up a passer rating and make an ENORMOUS leap of faith in a ridiculously flawed system.
they look up a qb's stats, look up his qb rating, and then judge him accordingly.

what theyre doing is letting a computer formula make up their mind for them, instead of just using their own eyes and making their own conclusions.
i expect it from the bulk of the ADD generation fans, but i expect you to go a little further.

[Taco John]

Personally, I've always held a philosophy regarding QB rating...

1) You cannot use QB rating to effectively compare two players on two different teams, playing in two different schemes.

2) The most applicable use of a QB rating is when you are comparing a player against himself from game to game, or...

3) QB rating becomes relevant when you are comparing two quarterbacks on the same team in the same system.

While I hate the QB rating system, if you can take out the external variables that exist from team to team and limit it to within the walls of one team, I think it's a useful indicator. This has been a long standing belief that I've held for over ten years now.

[Hotrod]

Wow Im finally in agreement with O4L. The QB rating system IMO is a fun stat for the media.

[broncocalijohn]

That game was all on the Defense. Jake could have had his best game and still come up a TD short. THis has nothing to do with the QBs.

[Blueflame]

actually blue, that DOESNT make the stat relevant.

fact is, its NOT a good indicator of success......unless you wanna agree that jake plummer (as a bronco), jim everett, dave krieg, and even brian griese were all better than john elway. ;D

qb rating rewards a guy for taking a sack, and it punishes a guy for saving his team yards by throwing it away.

it rewards a qb (like griese) who would often take an 8 yard completion on 3rd and 12 and punishes the qb (like elway, plummer, or cutler) who will try and find the guy that will move the chains.

it ignores fumbles, but CRUCIFIES a qb for int's.

it ignores evasiveness, yards after catch, ability to throw on the run, running yards, running td's, and a host of other things that contribute to a qb's success or failure.

bottom line is qb rating has ZERO bearing on who is or isnt the best.

in a sport like baseball, where its pitcher against batter, you can gain ALOT of knowledge looking at stats.
sure, the pitchers in some leagues and/or divisions may be tougher than others, but by and large its all up to the individual, so batting average, on base pct, etc. ARE good measuring sticks for talent.

regardless of whether or not the league endorses it, the passer (notice its not "qb", but "passer" rating?) rating is a joke.

college football endorses the BCS. you wanna tell me that it works and/or we should give a rip about it simply because its endorsed by the NCAA?

a qb's performance is subjective, which is unfortunate, because too many people just dont look deep enough to really evaluate accurately.
too many ADD fans just look up a passer rating and make an ENORMOUS leap of faith in a ridiculously flawed system.
they look up a qb's stats, look up his qb rating, and then judge him accordingly.

what theyre doing is letting a computer formula make up their mind for them, instead of just using their own eyes and making their own conclusions.
i expect it from the bulk of the ADD generation fans, but i expect you to go a little further.


Passer rating is a part of the overall picture of how a QB is performing... but I've never, ever suggested that it's the only factor one should consider. While Cutler's QB rating is higher than Plummer's, it's hardly the only stat that indicates the kid outperforming the veteran. For example, another stat to support that conclusion is the TD/INT ratio. So is the improved 3rd down efficiency percentage... and the increased points-per-game average. Furthermore, the kid has not yet begun to realize his full potential... he will only improve even more as he becomes more familiar with executing the gameplans.

[Hotrod]

Passer rating is a part of the overall picture of how a QB is performing... but I've never, ever suggested that it's the only factor one should consider. While Cutler's QB rating is higher than Plummer's, it's hardly the only stat that indicates the kid outperforming the veteran. For example, another stat to support that conclusion is the TD/INT ratio. So is the improved 3rd down efficiency percentage... and the increased points-per-game average. Furthermore, the kid has not yet begun to realize his full potential... he will only improve even more as he becomes more familiar with executing the gameplans.

Thats what makes it a great time to be a Bronco fan :strong:

[errand]

I agree. Jake probably couldn't have saved us from our defense yesterday. I do think he would have won last week, though. But, I even think Jay may have been comfortable to win last week had he started against K.C..

Hindsight.

I'm not on here as much, but -

I haven't seen any of those threads where Taco John says the offense's inability to score and going 3 & out alot left the D hanging. Maybe the offense only screws the D when Jake was under center?

I don't recall seeing one thread started where the playcalling sucks like we did throughout Kubiak's tenure as OC. Maybe Mike wasn't calling any plays until this year.

I've not seen one post by the usual suspects saying that the D, after being called the sole reason we were 7-2, being the sole reason we're now 7-6, and have lost 4 games in a row. I guess again depending on who the QB is, the D gets a pass.

So why hasn't Mike taken the playbook away from the OC like he allegedly did Kubiak? I mean all we heard for years was how Mike called all the right plays while Kubes called the 7 yard out on 3rd and 12.

Why hasn't he taken over the D like he allegedly did the last few seasons Robinson was here?

Why has Jay looked no better than Jake despite our being told since training camp he was the 2nd coming of Elway?

[mhgaffney]

Cutler has impressed me with his quick release and his feet. He has no fear of the rush, and he's already learning to read the defense.

It won't be long before his intelligence, natural athletic skills and passing ability start to make a difference. Once his passing game starts to click the run will open up and make him even better.

The lack of patience on this board says more about the board than about Cutler.

Again, Shannny made the right move. Cutler will be hitting his stride in a few more games. He won't have to break in next year -- he'll be ready.

Look out NFL! Here come the BRONCOS>>>>>>>>>>>

[azbroncfan]

actually blue, that DOESNT make the stat relevant.

fact is, its NOT a good indicator of success......unless you wanna agree that jake plummer (as a bronco), jim everett, dave krieg, and even brian griese were all better than john elway. ;D

qb rating rewards a guy for taking a sack, and it punishes a guy for saving his team yards by throwing it away.

it rewards a qb (like griese) who would often take an 8 yard completion on 3rd and 12 and punishes the qb (like elway, plummer, or cutler) who will try and find the guy that will move the chains.

it ignores fumbles, but CRUCIFIES a qb for int's.

it ignores evasiveness, yards after catch, ability to throw on the run, running yards, running td's, and a host of other things that contribute to a qb's success or failure.

bottom line is qb rating has ZERO bearing on who is or isnt the best.

in a sport like baseball, where its pitcher against batter, you can gain ALOT of knowledge looking at stats.
sure, the pitchers in some leagues and/or divisions may be tougher than others, but by and large its all up to the individual, so batting average, on base pct, etc. ARE good measuring sticks for talent.

regardless of whether or not the league endorses it, the passer (notice its not "qb", but "passer" rating?) rating is a joke.

college football endorses the BCS. you wanna tell me that it works and/or we should give a rip about it simply because its endorsed by the NCAA?

a qb's performance is subjective, which is unfortunate, because too many people just dont look deep enough to really evaluate accurately.
too many ADD fans just look up a passer rating and make an ENORMOUS leap of faith in a ridiculously flawed system.
they look up a qb's stats, look up his qb rating, and then judge him accordingly.

what theyre doing is letting a computer formula make up their mind for them, instead of just using their own eyes and making their own conclusions.
i expect it from the bulk of the ADD generation fans, but i expect you to go a little further.

O4L knows what he's talking about here as I agree with him on this. QB rating is garbage. ELway's career was something around 79 which would get you crucified these days. If you like the stat just ask yourself would you rather have a QB that goes 3 for 3 for 9 yards then punt(Griese) or 1 for 3 for 12 and a first down? Plus all of the above pointed out.

[Taco John]

I'm not on here as much, but -

I haven't seen any of those threads where Taco John says the offense's inability to score and going 3 & out alot left the D hanging. Maybe the offense only screws the D when Jake was under center?

Prior to the fourth quarter, the Broncos only had one three and out drive. In the fourth, we had a four and out where Shanahan forced the issue on fourth down. That's essentially two three and outs the entire game. By comparison, Jake started the game with back-to-back three and outs against San Diego at home. Jake went on to lead the team to two more three and outs later in that game, as San Diego was mounting a comeback, doubling the number of three-and-outs that Jay produced against the same team.

There's no doubt that our offense left the defense on the field alone with San Diego this past week during the first half of football. Coming away with only three points on that beatiful Tatum Bell run was unfortunate. But what are you going to do? Jay's a rookie and was put in a bad situation. I'm just happy that he's in there now, and am willing to suffer the growing pains knowing the future is bright. It doesn't bother me that some folks are still pining for Plummer. Pine away. We weren't going to win either of the last two games with Plummer anyway.



I don't recall seeing one thread started where the playcalling sucks like we did throughout Kubiak's tenure as OC. Maybe Mike wasn't calling any plays until this year.

Personally, I think it would be unreasonable to second guess the playbook at this point. Mike knows better than anybody here what Jay is ready for. Sounds like some sour grapes to me.


I've not seen one post by the usual suspects saying that the D, after being called the sole reason we were 7-2, being the sole reason we're now 7-6, and have lost 4 games in a row. I guess again depending on who the QB is, the D gets a pass.

I hardly believe the D is the sole reason we're 7-6. That sounds, again, like more sour grapes.



So why hasn't Mike taken the playbook away from the OC like he allegedly did Kubiak? I mean all we heard for years was how Mike called all the right plays while Kubes called the 7 yard out on 3rd and 12.


Man, do all you have to offer is a bunch of sour grapes?


Why hasn't he taken over the D like he allegedly did the last few seasons Robinson was here?

He did it with Robinson, and with Rhodes. And if you listen to Champ Bailey talk about it, you'd guess it's because there's nothing wrong with the plays that are being called on defense, but something seriously wrong with the execution.


Why has Jay looked no better than Jake despite our being told since training camp he was the 2nd coming of Elway?

Are you high? Jay has already demolished Jake's production on his first two games of the season. He's also beat Jake's numbers against a common opponent. More telling, if you put Jake's two best games together this season and matched them up with Cutler's two first career outings, you get a pretty favorable picture of Jay's start.

It's obvious by now that Jay gives this team a better chance to score on any given play. That's simply undeniable. Which translates to the best chance to win any given game.

Shanahan made the right move. You just need to have some patience and give the rookie some room to operate. No need to force him into the Elway mold. Let him develop into his own player.

[Popps]

Pine away. We weren't going to win either of the last two games with Plummer anyway..

I haven't heard one single person pining for Plummer. Well, I take that back... I think a couple of people said we might have won the Seattle game with him. Hardly "pining."

I have seen a large number of people call you out for your comical change of face on this team having other problems than the QB position, though. You calling for D-line improvements is enough to make someone wet themselves laughing.

But, when you have no real argument, I guess calling people "Plummer homers" is about all you've got.

I told you there would be a lot of people saying the same things when cutler took over. The problems weren't going to go away. ****, Cutler couldn't even mask them. Now, you're AGREEING with what many people around here have been saying for years, and yet... at the same time, telling those people they only have those views because they like a particular quarterback?

Like another poster said... it looks like you can't even figure out what your trying to be right about... you're just trying to be right.

[Taco John]

I haven't heard one single person pining for Plummer. Well, I take that back... I think a couple of people said we might have won the Seattle game with him. Hardly "pining."


Bah... That's what all these sour grapes are about. Nothing more than Plummer pining. Boo hoo! Jake's on the bench and we didn't score a hundred points like Taco said we would (I never said that). Taco was wrong!

It's totally sour grapes, and it's easy to spot. Just look for the guys who were crying "Mike Shanahan knows best and Plummer is our starter, if Mike Shanahan thought Jay was the better QB then he'd be starting." Then cross reference their takes now to see if they are saying "Mike Shanahan lied to us and is throwing in the towel. Jake Plummer could have won that game for us and Jay lost it!"

Meanwhile, we're still in the playoff hunt.


I have seen a large number of people call you out for your comical change of face on this team having other problems than the QB position, though. You calling for D-line improvements is enough to make someone wet themselves laughing.

Calling me out? For what? Being right all this time? I can hardly keep my rep box from blowing my head up with folks telling me they should have listened to me earlier on Jake. I'm not so worried about people "calling me out" right now. The people "calling me out" are basically you, errand and Alec. Big deal. And about what? Whatever you can get your hands on, even if it isn't true or doesn't make any sense. *shrug*

As far as your comical assertion that I never was in favor of D-line improvements: that's a laugh. The funny thing here is that you make this issue about yourself. Nobody can get through a thread without being informed that it was Popps and only Popps who has been the number one proponent of improving the defensive line since "back in the Griese days." All I can say is that your reading must be as selective as your memory, because there hasn't been a shortage of that around this place since before you even started posting regularly. People have always been in favor of bringing in the next big thing on the defensive line. You didn't illuminate anyone on the subject.

No, Popps... You hardly have the market cornered on people who want to see the D-line improve.


But, when you have no real argument, I guess calling people "Plummer homers" is about all you've got.

Quite the contrary. I've got a quarterback on the field that I've been calling for after I was told that I was crazy for thinking that Shanahan would even *THINK* of taking one in the first round of the draft. I was told it would never happen. Shanahan wouldn't be so stupid as to blow our draft picks to move up to take a quarterback. You can yip yip yip all you want about how wrong I am, and how funny it is now that my number one issue has been addressed that I'm now spending more time looking at the next issue on the list. Feel free. Yip away.


I told you there would be a lot of people saying the same things when cutler took over. The problems weren't going to go away. ****, Cutler couldn't even mask them. Now, you're AGREEING with what many people around here have been saying for years, and yet... at the same time, telling those people they only have those views because they like a particular quarterback?


Blah, blah, blah... Nobody said that the problems at Dline were going to go away by starting Cutler. In fact, my exact quote was "Cutler isn't going to fix every problem on this team, but he will fix the QB problem." I said that again and again. Now you and Alec and errand have your panties in a bunch that Cutler didn't fix the D-line? You guys are flat out crazy. But I know your act. You'll keep repeating the same lie over and over and over and over, and eventually enough people will believe it.

What I have said, and you are twisting beyond recognition like you always do, is that a certain level of offensive consistency would be a big help to the defense. We haven't seen offensive consistency at all this year, nor have we seen it in the playoffs under Jake Plummer. It's pretty simple for anyone who understands football: if you can be consistent while putting points on the board, you take pressure off your defense to have to be perfect, allowing them to get aggressive. This is especially important if you don't have the manpower up front on your defense, because eventually you're going to run the entire unit down. Sound familiar? (I'll pull a Poppism: I know it's not popular to say in the message board world, (here comes the completely obvious statement that anybody reasonable already believes but I'm going to act like I'm laying some real knowledge here) but in the game of football every team unit affects another unit in a way, sometimes good, sometimes bad. That's just the nature of a football team).

Jay hasn't delivered that consistency yet. It's only his second game. Give him some time though. It'll be amazing how much better our defense gets when the offense pulls their weight. It's just basic football. All you have to do is watch and learn.

[fontaine]

As far as your comical assertion that I never was in favor of D-line improvements: that's a laugh. The funny thing here is that you make this issue about yourself. Nobody can get through a thread without being informed that it was Popps and only Popps who has been the number one proponent of improving the defensive line since "back in the Griese days." All I can say is that your reading must be as selective as your memory, because there hasn't been a shortage of that around this place since before you even started posting regularly.


Yeah, his chest thumping about how he's always viewed the DL as a problem is getting kinda old.

I remember saying that Kavika Pittman was the only DE in the league that could go to sleep on a three piont stance, but apparently we don't know what we're talking about when it comes to DL.

Most of us here realized it was a problem going back to Griese days when Gannon kept dinking/dunking us to death and guys like Pryce were saying after games that the Raiders OL were laughing at our DEs because we couldn't get any pressure.

The difference is, we didn't have first round studs waiting to play along the DL. We did at QB.

Hopefully we'll bring some quality people in, instead of retreads this offseason.

[errand]

ive supported plummer as much as anyone, and i think its laughable to have called for him at halftime.

I support the Broncos. I stood by Jake because he was our starter and I believe that a veteran QB will outplay a rookie QB 90% of the time. Having said that Jay is now our QB, and should remain so for the rest of the season. Jerking him in and out will only hurt his development.

Jake can either stay on as a valuable back-up or leave for that coveted starting job elsewhere....depends on how close he thinks this team is to a SB championship. (right now I think he's gonna be gone as we are never gonna win a title with these clowns we have on D)

[errand]

Yeah. It's been said many-a-time, but most of the ones upset about it are just upset they were wrong and don't want to admit it. I happen to think BMF actually thinks Plummer is better, though.

Just like Jake biggest detractors aren't still seething over being wrong between '99-'02? Jake has never been fully welcomed by the Bronco fans, despite the fact he won about 75% of his games as our starter, and led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons. And remember despite his lackluster play this season we were still 7-4 before the switch. This 4 game losing streak isn't Jake's fault nor Jay's fault.

Those who supported Jake liked him because he won games. When your team is winning few will advocate fixing what isn't broke in their eyes. The Broncos went thru a 5-11 season with Elway, but replacing him wouldn't have fixed the team. Just as replacing Jake hasn't fixed this year's Broncos.

This team's problems are rooted in our inability to pressure opposing QB's on a consistent basis, and they couldn't stop Maurice Clarett from gaining 100 yards on the ground.

We've got Jay as our starter, like or not, doesn't matter. His playing now should help him develop into a better player and if he lives up to the hype, we could contend for the next decade.

[watermock]

I keep having this vision of Jake in his Jesus hair/beard traveling from oasis to oasis thru the desert from now on. Maybe more like a bedouin nomad on top of a slow camel like Houston.

[Orange_Beard]

Today, Wednesday December 13, 2006- I now believe Jake could have won yesterday.

[errand]

Whether one likes the QB rating stat or not, it is the formula used by the league to measure and define QB performance and that is what makes the stat relevant until they make a new one. :)

Funny, I thought a QB's worth was based on number of games (and titles) won.

Brian Griese had better rating than John did over the first 4 years of his career, but I think you'd get alot of belly grabbing laughter suggesting he was a better QB. And your QB rating argument logic suggests this.

Jake has won more games than any other Broncos QB who wasn't named Elway....and his winning pct is better than John's. And his passer rating is higher than John's as a Bronco too...and yet, you'd still be met with belly grabbing laughter to suggest Jake was better.

Jay will be fine, he's arookie and is developing....hopefully we've closed the QB issue for the next decade barring injury. Now if we can find a dominant DE.

BTW Blueflame, you mentioned someone had a ludicrous idea of trading Cutler for the Bears DE (wasn't me, BTW) Tell me the truth, if trading Elway would have meant we won those 3 SB's in the 80's*, would you have done it?

Because right now we could use a QB terrorizing DE more than we could a new QB.


* I know we probably wouldn't have made it to them without him, but hypothetically speaking....

[errand]

actually blue, that DOESNT make the stat relevant.

fact is, its NOT a good indicator of success......unless you wanna agree that jake plummer (as a bronco), jim everett, dave krieg, and even brian griese were all better than john elway. ;D

qb rating rewards a guy for taking a sack, and it punishes a guy for saving his team yards by throwing it away.

it rewards a qb (like griese) who would often take an 8 yard completion on 3rd and 12 and punishes the qb (like elway, plummer, or cutler) who will try and find the guy that will move the chains.

it ignores fumbles, but CRUCIFIES a qb for int's.

it ignores evasiveness, yards after catch, ability to throw on the run, running yards, running td's, and a host of other things that contribute to a qb's success or failure.

bottom line is qb rating has ZERO bearing on who is or isnt the best.

in a sport like baseball, where its pitcher against batter, you can gain ALOT of knowledge looking at stats.
sure, the pitchers in some leagues and/or divisions may be tougher than others, but by and large its all up to the individual, so batting average, on base pct, etc. ARE good measuring sticks for talent.

regardless of whether or not the league endorses it, the passer (notice its not "qb", but "passer" rating?) rating is a joke.

college football endorses the BCS. you wanna tell me that it works and/or we should give a rip about it simply because its endorsed by the NCAA?

a qb's performance is subjective, which is unfortunate, because too many people just dont look deep enough to really evaluate accurately.
too many ADD fans just look up a passer rating and make an ENORMOUS leap of faith in a ridiculously flawed system.
they look up a qb's stats, look up his qb rating, and then judge him accordingly.

what theyre doing is letting a computer formula make up their mind for them, instead of just using their own eyes and making their own conclusions.
i expect it from the bulk of the ADD generation fans, but i expect you to go a little further.


Exactly....all true Broncos fans should know this after watching Elway win alot of games with mediocre passer ratings.

Classic example, the Steelers weren't the most dominant team last season....but they did get hot when they had to, which reminds me of the famous cliche -

"the great aren't great all the time, they're just great when they have to be"

[watermock]

I don't know WTF your talking about Errand. We all said, or the vast majority did, that there was no QB controversy at all and wanted Jay to carry the clipboard for a year.

I didn't hear ANYONE screaming for a high pick on a QB on draft day. It came COMPLETELY out of left field to me. It's when Jake started dumping turds starting way back against New England in the playoffs then Pitt that questions started rising.

Then you said JAKE WON GAMES...I would rather assert the team won games with the best turnover margin in this century for the team.

Just for the record BTW, Leinart is just above the Mendoza line of 70 at 73. amd despite all the knob slobbering over VY, his rating is 65, altho he can run like a deer and has 458 and 5 TD's.

Jay's rating is 83, and will probably improve each week, especially when we are going into the soft underbelly of the season after a brutal stretch. Jake had a rating of 70 and 175 rushing.

[watermock]

The thing about Elway was that he would struggle many times, but had an almost supernatural ability to rally the team late. He struggled in 3 of his 5 superbowls. Two were patheticaly bad efforts.

He rode off into the sunset at the pinacle, which is remarkable in itself, but he was far from perfect...let's stop pretending he was infallible.

Finally, you look at more than QB ratings to judge a QB...I'm just pointing out what we are given unless you live by that DVOA thing.

[watermock]

the great aren't great all the time, they're just great when they have to be"

Boy, if Elway doesn't exemplify that noone has.

[errand]

I don't know WTF your talking about Errand.

Then you said JAKE WON GAMES...I would rather assert the team won games with the best turnover margin in this century for the team.

Just for the record BTW, Leinart is just above the Mendoza line of 70 at 73. amd despite all the knob slobbering over VY, his rating is 65, altho he can run like a deer and has 458 and 5 TD's.



Mock, the moment they announce Jay Cutler as our #1 pick this year, the QB controversy began. Some advocated he be annointed the starter because he played good in the preseason, and who knows how well he'd be playing if that happened?

The bottom line is I don't look at stats as much as I look at wins.

Jake despite his faults has won more games than any other Broncos QB not named Elway. You remind me of those clowns who hate Dan Reeves despite his winning quite a few games and conference titles as our head coach. Sure he never won the big one...neither has Jake....but guess what Jay hasn't either.

As for your Vince Young - Matt Leinhart argument...bottom line is Vince has led the Titans to alot more wins than Matt has led the Cards. You can have the guy with the high passer rating, I'll take the guy that wins games.

[Taco John]

Just like Jake biggest detractors aren't still seething over being wrong between '99-'02? Jake has never been fully welcomed by the Bronco fans, despite the fact he won about 75% of his games as our starter, and led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons.


What a load of baloney. Jake was definitely fully welcomed by Broncos fans, up until he blew the 04 season by audibling our division championship away with the worst fade route I've ever seen a quarterback attempt. He lost a lot of the fan base with that game, and has no one to blame but himself. He's had plenty of opportunities to redeem himself with his detractors. Jake's a good guy, and no one truly wants to be against him. He's the kind of guy that people WANT to root for but can't because of the stupid stuf he continues to do.

[skpac1001]

Funny, I thought a QB's worth was based on number of games (and titles) won.
Brian Griese had better rating than John did over the first 4 years of his career, but I think you'd get alot of belly grabbing laughter suggesting he was a better QB. And your QB rating argument logic suggests this.

Cardinal fans could not agree with you more and thats what led to them dumping Jake. I disagree with you and was glad when we brought him in, and when we replaced him.

[Blueflame]

Funny, I thought a QB's worth was based on number of games (and titles) won.
Brian Griese had better rating than John did over the first 4 years of his career, but I think you'd get alot of belly grabbing laughter suggesting he was a better QB. And your QB rating argument logic suggests this.
Jake has won more games than any other Broncos QB who wasn't named Elway....and his winning pct is better than John's. And his passer rating is higher than John's as a Bronco too...and yet, you'd still be met with belly grabbing laughter to suggest Jake was better.
Yeah, you and O4L are doing a fantastic job of decimating an position that was never taken by anyone here (that passer rating is the only yardstick for measuring QB performance). Look, it isn't exactly rocket science... when a QB has a fantastic performance on the field, his passer rating for that game is usually very high (see: Philip Rivers' passer rating for the game last Sunday). Conversely, when a QB has an abysmal outing (see: Jake Plummer, Week One), his passer rating for that game usually reflects that. The numbers (attempts, completions, TD/INT ratio) are merely a fixed part of the player's record that can be pointed to to support one's position (as opposed to debating based solely on one's memory of the game, which can at times be less-reliable than the official recordkeeping).

Jay will be fine, he's arookie and is developing....hopefully we've closed the QB issue for the next decade barring injury. Now if we can find a dominant D
Yes, we do need to bolster the D-line... and the O-line... and we need more depth at safety as well. And a clear #1 RB who is capable of remaining healthy throughout the season would also be nice. Not that I'm dissing Tatum... but dang, when I watch the old games, I really miss TD.
BTW Blueflame, you mentioned someone had a ludicrous idea of trading Cutler for the Bears DE (wasn't me, BTW) Tell me the truth, if trading Elway would have meant we won those 3 SB's in the 80's*, would you have done it?
Absolutely not. I would never have advocated trading Elway under any circumstances.

Because right now we could use a QB terrorizing DE more than we could a new QB.
We need both, imho.

* I know we probably wouldn't have made it to them without him, but hypothetically speaking....
I wouldn't have even hypothetically supported trading Elway... and I don't advocate trading Cutler.

[errand]

I guess that's where we differ Blueflame. I'd have gotten rid of Elway in a heartbeat if I knew we'd have won 3 more titles. Because the bottom line is the bottom line. Russ Grimm said he'd run over his mom to win the SB...I'd run over his mom to win the SB too.

I don't think any player is above the team. Don't get me wrong, I think elway was the best ever, but 3 more Lombardi's? That would have been even sweeter.

[Blueflame]

I guess that's where we differ Blueflame. I'd have gotten rid of Elway in a heartbeat if I knew we'd have won 3 more titles. Because the bottom line is the bottom line. Russ Grimm said he'd run over his mom to win the SB...I'd run over his mom to win the SB too.

I don't think any player is above the team. Don't get me wrong, I think elway was the best ever, but 3 more Lombardi's? That would have been even sweeter.

Winning the SB is what it's all about, to be sure. And hypothetically, I suppose if another team had been willing to put up a serviceable QB to replace Elway plus all the other players we would have needed to win (in particular the SB against the 9'ers, a team that likely would have won over any other team in the league in that season; they were that dominating) while all we gave up was Elway, then perhaps it would have been too good a deal to pass up. But in that case, (realistically) it would also have been too one-sided to be offered... and it's an ironclad cinch that Al Davis would have sued till Doomsday to prevent it from happening... and whined incessantly from that point on if he failed to do so.

[orange 4 life]

Thats what makes it a great time to be a Bronco fan :strong:

and im in agreement with you.

the fact that he's only played 2 games in his career is being somewhat overlooked.
personally, i dont care how he compares to plummer RIGHT NOW.

i care that he shows ALOT of promise, and i care that we're just scratching the surface of what he can do.
exciting.

[orange 4 life]

Just like Jake biggest detractors aren't still seething over being wrong between '99-'02? Jake has never been fully welcomed by the Bronco fans, despite the fact he won about 75% of his games as our starter, and led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons. And remember despite his lackluster play this season we were still 7-4 before the switch. This 4 game losing streak isn't Jake's fault nor Jay's fault.

Those who supported Jake liked him because he won games. When your team is winning few will advocate fixing what isn't broke in their eyes. The Broncos went thru a 5-11 season with Elway, but replacing him wouldn't have fixed the team. Just as replacing Jake hasn't fixed this year's Broncos.

This team's problems are rooted in our inability to pressure opposing QB's on a consistent basis, and they couldn't stop Maurice Clarett from gaining 100 yards on the ground.

We've got Jay as our starter, like or not, doesn't matter. His playing now should help him develop into a better player and if he lives up to the hype, we could contend for the next decade.

absolutely great post from start to finish. :thumbs:

dead on accurate. seems simple enough dontcha think?

[orange 4 life]

Funny, I thought a QB's worth was based on number of games (and titles) won.

Brian Griese had better rating than John did over the first 4 years of his career, but I think you'd get alot of belly grabbing laughter suggesting he was a better QB. And your QB rating argument logic suggests this.

Jake has won more games than any other Broncos QB who wasn't named Elway....and his winning pct is better than John's. And his passer rating is higher than John's as a Bronco too...and yet, you'd still be met with belly grabbing laughter to suggest Jake was better.

Jay will be fine, he's arookie and is developing....hopefully we've closed the QB issue for the next decade barring injury. Now if we can find a dominant DE.

BTW Blueflame, you mentioned someone had a ludicrous idea of trading Cutler for the Bears DE (wasn't me, BTW) Tell me the truth, if trading Elway would have meant we won those 3 SB's in the 80's*, would you have done it?

Because right now we could use a QB terrorizing DE more than we could a new QB.


* I know we probably wouldn't have made it to them without him, but hypothetically speaking....

.....and hence why i melted down on draft day.

i DESPERATELY wanted that DE and another playmaker on offense, and we had 2 1st round picks and some money to spend.
instead, we ignored that problem and drafted a qb to replace a guy who has been nothing but good, and like elway in the 80's (no, i am NOT comparing the two), he had his team collapse around him once he got in the playoffs.

but like you said, the move has been made, and that qb could be the face of the franchise for over a decade.
that qb has a cannon for an arm, and its a treat to watch him throw a football.

only time will tell if we made the right move.
if cutler turns into HALF the player many here expect him to be, the move will look great down the road.
if he busts (and i dont think he will, God help us if he does), we'll have blown an opportunity to build up a team with plummer that was already good enough to host the afc title game.

jake

[Taco John]

.....and hence why i melted down on draft day.

i DESPERATELY wanted that DE and another playmaker on offense, and we had 2 1st round picks and some money to spend.
instead, we ignored that problem and drafted a qb to replace a guy who has been nothing but good, and like elway in the 80's (no, i am NOT comparing the two), he had his team collapse around him once he got in the playoffs.

but like you said, the move has been made, and that qb could be the face of the franchise for over a decade.
that qb has a cannon for an arm, and its a treat to watch him throw a football.

only time will tell if we made the right move.
if cutler turns into HALF the player many here expect him to be, the move will look great down the road.
if he busts (and i dont think he will, God help us if he does), we'll have blown an opportunity to build up a team with plummer that was already good enough to host the afc title game.

jake



Whether you guys like it or not, we weren't going anywhere with Jake. Quarterback was our number one problem, and that's why Shanahan addressed it with a top priority. It's crazy to say "Jake has been nothing but good." That's just wrong.

There's no doubt that a defensive end is a high priority on the list, but Shanahan went after a quarterback for a reason.