PDA

View Full Version : You guys made out like bandits


40yrpatsfan
04-03-2009, 07:42 PM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.

Br0nc0Buster
04-03-2009, 07:46 PM
Im anxious to see how Orton does honestly....lol

He actually did well last year.

But yea we need to hit on these picks.

We could take a big step towards repairing our defense

2KBack
04-03-2009, 07:47 PM
Everyone sense that? The clouds are parting, and the sun is starting to shine through again.

frerottenextelway
04-03-2009, 07:51 PM
People treat draft picks like it's a video game where if you collect enough of them you can power up to beat the end boss. The vast majority of draft picks don't end up as long term starters for the team that drafted them. I'd much rather gotten proven players, but it is what it is. We'll find out in 5 years.

Drek
04-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.

Thats the general sentiment I've gotten from the many Pats fans I know (many of whom are family). Most didn't really care about losing Weiss, Crennel, or Mangini but really don't like losing McDaniels.

A lot of them are also rather unhappy to see the Broncos steal Lonnie Paxton.

anon
04-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Cutler was once "just a draft pick" before he became the living legend that he is today. All "proven players" were once just draft picks and potential. And as our recent history has shown, at some point, a team needs to be able to develop its own talent base.

People treat draft picks like it's a video game where if you collect enough of them you can power up to beat the end boss. The vast majority of draft picks don't end up as long term starters for the team that drafted them. I'd much rather gotten proven players, but it is what it is. We'll find out in 5 years.

frerottenextelway
04-03-2009, 08:00 PM
Cutler was once "just a draft pick" before he became the living legend that he is today. All "proven players" were once just draft picks and potential. And as our recent history has shown, at some point, a team needs to be able to develop its own talent base.

So was Willie Middlebrooks. The draft is like a box of chocolates.... ;D

broncofan7
04-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Cutler was once "just a draft pick" before he became the living legend that he is today. All "proven players" were once just draft picks and potential. And as our recent history has shown, at some point, a team needs to be able to develop its own talent base.

And Jarvis Moss was just a draft pick too--as was Terry Pierce, Ashley Lelie, George Foster, etc-----You have more of a chance of MISSING than striking gold and that is precisely why when you do hit on your pick--you build around that player. You don't sell that piece to get more chances to play a game where you lose more than you win........DUMB, DUMB , DUMB. Shoulda' Hired the EYE-Talian and kept Bates.........

cutthemdown
04-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.

I realize Pats didn't win it all last 2 yrs but I was really impressed with the offensive play calling. I think Mcdaniels will call a good game in Denver and we won't be far from the 8 wins we had last yr. Maybe a couple less if the defense really struggles again.

I agree we are going to love him. He's the guy I wanted when the coaching search began and I'm sticking with him until i see him coach the team.

I don't know if these draft picks will make a huge difference but also you never know when your going to get lucky with a player. Broncos could use some good luck so I am hopeful.

Mcdaniels like you say has a lot to learn about being a head coach but I think Bowlen will give him the time and resources to succeed.

cutthemdown
04-03-2009, 08:07 PM
And Jarvis Moss was just a draft pick too--as was Terry Pierce, Ashley Lelie, George Foster, etc-----You have more of a chance of MISSING than striking gold and that is precisely why when you do hit on your pick--you build around that player. You don't sell that piece to get more chances to play a game where you lose more than you win........DUMB, DUMB , DUMB. Shoulda' Hired the EYE-Talian and kept Bates.........

I agree with you 100%. The thing is though Cutler didn't want to be a Bronco anymore. Also you can't let the QB pick the coaches, if that's what it took to keep Cutler then IMO you lose to much in the process.

It's true that both of these first round picks could be busts. It's also true Cutler could go on to be the best QB in the NFL.

only time will tell. I for one choose to believe Broncos will find some good players with those picks.

Also when so many first round picks are busts you might have to start to ask why? It falls on Shannahan and either poor evaluation, or failure to coach the players into good nfl starters.

I understand why people are upset, but the shoulda, coulda, what if's don't do much for me.

cutthemdown
04-03-2009, 08:08 PM
So was Willie Middlebrooks. The draft is like a box of chocolates.... ;D

exactly Shanny made some horrid draft picks, or the guys he hired did a poor job of evaluating them.

Lelie, Middlebrooks, that right there would get most GMS fired on the spot.

frerottenextelway
04-03-2009, 08:13 PM
exactly Shanny made some horrid draft picks, or the guys he hired did a poor job of evaluating them.

Lelie, Middlebrooks, that right there would get most GMS fired on the spot.

Oh God yes. It's amazing we were competitive despite going through years and years w/out adding anyone to our roster. Lelie, in all seriousness, was one of the better picks during that era even!

That's what's frustrating. The last 3 drafts have been outstanding as a whole - but drafts take years to see the results in W's and L's. That's what I think Taco, SoCal and I've been saying, the fruits of those drafts were around the corner.

Oh well.

anon
04-03-2009, 08:19 PM
First, you're pointing out all the busts from the previous regime. I think most would agree that the Broncos drafted very poorly during most of Shanahan's tenure.

Second, it's irrelevant. I don't think McDaniels' master plan all along was to trade Cutler or to have this circus. I don't care about all this he said/he said stuff. In the end, Cutler didn't want to be here. I don't think McDaniels' management style is soft like how Shanahan and Bates might have managed Cutler. You're basically saying that Bowlen should have never hired McDaniels or that he should have let Cutler interview any potential head coaching candidates to make sure there was a personality match?

What has Cutler done to deserve that kind of sway? Watch this video, listen to Elway and how he talks about his teammates, how he talks about himself, how his teammates talk about him and then tell me if you see any of the same qualities in Cutler?

Elway's Greatest Comebacks 1/5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIgSePwN94

Then listen to the latter half of this interview in which Shannon Sharpe explains why some of Cutler's body language and sideline demeanor bothers him.

Phone interview with Shannon Sharpe regarding Cutler trade:
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f992e3

Shannon Sharpe: "I guess because... it's so unfair... I guess it's because I played 9 years with #7 and I just saw the way he conducted himself..."



And Jarvis Moss was just a draft pick too--as

was Terry Pierce, Ashley Lelie, George Foster, etc-----You have more of a chance of MISSING than striking gold and that is precisely why when you do hit on your pick--you build around that player. You don't sell that piece to get more chances to play a game where you lose more than you win........DUMB, DUMB , DUMB. Shoulda' Hired the EYE-Talian and kept Bates.........

lex
04-03-2009, 08:29 PM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.


Can you get your trash out of our yard?

Arkie
04-03-2009, 08:35 PM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.

Everybody thinks we got the better deal except for Bear and Vanderbilt territory and his home state, Indiana. But, it's also interesting to note that the New England area has the most confidence that Josh's side got the better deal.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c179/gjbronco/map.jpg?t=1238812162

Drek
04-03-2009, 08:36 PM
And Jarvis Moss was just a draft pick too--as was Terry Pierce, Ashley Lelie, George Foster, etc-----You have more of a chance of MISSING than striking gold and that is precisely why when you do hit on your pick--you build around that player. You don't sell that piece to get more chances to play a game where you lose more than you win........DUMB, DUMB , DUMB. Shoulda' Hired the EYE-Talian and kept Bates.........

I live near and work in St. Louis, so just an FYI: Spagnuolo has completely blown up the Rams franchise. That includes coaches and fan favorite veteran players. If they weren't still on the hook for a big contract to Bulger he'd be gone too.

He also sent out a memo to all the players basically summarizing what McDaniels has been saying to date. No one is bigger than the team, everyone is just a piece in the puzzle to building a winning franchise, and that they would move any piece if they preferred the return.

So in short, Bates wouldn't have stayed. Dennison and Turner probably would've been canned as well. Cutler probably would've been ACTIVELY SHOPPED because after his little tantrum when Bates got let go Spagnuolo would want him out ASAP. We probably also would've looked to move Marshall by now as well, since his off field issues were also a key element in his memo to the team.

This notion that you could hire a guy to be your head coach and he'd come in and play the role of defensive coordinator is retarded. These guys want the HC job so they control the whole team. Its nothing like being a coordinator. If Spagnuolo was ok with that kind of a role he'd have stayed in New York.

Pioli is doing the same thing as a GM in KC. Dimitroff and Smith did the same in Atlanta last year. Belichick and Parcells do it with every new stop they make. Mike Shanahan did it when he first came here. The fact that McDaniels kept Turner and Dennison as well as the GM job staying in house suggests that he's been a lot more willing to retain the old regime than many of his peers.

That and Bates was a pretty mediocre play caller last year. The Oakland game in particular is a good example of his faults. He was pass happy and he'd key on a match up he thought he could win and wouldn't let off of it even when it wasn't working. I'm sure Cutler loved him because thats basically Cutler's mindset towards football in a nutshell as well, but it doesn't mean he was very good.

Needa Pass Rush
04-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Maybe the Pats will trade us two of their (3) 2nd rounders for #18. :)

Gort
04-03-2009, 08:44 PM
Im anxious to see how Orton does honestly....lol

Orton is gonna break off 2K in our system.

Now, if only we could get Foneco. ;)

Drek
04-03-2009, 08:50 PM
Maybe the Pats will trade us two of their (3) 2nd rounders for #18. :)

I'd rather they give us Kevin O'Connell. He's got more raw talent than any QB since Elway. He's going to tear this league up when he succeeds Tom Brady.

worm
04-03-2009, 09:16 PM
I'd rather they give us Kevin O'Connell. He's got more raw talent than any QB since Elway. He's going to tear this league up when he succeeds Tom Brady.

Now there is a QB I could rally behind. He is in a great situation right now. He will have his day.

Rohirrim
04-03-2009, 09:22 PM
Oh God yes. It's amazing we were competitive despite going through years and years w/out adding anyone to our roster. Lelie, in all seriousness, was one of the better picks during that era even!

That's what's frustrating. The last 3 drafts have been outstanding as a whole - but drafts take years to see the results in W's and L's. That's what I think Taco, SoCal and I've been saying, the fruits of those drafts were around the corner.

Oh well.

And the defense?

You talk as if the "fruits of those drafts" have suddenly gone poof. Only one guy is gone. The rest aren't going anywhere.

footstepsfrom#27
04-03-2009, 09:53 PM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.
Hello 40yrpatsfan...I"m a 40 year Bronco fan...and have just one question.

Are you drunk? Or are you just being sarcastic?

The fact is...2 months ago if someone had proposed this trade, not a single soul on this board other than a couple of Cutler haters who loved Jake Plummer's dirty jock...would have voted for this.

When you have a 26 year old budding superstar with a cannon for an arm who is big, strong, mobile, and intelligent...you do NOT trade him...PERIOD. You just don't.

This year we get the 18th...big deal. Next year its probably 28th. That does not excite me even if we had the previous braintrust in place who proved they could draft superbly. This bunch we have zero idea if they know what they're doing in the draft room. If they behave like they did up till now I think we'll emerge with a horrible draft no matter how many picks we have. You're acting like the 4 picks are the trade...it's 2 not 4, and the 3rd? Who cares.

Kyle Orton? Gimme a break. I'm not at all sure he can beat out Chris Simms.

The guy has one season as a starter, mainly because REX GROSSMAN was the alternative...you're impressed by that?

He's nowhere near the talent Cutler is. Cutler is a "malcontent" because he didn't appreciate being disrespected by the new regime in the embarassing way they allowed the trade to come out, and then they lied to him about it on top of that, which even Shannon Sharp says is true. Bowlen's an idiot on the order or Robert Irsay...in fact Irsay was put in the position he was not by his own actions but by Elway's refusal to play for Frank Kush...that was not Irsay's fault. This WAS Bowlen's fault.

Bowlen should have jumped on top of this little punk 5 minutes after the leak hit the press and held a one-on-one in his office to explain how they do things in this organization. Instead he left him dangling like a fish on a hook to dig his hole even deeper...and then they wonder why Cutler didn't want to be here.

We'll see if the boy genius can draft or coach any better than he can manage people, but I'm not that hopeful. I was one of those looking for a change from Shanahan but right now I'd gladly swap this dude back for him.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-03-2009, 09:55 PM
Hello 40yrpatsfan...I"m a 40 year Bronco fan...and have just one question.

Are you drunk? Or are you just being sarcastic?

The fact is...2 months ago if someone had proposed this trade, not a single soul on this board other than a couple of Cutler haters who loved Jake Plummer's dirty jock...would have voted for this.

When you have a 26 year old budding superstar with a cannon for an arm who is big, strong, mobile, and intelligent...you do NOT trade him...PERIOD. You just don't.

This year we get the 18th...big deal. Next year its probably 28th. That does not excite me even if we had the previous braintrust in place who proved they could draft superbly. This bunch we have zero idea if they know what they're doing in the draft room. If they behave like they did up till now I think we'll emerge with a horrible draft no matter how many picks we have. You're acting like the 4 picks are the trade...it's 2 not 4, and the 3rd? Who cares.

Kyle Orton? Gimme a break. I'm not at all sure he can beat out Chris Simms.

The guy has one season as a starter, mainly because REX GROSSMAN was the alternative...you're impressed by that?

He's nowhere near the talent Cutler is. Cutler is a "malcontent" because he didn't appreciate being disrespected by the new regime in the embarassing way they allowed the trade to come out, and then they lied to him about it on top of that, which even Shannon Sharp says is true. Bowlen's an idiot on the order or Robert Irsay...in fact Irsay was put in the position he was not by his own actions but by Elway's refusal to play for Frank Kush...that was not Irsay's fault. This WAS Bowlen's fault.

Bowlen should have jumped on top of this little punk 5 minutes after the leak hit the press and held a one-on-one in his office to explain how they do things in this organization. Instead he left him dangling like a fish on a hook to dig his hole even deeper...and then they wonder why Cutler didn't want to be here.

We'll see if the boy genius can draft or coach any better than he can manage people, but I'm not that hopeful. I was one of those looking for a change from Shanahan but right now I'd gladly swap this dude back for him.

Youre 40? You always came off as younger. Some Culter apologists act as if 1) the broncos were any good and 2) Cutler is the innocent victim here.

Lets wait till we watch the broncos team play this year before we start calling for a coach's head.

footstepsfrom#27
04-03-2009, 09:59 PM
Youre 40? You always came off as younger. Some Culter apologists act as if 1) the broncos were any good and 2) Cutler is the innocent victim here.

Lets wait till we watch the broncos team play this year before we start calling for a coach's head.
49...and deep down you know we were raped. It's just comforting to deny it.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-03-2009, 10:05 PM
49...and deep down you know we were raped. It's just comforting to deny it.

I would have preferred none of this ever happened, but i do not think we were raped at all. We have been given the ability to rebuild our defense and, if McD can create a system QB, then we can have a very functional offense and a completely rebuilt defense.

Jay Cutler, as much as I enjoyed watching him play, was hardly perfect. He often locked in on receivers, forced many balls, and couldnt read underneath coverage to save his life (how many friggin picks did he throw to lurking LBs). He also has a ton of growing up to do..and i dont mean just off the field. He often lost his composure during games and would try to score 14 points on every drive. Do i think he could have outgrown it? Sure, he's probably not even in his prime yet. And because he's less cerebral than other QBs out there, he truly might not be a fit in the McD offense (though im sure he could have been successful)

Time will certainly tell. I'll say this though. If we trade up to draft a qb in the first round, ill say it was horribly dumb. In fact, i dont even want a QB in the first 4 picks. Defense Defense Defense

Stormontheplains
04-03-2009, 10:20 PM
WTF guys, McDaniels is the only offensive coordinator to not win a super bowl with tom brady as qb, once again, Mcdaniel couldn't win a super bowl with TOM ****ING BRADY!!!!!!!! The lack of run game in his SYSTEM cost them the game, give me a damn break

watermock
04-03-2009, 10:38 PM
WTF guys, McDaniels is the only offensive coordinator to not win a super bowl with tom brady as qb, once again, Mcdaniel couldn't win a super bowl with TOM ****ING BRADY!!!!!!!! The lack of run game in his SYSTEM cost them the game, give me a damn break


Nintendo here we come. He's allready stated that Hillis will be a ROLE player.

ORANGEJARHEAD
04-03-2009, 10:38 PM
Yeah, draft defensive players. That's what needs fixin.

watermock
04-03-2009, 10:40 PM
Yeah, draft defensive players. That's what needs fixin.

THAT should of been the plan....

Florida_Bronco
04-03-2009, 10:53 PM
I'd rather they give us Kevin O'Connell. He's got more raw talent than any QB since Elway. He's going to tear this league up when he succeeds Tom Brady.

Any realistic chance that we acquire him?

ZONA
04-03-2009, 10:59 PM
I'd rather they give us Kevin O'Connell. He's got more raw talent than any QB since Elway. He's going to tear this league up when he succeeds Tom Brady.

You think he's gonna wait that long to start somewhere? Brady easily has 8 to 10 solid years left in him. If this guy is so good, why would he remain a back up for that long?

Florida_Bronco
04-03-2009, 11:07 PM
You think he's gonna wait that long to start somewhere? Brady easily has 8 to 10 solid years left in him. If this guy is so good, why would he remain a back up for that long?

Tom Brady is going to play until he's 39 to 41? ???

DBroncos4life
04-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Well in four years Jack Elway should be in the draft.

Taco John
04-03-2009, 11:16 PM
Knowing that God has a sense of humor, the thing that I'm looking forward to is meeting Jay Cutler in the Superbowl someday.

BroncoInferno
04-03-2009, 11:19 PM
Knowing that God has a sense of humor, the thing that I'm looking forward to is meeting Jay Cutler in the Superbowl someday.

Just like the existence of God, Jay Cutler in a Super Bowl with the mess of an offense he is going to is pure fantasy.

DBroncos4life
04-03-2009, 11:24 PM
Just like the existence of God, Jay Cutler in a Super Bowl with the mess of an offense he is going to is pure fantasy.

D's win SBs not Os so whats the point right? I mean thats what we are banking on now our high power turnover machine that is our D.

cutthemdown
04-03-2009, 11:25 PM
Knowing that God has a sense of humor, the thing that I'm looking forward to is meeting Jay Cutler in the Superbowl someday.

Well for sure he does have a sense of humor. Otherwise it wouldn't be proven laughter is so essential to being healthy.

But just as much as meeting him in Superbowl would be epic, there is just as much a chance that God would see making Cutler have to go bag groceries being equally funny. I know I would get a good laugh out of that.

BroncoInferno
04-03-2009, 11:27 PM
D's win SBs not Os so whats the point right? I mean thats what we are banking on now our high power turnover machine that is our D.

Chicago's D is on the decline. They weren't elite last season like they had been. Were pretty poor versus the pass, and their key guys are getting long in the tooth. There offense is a mess. They won't be in the Super Bowl anytime soon.

BroncoBuff
04-03-2009, 11:29 PM
WTF guys, McDaniels is the only offensive coordinator to not win a super bowl with tom brady as qb, once again, Mcdaniel couldn't win a super bowl with TOM ****ING BRADY!!!!!!!! The lack of run game in his SYSTEM cost them the game, give me a damn break

That's not fair ... I'm not a Josh fan (yet), but no way that's fair.

DBroncos4life
04-03-2009, 11:32 PM
Chicago's D is on the decline. They weren't elite last season like they had been. Were pretty poor versus the pass, and their key guys are getting long in the tooth. There offense is a mess. They won't be in the Super Bowl anytime soon.

The front seven is still very good and if they get the lead more often I think they will really get after the QB.

BroncoInferno
04-03-2009, 11:35 PM
The front seven is still very good and if they get the lead more often I think they will really get after the QB.

Their WRs and OL are below average. Even with Forte their running game was only 24th in the league. Jay will help for sure, but they aren't going to score a ton of points.

Paladin
04-03-2009, 11:39 PM
I live near and work in St. Louis, so just an FYI: Spagnuolo has completely blown up the Rams franchise. That includes coaches and fan favorite veteran players. If they weren't still on the hook for a big contract to Bulger he'd be gone too.

He also sent out a memo to all the players basically summarizing what McDaniels has been saying to date. No one is bigger than the team, everyone is just a piece in the puzzle to building a winning franchise, and that they would move any piece if they preferred the return.

So in short, Bates wouldn't have stayed. Dennison and Turner probably would've been canned as well. Cutler probably would've been ACTIVELY SHOPPED because after his little tantrum when Bates got let go Spagnuolo would want him out ASAP. We probably also would've looked to move Marshall by now as well, since his off field issues were also a key element in his memo to the team.

This notion that you could hire a guy to be your head coach and he'd come in and play the role of defensive coordinator is retarded. These guys want the HC job so they control the whole team. Its nothing like being a coordinator. If Spagnuolo was ok with that kind of a role he'd have stayed in New York.

Pioli is doing the same thing as a GM in KC. Dimitroff and Smith did the same in Atlanta last year. Belichick and Parcells do it with every new stop they make. Mike Shanahan did it when he first came here. The fact that McDaniels kept Turner and Dennison as well as the GM job staying in house suggests that he's been a lot more willing to retain the old regime than many of his peers.

That and Bates was a pretty mediocre play caller last year. The Oakland game in particular is a good example of his faults. He was pass happy and he'd key on a match up he thought he could win and wouldn't let off of it even when it wasn't working. I'm sure Cutler loved him because thats basically Cutler's mindset towards football in a nutshell as well, but it doesn't mean he was very good.

Great post. thanks. REP!

Los Broncos
04-04-2009, 12:03 AM
If the lines pass protects like last season Orton will do well.

Hulamau
04-04-2009, 12:45 AM
Long time Pats fan here. The Broncs killed the Bears in that trade. Two 1st's and a 3rd, plus a serviceable young QB with a good attitude. Four 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts. That is a bounty.

I can't recall a trade in many years as rich as that one. You dump a malcontent and get set up for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone expected Denver to win it all next year anyway, and now you're in position to be competitive for years.

Let me also say that you're gonna love Josh McDaniels. He's got a few things to learn about being a HC obviously, but you've got one of the bright minds in football, a great competitor and leader, yet the furthest thing from a blowhard. I hated to see him leave NE.

Can you get your trash out of our yard?


40yrpatsfan, apologies for the moronic and totally out of line comments by our new chief numbskull and residence clown, lex, recently succeeding Bob from KC as the butt of the most jokes around here. Don't take it personally, we've all figured out long ago he's somewhere between the 6th and 9th grade with some significant challenges.

Welcome to our board, your comments were meant in a supportive and positive light for the Broncos and didn't deserve such a petulant and rude response.

And Lex, unless you are a glutton for punishment, learn to measure your comments for when they might be warranted. This guy meant no offense at all toward the Broncos or fans.

BroncoBuff
04-04-2009, 12:53 AM
Knowing that God has a sense of humor, the thing that I'm looking forward to is meeting Jay Cutler in the Superbowl someday.

Such a thing happened in XXXIII .... and that was an even more unlikely eventuality when Reeves was fired than this one is right now.

DBroncos4life
04-04-2009, 12:54 AM
Their WRs and OL are below average. Even with Forte their running game was only 24th in the league. Jay will help for sure, but they aren't going to score a ton of points.

You don't need to score alot of points when your D doesn't give up 30 points per game. The Bears gave up 98 less points then us. As for the WRs I wouldn't be shocked to see Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison land there soon. I think Holt would follow Pace there.

lex
04-04-2009, 12:58 AM
40yrpatsfan, apologies for the moronic and totally out of line comments by our new chief numbskull and residence clown, lex, recently succeeding Bob from KC as the butt of the most jokes around here. Don't take it personally, we've all figured out long ago he's somewhere between the 6th and 9th grade with some significant challenges.

Welcome to our board, your comments were meant in a supportive and positive light for the Broncos and didn't deserve such a petulant and rude response.

And Lex, unless you are a glutton for punishment, learn to measure your comments for when they might be warranted. This guy meant no offense at all toward the Broncos or fans.

"Residence clown"??? Good grief, dude. If youre going to call people out have your **** together. You're the one who's hysterical.

JimmyFocus
04-04-2009, 01:44 AM
"Residence clown"??? Good grief, dude. If your going to call people out have your **** together. You're the one who's hysterical.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

Bob's your Information Minister
04-04-2009, 01:50 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3409352474_8ae17891ca_o.jpg

JCMElway
04-04-2009, 02:24 AM
Cutler was once "just a draft pick" before he became the living legend that he is today. All "proven players" were once just draft picks and potential. And as our recent history has shown, at some point, a team needs to be able to develop its own talent base.

"living legend?" Wow. No playoff wins, an under .500 record, and almost as many ints as TDs. And he's a legend?

This board has lost most of it's perspective.

(Unless you were being sarcastic. Hmmmmmmm.......)

JCMElway
04-04-2009, 02:25 AM
WTF guys, McDaniels is the only offensive coordinator to not win a super bowl with tom brady as qb, once again, Mcdaniel couldn't win a super bowl with TOM ****ING BRADY!!!!!!!! The lack of run game in his SYSTEM cost them the game, give me a damn break

I'd like to think that it was the Giants that played a damn fine football game.

lex
04-04-2009, 02:43 AM
:rofl: :thumbsup:

Oy. Its late.

Drek
04-04-2009, 05:20 AM
Any realistic chance that we acquire him?

No. Bill Belichick did an interview not too long ago where he was asked what they'll do now without Cassel if Brady isn't 100%. He intimated that he wouldn't mind starting O'Connell NOW and the big knock on the guy coming out of school was that he was so raw he'd need multiple seasons of understudy work.

They got to see a lot more of O'Connell than most teams get to see of a developmental QB because he was bumped from the 3rd string to the 2nd when Brady was out. They know what they have there.

You think he's gonna wait that long to start somewhere? Brady easily has 8 to 10 solid years left in him. If this guy is so good, why would he remain a back up for that long?
I personally think Tom Brady will see his career parallel Joe Montana's pretty closely in a lot of regards, but on an accelerated time line.

That will be in part because Belichick is a strong advocate of the "lose 'em a year early instead of a year late" mindset, and also because Tom Brady just suffered his first significant injury four years before Montana had his.

Assuming Tom Brady stays healthy I'd expect the Pats to start shopping him in just a few seasons. They've stocked up pretty heavily on depth in this FA market and I wouldn't be surprised if their interest in Peppers pays off. Belichick is lining a new 2-4 year window of success, at which point he'll transition the franchise to a new core.

The longer Brady keeps being a top 3 QB the longer he'll hold off the closing of that window, but ultimately it is coming a lot sooner than later.

40yrpatsfan
04-04-2009, 07:24 AM
Hello 40yrpatsfan...I"m a 40 year Bronco fan...and have just one question.

Are you drunk? Or are you just being sarcastic?

The fact is...2 months ago if someone had proposed this trade, not a single soul on this board other than a couple of Cutler haters who loved Jake Plummer's dirty jock...would have voted for this.

When you have a 26 year old budding superstar with a cannon for an arm who is big, strong, mobile, and intelligent...you do NOT trade him...PERIOD. You just don't.

This year we get the 18th...big deal. Next year its probably 28th. That does not excite me even if we had the previous braintrust in place who proved they could draft superbly. This bunch we have zero idea if they know what they're doing in the draft room. If they behave like they did up till now I think we'll emerge with a horrible draft no matter how many picks we have. You're acting like the 4 picks are the trade...it's 2 not 4, and the 3rd? Who cares.

Kyle Orton? Gimme a break. I'm not at all sure he can beat out Chris Simms.

The guy has one season as a starter, mainly because REX GROSSMAN was the alternative...you're impressed by that?

He's nowhere near the talent Cutler is. Cutler is a "malcontent" because he didn't appreciate being disrespected by the new regime in the embarassing way they allowed the trade to come out, and then they lied to him about it on top of that, which even Shannon Sharp says is true. Bowlen's an idiot on the order or Robert Irsay...in fact Irsay was put in the position he was not by his own actions but by Elway's refusal to play for Frank Kush...that was not Irsay's fault. This WAS Bowlen's fault.

Bowlen should have jumped on top of this little punk 5 minutes after the leak hit the press and held a one-on-one in his office to explain how they do things in this organization. Instead he left him dangling like a fish on a hook to dig his hole even deeper...and then they wonder why Cutler didn't want to be here.

We'll see if the boy genius can draft or coach any better than he can manage people, but I'm not that hopeful. I was one of those looking for a change from Shanahan but right now I'd gladly swap this dude back for him.

You're seeing it like the Broncos were 1 or 2 pieces away. I think they were real far away and going in the wrong direction to boot. McDaniels will fix that but it will take time. You guys need to sit back and enjoy the ride up - you'll be in the playoffs in 2 years and contending in 3.

As far as Cutler, I didn't see him that often but my impressions were:

- terrific skills and physical attributes
- kind of a knucklehead
- not much of a leader
- recent events show he's a total prima donna

You weren't winning any SB's with a guy like that as your QB, no matter how well he throws on the run. He's either going to be mediocre forever, or someone will get into that thick skull of his and turn him around. He didn't give McDaniels that chance, and once that was apparent, the Broncos went out and made the trade that will turn them around for a decade. This was your Herschel Walker moment.

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 07:35 AM
Just like the existence of God, Jay Cutler in a Super Bowl with the mess of an offense he is going to is pure fantasy.

Yeah, because the possibility of us being here by random chance is so much more likely ROFL!

So your great-great-great-great-to-a-thousand-greats grandmother was a chimp then? You actually believe that? ROFL!

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo2.jpg

Stormontheplains
04-04-2009, 07:51 AM
That's not fair ... I'm not a Josh fan (yet), but no way that's fair.

HEY BUFF, as quoted by little bill friday at the press conference " You are judged by wins and losses in the postseason, not talent" By that quote alone his offense cost them the game!!!!


Remember, he had the highest scoring offense in the world, his game plan in the super bowl was to pass, pass, pass. The total rushing yards for the pat's in the super bowl was 45 yards, on 16 attempts, WTFBoy running out of the gun kicks ass with little bill, great game plan

Br0nc0Buster
04-04-2009, 08:48 AM
Yeah, because the possibility of us being here by random chance is so much more likely ROFL!

So your great-great-great-great-to-a-thousand-greats grandmother was a chimp then? You actually believe that? ROFL!

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo2.jpg

Take your pathetic understanding of biology to another thread.
We had a discussion about this in a thread about Texas changing the science curriculum.
Trust me you are not the first person to say that, and not the first to like an idiot doing so

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 09:06 AM
Take your pathetic understanding of biology to another thread.
We had a discussion about this in a thread about Texas changing the science curriculum.
Trust me you are not the first person to say that, and not the first to like an idiot doing so

Obviously I struck I nerve. I'm sorry if my not believing that some mysterious big bang blew everything to heck and back and somehow, by a random act of chance with a possibility so miniscule it's utterly ridiculous to even comprehend, managed to create a cell, which somehow then was able through more random acts of chance (again all which such low probability it requires faith rivaling religion) to become something more advanced.

And I wasn't involved in that discussion, but don't get me started, because I can blow all the evolutionary THEORIES (not facts) out of the water.

Things don't get better if left alone with time, they get worse. Things grow old, decay, rust, die, etc. Things are constantly breaking down. They do not get better as time goes on.

If each distinct layer of rock is separate ages of the earth separated by millions of years, why have petrified trees been found standing up intersecting multiple layers of rock?

Things that make you go HMMMMN....

Br0nc0Buster
04-04-2009, 09:25 AM
Obviously I struck I nerve. I'm sorry if my not believing that some mysterious big bang blew everything to heck and back and somehow, by a random act of chance with a possibility so miniscule it's utterly ridiculous to even comprehend, managed to create a cell, which somehow then was able through more random acts of chance (again all which such low probability it requires faith rivaling religion) to become something more advanced.

And I wasn't involved in that discussion, but don't get me started, because I can blow all the evolutionary THEORIES (not facts) out of the water.

Things don't get better if left alone with time, they get worse. Things grow old, decay, rust, die, etc. Things are constantly breaking down. They do not get better as time goes on.

If each distinct layer of rock is separate ages of the earth separated by millions of years, why have petrified trees been found standing up intersecting multiple layers of rock?

Things that make you go HMMMMN....

I am simply asking you not to bring this up in this thead
I strongly suggest you read that thread I mentioned, we addressed questions like this

frerottenextelway
04-04-2009, 09:37 AM
And the defense?

You talk as if the "fruits of those drafts" have suddenly gone poof. Only one guy is gone. The rest aren't going anywhere.

We rebuilt the offense first. I think it's safe to say if we drafted a MLB or Safety last year instead of Ryan Clady, we'd been a better football team in 2008 - that doesn't mean it would've been the best thing to do in the long run.

Rohirrim
04-04-2009, 09:40 AM
We rebuilt the offense first. I think it's safe to say if we drafted a MLB or Safety last year instead of Ryan Clady, we'd been a better football team in 2008 - that doesn't mean it would've been the best thing to do in the long run.

I understand that. The Clady pick is probably my favorite pick the Broncos have made since TD came to town. But I see nothing in Shanahan's record to conclude that he would have ever put a D together, no matter how many drafts Bowlen gave him.

footstepsfrom#27
04-04-2009, 03:59 PM
You're seeing it like the Broncos were 1 or 2 pieces away. I think they were real far away and going in the wrong direction to boot.
Not on offense. On the offense we were 1 RB away from a dominating O.
McDaniels will fix that but it will take time. You guys need to sit back and enjoy the ride up - you'll be in the playoffs in 2 years and contending in 3.
The D was all that we needed to fix. Now we lack the most important piece on the board. We have had 2 franchise QB's in 50 years, and your boy genius just junked one of them like he was crap.
As far as Cutler, I didn't see him that often but my impressions were:

- terrific skills and physical attributes
- kind of a knucklehead
- not much of a leader
- recent events show he's a total prima donna
McDanny boy is the prima donna...he think's he's Belicheat and has zero skins on the wall. I wouldn't want to play for him either. As for being a leader, that observation wasn't in vogue prior to this fiasco.
You weren't winning any SB's with a guy like that as your QB, no matter how well he throws on the run. He's either going to be mediocre forever, or someone will get into that thick skull of his and turn him around. He didn't give McDaniels that chance, and once that was apparent, the Broncos went out and made the trade that will turn them around for a decade. This was your Herschel Walker moment.
Hershel Walker brought a huge pile of picks and they were used by a guy who knew what he was doing in the draft. We got two mid to late 1st rounders...big freaking deal. We don't even know if these guys can draft yet, and from appearances on how they do other things, I'm not holding my breath. Second, we weren't winning Superbowls? Eh...I know you saw the defense Shanny rolled out there right? Your pats put up what...600 yards on those clowns? The ghost of Johnny U couldn't have won with the crap we rolled out there on D.

No Patriot assistant has done crap so far. Maybe Opie will prove different, maybe not...but one thing is obvious; he has no idea how to work with people. And THAT is the truest measure of leadership.

I'll root for them just like always...but this guy has light years to go to win back my trust in both his character and his competence.

barryr
04-04-2009, 04:11 PM
The Broncos did end up getting quite a bit for a QB with a losing record and a horrible 10-9 home record to boot.

Imagine if Bledsoe never got hurt. The Pats may not have ever known how good Brady could be.

The Giants won the Super Bowl mainly due to having a great defense, something the Broncos haven't had in years, if ever, with Shanahan. Even the Super Bowl years, that defense wasn't considered great.

orangeatheist
04-04-2009, 04:20 PM
Yeah, because the possibility of us being here by random chance is so much more likely

That's all they always say that reveals how utterly stupid they are.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 04:25 PM
Yeah, because the possibility of us being here by random chance is so much more likely ROFL!

So your great-great-great-great-to-a-thousand-greats grandmother was a chimp then? You actually believe that? ROFL!

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo2.jpg

Oh so very interesting! (not sarcasm).

While I will forthright come out and admit that I am not a believer that we evolved into humans, you do have to take into consideration the play of time, and in this case it could very well be infinite.

When was the universe created? Well, you could say xxxxx billion years ago, but what good is the use of this "time" concept unless there was "time" before the big bang. So yes, while the big bang supposedly occured xxxx billion years ago, who knows how long it took for the big bang to actually take place.

Let me sit back and play devils advocate for a moment. Lets say your right, the chances of everything happening simply by chance are 1 in 10^100000000000 (greater, less than, doesn't matter). What if the universe was simply waiting for this to happen (the big bang), over a period of time... lets say that period of time is infinite. It doesn't matter how low the chances of it happening at any given moment, if there is an infinite amount of time in which it COULD take place, then it will take place, it's just a matter of time.

interesting eh?

As for evolution, it's pretty hard to argue with the Darwinian theory... though it's already been shown that us humans didn't evolve from apes/chimps, etc.

worm
04-04-2009, 04:39 PM
Oh so very interesting! (not sarcasm).

While I will forthright come out and admit that I am not a believer that we evolved into humans, you do have to take into consideration the play of time, and in this case it could very well be infinite.

When was the universe created? Well, you could say xxxxx billion years ago, but what good is the use of this "time" concept unless there was "time" before the big bang. So yes, while the big bang supposedly occured xxxx billion years ago, who knows how long it took for the big bang to actually take place.

Let me sit back and play devils advocate for a moment. Lets say your right, the chances of everything happening simply by chance are 1 in 10^100000000000 (greater, less than, doesn't matter). What if the universe was simply waiting for this to happen (the big bang), over a period of time... lets say that period of time is infinite. It doesn't matter how low the chances of it happening at any given moment, if there is an infinite amount of time in which it COULD take place, then it will take place, it's just a matter of time.

interesting eh?

As for evolution, it's pretty hard to argue with the Darwinian theory... though it's already been shown that us humans didn't evolve from apes/chimps, etc.

Cuesta students. :oyvey:

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 04:40 PM
Cuesta students. :oyvey:

Cal Poly, my friend. Finance major, philosophy minor - I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

:~ohyah!:

worm
04-04-2009, 04:49 PM
Cal Poly, my friend. Finance major, philosophy minor - I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

:~ohyah!:

I was an arch major there. Trust me, you finance guys don't ;D

Spider
04-04-2009, 04:50 PM
I drove by a major university once ......... State college PA ...... you guys dont have a clue

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 04:57 PM
I was an arch major there. Trust me, you finance guys don't ;D

Haha, well an arch major... how could I ever compete? :kiss:

Good to see I have company on the boards! What are you doing now? I'm assuming when you say you were an arch major, that you did indeed graduate, haha.

Paladin
04-04-2009, 04:57 PM
Yeah, because the possibility of us being here by random chance is so much more likely ROFL!

So your great-great-great-great-to-a-thousand-greats grandmother was a chimp then? You actually believe that? ROFL!

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo2.jpg

But: "Time and Chance happens to all men."

Just saying.....

snowspot66
04-04-2009, 05:11 PM
As long as our line works as well as it did last year I don't really think it matters who is behind center. The Ravens won with Trent Dilfer. Our success will obviously depend on how our defense does.

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Ever hear of a brilliant scientist by the name of Sir Fred Hoyle? He just died a few years back. He's a lot smarter than myself or anyone else on this board for that matter.

Check this out:

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo3.jpg

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 05:49 PM
Ever hear of a brilliant scientist by the name of Sir Fred Hoyle? He just died a few years back. He's a lot smarter than myself or anyone else on this board for that matter.

Check this out:

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo3.jpg

Well, if Sir Fred Hoyle said it... It MUST be true! :notworthy

Damn, and I was gonna post a rebuttal...

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 06:43 PM
Well, if Sir Fred Hoyle said it... It MUST be true! :notworthy

Damn, and I was gonna post a rebuttal...
It's not just that. It's not just the statisitical probability being absolutely ridiculous, although it is really absurd. The chances of Evolution ever occurring is so remote as to be mathematically impossible.

Think of it this way - you and I being here because of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors?

The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening. See what I'm saying?

Give him longer. Give the monkey as much time as you want. It's NEVER going to happen! It doesn't matter how much time you give him,that monkey is never going to do it!

And besides that, there are so many things that don't make sense about evolution if you actually sat down and thought about it and just used common sense when thinking about it.

For example, if you were walking along in a forest and came across a painting hanging on a tree, you know there was a painter. Even though you weren't there to see the painting made, you know someone painted, or created it.

And since when do explosions cause order?

If you placed a bomb in an electronic parts store and detonated it, what are the chances a cell phone would be created from the parts and the explosion? Not just a cell phone, a WORKING cell phone.

colonelbeef
04-04-2009, 06:50 PM
the rap Cutler is getting is going to spur him to greatness.

you can just see it coming a mile away.

frerottenextelway
04-04-2009, 06:52 PM
It's not just that. It's not just the statisitical probability being absolutely ridiculous, although it is really absurd. The chances of Evolution ever occurring is so remote as to be mathematically impossible.

Think of it this way - you and I being here because of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors?

The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening. See what I'm saying?

Give him longer. Give the monkey as much time as you want. It's NEVER going to happen! It doesn't matter how much time you give him,that monkey is never going to do it!

And besides that, there are so many things that don't make sense about evolution if you actually sat down and thought about it and just used common sense when thinking about it.

For example, if you were walking along in a forest and came across a painting hanging on a tree, you know there was a painter. Even though you weren't there to see the painting made, you know someone painted, or created it.

And since when do explosions cause order?

If you placed a bomb in an electronic parts store and detonated it, what are the chances a cell phone would be created from the parts and the explosion? Not just a cell phone, a WORKING cell phone.

Nah, you're using logical fallacies. The chance of a specific set of coincidences happening is always going to be remote, but it's a guarentee that random coincidences will happen.

gyldenlove
04-04-2009, 06:55 PM
Ever hear of a brilliant scientist by the name of Sir Fred Hoyle? He just died a few years back. He's a lot smarter than myself or anyone else on this board for that matter.

Check this out:

http://members.cox.net/mbrown777/evo3.jpg

Fred Hoyle has been proven wrong so many times it is like he is a Chiefs fan.

oubronco
04-04-2009, 06:56 PM
Go Cutler

Mogulseeker
04-04-2009, 06:59 PM
Guys, please. I come to the Mane to AVOID the classroom...

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 07:22 PM
Guys, there are THOUSANDS of problems with Evolution.

I'm going to give you another HUGE one.

If you haven't paid attention to anything I've said up to this point, THIS post is the post to pay attention to.

Look up "bacterial flagellum". Don't believe what I say, go look it up for yourselves.

For those that don't feel like looking it up, I'll summarize. It's got a paddle, driven by a motor with what appears to be gears.

I'm not making this up. Oh, by the way, this is at the MOLECULAR level. What on earth is a paddle, gear-driven propeller doing on the back of a tiny bacteria??

Here, here's a link to a Physics department site that talks about it, completely non-religious, check it out: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

It's a marvel of nano-ENGINEERING. It didn't get there by chance. Please.

Go. Look it up for yourselves.

And I'm sorry I missed the discussion in the Texas forum. ;D

skpac1001
04-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Guys, there are THOUSANDS of problems with Evolution.

I'm going to give you another HUGE one.

If you haven't paid attention to anything I've said up to this point, THIS post is the post to pay attention to.

Look up "bacterial flagellum". Don't believe what I say, go look it up for yourselves.

For those that don't feel like looking it up, I'll summarize. It's got a paddle, driven by a motor with what appears to be gears.

I'm not making this up. Oh, by the way, this is at the MOLECULAR level. What on earth is a paddle, gear-driven propeller doing on the back of a tiny bacteria??

Here, here's a link to a Physics department site that talks about it, completely non-religious, check it out: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

It's a marvel of nano-ENGINEERING. It didn't get there by chance. Please.

Go. Look it up for yourselves.

And I'm sorry I missed the discussion in the Texas forum. ;D

Well there is only one problem with creationism, so I guess you have the numerical advantage.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 07:43 PM
I'm not making this up. Oh, by the way, this is at the MOLECULAR level. What on earth is a paddle, gear-driven propeller doing on the back of a tiny bacteria??

It evolved?

Here, here's a link to a Physics department site that talks about it, completely non-religious, check it out: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

It's a marvel of nano-ENGINEERING. It didn't get there by chance. Please.

Evolution wouldn't argue that it got there by chance, it would argue that it got there by natural selection. Given the VERY short lifespan of most Bacteria, that they have evolved a complex mechanism is hardly a surprise. I have no idea how the hell this thread got on this subject, but c'mon. If this your refutation of evolution, then we have a very serious problem with science education in this country.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 07:45 PM
Also, 'please' is not an argument. You make an assertion that it didn't get there by chance, but you have nothing to back up why that it is. There are things that occur in science purely by chance that are FAR more interesting and complex than that (look up virtual particles for one).

And yes, I am a physicist. I hold an advanced degree with a specialization in quantum mechanics.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 07:50 PM
Think of it this way - you and I being here because of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors?

Now give him infinite time. The chances are 100%.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 07:52 PM
Fred Hoyle has been proven wrong so many times it is like he is a Chiefs fan.

No doubt, as has the entire concept of irreducible complexity that the article extrapolated from Hoyle. Saying 'something is complex, therefore it must be engineered' is simply invalid logic.

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 08:01 PM
Also, 'please' is not an argument. You make an assertion that it didn't get there by chance, but you have nothing to back up why that it is. There are things that occur in science purely by chance that are FAR more interesting and complex than that (look up virtual particles for one).

And yes, I am a physicist. I hold an advanced degree with a specialization in quantum mechanics.

I'm sorry to hear that, that means no matter how ridiculous I point out your arguments are or how many holes I shoot through them, you won't change your mind. This is from plenty of past experience.

You can't honestly look at that bacteria under a microscope, see the gears, locomotion device, etc, and not believe God put it there?

Natural Selection is a joke (no offense). Nature has no power to choose, and is incapable of looking to the future. It acts on the spur of the moment based on its current environment.

And yet, this limited process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers?

Natural selection works for small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to environmental changes. It can take existing structures and hone them.

But it can’t explain how you get complex structures in the first place. Biologist Franklin Harold wrote, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

And I haven't even gotten into any other areas of science yet. I've just briefly touched on statistical probability and the fact that there's a nano-machine on the back of a bacteria that we all know didn't get there by chance. I mean, just look at it.

At least some scientists are finally beginning to realize this:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
September 2, 2008

Black96WS6
04-04-2009, 08:03 PM
I have to hit the road now, I need to go food shopping and Sabbath is almost over, so not sure when I'll be back online, so perhaps we should table this and let this thread get back on track with the picks for Cutler discussion :)

Spider
04-04-2009, 08:05 PM
yeah well Cutler still sucks

frerottenextelway
04-04-2009, 08:07 PM
Guys, there are THOUSANDS of problems with Evolution.

I'm going to give you another HUGE one.

If you haven't paid attention to anything I've said up to this point, THIS post is the post to pay attention to.

Look up "bacterial flagellum". Don't believe what I say, go look it up for yourselves.

For those that don't feel like looking it up, I'll summarize. It's got a paddle, driven by a motor with what appears to be gears.

I'm not making this up. Oh, by the way, this is at the MOLECULAR level. What on earth is a paddle, gear-driven propeller doing on the back of a tiny bacteria??

Here, here's a link to a Physics department site that talks about it, completely non-religious, check it out: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

It's a marvel of nano-ENGINEERING. It didn't get there by chance. Please.

Go. Look it up for yourselves.

And I'm sorry I missed the discussion in the Texas forum. ;D

Evolution has been proved in the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

And this is long, but one of the best reads you'll ever have.

http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time-classic-creationist-pwnage/

TheDave
04-04-2009, 08:11 PM
Good gawd people there is an entire thread on this very subject that was just on the front page... Did you have to **** can the only positive thread with this crap?

gyldenlove
04-04-2009, 08:11 PM
Guys, there are THOUSANDS of problems with Evolution.

I'm going to give you another HUGE one.

If you haven't paid attention to anything I've said up to this point, THIS post is the post to pay attention to.

Look up "bacterial flagellum". Don't believe what I say, go look it up for yourselves.

For those that don't feel like looking it up, I'll summarize. It's got a paddle, driven by a motor with what appears to be gears.

I'm not making this up. Oh, by the way, this is at the MOLECULAR level. What on earth is a paddle, gear-driven propeller doing on the back of a tiny bacteria??

Here, here's a link to a Physics department site that talks about it, completely non-religious, check it out: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

It's a marvel of nano-ENGINEERING. It didn't get there by chance. Please.

Go. Look it up for yourselves.

And I'm sorry I missed the discussion in the Texas forum. ;D

You are going to want to look up the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School board case. In there is a detailed description by expert witnesses why the Flagellum is not a case of irreducible complexity, just to make it easier on you I will give you a hint for something to look at.

A body similar to the flagellum but much simpler has been found in several bacteria including various types of Salmonella, clearly indicating that Flagellum is just a more complicated version of a simple structure with a totally different purpose (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

Tombstone RJ
04-04-2009, 08:31 PM
Wow, another philosophical slug fest, yippy!