PDA

View Full Version : Cold, Hard Football Facts


Kid A
04-07-2009, 10:29 PM
Fascinating statistical comparison of 08 Broncos and 07 Patriots. Plummer haters and Cutler apologists will find much to gripe with, but an interesting breakdown worth discussing.

http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2708_A_team_in_need_of_a_statistical_stimulus_p lan.html

A team in need of a statistical stimulus plan

Denver has been one of the league’s marquee franchises since the arrival of John Elway more than quarter century ago.

But the Broncos sit here in the 2009 off-season surrounded by so much chaos that we swear we saw their fans smashing windows yesterday outside the G-20 summit in London.

Mike Shanahan was dumped as head coach at the end of last year’s disappointing 8-8 campaign, following 14 successful seasons during which he guided the organization to its only two Super Bowl titles.

Quarterback Jay Cutler, meanwhile, the face of the franchise and the team’s No. 1 pick in the 2006 draft, was shipped to Chicago yesterday after a highly publicized pissing match with Shanahan’s replacement, former Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels – the baby-faced 32-year-old head coach (33 on April 22) charged with rebuilding the Broncos brand. Denver landed Bears signal-caller Kyle Orton and a stunning two first-round draft picks.

The Broncos who run onto the field in September will look and feel a whole lot different than the Broncos who sheepishly walked off the field back in December.

And that’s a very good thing for the Denver faithful as they look toward their own New World Order.

In fact, the 2008 Broncos were in desperate need of an auto-industry-style makeover and were an organization scarred by acts of statistical dysfunction so profound that only the Cold, Hard Football Facts have the insight you need to put it all into perspective.

Denver’s Shocking Statistical Soulmate
To comprehend the chaos in Denver here in the 2009 off-season, you need to wrap your fragile little mind around two sets of data about two very different teams.

Don’t worry, this will be fun … and incredibly enlightening.

Consider Team A. It averaged:

* 411.2 yards per game
* 295.7 passing yards per game
* 115.6 rushing yards per game
* An inspiring 6.22 yards per offensive play over the course of an entire season.

Now Consider Team B. It averaged:

* 395.8 yards per game
* 279.4 passing yards per game
* 116.4 rushing yards per game
* An inspiring 6.21 yards per offensive play over the course of an entire season.

Given the highly comparable offensive numbers – a slight but hardly significant edge to Team A in most categories – you’d assume that Team A was slightly more productive on offense than Team B, but not by much. After all, each snap by each team yielded nearly the same exact gain of 6.2 yards.

We’d make that same assumption, too.

But both of us would be wrong.

Team A is the 16-0 Patriots of 2007 – who scored an NFL-record 589 points (36.8 PPG), the second-highest per-game average in the entire history of the league (1950 Rams, 38.8 PPG).

Team B is the 8-8 Broncos of 2008 – who scored a paltry 370 points (23.1), barely ranking in the top half of the league last year (16th).

That’s right: the 2008 Broncos moved the ball up and down the field nearly as well as the offense many consider the greatest in the history of the game. On a per-play basis, the 2007 Patriots and 2008 Broncos were statistical equals.

But when it came to the two results that actually mattered – turning those yards into points and victories – the two teams could not have been more different. The 2007 Patriots boasted twice as many victories and outscored the 2008 Broncos by better than two touchdowns per game.

The 2008 Broncos, in other words, were an extraordinarily inefficient offense.

Right or wrong, quarterbacks always shoulder an undue amount of praise and blame for their team’s fortunes. So, naturally, the blame for Denver’s dysfunction fell on the shoulders of the quarterback – or at least it did in the eyes of the only person that matters: new head coach Josh McDaniels, a guy who had a front-row seat to New England's version of 6.2 yards per play as the team’s offensive coordinator.

A Very Bad Trend
Cutler was seen by most pigskin “pundits” as one of the bright young stars of the NFL – a player who seemed to prove his place in the NFL when he passed for a tremendous 4,526 yards last year.

It was easily the most prolific passing season in franchise history. Consider that John Elway himself surpassed the 4,000-yard mark just once – and just barely – with 4,030 yards in 1993.

So many observers were confused when McDaniels walked in and immediately made noise about acquiring another quarterback, touching off the flame war that ended in Cutler’s trade to Chicago on Thursday.

But McDaniels apparently knew what the Cold, Hard Football Facts have long told you: yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

Let us say that again to be very clear: Yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

And few teams in history epitomized the vast emptiness of yards as an indicator of success better than the Broncos under Cutler.

In fact, his ascent to the role of starting QB was marked by rapid descent in Denver’s offensive efficiency and, therefore, in Denver’s success as a team.

* The 2008 Broncos needed to produce a daunting 17.12 yards of offense for every point it scored in 2008 – 28th in the NFL as measured by the Cold, Hard Football Facts Scoreability Index, our measure of offensive efficiency. They went 8-8.
* The 2007 Broncos were even worse: they needed to produce 17.32 yards of offense for every point it scored – 25th in the NFL as measured by our Scoreability Index. They went 7-9.

To find the last time that Broncos boasted an efficient offense – an offense that effectively squeezed points out of its yards – you have to go back to the 2005 Broncos under Jake Plummer.

The 2005 Broncos ranked 9th on our Scoreability Index, scoring a point for every 14.6 yards of offense. Not so coincidentally, the 2005 Broncos went 13-3 and were one game away from reaching the Super Bowl.

But for some reason that seems inexplicable in retrospect, the offensive efficiency and the 13-3 season weren't good enough for Denver fans or for the organization. In fact, Plummer, the quarterback behind that fairly efficient 2005 Broncos offense, was pigskin persona-non-grata in Denver. From fans to management, it seems nobody liked Plummer.

So, in the wake of their 13-3 season, the Broncos devoted their top pick in the 2006 draft to Jay Cutler, the proverbial quarterback of the future.

He threw pretty passes and put up big individual numbers. His 87.1 career passer rating, for example, easily exceed's Elway's 79.9 career passer rating.

But the Broncos under Cutler could not put the ball in the end zone. Denver clearly had serious defensive issues that made it harder for the offense to score points (last year's Broncos ranked 30th, surrendering 28.0 PPG). But it doesn't change the fact that, in two seasons with Cutler the clear-cut No. 1 quarterback, Denver's offensive efficiency crashed faster and more sharply than the Icelandic stock market.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts saw the problems with Denver through our Scoreability Index, even as most of the pigskin “pundits” gawked at Cutler's gaudy yardage total.

McDaniels apparently saw the same problems we did, too. After all, he learned what 6.2 yards per play looked like when he guided the Patriots to a record 589 points in 2007. And he must have been shocked when he watched film of Cutler and the Denver offense and its version of 6.2 yards per play last season.

He apparently knew big changes were in order. Cutler took the bait, making it clear he was not happy in Denver.

So McDaniels and the Broncos flipped an pouting, inefficient quarterback for Kyle Orton, who’s won 21 of his 32 NFL starts with the Bears, and a stunning two first-round draft picks.

It's a great deal for a team that desperately needed a statistical stimulus plan.

spdirty
04-07-2009, 10:41 PM
Interesting how field position and shlttiness of kicker is not added into the magic equation.

baja
04-07-2009, 10:47 PM
That's why I don't think it is unreasonable to ponder if Orton can be a better player than Jay in McDs system, everything considered.

Flex Gunmetal
04-07-2009, 10:47 PM
Fascinating statistical comparison of 08 Broncos and 07 Patriots. Plummer haters and Cutler apologists will find much to gripe with, but an interesting breakdown worth discussing.

http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2708_A_team_in_need_of_a_statistical_stimulus_p lan.html

A team in need of a statistical stimulus plan

Denver has been one of the league’s marquee franchises since the arrival of John Elway more than quarter century ago.

But the Broncos sit here in the 2009 off-season surrounded by so much chaos that we swear we saw their fans smashing windows yesterday outside the G-20 summit in London.

Mike Shanahan was dumped as head coach at the end of last year’s disappointing 8-8 campaign, following 14 successful seasons during which he guided the organization to its only two Super Bowl titles.

Quarterback Jay Cutler, meanwhile, the face of the franchise and the team’s No. 1 pick in the 2006 draft, was shipped to Chicago yesterday after a highly publicized pissing match with Shanahan’s replacement, former Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels – the baby-faced 32-year-old head coach (33 on April 22) charged with rebuilding the Broncos brand. Denver landed Bears signal-caller Kyle Orton and a stunning two first-round draft picks.

The Broncos who run onto the field in September will look and feel a whole lot different than the Broncos who sheepishly walked off the field back in December.

And that’s a very good thing for the Denver faithful as they look toward their own New World Order.

In fact, the 2008 Broncos were in desperate need of an auto-industry-style makeover and were an organization scarred by acts of statistical dysfunction so profound that only the Cold, Hard Football Facts have the insight you need to put it all into perspective.

Denver’s Shocking Statistical Soulmate
To comprehend the chaos in Denver here in the 2009 off-season, you need to wrap your fragile little mind around two sets of data about two very different teams.

Don’t worry, this will be fun … and incredibly enlightening.

Consider Team A. It averaged:

* 411.2 yards per game
* 295.7 passing yards per game
* 115.6 rushing yards per game
* An inspiring 6.22 yards per offensive play over the course of an entire season.

Now Consider Team B. It averaged:

* 395.8 yards per game
* 279.4 passing yards per game
* 116.4 rushing yards per game
* An inspiring 6.21 yards per offensive play over the course of an entire season.

Given the highly comparable offensive numbers – a slight but hardly significant edge to Team A in most categories – you’d assume that Team A was slightly more productive on offense than Team B, but not by much. After all, each snap by each team yielded nearly the same exact gain of 6.2 yards.

We’d make that same assumption, too.

But both of us would be wrong.

Team A is the 16-0 Patriots of 2007 – who scored an NFL-record 589 points (36.8 PPG), the second-highest per-game average in the entire history of the league (1950 Rams, 38.8 PPG).

Team B is the 8-8 Broncos of 2008 – who scored a paltry 370 points (23.1), barely ranking in the top half of the league last year (16th).

That’s right: the 2008 Broncos moved the ball up and down the field nearly as well as the offense many consider the greatest in the history of the game. On a per-play basis, the 2007 Patriots and 2008 Broncos were statistical equals.

But when it came to the two results that actually mattered – turning those yards into points and victories – the two teams could not have been more different. The 2007 Patriots boasted twice as many victories and outscored the 2008 Broncos by better than two touchdowns per game.

The 2008 Broncos, in other words, were an extraordinarily inefficient offense.

Right or wrong, quarterbacks always shoulder an undue amount of praise and blame for their team’s fortunes. So, naturally, the blame for Denver’s dysfunction fell on the shoulders of the quarterback – or at least it did in the eyes of the only person that matters: new head coach Josh McDaniels, a guy who had a front-row seat to New England's version of 6.2 yards per play as the team’s offensive coordinator.

A Very Bad Trend
Cutler was seen by most pigskin “pundits” as one of the bright young stars of the NFL – a player who seemed to prove his place in the NFL when he passed for a tremendous 4,526 yards last year.

It was easily the most prolific passing season in franchise history. Consider that John Elway himself surpassed the 4,000-yard mark just once – and just barely – with 4,030 yards in 1993.

So many observers were confused when McDaniels walked in and immediately made noise about acquiring another quarterback, touching off the flame war that ended in Cutler’s trade to Chicago on Thursday.

But McDaniels apparently knew what the Cold, Hard Football Facts have long told you: yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

Let us say that again to be very clear: Yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

And few teams in history epitomized the vast emptiness of yards as an indicator of success better than the Broncos under Cutler.

In fact, his ascent to the role of starting QB was marked by rapid descent in Denver’s offensive efficiency and, therefore, in Denver’s success as a team.

* The 2008 Broncos needed to produce a daunting 17.12 yards of offense for every point it scored in 2008 – 28th in the NFL as measured by the Cold, Hard Football Facts Scoreability Index, our measure of offensive efficiency. They went 8-8.
* The 2007 Broncos were even worse: they needed to produce 17.32 yards of offense for every point it scored – 25th in the NFL as measured by our Scoreability Index. They went 7-9.

To find the last time that Broncos boasted an efficient offense – an offense that effectively squeezed points out of its yards – you have to go back to the 2005 Broncos under Jake Plummer.

The 2005 Broncos ranked 9th on our Scoreability Index, scoring a point for every 14.6 yards of offense. Not so coincidentally, the 2005 Broncos went 13-3 and were one game away from reaching the Super Bowl.

But for some reason that seems inexplicable in retrospect, the offensive efficiency and the 13-3 season weren't good enough for Denver fans or for the organization. In fact, Plummer, the quarterback behind that fairly efficient 2005 Broncos offense, was pigskin persona-non-grata in Denver. From fans to management, it seems nobody liked Plummer.

So, in the wake of their 13-3 season, the Broncos devoted their top pick in the 2006 draft to Jay Cutler, the proverbial quarterback of the future.

He threw pretty passes and put up big individual numbers. His 87.1 career passer rating, for example, easily exceed's Elway's 79.9 career passer rating.

But the Broncos under Cutler could not put the ball in the end zone. Denver clearly had serious defensive issues that made it harder for the offense to score points (last year's Broncos ranked 30th, surrendering 28.0 PPG). But it doesn't change the fact that, in two seasons with Cutler the clear-cut No. 1 quarterback, Denver's offensive efficiency crashed faster and more sharply than the Icelandic stock market.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts saw the problems with Denver through our Scoreability Index, even as most of the pigskin “pundits” gawked at Cutler's gaudy yardage total.

McDaniels apparently saw the same problems we did, too. After all, he learned what 6.2 yards per play looked like when he guided the Patriots to a record 589 points in 2007. And he must have been shocked when he watched film of Cutler and the Denver offense and its version of 6.2 yards per play last season.

He apparently knew big changes were in order. Cutler took the bait, making it clear he was not happy in Denver.

So McDaniels and the Broncos flipped an pouting, inefficient quarterback for Kyle Orton, who’s won 21 of his 32 NFL starts with the Bears, and a stunning two first-round draft picks.

It's a great deal for a team that desperately needed a statistical stimulus plan.
:giggle:
Very interesting tho.

Kid A
04-07-2009, 11:20 PM
Interesting how field position and shlttiness of kicker is not added into the magic equation.

Very good point, especially on the field position. I would bet the Pats had significantly better starting position. I think whenever you try to come to a conclusion based on a certain set of stats there is usually another another group that could be brought into the discussion.

That said, I think the there is a very valid point to be made that impressive yardage does not a great offense make. And I think the article touches on some of the mentality that may have made Cutler expendable in McDaniels' mind.

baja
04-07-2009, 11:27 PM
Very good point, especially on the field position. I would bet the Pats had significantly better starting position. I think whenever you try to come to a conclusion based on a certain set of stats there is usually another another group that could be brought into the discussion.

That said, I think the there is a very valid point to be made that impressive yardage does not a great offense make. <b> And I think the article touches on some of the mentality that may have made Cutler expendable in McDaniels' mind.

1+

Popps
04-07-2009, 11:27 PM
But McDaniels apparently knew what the Cold, Hard Football Facts have long told you: yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

Let us say that again to be very clear: Yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

And few teams in history epitomized the vast emptiness of yards as an indicator of success better than the Broncos under Cutler.

Been saying this for years.

People around this forum are absolutely infatuated with passing yardage numbers, despite its insignificance. Once again this year, the winning QB in the playoffs averaged something like 230 yards passing, 2 TDs and 1 INT a game.

Playoff games are won on the ground, and on defense. The passing game has to be efficient, and potent when it needs to be, but rarely are SB teams built around big passing yards. Yes, there are exceptions... obviously.

Passing is fun to watch. I love it. I grew up watching Elway put up 300 yard games every weekend. But, more important is an efficient QB who can make tough throws, move the chains, etc. (You know, the boring stuff.)

Elway just happened to be talented enough to put up big numbers, but smart enough to fit into a refined system, as well. He's few and far between.

spdirty
04-07-2009, 11:30 PM
Very good point, especially on the field position. I would bet the Pats had significantly better starting position. I think whenever you try to come to a conclusion based on a certain set of stats there is usually another another group that could be brought into the discussion.

That said, I think the there is a very valid point to be made that impressive yardage does not a great offense make. And I think the article touches on some of the mentality that may have made Cutler expendable in McDaniels' mind.

Another thing, the defense last year had 13 turnovers. The NFL record for fewest turnovers forced in a 16 game season is 12. Which means the offense got the ball back by punt of kickoff so damn much it was unbelievable...and with our shltty special teams and Shannys unwillingness to use Royal in the return department most of the season had to play another real effect into that yards per point ratio.


Just the fact that this team was able to go 8-8 last year is pretty unbelievable, and a testament to the offense that Shanahan built. But, its OK...much much easier to blame the pro bowl QB I guess.


Anyway, I expect the offense to be much better next year in points scored. No excuses.

spdirty
04-07-2009, 11:36 PM
But McDaniels apparently knew what the Cold, Hard Football Facts have long told you: yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

Let us say that again to be very clear: Yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

And few teams in history epitomized the vast emptiness of yards as an indicator of success better than the Broncos under Cutler.

Been saying this for years.

People around this forum are absolutely infatuated with passing yardage numbers, despite its insignificance. Once again this year, the winning QB in the playoffs averaged something like 230 yards passing, 2 TDs and 1 INT a game.

Playoff games are won on the ground, and on defense. The passing game has to be efficient, and potent when it needs to be, but rarely are SB teams built around big passing yards. Yes, there are exceptions... obviously.

Passing is fun to watch. I love it. I grew up watching Elway put up 300 yard games every weekend. But, more important is an efficient QB who can make tough throws, move the chains, etc. (You know, the boring stuff.)

Elway just happened to be talented enough to put up big numbers, but smart enough to fit into a refined system, as well. He's few and far between.

Well lets just hope the wunderkid realizes that talent that is Peyton hillis and rides that bull at least 20X a game.

Atwater His Ass
04-07-2009, 11:42 PM
:giggle:
Very interesting tho.

Why do you have to quote a huge artical, to only then put a smiley face after it? Do you think we wouldn't know to which subject you were refering?

Chidoze
04-07-2009, 11:45 PM
Very interesting article.

The things that make you go....hmmmm. 8')

Flex Gunmetal
04-07-2009, 11:57 PM
Why do you have to quote a huge artical, to only then put a smiley face after it? Do you think we wouldn't know to which subject you were refering?

There was an error that I bolded, I shoulda just clipped a little bit. Mah bad!

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 01:40 AM
That's why I don't think it is unreasonable to ponder if Orton can be a better player than Jay in McDs system, everything considered.

Its unreasonable to ponder it because it wasn't thought of before Orton became a Bronco.

enjolras
04-08-2009, 01:48 AM
Its unreasonable to ponder it because it wasn't thought of before Orton became a Bronco.

Yet, here I am pondering away.

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 01:55 AM
Yet, here I am pondering away.

here you are NOW pondering away. I bet Pats fans where pondering what it would have been like to have Brady leading the team last year and not Cassel.

BroncoMan4ever
04-08-2009, 02:54 AM
you know what. i really don't care anymore. i was on Jay's side through the entire situation. but he is gone, and right now, i don't give a **** who is handling the snaps as long as we can put the ball in the damn end zone.

those stats were sickening, that we could move the ball as well as the best offense in NFL history yet were more than 200 points scored behind them.


i know field position, defense, turnovers, all play a bigger role in points scored than the majority of these articles mention, but it is still sickening to think of how good this offense could have been last season had it been consistant

worm
04-08-2009, 03:23 AM
We also had cooked crack thinking he was starting...not playing...starting...for the Broncos at one point this past year.

This offense clearly had issues...along with everything else. That was in spite of Jay and not due to him. To claim otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

Now, claiming that Denver should never have drafted Jay to begin with....well that is a different debate that is at least viable.

elsid13
04-08-2009, 04:56 AM
Why is this surprising? The lack of scoring is the result of ineffective run game not Cutler. In the red zone passing become extremely hard due to the limited space. That is why folks have been saying that offense need an effective runner to take the next step. Unless one the backs step up, it doesn't matter who the QB is. But go ahead and blame Cutler.

chadta
04-08-2009, 05:55 AM
Passing is fun to watch. I love it. I grew up watching Elway put up 300 yard games every weekend. But, more important is an efficient QB who can make tough throws, move the chains, etc. (You know, the boring stuff.)

Elway just happened to be talented enough to put up big numbers, but smart enough to fit into a refined system, as well. He's few and far between.

ever try watching cfl games ?

500 yard games happen all the time, heck weve even had a couple 600 yard passing games

loborugger
04-08-2009, 06:37 AM
But McDaniels apparently knew what the Cold, Hard Football Facts have long told you: yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

Let us say that again to be very clear: Yards, and passing yards in particular, have virtually no correlation to success in the NFL.

And few teams in history epitomized the vast emptiness of yards as an indicator of success better than the Broncos under Cutler.

Been saying this for years.

People around this forum are absolutely infatuated with passing yardage numbers, despite its insignificance. Once again this year, the winning QB in the playoffs averaged something like 230 yards passing, 2 TDs and 1 INT a game.

Playoff games are won on the ground, and on defense. The passing game has to be efficient, and potent when it needs to be, but rarely are SB teams built around big passing yards. Yes, there are exceptions... obviously.

Passing is fun to watch. I love it. I grew up watching Elway put up 300 yard games every weekend. But, more important is an efficient QB who can make tough throws, move the chains, etc. (You know, the boring stuff.)

Elway just happened to be talented enough to put up big numbers, but smart enough to fit into a refined system, as well. He's few and far between.

Ya, no doubt. When I think of monster passing yards, the first thing I think of Dan Marino - the ringless Dan Marino. I think of those AFC teams that lost a gazillion SBs in a row, cuz while they could pass like mad they couldnt play 'D' and they couldnt grind it out on the ground. I think of how many times a team passes for over 300 yds and loses compared to how many times a team can rush for 125-150 yds and lose a game. Its not unheard of to throw for over 400 and lose. It is unheard of to run for 200 and lose.

Here is another fact they missed from their comparision between the 07 Pats and 08 Broncos.

Brady 50 TDs, 8 INTs
Cutler 25 TDs, 18 INTs

In total, Denver gave up the ball 37 times - New England gave it 12 times...

cmhargrove
04-08-2009, 07:02 AM
Ya, no doubt. When I think of monster passing yards, the first thing I think of Dan Marino - the ringless Dan Marino. I think of those AFC teams that lost a gazillion SBs in a row, cuz while they could pass like mad they couldnt play 'D' and they couldnt grind it out on the ground. I think of how many times a team passes for over 300 yds and loses compared to how many times a team can rush for 125-150 yds and lose a game. Its not unheard of to throw for over 400 and lose. It is unheard of to run for 200 and lose.

Here is another fact they missed from their comparision between the 07 Pats and 08 Broncos.

Brady 50 TDs, 8 INTs
Cutler 25 TDs, 18 INTs

In total, Denver gave up the ball 37 times - New England gave it 12 times...

And... Even the great Peyton Manning needed a solid run game to win his SB ring. Hopefully, McD brings some magic back to our run game.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-08-2009, 07:08 AM
I would really like to see a similar write-up of the Orton-led Bears offense.

barryr
04-08-2009, 07:31 AM
The Broncos were never winning anything with Cutler until the ground game got settled and more importantly, the defense could actually make some stops, which was not happening for awhile now.

And stops need to also be ones where they are 3 plays and punt.

When the Bronco defense the last few years was able to stop a team from scoring, they usually allowed the offense to move the ball to at least midfield before punting, which of course, most punters will either pin you inside your own 20 or at best, you're staring at the 20.

So again, the Bronco offense was usually losing the field position battle and if going up against a good defense, just how many 80+ yard scoring drives do you expect to get in a game? Without the help of a long pass, long run, or penalty, you won't get many.

This was a problem even when Plummer as the QB. The Broncos rarely and I mean RARELY, started a drive even past their own 35 yard line.

It's difficult to be consistently good when you consistently lose the battle of field position every game.

What the Broncos need is a defense that will not only limit scoring drives obviously, but also make teams punt after just 3 plays or at least not punting to the short field and the Broncos start in bad field position all the time.

Of course creating turnovers, something the defense has not done in awhile either, might help the offense start in better field position too.

snowspot66
04-08-2009, 07:31 AM
Damn...

With that many turnovers The only reason we got as many yards as we did is that our defense sucked so bad we'd get the ball right back after a quick TD.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 07:34 AM
A significant point that is conveniently left out; Denver never won the field position game during Cutler's tenure. NEVER. No matter what Denver did on offense the defense rarely went 3 and out. There have been more Bigfoot sightings during Cutler's tenure than Bronco D stands or 3 and outs. So, Denver, at best, had a long field but usually were fielding a kickoff (with shoddy results) after a field goal or TD which put Cutler's offense without a running game with a 75 yard field and the pressure to just keep up in terms of scoring. If they managed to crack a lead they always had to press for more because Denver's D continually buckles like cheap lawn furniture. All the pressure to win games, the expectation to win games, fell on Cutler and the offense and without a consistant running game that's asking a lot and Cutler's arm kept this club competitive when it shouldn't have been. So hate on the kid all you want but McKid blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare talent.

BABronco
04-08-2009, 07:34 AM
And... Even the great Peyton Manning needed a solid run game to win his SB ring. Hopefully, McD brings some magic back to our run game.

Hopefully he realizes he has one.

broncofan7
04-08-2009, 07:42 AM
For a QB who was starting his 2nd full season in the NFL, to be compared with the 2007 Pats in any statistical category is quite an accomplishment. With a little more maturity and experience, a power running back and a middle of the pack defense, we would have eclipsed 30 points/game within the next 2 seasons. To even compare Jay Cutler to a 3 time SB winner in Tom Brady speaks to the fact that Cutler has a boat load of talent--people tend to forget that he is going into his 3rd full year as a starting QB. It comes down to experience folks.........

barryr
04-08-2009, 07:45 AM
A significant point that is conveniently left out; Denver never won the field position game during Cutler's tenure. NEVER. No matter what Denver did on offense the defense rarely went 3 and out. There have been more Bigfoot sightings during Cutler's tenure than Bronco D stands or 3 and outs. So, Denver, at best, had a long field but usually were fielding a kickoff (with shoddy results) after a field goal or TD which put Cutler's offense without a running game with a 75 yard field and the pressure to just keep up in terms of scoring. If they managed to crack a lead they always had to press for more because Denver's D continually buckles like cheap lawn furniture. All the pressure to win games, the expectation to win games, fell on Cutler and the offense and without a consistant running game that's asking a lot and Cutler's arm kept this club competitive when it shouldn't have been. So hate on the kid all you want but McKid blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare talent.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Broncos didn't win field position with Plummer at QB either.

oubronco
04-08-2009, 07:52 AM
A significant point that is conveniently left out; Denver never won the field position game during Cutler's tenure. NEVER. No matter what Denver did on offense the defense rarely went 3 and out. There have been more Bigfoot sightings during Cutler's tenure than Bronco D stands or 3 and outs. So, Denver, at best, had a long field but usually were fielding a kickoff (with shoddy results) after a field goal or TD which put Cutler's offense without a running game with a 75 yard field and the pressure to just keep up in terms of scoring. If they managed to crack a lead they always had to press for more because Denver's D continually buckles like cheap lawn furniture. All the pressure to win games, the expectation to win games, fell on Cutler and the offense and without a consistant running game that's asking a lot and Cutler's arm kept this club competitive when it shouldn't have been. So hate on the kid all you want but McKid blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare talent.

exactly and instead of coming in and keeping Cutler happy he had to rock the boat but he dumped the damn thing over !!

CEH
04-08-2009, 07:57 AM
Cutler was a 2nd year starting QB who will get better as the game slows down.
Where in this aritlice is the 5 D/ST TDs for NE vs 2 for Denver. If we're talking stats and trend. Denver won both those games that they has a defensive TD. What about the 39 turnovers for the PATS D vs 13 for the Denver D.
How about 47 sacks for NE vs 21 for Denver.
If the Denver D generated a Defense like NE's that year I could argue 3 extra TD from the D and ST is 21 points.
26 extra turnovers let's say half are turned into points 6 TD 7 FGs. Not unrealistic if you look at Denvers' points off turnovers for '08

Now we are at 5 points per game more.
28 PPG 4th highest total in Broncos history.

Here is the problem I have with Josh. He is on the radio last week spreading lies about how Denver's O had the 2nd most turnovers in the league (more like tied for 5th) last year. Just now true. I'd wish he'd get his facts straight before throwing the offesne under the bus..

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 07:59 AM
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Broncos didn't win field position with Plummer at QB either.

Agreed. I love the Snake and I think he got a raw deal. But in true Snake fashion he went on to do things his way and now he's an Olympian. Good on Jake.:thumbsup:

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Its unreasonable to ponder it because it wasn't thought of before Orton became a Bronco.

Actually, this is not true. Myself and several others were pointing out the inefficiency of the offense well before the trade went down.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:00 AM
Agreed. I love the Snake and I think he got a raw deal. But in true Snake fashion he went on to do things his way and now he's an Olympian. Good on Jake.:thumbsup:

Jake is not an Olympian, that was someone's April Fool's joke

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:01 AM
So hate on the kid all you want but McKid blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare talent.

Wrong. Cutler blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare, young offensive mind who could have taken his career to the next level. Instead, he pouted that the previous regime was canned, cried because trade scenarios were listened to, and forced his way out of town.

TailgateNut
04-08-2009, 09:03 AM
Interesting how field position and shlttiness of kicker is not added into the magic equation.


Filed position? WE moved the ball well, unless it was in the red zone. Then we sucked.
****tyness of kicker? Do we really want to count on field goals to win games?

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:06 AM
A significant point that is conveniently left out; Denver never won the field position game during Cutler's tenure. NEVER.

True. But what about the 30 TOs the offense gave up last season, including 20 by Jay (18 INTs, 2 lost fumbles). Go ahead and make excuses, but the turnovers had as much to do with the lack of efficiency as the field position.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:07 AM
Wrong. Cutler blew a golden opportunity to work with a rare, young offensive mind who could have taken his career to the next level. Instead, he pouted that the previous regime was canned, cried because trade scenarios were listened to, and forced his way out of town.

Don't know how anyone can argue against that.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 09:08 AM
Jake is not an Olympian, that was someone's April Fool's joke

Oh Jesus Christ, it's always something with you knocking on the Snake. Can't you just leave Jake alone?;D

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 09:11 AM
Don't know how anyone can argue against that.

The premise of that statement is that the coach is the the egotistical child in the relationship and I guess that's fine if you expect the players to be the adults in the room but all of sports history suggests that its the coaches who are supposed to be the grown ups. Sure there's shared culpability but its up to the coaches to figure out how to manage the players' personalities and that ability goes a long way to making players more productive. Bottom line is that McKid wanted his security blanket and damned everything else when he pissed down his leg trying to get Cassell.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Oh Jesus Christ, it's always something with you knocking on the Snake. Can't you just leave Jake alone?;D

LOL I remember I started a Jake appreciation thread and took numerous hits for it. I always liked Jake's leadership but when Shanny brought in Jay that got inside of Jakes head and he was never the same guy.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:17 AM
The premise of that statement is that the coach is the the egotistical child in the relationship and I guess that's fine if you expect the players to be the adults in the room but all of sports history suggests that its the coaches who are supposed to be the grown ups. Sure there's shared culpability but its up to the coaches to figure out how to manage the players' personalities and that ability goes a long way to making players more productive. Bottom line is that McKid wanted his security blanket and damned everything else when he pissed down his leg trying to get Cassell.

What was the recourse, Jay would not even take calls from the owner and the owner says trade him how does the HC fix that?

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 09:20 AM
LOL I remember I started a Jake appreciation thread and took numerous hits for it. I always liked Jake's leadership but when Shanny brought in Jay that got inside of Jakes head and he was never the same guy.

Bronco fans were merciless to Jake, it was pathetic. In Jake we had a guy who went out and won games. Sure, when he lost he lost gloriously and apparently that's what everyone chose to remember. Then we get Jay and the fanbase is ecstatic...until the last 8 weeks. Now Jay is the worst QB in the world and a large portion of the Mane is, as I predicted, working themselves through the mental gymnastics of self delusion and making Orton into the guy that McKid's offense will better thrive with. It's disgusting.

My theory as to why McKid prefers scrubs over studs; with a scrub in there the failure is on the QB position and for most teams, more often than not, they have a journeyman guy back there that can be thrown under the bus. McKid inherited Brady and the offense for what? 2 years? Cassell had a good season but does that really carry forward to a career? Statistics and his bench status say no, it doesn't.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:20 AM
The premise of that statement is that the coach is the the egotistical child in the relationship and I guess that's fine if you expect the players to be the adults in the room but all of sports history suggests that its the coaches who are supposed to be the grown ups. Sure there's shared culpability but its up to the coaches to figure out how to manage the players' personalities and that ability goes a long way to making players more productive. Bottom line is that McKid wanted his security blanket and damned everything else when he pissed down his leg trying to get Cassell.

The premise of your statement hinges on the notion that McDaniels made a concerted effort to bring in Cassel. The position of the front office from the beginning is that they were approached about scenarios and listened, but never made any decision to pull the trigger. You may think they're lying, but there is not much evidence to support that other than the proverbial "anonymous sources." In fact, the only primary player to speak up in this situation is Belichek, who pretty much confirmed that KC is the only team that made him a solid offer, corroborating the front office version. Of course, he could be lying, too, but what would he have to gain?

I think it's pretty clear that an offer was made that would have concluded Cassel PLUS high draft picks that could be used to fix the other areas of the team, and they thought (reasonably so) that it was at least worth discussing. That is not being a "child", that is doing your due diligence. Cutler was already sucking his thumb over Shanny and Bates getting canned, but when Cutler found out they had the temerity to even consider trading him, it was all over. Nothing McDaniels could have said after that point was going to pacify the big baby.

lex
04-08-2009, 09:21 AM
The thing of it is, in 2007 the issue of moving the ball but not having many points to show for it was a much bigger issue than in 2008. There was a lot of improvement in cashing in points. Theres no reason to think even more improvement wasnt going to be made going forward especially when you look at our issues at RB. I agree that Shanahan turned his back on the run but this analysis deserves some scrutiny. The 6.2 is a credit to a very young offense on the ascent. Besides, Im not even sure yards per play means all that much because it means youre passing a lot (since your yards per pass is almost always higher than your yards per rush). It seems like everyone on our offense was either younger than 26 or older than 34. In contrast, practically everyone in that NE offense was in their prime. But again, that yards per play is kind of erroneous because it reflects a team that passes too much.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 09:22 AM
What was the recourse, Jay would not even take calls from the owner and the owner says trade him how does the HC fix that?

The HC should never have let it get to that point. Either McKid is full of sh$t or he took a phone call and gloriously f'd the whole situation up. Either way this whole episode clearly demonstrates that McKid and Xanders are not fit for the personnel roles into which they've put themselves. Xanders should be fired post haste. He's proven himself to be an egregious liability to this club and he's only been on the job like 10 weeks.

colonelbeef
04-08-2009, 09:35 AM
Interesting how field position and shlttiness of kicker is not added into the magic equation.

seriously, a entirely flawed argument that only takes into account the offense regardless of how ****ty the defense was.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:35 AM
Bronco fans were merciless to Jake, it was pathetic. In Jake we had a guy who went out and won games. Sure, when he lost he lost gloriously and apparently that's what everyone chose to remember. Then we get Jay and the fanbase is ecstatic...until the last 8 weeks. Now Jay is the worst QB in the world and a large portion of the Mane is, as I predicted, working themselves through the mental gymnastics of self delusion and making Orton into the guy that McKid's offense will better thrive with. It's disgusting.

My theory as to why McKid prefers scrubs over studs; with a scrub in there the failure is on the QB position and for most teams, more often than not, they have a journeyman guy back there that can be thrown under the bus. McKid inherited Brady and the offense for what? 2 years? Cassell had a good season but does that really carry forward to a career? Statistics and his bench status say no, it doesn't.

Sure we could have fixed the Cutler problem with a new contract but a point being missed in all this is likely McD does not want to invest 100 million in the QB position because it cripples his team first cap wise. He wants to spread the cap money around more equability.

lex
04-08-2009, 09:37 AM
Sure we could have fixed the Cutler problem with a new contract but a point being missed in all this is likely McD does not want to invest 100 million in the QB position because it cripples his team first cap wise. He wants to spread the cap money around more equability.


Then he should have started by trading Champ. Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if Champ made more money last year than our entire starting defensive line combined.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:38 AM
The HC should never have let it get to that point. Either McKid is full of sh$t or he took a phone call and gloriously f'd the whole situation up. Either way this whole episode clearly demonstrates that McKid and Xanders are not fit for the personnel roles into which they've put themselves. Xanders should be fired post haste. He's proven himself to be an egregious liability to this club and he's only been on the job like 10 weeks.

The HC can only do so much. Saying he should not have "let" the situation get that far implies that Cutler was willing to be reasonable, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Even if you believe McDaniels made a serious push for Cassel, once that was dead, do you really think he didn't do everything possible to appease Cutler? That's just silly. Cutler would not return the calls of the freakin' owner, this is clearly not a person who was willing to be reasonable.

WolfpackGuy
04-08-2009, 09:39 AM
Then he should have started by trading Champ.
Correct. If anyone should've been available, it should've been Champ.

Beantown Bronco
04-08-2009, 09:40 AM
Agreed. I love the Snake and I think he got a raw deal. But in true Snake fashion he went on to do things his way and now he's an Olympian. Good on Jake.:thumbsup:

Olympian? Weird. spdirty's dad told me he was a Bronco cheerleader....

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:42 AM
Then he should have started by trading Champ. Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if Champ made more money last year than our entire starting defensive line combined.

I'm not among those who think this had anything to do with money. Cutler pouted about the old regime getting canned. Already emotionally teetering from that perceived slap in the face, the team had the temerity to listen to trade scenarios involving him, and that pushed him over the edge. McDaniels seemed to go out of his way to make it clear he wanted Jay to be a Bronco. But the guy would not even return the owners calls, so what choice did the team have at that point but to move on?

lex
04-08-2009, 09:46 AM
I'm not among those who think this had anything to do with money. Cutler pouted about the old regime getting canned. Already emotionally teetering from that perceived slap in the face, the team had the temerity to listen to trade scenarios involving him, and that pushed him over the edge. McDaniels seemed to go out of his way to make it clear he wanted Jay to be a Bronco. But the guy would not even return the owners calls, so what choice did the team have at that point but to move on?


Wow, I've never heard any of that before.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:49 AM
Wow, those are very original points.

Did I say they were original? As if you haven't been repeating arguments you consider valid. Do you have refutation here, or just a worthless snide remark?

baja
04-08-2009, 09:51 AM
The HC should never have let it get to that point. Either McKid is full of sh$t or he took a phone call and gloriously f'd the whole situation up. Either way this whole episode clearly demonstrates that McKid and Xanders are not fit for the personnel roles into which they've put themselves. Xanders should be fired post haste. He's proven himself to be an egregious liability to this club and he's only been on the job like 10 weeks.

Over the years we mostly agree RH but I completely disagree with where the fault lays on this. IMO Jay expected the pampering he received from Mike and that is not what McD is all about. If he caved to Cutler he would fail as a HC. For his system to work he has to have every player buy into it and Jay was trying to continue the special treatment.

I think McDaniels is going to be a great coach for us. I too will miss all the pretty passes but I am very excited about Bronco football again something I had lost these last few years.

lex
04-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Did I say they were original? As if you haven't been repeating arguments you consider valid. Do you have refutation here, or just a worthless snide remark?

What argument was I repeating? All I said was that if he was worried about tying money up in one position, he should have looked at trading Champ.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Then he should have started by trading Champ. Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if Champ made more money last year than our entire starting defensive line combined.

had Champ been a whinny beitch he would be gone too.

baja
04-08-2009, 09:54 AM
Olympian? Weird. spdirty's dad told me he was a Bronco cheerleader....


No, don't you listen he said he was doing a Broncos cheerleader.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 09:56 AM
What argument was I repeating? All I said was that if he was worried about tying money up in one position, he should have looked at trading Champ.

I mean repeating arguments in general. All of us who have been consistently posting about this situation have repeated arguments we find valid.

But, with regards with your original post, I was simply disagreeing with the notion that this had to do with money, and giving you my reasons for feeling that way. If it was in part a money issue, then, sure, Bailey should be trade bait as well, though you would have to consider the payoff. Couple Champ's age with coming off an injury plagued year, and it's unlikely we would get the kind of value in return that would make it worth our while.

TerrElway
04-08-2009, 09:58 AM
And... Even the great Peyton Manning needed a solid run game to win his SB ring. Hopefully, McD brings some magic back to our run game.

I remember a strong armed QB in Denver who took the team to 5 SB and won plenty of games with no running game, fair to middling receivers and defenses that were better than what the Bronx have now, but not great ones.

Of course even The Duke of Denver couldn't win the big one without a solid running game.

So, has anyone looked up how the McD system scored? It wasn't all Brady to Moss from 90 yards away. What was their efficiency in the Red Zone? How did they score? Throwing? Running?

Those numbers earlier seem to say that this system could still punch it in even though the run stats aren't markedly different than last years Broncos. Were the receivers on that Pats team THAT much better than Marshall, Royal and Stokely? Was their line that much bigger and badder? Was Brady that much better than Cutler? Wherein lies the difference?

I wish we still had Cutler, I think he could've been special in the O, but I am a former HS all-stater who has coached little league for 5 years. That's the extent of my pedigree and I'm willing to accept that even young Mr. McD knows just a little bit more about the pro game and his locker room and what he prefers for his offense than I do.

I don't have to like it or agree with it though so dammit, he better win! :)

baja
04-08-2009, 10:02 AM
I'm not among those who think this had anything to do with money. Cutler pouted about the old regime getting canned. Already emotionally teetering from that perceived slap in the face, the team had the <b>temerity </b>to listen to trade scenarios involving him, and that pushed him over the edge. McDaniels seemed to go out of his way to make it clear he wanted Jay to be a Bronco. But the guy would not even return the owners calls, so what choice did the team have at that point but to move on?

Temerity

Te*mer"i*ty\, n. [L. temeritas, from temere by chance, rashly; perhaps akin to Skr. tamas darkness: cf. F. t['e]m['e]rit['e].] Unreasonable contempt of danger; extreme venturesomeness; rashness; as, the temerity of a commander in war.
Syn: Rashness; precipitancy; heedlessness; venturesomeness.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 10:04 AM
Over the years we mostly agree RH but I completely disagree with where the fault lays on this. IMO Jay expected the pampering he received from Mike and that is not what McD is all about. If he caved to Cutler he would fail as a HC. For his system to work he has to have every player buy into it and Jay was trying to continue the special treatment.

I think McDaniels is going to be a great coach for us. I too will miss all the pretty passes but I am very excited about Bronco football again something I had lost these last few years.

I'm not disagreeing that McKid shouldn't be able to run the team as he sees fit but there's a way to manage the egos and personalities of the NFL and this can't be, or shouldn't be news to McKid. Apparently McKid had made some headway with Cutler initially and laid some positive groundwork to work from. But then he turned around and kicked Jay in the groin and as Jay clutched his gonads McKid shoved a cactus up Jay's butt and said "now its my way or the highway." Jay didn't appreciate having his trust abused with a kick to the groin and cactus up the butt (who does?) and so that part made it very difficult to really want to have much to do with the guy with the foot and the potted plant that both found their way to the sensitive nether regions.

Hell, Jason Campbell is in a precarious spot and much was made of how Campbell has handled himself contrasted with Cutler but now Campbell has said that trust and belief in you by your coaching staff is very important for a QB to go out and do the job. And he's right. McKid knew he was playing a touchy game and did not act accordingly and that is why the whole of the fallout lands on him. Hell, for all of this McKid didn't even get the guy he wanted in the first place, he took left overs. Granted the Bears dropped a prime rib on the floor but my point is that McKid won by virtue of the fact that Cutler is a rare talent and the Bears recognize that. McKid did not swindle anybody or pull off anything genius that justifies him getting any credit whatsoever.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 10:04 AM
Temerity

Te*mer"i*ty\, n. [L. temeritas, from temere by chance, rashly; perhaps akin to Skr. tamas darkness: cf. F. t['e]m['e]rit['e].] Unreasonable contempt of danger; extreme venturesomeness; rashness; as, the temerity of a commander in war.
Syn: Rashness; precipitancy; heedlessness; venturesomeness.

Yeah, I know what the word means. Are you questioning my use of the word in this context? I meant "temerity" from Cutler's view point.

USMCBladerunner
04-08-2009, 10:10 AM
the use of word temerity in the form of sarcasm seems to be a recipe for forum confusion...

broncobum6162
04-08-2009, 10:11 AM
Yea, what you said!:thumbs: The consistent bad field position and our defense finally getting a stop only to get pinned on our 5 were the main source of my many shouting matches w/ the TV!;D

The Broncos were never winning anything with Cutler until the ground game got settled and more importantly, the defense could actually make some stops, which was not happening for awhile now.

And stops need to also be ones where they are 3 plays and punt.

When the Bronco defense the last few years was able to stop a team from scoring, they usually allowed the offense to move the ball to at least midfield before punting, which of course, most punters will either pin you inside your own 20 or at best, you're staring at the 20.

So again, the Bronco offense was usually losing the field position battle and if going up against a good defense, just how many 80+ yard scoring drives do you expect to get in a game? Without the help of a long pass, long run, or penalty, you won't get many.

This was a problem even when Plummer as the QB. The Broncos rarely and I mean RARELY, started a drive even past their own 35 yard line.

It's difficult to be consistently good when you consistently lose the battle of field position every game.

What the Broncos need is a defense that will not only limit scoring drives obviously, but also make teams punt after just 3 plays or at least not punting to the short field and the Broncos start in bad field position all the time.

Of course creating turnovers, something the defense has not done in awhile either, might help the offense start in better field position too.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 10:11 AM
I'm not disagreeing that McKid shouldn't be able to run the team as he sees fit but there's a way to manage the egos and personalities of the NFL and this can't be, or shouldn't be news to McKid. Apparently McKid had made some headway with Cutler initially and laid some positive groundwork to work from. But then he turned around and kicked Jay in the groin and as Jay clutched his gonads McKid shoved a cactus up Jay's butt and said "now its my way or the highway."

This is where the disagreement comes in. Listening to trade offers, offers that the front office claim never got that serious, is NOT a kick in the groin, as you put it. Furthermore, when did McDaniels say it's my way or the highway? That's only what people think he said because of Cutler's unreasonable reaction. Well, maybe Cutler was just being unreasonable, period. And, yes, egos have to be massaged to an extent, but there has to be a line, right? McDaniels made statements clearly designed to massage Cutler's ego and get him back into the fold, but he didn't want to hear it. He wouldn't even return the owner's calls. The coach can only do so much before a player problem.

Jay didn't appreciate having his trust abused with a kick to the groin and cactus up the butt (who does?) and so that part made it very difficult to really want to have much to do with the guy with the foot and the potted plant that both found their way to the sensitive nether regions.

How was his trust abused? By merely listening to trade offers? C'mon.

Hell, Jason Campbell is in a precarious spot and much was made of how Campbell has handled himself contrasted with Cutler but now Campbell has said that trust and belief in you by your coaching staff is very important for a QB to go out and do the job. And he's right. McKid knew he was playing a touchy game and did not act accordingly and that is why the whole of the fallout lands on him. Hell, for all of this McKid didn't even get the guy he wanted in the first place, he took left overs. Granted the Bears dropped a prime rib on the floor but my point is that McKid won by virtue of the fact that Cutler is a rare talent and the Bears recognize that. McKid did not swindle anybody or pull off anything genius that justifies him getting any credit whatsoever.

The difference is that Campbell is using this situation as a motivator to go out and work harder and prove his value to his team, rather than sulking and not returning phone calls.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 10:14 AM
Yea, what you said!:thumbs: The consistent bad field position and our defense finally getting a stop only to get pinned on our 5 were the main source of my many shouting matches w/ the TV!;D

I've spent the last few seasons cheering as gleefully for holding opponents to field goals as I do for a QB sack. If our D generated a turnover or a 3 and out I would piss myself, curl up into a ball on the floor, and get a case of the "freaky shakes" for 15 minutes. I'd wake up, covered in piss and bar room floor detritus with no memory of what had transpired. It hurt but in such a good way that I almost gave up sex and porn in search of the elusive Denver Broncos Defensive Stop. It is a drug I can't get enough of but is rarer and more elusive than the pink dragon of heroin addicts' dreams. Oh Broncos Defensive Stop, where can I find thee?

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 10:16 AM
I've spent the last few seasons cheering as gleefully for holding opponents to field goals as I do for a QB sack. If our D generated a turnover or a 3 and out I would piss myself, curl up into a ball on the floor, and get a case of the "freaky shakes" for 15 minutes. I'd wake up, covered in piss and bar room floor detritus with no memory of what had transpired. It hurt but in such a good way that I almost gave up sex and porn in search of the elusive Denver Broncos Defensive Stop. It is a drug I can't get enough of but is rarer and more elusive than the pink dragon of heroin addicts' dreams. Oh Broncos Defensive Stop, where can I find thee?

Rep for the phrase "bar room floor detritus." Very nice :thumbsup: ;D

baja
04-08-2009, 10:16 AM
Yeah, I know what the word means. Are you questioning my use of the word in this context? I meant "temerity" from Cutler's view point.

No, not at all Inferno. I look up works I don't know the meaning of and post the definition because i think some others might be in the same boat as me. Consider it my service. ;D

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 10:18 AM
No, not at all Inferno. I look up works I don't know the meaning of and post the definition because i think some others might be in the same boat as me. Consider it my service. ;D

Ha! Fair enough then. :)

baja
04-08-2009, 10:21 AM
Rep for the phrase "bar room floor detritus." Very nice :thumbsup: ;D

de·tri·tus (dĭ-trī'təs) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. detritus
Loose fragments or grains that have been worn away from rock.
Disintegrated or eroded matter: the detritus of past civilizations.
Accumulated material; debris: "Poems, engravings, press releases—he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame" (Carlin Romano).

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 10:22 AM
This is where the disagreement comes in. Listening to trade offers, offers that the front office claim never got that serious, is NOT a kick in the groin, as you put it. Furthermore, when did McDaniels say it's my way or the highway? That's only what people think he said because of Cutler's unreasonable reaction. Well, maybe Cutler was just being unreasonable, period. And, yes, egos have to be massaged to an extent, but there has to be a line, right? McDaniels made statements clearly designed to massage Cutler's ego and get him back into the fold, but he didn't want to hear it. He wouldn't even return the owner's calls. The coach can only do so much before a player problem.



How was his trust abused? By merely listening to trade offers? C'mon.



The difference is that Campbell is using this situation as a motivator to go out and work harder and prove his value to his team, rather than sulking and not returning phone calls.

I think McKid's personnel management style is like a lot of bosses. They treat their employees like mushrooms, keep in the dark and feed them a lot of ****.

It's been clear that McKid was doing more than just answering his phone. He "came late" to the Cassell dance and precipatated this whole fiasco. He had to know (if he didn't he's dumber than I thought or gave credit for) that the Pats had to clear Cassell's franchise number off their cap space right quick to get to the business of getting their real players lined out with $ so "showing up late to the dance" for Cassell is just stupid. McKid should have known, better than any other team in the league, what the Pats' situation was with Cassell and what they would want in a trade but McKid blew that. He blew taking a phone call. He blew managing his players. He's been like Midas only instead of gold he turns everything to ****. The only thing that would make his dumbassery worse is if he traded both 1st round picks to move up to the #2 to get Sanchez.

Bottom line, it is McKid's job to make his relationships with his players work. Cutler is not TO (as badly as many here try to make him out to be) and certainly f'd up not taking calls from the big guy but perhaps by that time in Cutler's mind the situation was too far gone and it was time to get out. My point in all of this is that whatever course the events took leading up to Jay's departure the whole scenario came about because of McKid's ineptitude and stupidity in managing personnel and as a result should have all responsibilities for such decision making stripped immediately. He can have his input but he's done shopping for the groceries.

lex
04-08-2009, 10:23 AM
I mean repeating arguments in general. All of us who have been consistently posting about this situation have repeated arguments we find valid.

But, with regards with your original post, I was simply disagreeing with the notion that this had to do with money, and giving you my reasons for feeling that way. If it was in part a money issue, then, sure, Bailey should be trade bait as well, though you would have to consider the payoff. Couple Champ's age with coming off an injury plagued year, and it's unlikely we would get the kind of value in return that would make it worth our while.


No, you were not simply doing that. You used it a point that was made about salary as an excuse to spew the same arguments that have been used on this forum for the last month and a half. You did a lot more than disagree with the notion that it was about money. A more intelligent rebuttal (and what should have been a more ovious one) than the one you made (that, yet again, went into why Cutler was wrong...as if thats somehow relevant), was to point out that if it was about money, he wouldnt have gone after Matt Cassel because as it is now, KC is on the hook for paying Cassel 14 million, whereas Jay stood to make 1 million. That was the more intelligent reply to make and you totally missed it because youre too locked onto Jay like a dog and a sock.

tsiguy96
04-08-2009, 10:24 AM
okkkkkk enough conversation. he tried to do his job as GM and make a trade to improve the team, it didnt work, the player took it personal and unlike a professional he decided to cut off all contact with the team, even the owner. that is why he is traded. close thread

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 10:24 AM
de·tri·tus (dĭ-trī'təs) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. detritus
Loose fragments or grains that have been worn away from rock.
Disintegrated or eroded matter: the detritus of past civilizations.
Accumulated material; debris: "Poems, engravings, press releases—he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame" (Carlin Romano).

Perhaps I should also have added something about the smegma-like ooze that had collected under the bar stools? It's all sticky.

Tombstone RJ
04-08-2009, 10:35 AM
This article clearly shows why at team like the Dolphins under Marino never won a SB. You can pass and pass all you want, and you can move the ball up and down between the 20s all you want. But if those yards don't produce touchdowns, it's all for nothing.

This is why I'v been so damn adament about getting a ligit #1 RB into Shanny's old system. Why, for one simple reason: RED ZONE EFFICIENCY.

Anyhow, it's all water under the bridge now...

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 10:38 AM
I think McKid's personnel management style is like a lot of bosses. They treat their employees like mushrooms, keep in the dark and feed them a lot of ****.

I think the idea is to foster a team concept where no player is put above the team. I think Cutler got used to pampered treatment from Shanny, and that gravy train was over.

It's been clear that McKid was doing more than just answering his phone. He "came late" to the Cassell dance and precipatated this whole fiasco. He had to know (if he didn't he's dumber than I thought or gave credit for) that the Pats had to clear Cassell's franchise number off their cap space right quick to get to the business of getting their real players lined out with $ so "showing up late to the dance" for Cassell is just stupid. McKid should have known, better than any other team in the league, what the Pats' situation was with Cassell and what they would want in a trade but McKid blew that. He blew taking a phone call.

Again, disagree. His position is that a scenario was brought to them that was enticing enough to consider. But before they could even give it serious discussion, the KC deal went through. I simply see no way to reasonably spin this as some monumental goof up. He probably had no conception (understandably so) that Cutler would overreact as he did.

He blew managing his players.

Because he might have considered a trade scenario? I can see Cutler being a little miffed for a day or two based on how ESPiN and the like sensationalized the story, but he took his reaction way beyond what is reasonable.

He's been like Midas only instead of gold he turns everything to ****.

Actually, other than the Cutler situation (which in my view was not his fault), I think he's done a pretty solid job between the coaching hires and FA signings.

The only thing that would make his dumbassery worse is if he traded both 1st round picks to move up to the #2 to get Sanchez.

We agree here. I will be pissed if we take a QB in the 1st. See what we can do with Orton/Simms and maybe a 3rd round guy, then reevaluate next season when the draft will have much more appealing options.

Bottom line, it is McKid's job to make his relationships with his players work.

Within reason.

Cutler is not TO (as badly as many here try to make him out to be)

Maybe not TO, but how can you defend him repeatedly refusing to communicate with the organization? Refusing to have a single face-to-face minus his meddling agent? That is going way overboard.

and certainly f'd up not taking calls from the big guy but perhaps by that time in Cutler's mind the situation was too far gone and it was time to get out.

Fair enough. I don't think one face-to-face with your agent present, followed by a refusal to communicate even with the owner, is making much of an effort to work out the situation. In any case, if he wasn't willing to work it out, he had to go.

My point in all of this is that whatever course the events took leading up to Jay's departure the whole scenario came about because of McKid's ineptitude and stupidity in managing personnel

There is not one thing "stupid" about listening to trade proposals for players who lack a no-trade clause. It's happened to better players than Cutler and they didn't pitch a fit.

and as a result should have all responsibilities for such decision making stripped immediately. He can have his input but he's done shopping for the groceries.

No, Cutler gets the blame for overreacting and refusing to meet the front office halfway. It could have worked out if Jay had been willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

lex
04-08-2009, 10:41 AM
This article clearly shows why at team like the Dolphins under Marino never won a SB. You can pass and pass all you want, and you can move the ball up and down between the 20s all you want. But if those yards don't produce touchdowns, it's all for nothing.

This is why I'v been so damn adament about getting a ligit #1 RB into Shanny's old system. Why, for one simple reason: RED ZONE EFFICIENCY.

Anyhow, it's all water under the bridge now...

Up until 2000, you pretty much had to be at least solid in the running game, defense, and the passing game. Balance. Its why NE lost to the Giants and its why those Dolphins teams couldnt win SBs even though those Miami teams were fairly efficient at scoring.

hambone13
04-08-2009, 10:45 AM
I think McKid's personnel management style is like a lot of bosses. They treat their employees like mushrooms, keep in the dark and feed them a lot of ****.

It's been clear that McKid was doing more than just answering his phone. He "came late" to the Cassell dance and precipatated this whole fiasco. He had to know (if he didn't he's dumber than I thought or gave credit for) that the Pats had to clear Cassell's franchise number off their cap space right quick to get to the business of getting their real players lined out with $ so "showing up late to the dance" for Cassell is just stupid. McKid should have known, better than any other team in the league, what the Pats' situation was with Cassell and what they would want in a trade but McKid blew that. He blew taking a phone call. He blew managing his players. He's been like Midas only instead of gold he turns everything to ****. The only thing that would make his dumbassery worse is if he traded both 1st round picks to move up to the #2 to get Sanchez.

Bottom line, it is McKid's job to make his relationships with his players work. Cutler is not TO (as badly as many here try to make him out to be) and certainly f'd up not taking calls from the big guy but perhaps by that time in Cutler's mind the situation was too far gone and it was time to get out. My point in all of this is that whatever course the events took leading up to Jay's departure the whole scenario came about because of McKid's ineptitude and stupidity in managing personnel and as a result should have all responsibilities for such decision making stripped immediately. He can have his input but he's done shopping for the groceries.

I also believe that Pat Bowlen added significant fuel to the fire that was Jay's discontent by coming out publicly with his age and memory reference. I don't think JC trusted either one of them or cared for the direction that the leadership was going in general. Hindsight being 20/20 I think he would have been more available to Pat's call if he had it to do over again.

I truly believe this situation would have been fixed if Pat just left it alone and let Jay show for camp to actually receive some face/coaching time with McD. He's definitely more likable after he mellows out. (My experience with his "mellowing out" is the conversation/interview he had with Scott and Al.) Bottom line, I don't think the situation is a complete McD blunder.

Broncos4tw
04-08-2009, 11:20 AM
I am still utterly baffled that people dredge up this junk. Look, the reason we have sucked is simple. Our defense sucks. THAT'S IT.

Guess who was tied for worst in the NFL for turnover ratio? Yea.. the Broncos, at -17. THAT is why we lose games. The Broncos were DEAD LAST in takeaways, with a whopping 13 on the year. Less than 1 per game.

I don't know why people keep shrugging off our losses to our QB, that's ridiculous. He took risks? Yea, he sort of had to, since our D almost never gets the ball back for our team on their own.

Turnovers make or break games. Most teams don't worry about the int or fumble as much as we have to. Because their D will get it back for them. A BUNCH of teams have double the takeaways then the Broncos. Some have more than double! We were getting the ball back less than half as much as most teams in the NFL. Yea, that kills you.

QB, running game, a few other issues could have used some work, but by no means is it why we failed. We failed because our defense was HORRIBLE. And our special teams did nothing to help them out.

With Orton on the field now, we need an incredibly strong draft to try and make up some ground on D. Although, I think some of it was our stupidly passive D coach, Slowik. I can't remember a year where we blitzed so little.

I wish these stupid articles would die. We lost because of our defense first and foremost, special teams second most, and our offense is the least reason why we lost games.

Inkana7
04-08-2009, 12:14 PM
There was NEVER any doubt that when the 07 Pats got in the Red Zone, that they would score. It was a fact, a truth.

How much confidence have we had in our red zone offense with Cutler the past two years?

Tombstone RJ
04-08-2009, 12:23 PM
I am still utterly baffled that people dredge up this junk. Look, the reason we have sucked is simple. Our defense sucks. THAT'S IT.

Guess who was tied for worst in the NFL for turnover ratio? Yea.. the Broncos, at -17. THAT is why we lose games. The Broncos were DEAD LAST in takeaways, with a whopping 13 on the year. Less than 1 per game.

I don't know why people keep shrugging off our losses to our QB, that's ridiculous. He took risks? Yea, he sort of had to, since our D almost never gets the ball back for our team on their own.

Turnovers make or break games. Most teams don't worry about the int or fumble as much as we have to. Because their D will get it back for them. A BUNCH of teams have double the takeaways then the Broncos. Some have more than double! We were getting the ball back less than half as much as most teams in the NFL. Yea, that kills you.

QB, running game, a few other issues could have used some work, but by no means is it why we failed. We failed because our defense was HORRIBLE. And our special teams did nothing to help them out.

With Orton on the field now, we need an incredibly strong draft to try and make up some ground on D. Although, I think some of it was our stupidly passive D coach, Slowik. I can't remember a year where we blitzed so little.

I wish these stupid articles would die. We lost because of our defense first and foremost, special teams second most, and our offense is the least reason why we lost games.

I think your completely missing the point of the article. It says nothing about the Broncos defense because it's about the offense and how big offensive numbers don't necessarily produce TDs. Sorry your confused by this. As for turnovers, that's a two way street also. I agree the defense sucked getting TOs but when you sling the ball around the field, you don't do your defense any favors by throwing INTs either. See, two way street.

I remember some games where the defense played well enough to win the game, but the offense just sputtered out. Again, it's a two way street. I'm not saying the defense was good, obviously it was not good. What I am saying is that when the Broncos defense played well, the Broncos offense stunk. It also seemed like when the Broncos offense played well, the defense had particularly bad games.

Since Elway retired, I can't remember off the top of my head when both the offense and defense played well together, at the same time. In 05 the team went 13-3 but the defense was still susceptible. The offense under Plummer was predictable.

Shanny's system wore out, period. Shanny refused to put stock in a top flight RB (he traded Portis, granted he got Champ) and he refused to take the defense seriously.

Rock Chalk
04-08-2009, 12:23 PM
Bronco fans were merciless to Jake, it was pathetic. In Jake we had a guy who went out and won games. Sure, when he lost he lost gloriously and apparently that's what everyone chose to remember. Then we get Jay and the fanbase is ecstatic...until the last 8 weeks. Now Jay is the worst QB in the world and a large portion of the Mane is, as I predicted, working themselves through the mental gymnastics of self delusion and making Orton into the guy that McKid's offense will better thrive with. It's disgusting.

My theory as to why McKid prefers scrubs over studs; with a scrub in there the failure is on the QB position and for most teams, more often than not, they have a journeyman guy back there that can be thrown under the bus. McKid inherited Brady and the offense for what? 2 years? Cassell had a good season but does that really carry forward to a career? Statistics and his bench status say no, it doesn't.

Funny, Jay had a good season, but does that really carry forward to a career?

You people seem to think Jay was a legend. Jay may have hit his ceiling and may never play that well again.

People want to point out the run game last year. That run game that averaged over 4 ypc from EVERY BACK THAT PLAYED.

People just want to make excuses for 20 turnovers by Jay. If Jake has 20 turnovers, he was crucified here. Jake threw for 4000 yards one year, guess what happened? He also had a crapton of turnovers and everyone wanted him gone.

You people crack me up. You hold one QB to a standard and another QB to a different standard. Plummer was a vet, but he had poor coaching most of his career but no one looked at that. Jay wasnt a vet, but he had excellent coaching through his tenure here and he STILL couldnt get the team to the playoffs. His best year statistically isnt much better than Jakes best statistical year. Both threw for over 4K yards, both had more TDs than turnovers but both had 20 or more turnovers.

Jake did it without the offensive power that Jay has. He did it with losing field position like Jay did. The difference in the season, Jake made the playoffs because of a better defense, but neither TEAM did ****.

Now, the next year, Jake kept his passing numbers lower and his turnovers and consequently, the team went 13-3 and got to the AFC Championship game.

Its not about the gaudy QB numbers people. It has NEVER been about gaudy QB numbers. The Broncos do not need Jay Cutler to toss it up 35+ times a game and turn it over 1.3 times a game. The BRoncos need someone who can take care of the ball and Jay Cutler wilL NEVER be that guy.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 12:42 PM
Funny, Jay had a good season, but does that really carry forward to a career?

You people seem to think Jay was a legend. Jay may have hit his ceiling and may never play that well again.

People want to point out the run game last year. That run game that averaged over 4 ypc from EVERY BACK THAT PLAYED.

People just want to make excuses for 20 turnovers by Jay. If Jake has 20 turnovers, he was crucified here. Jake threw for 4000 yards one year, guess what happened? He also had a crapton of turnovers and everyone wanted him gone.

You people crack me up. You hold one QB to a standard and another QB to a different standard. Plummer was a vet, but he had poor coaching most of his career but no one looked at that. Jay wasnt a vet, but he had excellent coaching through his tenure here and he STILL couldnt get the team to the playoffs. His best year statistically isnt much better than Jakes best statistical year. Both threw for over 4K yards, both had more TDs than turnovers but both had 20 or more turnovers.

Jake did it without the offensive power that Jay has. He did it with losing field position like Jay did. The difference in the season, Jake made the playoffs because of a better defense, but neither TEAM did ****.

Now, the next year, Jake kept his passing numbers lower and his turnovers and consequently, the team went 13-3 and got to the AFC Championship game.

Its not about the gaudy QB numbers people. It has NEVER been about gaudy QB numbers. The Broncos do not need Jay Cutler to toss it up 35+ times a game and turn it over 1.3 times a game. The BRoncos need someone who can take care of the ball and Jay Cutler wilL NEVER be that guy.

I'm a Jake guy, I like Jake. I think he got screwed. I moved on to Jay, I think Jay got jerked around. Now I have to move on to Orton? Kyle f'ing Orton? People are already working themselves up with this "Is orton our system guy?" stuff.

I'm still baffled as to how Cassell ended up in the NFL. I'm pretty sure he's got pictures of somebody bigger than god blowing a goat because that's all I can come to as a conclusion. High school bench, college bench, pro bench, pro starter. WTF? Anyway, moving on.

Jay's early career was tracking Elway's pretty closely. 3 quarters of "WTF?" followed by a 4th quarter win. Winning games he shouldn't and chucking the rock all over the field with more than a few picks thrown in there. Cutler was in his 3rd year for Christ's sake and has a higher ceiling than any young QB in the league right now. To say he'll never be that guy is short sighted and it's the J-O-B of the coach to make him that guy but McKid and Col. Xanders numbnutsed that all to hell in the first month on the job.

Jay's tenure here was supplanting Jake down the stretch, and then two years without a defense. Seriously, the Broncos Defense couldn't stop my grandmother from picking up her social security check. How pathetic is it that Denver fans figured holding the other team to field goals all day was a good day for the defense. If our D gave up under 28 points it was a pretty solid day for Bronco D. F'ing pathetic.

We don't need a QB to manage games, we need a D that doesn't actively and seemingly purposefully lay down on every single f'ing drive. We need a D that thinks a 4 yd run is a bad thing. We need a D that knows that a stop on 3 rd down doesn't mean "Bring out the FG D". I'm not even sure the Broncos practiced punt return for 3 years, God knows we never used it. "quick somebody get out there and fair catch this thing inside the 15." Ridiculous. The problem(s) are on D, not O.

colonelbeef
04-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I am still utterly baffled that people dredge up this junk. Look, the reason we have sucked is simple. Our defense sucks. THAT'S IT.

Guess who was tied for worst in the NFL for turnover ratio? Yea.. the Broncos, at -17. THAT is why we lose games. The Broncos were DEAD LAST in takeaways, with a whopping 13 on the year. Less than 1 per game.

I don't know why people keep shrugging off our losses to our QB, that's ridiculous. He took risks? Yea, he sort of had to, since our D almost never gets the ball back for our team on their own.

Turnovers make or break games. Most teams don't worry about the int or fumble as much as we have to. Because their D will get it back for them. A BUNCH of teams have double the takeaways then the Broncos. Some have more than double! We were getting the ball back less than half as much as most teams in the NFL. Yea, that kills you.

QB, running game, a few other issues could have used some work, but by no means is it why we failed. We failed because our defense was HORRIBLE. And our special teams did nothing to help them out.

With Orton on the field now, we need an incredibly strong draft to try and make up some ground on D. Although, I think some of it was our stupidly passive D coach, Slowik. I can't remember a year where we blitzed so little.

I wish these stupid articles would die. We lost because of our defense first and foremost, special teams second most, and our offense is the least reason why we lost games.

Obviously, and it's really hard to understand why some will go to such great lengths to try to blame Cutler, when the defense was so bad last year it will soon be legendary.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 12:44 PM
I think that statistical analysis of a team that lost 7 RBs to Injured Reserve in a season is pretty much pointless.

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Brady Superstar McDs O = 4800 yards 50 TDs 8 ints 117 QB rating 16 wins SB trip

Cassel back up McDs O = 3700 yards 21 TDs 11 ints 89 QB rating 11 wins No playoffs

Seems to me the more talented the QB is in McDs system the better they do.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
I think that statistical analysis of a team that lost 7 RBs to Injured Reserve in a season is pretty much pointless.

While the injuries certainly did not help, the run game still gave us solid production for the season. 12th overall in yards and 2nd in yards per carry is hardly some albatross.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Brady Superstar McDs O = 4800 yards 50 TDs 8 ints 117 QB rating 16 wins SB trip

Cassel back up McDs O = 3700 yards 21 TDs 11 ints 89 QB rating 11 wins No playoffs

Seems to me the more talented the QB is in McDs system the better they do.

There are unknown variables involved. Brady obviously bought into McDaniels system and executed it. Would Cutler have done the same? If he did, of course he would be a better QB option than Orton. However, there is certainly good reason to doubt that he would have committed himself to the offense. He has a gunslinger mentality and this is not a gunslinger offense.

Popps
04-08-2009, 01:16 PM
Cutler just made a lot of stupid decisions last year. Only 7 more INTs than TDs. You don't win many games like that, good defense or not.

You have to wonder if this article has some merit in that maybe the big arm, big ego and big salary weren't as appealing to McDaniels as an accurate, smart QB who played within the system.

Or, at minimum... when Cutler started his prima-donna routine, that's when McD might have just said, "hey... I can win with a lesser QB that doesn't infect my team with this bull****."

Can't wait for this season. I'm as excited as I've been in years.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 01:27 PM
Cutler just made a lot of stupid decisions last year. Only 7 more INTs than TDs. You don't win many games like that, good defense or not.

You have to wonder if this article has some merit in that maybe the big arm, big ego and big salary weren't as appealing to McDaniels as an accurate, smart QB who played within the system.

Or, at minimum... when Cutler started his prima-donna routine, that's when McD might have just said, "hey... I can win with a lesser QB that doesn't infect my team with this bull****."

Can't wait for this season. I'm as excited as I've been in years.

Nothing like gettin geeked up for a solid 5-7 wins to get the blood pumping.:thumbsup:

summerdenver
04-08-2009, 01:34 PM
I think the idea is to foster a team concept where no player is put above the team. I think Cutler got used to pampered treatment from Shanny, and that gravy train was over.


I think this is the biggest misconception around here. IMO, it is not a team vs individual thing. IF (and at this point I don't know who to believe but my gut feel is Den did try to trade Jay) Josh or who ever the f@#$# is making these decisions at Dove valley now did involve Jay in trade talks they were wrong in not clearing things with the player involved.

This is still true if the player is Patrick Ramsey or Jabar Gaffnhey. NFL is pure business but at the same time teams want the players to do the voluntary camps. After the news broke out, instead of clearing things up Broncos projected this a star vs team thing. Their response was we will do whatever we feel will improve the team - which is wrong thing to say to any player even if the player were not Cutler.

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 01:38 PM
Cutler just made a lot of stupid decisions last year. Only 7 more INTs than TDs. You don't win many games like that, good defense or not.
You have to wonder if this article has some merit in that maybe the big arm, big ego and big salary weren't as appealing to McDaniels as an accurate, smart QB who played within the system.

Or, at minimum... when Cutler started his prima-donna routine, that's when McD might have just said, "hey... I can win with a lesser QB that doesn't infect my team with this bull****."

Can't wait for this season. I'm as excited as I've been in years.

You do know that Orton threw only 6 more TDs then INTs and still won right?
3 of his 9 wins he had atleast 2 INTs and his team still won. Hell he won two games with a QB rating lower then a 50 last year.

rugbythug
04-08-2009, 01:52 PM
I think this is the biggest misconception around here. IMO, it is not a team vs individual thing. IF (and at this point I don't know who to believe but my gut feel is Den did try to trade Jay) Josh or who ever the f@#$# is making these decisions at Dove valley now did involve Jay in trade talks they were wrong in not clearing things with the player involved.

This is still true if the player is Patrick Ramsey or Jabar Gaffnhey. NFL is pure business but at the same time teams want the players to do the voluntary camps. After the news broke out, instead of clearing things up Broncos projected this a star vs team thing. Their response was we will do whatever we feel will improve the team - which is wrong thing to say to any player even if the player were not Cutler.

No they weren't.

toad
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
It will be SO interesting to see what Cutler does in Chicago.....

- Did our porous defense allow Jay and offense to rack up yardage between the 20s (w/o scoring many points)? Yep.
- Did we have, statistically, one of the best pass blocking offensive lines in the NFL? Yep.
- Did we have 2 of the best young WRs w/ Marshall and Royal? Yep.
- Did we have a rotating RB situation that lead to us becoming a passing offense? Yep.
- Did Shannahan coddle Jay, build the team/system around him, and give him every oppurtunity in the world to succeed? Yep.

Basically he had every reason on the earth to put up huge numbers this past year....

I guess I still question Jay's leadership and desire...I was never sold on him and kinda thought he was a "combine hero" (I jokingly called him Kyle Boller Pt. 2) when we drafted him.

On the flip-side:
- Was McD on the staff of 3 Super Bowl teams, and the QB coach for at least some of those? Yep.
- Was McD the OC of what many consider the most potent offense ever? And did the QB on that offense have a record-setting season? Yep.
- Did McD turn a career (college AND NFL) backup into a top-notch QB? Yep.

Regardless of how McD handled the situation, this resume would suggest he knows at least a little about QBs and offenses....

oubronco
04-08-2009, 02:04 PM
I think that statistical analysis of a team that lost 7 RBs to Injured Reserve in a season is pretty much pointless.

along with a horrible defense to boot and speaking of boot the special teams weren't very special either so to put it off on Cutler because he's gone and everyone is pissed is ludicrous

Taco John
04-08-2009, 02:08 PM
While the injuries certainly did not help, the run game still gave us solid production for the season. 12th overall in yards and 2nd in yards per carry is hardly some albatross.

I'm confused. When you cite that we were 14th in scoring, you call it mediocre or worse. But when you cite that we were 12th in rushing yards, you call it "solid production." But if someone cites yards when it comes to the passing game, you say that it's a worthless statistic.

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
It will be SO interesting to see what Cutler does in Chicago.....

- Did our porous defense allow Jay and offense to rack up yardage between the 20s (w/o scoring many points)? Yep.
- Did we have, statistically, one of the best pass blocking offensive lines in the NFL? Yep.
- Did we have 2 of the best young WRs w/ Marshall and Royal? Yep.
- Did we have a rotating RB situation that lead to us becoming a passing offense? Yep.
- Did Shannahan coddle Jay, build the team/system around him, and give him every oppurtunity in the world to succeed? Yep.

Basically he had every reason on the earth to put up huge numbers this past year....

I guess I still question Jay's leadership and desire...I was never sold on him and kinda thought he was a "combine hero" (I jokingly called him Kyle Boller Pt. 2) when we drafted him.

On the flip-side:
- Was McD on the staff of 3 Super Bowl teams, and the QB coach for at least some of those? Yep.
- Was McD the OC of what many consider the most potent offense ever? And did the QB on that offense have a record-setting season? Yep.
- Did McD turn a career (college AND NFL) backup into a top-notch QB? Yep.

Regardless of how McD handled the situation, this resume would suggest he knows at least a little about QBs and offenses....

LOL Cassel is now a top notch QB in the NFL.

Did Cassel take a record breaking O that scored 589 and drop them 170 points to 410? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that went 16 and turn them into a 11 win team? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that just lost in the SB and failed to make the playoffs? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that finished 1 the year before in passing and drop them to number 12? Yep

Say what you want about McD and his ablity to coach QBs but Brady was good before he got there (top 4 QB in the NFL easly before McD). Seems to me with out a top 4 QB running his show his O's look middle of the road.

oubronco
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
It will be SO interesting to see what Cutler does in Chicago.....

- Did our porous defense allow Jay and offense to rack up yardage between the 20s (w/o scoring many points)? Yep.
- Did we have, statistically, one of the best pass blocking offensive lines in the NFL? Yep.
- Did we have 2 of the best young WRs w/ Marshall and Royal? Yep.
- Did we have a rotating RB situation that lead to us becoming a passing offense? Yep.
- Did Shannahan coddle Jay, build the team/system around him, and give him every oppurtunity in the world to succeed? Yep.

Basically he had every reason on the earth to put up huge numbers this past year....

I guess I still question Jay's leadership and desire...I was never sold on him and kinda thought he was a "combine hero" (I jokingly called him Kyle Boller Pt. 2) when we drafted him.

On the flip-side:
- Was McD on the staff of 3 Super Bowl teams, and the QB coach for at least some of those? Yep.
- Was McD the OC of what many consider the most potent offense ever? And did the QB on that offense have a record-setting season? Yep.
- Did McD turn a career (college AND NFL) backup into a top-notch QB? Yep.

Regardless of how McD handled the situation, this resume would suggest he knows at least a little about QBs and offenses....

Slowick.............................Owned!!

WolfpackGuy
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
It would've been interesting to see what Cutler could've done under McDaniels.
There are some things about his game you just can't teach.
The better decision making would've come over time and with a better defense.

Beantown Bronco
04-08-2009, 02:16 PM
Did Cassel take a team that just lost in the SB and failed to make the playoffs? Yep

As an aside, it's really amazing how this almost always holds true. I think out of the last 20 seasons, only once or twice has the SB losing team actually made the playoffs the following year. It's uncanny.

DBroncos4life
04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
I'm confused. When you cite that we were 14th in scoring, you call it mediocre or worse. But when you cite that we were 12th in rushing yards, you call it "solid production." But if someone cites yards when it comes to the passing game, you say that it's a worthless statistic.

The Vikes finished the season 9 points higher then us and was ranked 12. Matt Prater missed 18 points from a range that many feel is not that difficult of a kick to make. If our kicker does't choke towards the end of the year we are looking at no worse then 11th in the NFL in scoring.

Kid A
04-08-2009, 02:26 PM
LOL Cassel is now a top notch QB in the NFL.

Did Cassel take a record breaking O that scored 589 and drop them 170 points to 410? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that went 16 and turn them into a 11 win team? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that just lost in the SB and failed to make the playoffs? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that finished 1 the year before in passing and drop them to number 12? Yep

Say what you want about McD and his ablity to coach QBs but Brady was good before he got there (top 4 QB in the NFL easly before McD). Seems to me with out a top 4 QB running his show his O's look middle of the road.

I understand he may have overstated the performance by Cassell/McDaniels, but you have to admit it was impressive.

A QB who hadn't started since high school led them to 11 wins (which would make the playoffs in almost any other year).

Yep they are loaded with talent and yeah it was a drop off, but it was surprising to everyone how effectively he performed. They scored 40+ points four times (something Denver managed to do once) and finished on a four game winning streak.

I've been as skeptical of Cassell's future prospects as anyone, but his performance last season (and the effectiveness of the system he was in) were nothing short of impressive.

Broncos4tw
04-08-2009, 03:14 PM
What I am saying is that when the Broncos defense played well, the Broncos offense stunk. It also seemed like when the Broncos offense played well, the defense had particularly bad games.

That's not true at all. When the Broncos defense played well, we won almost all those games! Which blows any theory away that Cutler does not know how to win. If the defense plays halfway decent, he can win. If you as a defense don't throw the offense under the bus, our team did well.

Our defense RARELY did our offense any favors last year. They almost never got turnovers, and on many drives, we let them get to midfield before stopping them. I can't count the games where we were constantly somewhere between the 15 and 25, and the opponent was at the 40 or 45.

As far as our redzone offense goes, why do you automatically blame Cutler for that? I had never heard in the past two years from the team, that our redzone offensive woes were because Cutler could not get it done there. I recall many crappy playcalls that had me tearing my hair out. 1st and 10 at the 7.. and we run.. run.. and then pass? How many times did we do this? Way too many. Especially with our weak running attack last year.

2KBack
04-08-2009, 03:24 PM
LOL Cassel is now a top notch QB in the NFL.

Did Cassel take a record breaking O that scored 589 and drop them 170 points to 410? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that went 16 and turn them into a 11 win team? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that just lost in the SB and failed to make the playoffs? Yep
Did Cassel take a team that finished 1 the year before in passing and drop them to number 12? Yep

Say what you want about McD and his ablity to coach QBs but Brady was good before he got there (top 4 QB in the NFL easly before McD). Seems to me with out a top 4 QB running his show his O's look middle of the road.

Didn't you hear losing running backs makes you not be able to score and lose. It's not like the Patriots went through 5 running backs last year themselves.

gunns
04-08-2009, 03:34 PM
I think the article, sometimes in an underlying way, shows why Cutler, Bates, and Shanahan are no longer here. Play calling and player assignment were a problem, although if there was the occassional success no one saw it. But it also undercuts the problem with the Broncos as a whole, the team. D, special teams, etc.

toad
04-08-2009, 03:39 PM
I understand he may have overstated the performance by Cassell/McDaniels, but you have to admit it was impressive.

A QB who hadn't started since high school led them to 11 wins (which would make the playoffs in almost any other year).

Yep they are loaded with talent and yeah it was a drop off, but it was surprising to everyone how effectively he performed. They scored 40+ points four times (something Denver managed to do once) and finished on a four game winning streak.

I've been as skeptical of Cassell's future prospects as anyone, but his performance last season (and the effectiveness of the system he was in) were nothing short of impressive.


Pretty much what I was getting it....McD coordinated arguably the most potent NFL offense ever (and guided Brady to a record-breaking year) then he made a career backup a solid/dependable (and sometimes potent) NFL quarterback.

Come on - Cassell hadn't started a game since HIGH SCHOOL...and he threw for over 20 TDs and had 11 wins. Pretty impressive coaching/system if you ask me.

As stated, 11 wins gets you into the playoffs most years and would/should have this year in other divisions.

Inkana7
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Cassel threw for 400 yards in a game more than Cutler.

Tombstone RJ
04-08-2009, 08:33 PM
That's not true at all. When the Broncos defense played well, we won almost all those games! Which blows any theory away that Cutler does not know how to win. If the defense plays halfway decent, he can win. If you as a defense don't throw the offense under the bus, our team did well.

Our defense RARELY did our offense any favors last year. They almost never got turnovers, and on many drives, we let them get to midfield before stopping them. I can't count the games where we were constantly somewhere between the 15 and 25, and the opponent was at the 40 or 45.

As far as our redzone offense goes, why do you automatically blame Cutler for that? I had never heard in the past two years from the team, that our redzone offensive woes were because Cutler could not get it done there. I recall many crappy playcalls that had me tearing my hair out. 1st and 10 at the 7.. and we run.. run.. and then pass? How many times did we do this? Way too many. Especially with our weak running attack last year.

As I said in my post you quoted, it "seemed" to me that when the defense was playing half way good, the offense was not producing. If I recall correctly, not every game the Broncos played was a high scoring shoot out. That tells me that at some point and time, the defense played ok.

Also, I did not blame Cutler for the redzone inefficiencies. I simply said that Shanny did not put much stock in a blue chip RB, aside from TD and Portis, and this put more pressure on Cutler to make plays. Hence Red Zone scoring effficiency was damaged.

TonyR
04-08-2009, 08:42 PM
I'm confused. When you cite that we were 14th in scoring, you call it mediocre or worse. But when you cite that we were 12th in rushing yards, you call it "solid production." But if someone cites yards when it comes to the passing game, you say that it's a worthless statistic.

Yes, you are confused. We were 16th in scoring, not 14th. And you've WIDELY missed the point, but that's almost as regular as a person on a high fiber diet so no big surprise.

Shanny/Cutler apologists keep saying we had the 2nd ranked offense last season so it's more than fair to point out that GREAT offense was only 16th in scoring. The same people keep saying we had no running game despite the fact that we were 12th in rushing yards and tied for 2nd in yards per carry.

The overall point of the article, which isn't a flawless analysis but is interesting and does make a strong case, is that big passing stats don't necessarily equate to offensive success and, more to the point, that Denver's offense was very inefficient and has been since Jay Cutler has been at the helm. And while it's not all his fault he does have to shoulder a lot of the blame. You can keep blaming the defense (it was awful) and the running game (good, but not nearly good enough) but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the QB wasn't good enough either. He was too inconsistent, made too many mistakes, and didn't come up big in some instances when the team needed it's "best player" and "leader" to do so.

Is Jay Cutler a more talented QB than Kyle Orton? Absolutely. The point of trading Jay wasn't to upgrade the QB position. It was more something akin to addition by subtraction. The point was to improve the TEAM, a team that desperately needed massive change and a team that Jay Cutler made it very clear that he wasn't committed to.

DBroncos4life
04-09-2009, 07:20 PM
Yes, you are confused. We were 16th in scoring, not 14th. And you've WIDELY missed the point, but that's almost as regular as a person on a high fiber diet so no big surprise.

Shanny/Cutler apologists keep saying we had the 2nd ranked offense last season so it's more than fair to point out that GREAT offense was only 16th in scoring. The same people keep saying we had no running game despite the fact that we were 12th in rushing yards and tied for 2nd in yards per carry.

The overall point of the article, which isn't a flawless analysis but is interesting and does make a strong case, is that big passing stats don't necessarily equate to offensive success and, more to the point, that Denver's offense was very inefficient and has been since Jay Cutler has been at the helm. And while it's not all his fault he does have to shoulder a lot of the blame. You can keep blaming the defense (it was awful) and the running game (good, but not nearly good enough) but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the QB wasn't good enough either. He was too inconsistent, made too many mistakes, and didn't come up big in some instances when the team needed it's "best player" and "leader" to do so.

Is Jay Cutler a more talented QB than Kyle Orton? Absolutely. The point of trading Jay wasn't to upgrade the QB position. It was more something akin to addition by subtraction. The point was to improve the TEAM, a team that desperately needed massive change and a team that Jay Cutler made it very clear that he wasn't committed to.

9 points was the difference between 16th in scoring to 11th. Our FG kicker left 27 points on the field.

Eldorado
04-09-2009, 07:44 PM
Cassel threw for 400 yards in a game more than Cutler.

Sense. This sentence has none.

lazarus4444
04-09-2009, 07:50 PM
Here is another fact they missed from their comparision between the 07 Pats and 08 Broncos.

Brady 50 TDs, 8 INTs
Cutler 25 TDs, 18 INTs

In total, Denver gave up the ball 37 times - New England gave it 12 times...

And the ****ty defense had nothing to do with those 37 turnovers, lol.

DBroncos4life
04-09-2009, 11:39 PM
And the ****ty defense had nothing to do with those 37 turnovers, lol.

Its all Cutlers fault. Not only was he the one forcing his team mates to fumble the ball with his lack of leadership skills he was also making the D have one of the worst seasons ever in take ways. Its a scientific fact, ( have have NSA's paper work right here in front of me) without Jay Cutler Denver's D would have force 60% more turnovers then the 13 we forced last year.

Popps
04-10-2009, 02:28 AM
Come on - Cassell hadn't started a game since HIGH SCHOOL...and he threw for over 20 TDs and had 11 wins. Pretty impressive coaching/system if you ask me. .

Plus, it's not as if McDaniels will be inheriting a crappy offense. Position by position, with a healthy Hillis and the addition of Buckhalter, I'm not sure the Pats are all that much more talented than we are, offensively.

Marshall/Royal/Stoke/Gaffney/Sheffler/Graham... an a great O-line.

Whoever suits up for us at QB is going to have some nice pieces in place, and a great offensive mind designing the attack.

Should be interesting to see what the new staff can do with the pieces we have in place.

loborugger
04-10-2009, 06:39 AM
And the ****ty defense had nothing to do with those 37 turnovers, lol.

I dont see your point - the comparision was all about the offense of the two teams. Did you read the article or just pick a point and run with it?

2KBack
04-10-2009, 08:57 AM
And the ****ty defense had nothing to do with those 37 turnovers, lol.

I would say very little. You could argue that some throws were more forced, but even then, I don't really buy that. There is no way that the plague of fumbles can be blamed on the defense.

You can blame part of the terrible ratio on the defense, but not the actual offensive turnovers.