PDA

View Full Version : There's No "Jay" in T.E.A.M: Denver's New-Look Offense will Flourish


dragondawg
05-17-2009, 03:13 PM
When Josh McDaniels took the reins of the Denver Broncos, it became an expectation and not just a possibility that the second ranked offense in the NFL would vault itself to an elite level.

Coming from the Patriots, McDaniels has a reputation as one of the brilliant young offensive minds in the league. In 2007, he orchestrated arguably the best offense in the history of the game.

Tom Brady and the New England Patriots averaged nearly 37 points per game, 411.2 yards per game, and they were second in the NFL in time of possession per contest at 33:29.

While many are taken aback by the trade of Pro Bowl quarterback Jay Cutler, McDaniels' past indicates that Denver has no reason to worry with Kyle Orton under center.

Denver's new head coach has coordinated the best season of arguably the top quarterback of all time in Tom Brady, and coached Matt Cassel, who had not started a game since his days in high school, to a Pro Bowl caliber season and an 11-5 record.

So what has Denver fans worried?

Is the prototypical "Patriot" quarterback not one who is extremely unathletic with the "it" factor, and a winning mentality?

McDaniels' new offense will include a mix of the zone blocking Denver fans know and love, as well as some of that Patriot flavor that has created one of the most dominant dynasties this decade.

If Kyle Orton does not succeed in Denver, it will not be for a lack of playmakers around him.

Orton is inheriting an offensive line that only allowed 11.5 sacks in 620 pass attempts in 2008, best in the NFL. In the New England style of offense, which is extremely pass heavy, Orton is going to need the help of the big men up front.

Coached by Rick Dennison, a former Broncos linebacker, the Broncos' offensive line has had a reputation over the last eight years of being one of the league's best, and under his tutelage, that tradition figures to continue on.

Aside from Cutler, the only other big change to Denver's offense was at the running back position.

For the last decade and a half, the Denver Broncos have dominated the NFL in rushing, and under the tutelage of running backs coach Bobby Turner, they have led the NFL in rushing over that time span with 30,993 yards on the ground.

After a year in which the Broncos finished the season ranked a disappointing but respectable 12th in rushing, Josh McDaniels has brought in a good mix of veterans and youngsters to carry on the great running back tradition in Denver.

Since Turner was retained from Mike Shanahan's staff, McDaniels figures to implement some of the "one cut and go" style of running into his pass-first scheme, which could prove to be deadly for opponents.

After seven running backs went on Denver's injured reserve in 2008, McDaniels made it a priority this off-season to overhaul that particular position.

In free agency, he brought in veterans Correll Buckhalter, J.J. Arrington, LaMont Jordan, and Darius Walker. Then, with their first pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, Denver selected Georgia running back Knowshon Moreno.

Add in the fact that Denver already had two promising 2008 draft picks in Ryan Torain and Peyton Hillis at the running back position, and the Broncos automatically feature one of the most versatile and deep groups of running backs in the National Football League.

In addition to fitting the one-cut-and-go style, each of the backs McDaniels has added is extremely effective in catching the ball out of the backfield, which is essential to the Patriots' offense.

When one of these runners is not on the field, Kyle Orton will have a great array of weapons to throw the ball to.

Pro Bowl wide receiver Brandon Marshall leads a group of wide receivers that could rival any pass catching core in the league.

New wide receivers coach Adam Gase has the privilege of coaching a group that, in addition to Marshall, features rookie sensation Eddie Royal, Brandon Stokley, Jabar Gaffney, rookie Kenny McKinley, and Chad Jackson.

Gase's background as an offensive assistant is West-Coast oriented, being a pupil of the great offensive mind Mike Martz in Detroit and San Francisco. In 2008, Gase's receiving group in San Francisco dropped only 21 passes all season, good for sixth in the NFL.

Along with a strong core of wide receivers, the Broncos feature a very potent trio of tight ends.

Led by former Chargers and Falcons tight ends coach Clancy Barone, the Broncos figure to have one of the more consistent and well-rounded groups of tight ends in the league.

Daniel Graham, Tony Scheffler, and rookie Richard Quinn all will have major roles in the offense this year.

While Graham and Quinn specialize in blocking, neither are slouches in the receiving game. Scheffler is widely regarded as one of the top receiving tight ends in the game, but struggles to stay healthy.

Barone has developed the likes of Antonio Gates and Alge Crumpler at this position, so Denver's group appears to be in good hands.

Combining the knowledge of each of these coaches could be very beneficial for the Broncos. It seems that each player on the offense was hand picked to fit the specialty of each and every position coach.

Only time will tell, but maybe the loss of Jay Cutler was not such a bad thing for the Broncos.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/176627-theres-no-jay-in-team-denvers-new-look-offense-will-flourish/page/2

TDmvp
05-17-2009, 03:20 PM
http://www.videoservicecorp.com/images/yeah%20right.jpg

Bronco Rob
05-17-2009, 03:22 PM
If Kyle Orton does not succeed in Denver, it will not be for a lack of playmakers around him.

Orton is inheriting an offensive line that only allowed 11.5 sacks in 620 pass attempts in 2008, best in the NFL. In the New England style of offense, which is extremely pass heavy, Orton is going to need the help of the big men up front.

When one of these runners is not on the field, Kyle Orton will have a great array of weapons to throw the ball to.

Pro Bowl wide receiver Brandon Marshall leads a group of wide receivers that could rival any pass catching core in the league.

New wide receivers coach Adam Gase has the privilege of coaching a group that, in addition to Marshall, features rookie sensation Eddie Royal, Brandon Stokley, Jabar Gaffney, rookie Kenny McKinley, and Chad Jackson.

Combining the knowledge of each of these coaches could be very beneficial for the Broncos. It seems that each player on the offense was hand picked to fit the specialty of each and every position coach.

Only time will tell, but maybe the loss of Jay Cutler was not such a bad thing for the Broncos.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/176627-theres-no-jay-in-team-denvers-new-look-offense-will-flourish/page/2






8')

broncofan7
05-17-2009, 03:24 PM
We'll see--but I am not willing to put any $$$ on it.........

Popps
05-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Cue the clucking hens...

TDmvp
05-17-2009, 03:25 PM
Cue the clucking hens...

You're already here Popps ...

!Booya! !Booya! !Booya!

NYBronco
05-17-2009, 03:27 PM
I like our chances with McDaniels and am optimistic the offense will be more effective in the red zone.

Popps
05-17-2009, 03:27 PM
You're already here Popps ...

!Booya! !Booya! !Booya!

Oh no you di'int!

Pick Six
05-17-2009, 03:35 PM
If we get our running game going, Orton will be fine. He's not obsessed with showing people his arm strength and taking ridiculous chances with the pass. Lovie Smith was seemingly determined that Rex Grossman was going to be the starter. When Orton finally got his chance, he made the most of it. That's the difference. I think Shanahan promised Cutler the starting job ASAP. Orton had to work to prove himself...

TDmvp
05-17-2009, 03:37 PM
If we get our running game going, Orton will be fine. He's not obsessed with showing people his arm strength and taking ridiculous chances with the pass. Lovie Smith was seemingly determined that Rex Grossman was going to be the starter. When Orton finally got his chance, he made the most of it. That's the difference. I think Shanahan promised Cutler the starting job ASAP. Orton had to work to prove himself...

once again ...

http://www.videoservicecorp.com/images/yeah%20right.jpg

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 04:19 PM
Lots of words to rationalize why we're better even though we lost a pro bowl QB.

Inkana7
05-17-2009, 04:21 PM
Pro Bowl QB, yes. Playoff QB, no.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 04:31 PM
Pro Bowl QB, yes. Playoff QB, no.
People used to say Manning (both of them) couldn't win a championship.

Stupid logic.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 04:53 PM
i honestly believe this years offense is going to make everyone forget about the Cutler led offense from last season. we will have a dominant running game, Orton isn't going to make as many ill-advised passes that end badly for us. this team will be loads better than last years.

Paladin
05-17-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm gonna need an address for a shop that sells Crow so I can serve it up here in big batches this year.

I am taking names and you will have reservations.....

Inkana7
05-17-2009, 05:41 PM
People used to say Manning (both of them) couldn't win a championship.

Stupid logic.

At least Manning got his teams in the playoffs and had more wins than losses. His defenses were just as bad as ours, too.

watermock
05-17-2009, 06:13 PM
Any one else notice there was not ONE WORD about the defense, but alot of talk of "inheriting' players.

Take my name. 6-10 and we give Seattle the 9th pick.

CEH
05-17-2009, 06:21 PM
At least Manning got his teams in the playoffs and had more wins than losses. His defenses were just as bad as ours, too.

Really just not true.The only time their D gave up over 400 pts they went 6-10 with the great Peyton Manning otherwise their D gave up at most 22.5 ppg far below the 27 we gave up over the last 2 1/2 years

If you want to take the time to look over the last 25 years. teams that give up over 400 points on D avg 4 wins a year. That stat says alot about Jay Cutler

loborugger
05-17-2009, 06:26 PM
i honestly believe this years offense is going to make everyone forget about the Cutler led offense from last season. we will have a dominant running game, Orton isn't going to make as many ill-advised passes that end badly for us. this team will be loads better than last years.

I'll drink to that! I aint holdin my breath, but I will drink to that.

PRBronco
05-17-2009, 06:29 PM
i honestly believe this years offense is going to make everyone forget about the Cutler led offense from last season. we will have a dominant running game, Orton isn't going to make as many ill-advised passes that end badly for us. this team will be loads better than last years.

I demand that your avatar stands up.

Natedog24
05-17-2009, 06:40 PM
At least Manning got his teams in the playoffs and had more wins than losses. His defenses were just as bad as ours, too.

Cmon now your really reaching. Are we really going to blame Jay for not getting what was probably the worse defense in the history of the franchise into the playoffs in what only his 3rd year in the league. I'm curious to see what Orton can do in this new system as well but lets not go overboard on the Jay really wasn't that good argument...

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 06:40 PM
At least Manning got his teams in the playoffs and had more wins than losses. His defenses were just as bad as ours, too.
I'm afraid you're wrong. With defenses that ranked where ours did with Cutler, Manning went 9-23 and Cutler went 15-17...you lose.

Denver Broncos Defensive Rank and Won-Lost Record:

Points/Yards/Record

2007: 28th/19th (7-9)
2008: 30th/29th (8-8)

Indianapolis Colts Defensive Rank and Won-Lost Record:

Points/Yards/Record

1998: 29th/29th (3-13)
1999: 17th/15th (13-3, lost first round)
2000: 15th/21st (10-6, lost first round)
2001: 31st/29th (6-10)
2002: 7th/8th (10-6, lost first round)
2003: 20th/11th (12-4, lost AFC Championship Game)
2004: 19th/20th (12-4, lost second round)
2005: 2nd/11th (14-2, lost AFC Championship Game)
2006: 23rd/21st (12-4, won Super Bowl)

broncosteven
05-17-2009, 07:01 PM
If we get our running game going, Orton will be fine. He's not obsessed with showing people his arm strength and taking ridiculous chances with the pass.

Lovie Smith was seemingly determined that Rex Grossman was going to be the starter. When Orton finally got his chance, he made the most of it. That's the difference. I think Shanahan promised Cutler the starting job ASAP. Orton had to work to prove himself...

Orton was so highly prized in Chicago that they brought SOB in and thought he was going to be the answer.

Orton got his shot with DA BEARS last year, he did good until he had to play on bum ankle.

Then this year Lovie decideds to hold a mini camp prior to the draft, I still believe they moved this camp up to evaluate if they needed to upgrade the QB position.

Neither Lovie or Turner (OC) are considered O masterminds but there was a reason Orton bounced between 3rd, 2nd, and 1st string.

That said I still think he will be what the team needs for this comming rebuilding year but he is not the long term answer.

The good thing is he will be playing for a contract this year. Bad thing is that if he plays good enough we may have to pay him and end up stuck with him.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 07:09 PM
I'm afraid you're wrong. With defenses that ranked where ours did with Cutler, Manning went 9-23 and Cutler went 15-17...you lose.

Denver Broncos Defensive Rank and Won-Lost Record:

Points/Yards/Record

2007: 28th/19th (7-9)
2008: 30th/29th (8-8)

Indianapolis Colts Defensive Rank and Won-Lost Record:

Points/Yards/Record

1998: 29th/29th (3-13)
1999: 17th/15th (13-3, lost first round)
2000: 15th/21st (10-6, lost first round)
2001: 31st/29th (6-10)
2002: 7th/8th (10-6, lost first round)
2003: 20th/11th (12-4, lost AFC Championship Game)
2004: 19th/20th (12-4, lost second round)
2005: 2nd/11th (14-2, lost AFC Championship Game)
2006: 23rd/21st (12-4, won Super Bowl)

so for your argument that when Peyton had defenses as bad as Jay's that he had a worse record you point to his rookie year in which he was taking over for a team that was 3-13 the previous two years

and the 2001 season in what was an injury plagued year for the organization.

not really making yourself a great argument with that.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 07:16 PM
so for your argument that when Peyton had defenses as bad as Jay's that he had a worse record you point to his rookie year in which he was taking over for a team that was 3-13 the previous two years

and the 2001 season in what was an injury plagued year for the organization.

not really making yourself a great argument with that.
I was refuting the assertion that Manning took teams to the playoffs with defenses as bad as ours. Any moron knows a team's ability to win is based on more than the QB, so these stupid arguments that a guy whose played 2.3 seasons with horrible defenses and a crappy running game should have been in the playoffs is just ignorant.

Maybe if we hadn't given up 30, 30 and FIFTY TWO POINTS in their last 3 games we wouldn't be having this idiotic disucssion.

gyldenlove
05-17-2009, 07:16 PM
so for your argument that when Peyton had defenses as bad as Jay's that he had a worse record you point to his rookie year in which he was taking over for a team that was 3-13 the previous two years

and the 2001 season in what was an injury plagued year for the organization.

not really making yourself a great argument with that.

2007 was Jays first full year as a starter and we can all agree that we had a lot of injuries in 2008, the argument remains 100% valid.

tsiguy96
05-17-2009, 07:20 PM
suck it jay cutler. goooo broncos!!

SoCalBronco
05-17-2009, 07:49 PM
Yawn.

frerottenextelway
05-17-2009, 07:56 PM
I wonder if Chicago forums are this obsessed with the loss of Orton?

Williams
05-17-2009, 08:13 PM
Good article. Its nice to see some journalists understand what the hell is going on here vs. your typical ignorant "they lost Cutler, they'll go 3-13" garbage.

Williams
05-17-2009, 08:15 PM
Lots of words to rationalize why we're better even though we lost a pro bowl QB.

...and anyone that believes last season's probowl appearance was merited is high on Cutler jock fumes. Is he talented? Yes. Is he a probowl level QB? No.

How's this for less words... The offense will be improved or a push. The D and special teams are already improved. The coaching? We'll have to wait and see.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 08:48 PM
...and anyone that believes last season's probowl appearance was merited is high on Cutler jock fumes. Is he talented? Yes. Is he a probowl level QB? No.

How's this for less words... The offense will be improved or a push. The D and special teams are already improved. The coaching? We'll have to wait and see.

Jay was deserving of the pro bowl last year(Rivers should have gone in ahead of him though) but the point is, we may be less talented at the QB position, but as a TEAM we are better than we were last season.

we have legit rushing threats, our line is returning intact, our receivers have another year of experience and are getting better, we have finally dumped the garbage that was infesting our defense, brought in vocal leaders, completely revamped our secondary, brought in a lot of high character guys, addressed special teams play in the draft, brought in good coaches to surround a rookie HC.

outside of the loss of physical talent at QB(i feel Orton has better mental ability than Jay) and an unknown at HC, this team is lots better than last season.

i am telling all you doom and gloom fans, this team is going to shock a lot of doubters and is going to look like a team that will be a contender for years to come when this season is finished. 10-6 with a wild card berth is my prediction for this team.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 08:53 PM
...and anyone that believes last season's probowl appearance was merited is high on Cutler jock fumes. Is he talented? Yes. Is he a probowl level QB? No.
Cutler's the only reason we didn't go 4-12 last year, so yeah...he is a pro bowl level QB, whether you like it or not.
How's this for less words... The offense will be improved or a push. The D and special teams are already improved. The coaching? We'll have to wait and see.
All that before we've played a single game huh?

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 08:58 PM
...outside of the loss of physical talent at QB(i feel Orton has better mental ability than Jay) and an unknown at HC, this team is lots better than last season.
Most people would say that the HC spot and the QB spot have a lot to do with winning. One's never coached a team and one's never been considered more than a backup talent.

Other than that you're dead on...

Tombstone RJ
05-17-2009, 09:00 PM
It's a good article, it has many valid points. If Orton blossoms into the next McD fantasy QB then this team will be hella better than many anticipate. The defense can't get any worse and with Shanny and Slowik gone, it just got better. Special Teams is also being taken seriously. Aside from Cutler leaving the team has gotten stronger at almost every position. Safety is gonna be much better. LBers are better, Dline is still unknown.

We shall see what transpires, but I'm excited.

Kaylore
05-17-2009, 09:06 PM
We still have our offensive line. We still have our receivers. We have more tight ends. We still have good offensive coaches. And now we have a running game.

Losing Jay will hurt, but we gain a player that's better in the redzone and with with the running game and our offensive line, I don't understand how the whiners are so certain our offense is going to "suck" next year. Jay was a horrible redzone QB and we were 15th in scoring. Orton is a very good redzone QB.

I bet we score more points next year even though we'll have fewer yards.

Shoemaker
05-17-2009, 09:08 PM
Any one else notice there was not ONE WORD about the defense, but alot of talk of "inheriting' players.

Take my name. 6-10 and we give Seattle the 9th pick.

Well, that just might have been because the article was titled "Denver's New Look Offense, so it was probably focusing on that side of the ball.

Personally, I think the offense is going to be as good as it was last year. Orton may not put up Cutler-like numbers, but the running game should be impressive barring another freakish rash of injuries there, and that should mean the whole thing runs much more smoothly than last year.

Plus, even if the naysayers are right and his blows chunks at everything else, I don't see McGhengisKhan or whatever we're calling him now running a bad offense with the tools we have.

So this season might just hang on the ability of the defense and special teams. And that's a complete wild card right now. Attempting to say otherwise is ridiculous-we've changed coaches, changed systems, and gotten many new players.

Exciting times in Broncoland!

Lolad
05-17-2009, 09:17 PM
I was refuting the assertion that Manning took teams to the playoffs with defenses as bad as ours. Any moron knows a team's ability to win is based on more than the QB, so these stupid arguments that a guy whose played 2.3 seasons with horrible defenses and a crappy running game should have been in the playoffs is just ignorant.

Maybe if we hadn't given up 30, 30 and FIFTY TWO POINTS in their last 3 games we wouldn't be having this idiotic disucssion.

I was wondering if there were any smart people left on this board. Thank you!

You guys are just making excuses so you can feel better about this up coming season. Which isn't a bad thing at all but ignoring facts just tells me you guys are delusional and didn't watch any broncos games

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 09:17 PM
Most people would say that the HC spot and the QB spot have a lot to do with winning. One's never coached a team and one's never been considered more than a backup talent.

Other than that you're dead on...

Jay is more athletically gifted, Orton is better at the mental aspects of the game, and even though he doesn't have the howitzer for an arm that Jay did, he has a good arm, throws a catchable ball, and wins. he has won for teams with no offensive line to protect him and no receivers to catch for him. now he has a line that will keep him upright, and he has the receiving talent to take his game to a new level, as well as legit rushing threats to take pressure off him. i don't forsee any real dropoff that will occur from what Jay did for us, to what Orton will do for us.

In fact with Orton not having the ego of having the supposed best arm on the planet that Jay thought he did, we can kiss goodbye those few passes a game Jay used to throw that either did or nearly did end up in INTs that hurt the team, and because of that the QB play will be better. Less flashy but solid.

and with McDaniels, he has taken firm control of this team. he brought in a lot of good guys to lead on the field and from the sidelines, and showed with the Ayers pick that he will listen to and take advice from his coaching staff, which shows he knows he is in charge but doesn't know everything, which means he has a good grasp on what it is going to take to be a good coach for us.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 09:22 PM
Aside from Cutler leaving the team has gotten stronger at almost every position.
Most positions remain the same, at least on offense, so that's untrue.
Safety is gonna be much better. LBers are better, Dline is still unknown.
Quite optimistic...I hope you're right.

Here's some reality though. A year ago we had an aging hitter who was a great leader at safety playing out his string. Now we have another one. We replaced an undersized CB known for gambling with another one with less credentials. Linebacker? Who knows? It's probable the two outside starters will be guys who have never even played the position and DJ Williams inside may not fit the 3-4 defense at all, much less playing inside...so saying we're better is a stretch built on pure faith. The D-line is less than an "unknown"...it's bult largely on players that are either backups or have no experience in the NFL. Since you win or lose on defense in the trenches, it's entirely possible that we will be just as bad as last year. I'm hopeful coaching changes boosts us up a bit but coaches don't make tackles now do they?

It's great to be excited, but I'm witholding a view of this defense until they prove something on the field, and any kind of blanket analysis sugesting their better is complete speculation at this point IMO.

~Crash~
05-17-2009, 09:23 PM
this thread is a waste of something........

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 09:24 PM
I was wondering if there were any smart people left on this board. Thank you!

You guys are just making excuses so you can feel better about this up coming season. Which isn't a bad thing at all but ignoring facts just tells me you guys are delusional and didn't watch any broncos games

with you looking back at our offense from last season and seeing the 370 points Jay led us to, and the 16th ranked scoring offense, and thinking that this team with a revamped running game, and a QB who will not make nearly as many costly decisions, and is a better red zone QB will not be better leads me to wonder whether you watch football or if you are ignoring the fact that 23 points per game by Jay is not that hard to replicate with someone else.

Jay is a good QB, but his contributions from last season can and will be matched by Orton this season, and the team will be better than it was last season

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 09:29 PM
with you looking back at our offense from last season and seeing the 370 points Jay led us to, and the 16th ranked scoring offense, and thinking that this team with a revamped running game, and a QB who will not make nearly as many costly decisions, and is a better red zone QB will not be better leads me to wonder whether you watch football or if you are ignoring the fact that 23 points per game by Jay is not that hard to replicate with someone else.

Jay is a good QB, but his contributions from last season can and will be matched by Orton this season, and the team will be better than it was last season
I think you're going to find that Orton playing on a team with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL versus playing on this one will tend to force him to do what Jay did...try to score every time downfield. If so...this will be a brand new experience for him.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 09:33 PM
Most positions remain the same, at least on offense, so that's untrue.
.
Quite optimistic...I hope you're right.

Here's some reality though. A year ago we had an aging hitter who was a great leader at safety playing out his string. Now we have another one. We replaced an undersized CB known for gambling with another one with less credentials. Linebacker? Who knows? It's probable the two outside starters will be guys who have never even played the position and DJ Williams inside may not fit the 3-4 defense at all, much less playing inside...so saying we're better is a stretch built on pure faith. The D-line is less than an "unknown"...it's bult largely on players that are either backups or have no experience in the NFL. Since you win or lose on defense in the trenches, it's entirely possible that we will be just as bad as last year. I'm hopeful coaching changes boosts us up a bit but coaches don't make tackles now do they?

It's great to be excited, but I'm witholding a view of this defense until they prove something on the field, and any kind of blanket analysis sugesting their better is complete speculation at this point IMO.

our offense is better than last season. Our young line has a full year of experience under their belts and are better because of that, we have depth along the line as well. we drafted a good backup to Graham (and in goal line or short yardage situations another big body to move the pile with Quinn) we brought in depth at the receiver position, and because of that will not be doomed if Marshall or Royal suffer injury. we addressed the running game big time, and because of that Orton will not be called on to carry the team, but to lead it and make smart decisions, which he does a lot better than Jay does.

the defense upgraded the secondary in a big way. we brought in strong vocal veteran leaders as well as drafted young guys to learn from those veteran leaders in the secondary. Smith was the best corner in this draft and if he were 3 inches taller would have been a top 15 pick. Ayers is going to be good for us in the SOLB position and as an end in the 4-3 allignments we will also use. Peterson, THomas, Powell, and others will be better used and play better under coaches who will give them good teaching and put them in the best position to succeed.

we are better than last season in every aspect. and yes that includes coaching and QB play, because outside of Mike, Turner and Dennison, our coaches weren't that good last season and have been upgraded this offseason. and although Orton isn't as athletically gifted as Jay was, he is a better cerebral QB that Jay, and has proven he is capable of winning on a team with no offensive line and no receiving weapons.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 09:35 PM
I think you're going to find that Orton playing on a team with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL versus playing on this one will tend to force him to do what Jay did...try to score every time downfield. If so...this will be a brand new experience for him.

i think Orton has plenty of experience in being in a bad situation as a QB. unlike Jay who had to worry about the score, Orton had to worry about getting killed on every play, because he had no protection and no receiving weapons. so they both had their problems as QBs and Orton has delivered better than Jay has with limitations.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 10:10 PM
i think Orton has plenty of experience in being in a bad situation as a QB. unlike Jay who had to worry about the score, Orton had to worry about getting killed on every play, because he had no protection and no receiving weapons. so they both had their problems as QBs and Orton has delivered better than Jay has with limitations.
Nonsense.

Check Orton's stats and here's what you find:

The 2005 season when he was a rookie and went 11-5 he played with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL. Three years later, after watching Griese and Grossman start ahead of him because Bears coaches didn't see him as the answer, he played with a defense ranked 16th instead. In virtually every categoy he improved from his rookie season, which one would expect, but the Bears finished with a 9-7 record. His completion percentage jumped by 7%, yardage increased by over 1100 yards, TD passes doubled, he threw the ball over 100 times more but had 1 fewer INT and 3 fewer sacks, yards per attempt jumped from 5.1 to 6.4 and he threw for more than 70 yards per game more...and his QB rating went from 59.7 to 79.6...a whopping 20 point gain. And in all this improvement, the Bears offense even improving from 26th in scoring to 14th...as a starter Orton won 2 fewer games. As for him having to run for his life...last year he was sacked 29 times, 20th overall...and the Steelers and Patriots gave up 49 and 48 respectively...this while playing in a short yardage passing game designed to let him dump the ball off and avoid taking sacks.

The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him.

RubberDuckie24
05-17-2009, 10:50 PM
I think you're going to find that Orton playing on a team with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL versus playing on this one will tend to force him to do what Jay did...try to score every time downfield. If so...this will be a brand new experience for him.

You mean that #1 ranked defense that was ranked 16th in the league in scoring last year?

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 10:57 PM
You mean that #1 ranked defense that was ranked 16th in the league in scoring last year?
It's usually a good idea to fully read things before you post.

RubberDuckie24
05-17-2009, 11:00 PM
It's usually a good idea to fully read things before you post.

I'm pretty sure I didn't leave out anything in that quote.

Williams
05-17-2009, 11:02 PM
I was refuting the assertion that Manning took teams to the playoffs with defenses as bad as ours. Any moron knows a team's ability to win is based on more than the QB, so these stupid arguments that a guy whose played 2.3 seasons with horrible defenses and a crappy running game should have been in the playoffs is just ignorant.

Maybe if we hadn't given up 30, 30 and FIFTY TWO POINTS in their last 3 games we wouldn't be having this idiotic disucssion.

Our D sucked, and you can blame it on them till you're blue in the face :), but the truth of the matter is 2 TDs to 4 picks in those 3 games is not gonna help matters. Your boy tanked in the clutch.

Also, some food for thought... Brian Griese managed to lead our beloved Broncos to a 11-5 record and playoff berth in 2000 with the 24th ranked D in football. Just sayin'.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 11:05 PM
our offense is better than last season. Our young line has a full year of experience under their belts and are better because of that, we have depth along the line as well. we drafted a good backup to Graham (and in goal line or short yardage situations another big body to move the pile with Quinn) we brought in depth at the receiver position, and because of that will not be doomed if Marshall or Royal suffer injury. we addressed the running game big time, and because of that Orton will not be called on to carry the team, but to lead it and make smart decisions, which he does a lot better than Jay does.

the defense upgraded the secondary in a big way. we brought in strong vocal veteran leaders as well as drafted young guys to learn from those veteran leaders in the secondary. Smith was the best corner in this draft and if he were 3 inches taller would have been a top 15 pick. Ayers is going to be good for us in the SOLB position and as an end in the 4-3 allignments we will also use. Peterson, THomas, Powell, and others will be better used and play better under coaches who will give them good teaching and put them in the best position to succeed.

we are better than last season in every aspect. and yes that includes coaching and QB play, because outside of Mike, Turner and Dennison, our coaches weren't that good last season and have been upgraded this offseason. and although Orton isn't as athletically gifted as Jay was, he is a better cerebral QB that Jay, and has proven he is capable of winning on a team with no offensive line and no receiving weapons.
One of the biggest homer posts I've seen yet, and utterly devoid of real factual analysis.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 11:15 PM
Nonsense.

Check Orton's stats and here's what you find:

The 2005 season when he was a rookie and went 11-5 he played with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL. Three years later, after watching Griese and Grossman start ahead of him because Bears coaches didn't see him as the answer, he played with a defense ranked 16th instead. In virtually every categoy he improved from his rookie season, which one would expect, but the Bears finished with a 9-7 record. His completion percentage jumped by 7%, yardage increased by over 1100 yards, TD passes doubled, he threw the ball over 100 times more but had 1 fewer INT and 3 fewer sacks, yards per attempt jumped from 5.1 to 6.4 and he threw for more than 70 yards per game more...and his QB rating went from 59.7 to 79.6...a whopping 20 point gain. And in all this improvement, the Bears offense even improving from 26th in scoring to 14th...as a starter Orton won 2 fewer games. As for him having to run for his life...last year he was sacked 29 times, 20th overall...and the Steelers and Patriots gave up 49 and 48 respectively...this while playing in a short yardage passing game designed to let him dump the ball off and avoid taking sacks.

The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him.

so your worried about a QB who was capable of making that kind of leap in production as a player even though he was overlooked by a team for basically 3 seasons, and played with almost no offensive weapons or line to protect him. i have to ask what the hell is wrong with you. he went from average to really good with almost no offensive help.

and with your argument about the Steelers and Pats allowing 49 and 48 sacks respectively. you are forgetting that Big Ben holds onto the ball for far to long, and that has always been a knock against him. and with the Pats, it was the same thing. Cassel was a 1st time starter and the team rathered him take a sack as opposed to force a pass, or make ill-advised throws. it had nothing to do with the teams around them sucking like it did for Orton in Chicago

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 11:23 PM
Our D sucked, and you can blame it on them till you're blue in the face :), but the truth of the matter is 2 TDs to 4 picks in those 3 games is not gonna help matters. Your boy tanked in the clutch.

Also, some food for thought... Brian Griese managed to lead our beloved Broncos to a 11-5 record and playoff berth in 2000 with the 24th ranked D in football. Just sayin'.

as much as i agree that Cutler choked down the stretch. comparing him to the season Griese had in 2000 is a big difference. Griese missed something like 6 games with injury. Mike Anderson had a rookie of the year campaign and rushed for over 1500 yards. and McCaffrey and Smith were having one of the best ever seasons for a duo of starting receivers and the offense was truly dominant. and not just in yardage but also in scoring.

Williams
05-17-2009, 11:32 PM
as much as i agree that Cutler choked down the stretch. comparing him to the season Griese had in 2000 is a big difference. Griese missed something like 6 games with injury. Mike Anderson had a rookie of the year campaign and rushed for over 1500 yards. and McCaffrey and Smith were having one of the best ever seasons for a duo of starting receivers and the offense was truly dominant. and not just in yardage but also in scoring.

Right, every situation is gonna be different, but Griese played his ass off. 19 TDs to 4 picks when he played.

My point is we'll be fine without emo boy, but I know you agree. Some are not as confident and will have to just wait and see.

BroncoMan4ever
05-17-2009, 11:35 PM
One of the biggest homer posts I've seen yet, and utterly devoid of real factual analysis.

how is that a homer post?

that was truly thought out. players get better with experience, and our young OL and starting receivers have a year of experience to build upon. we brought in a lot of secondary help including one of the best Safeties of the last decade who is also one of the best vocal and emotional leaders in the game. Orton doesn't have Jay's physical talents, but has a better football mind than Jay, so even without the physical tools Jay gave us, we now have a QB capable of being a more intellectual QB. our running game has been addressed a lot with the drafting of Moreno, and signings of Arrington, Jordan and Buckhalter. we brought in depth at the receiver spot with Gaffney and draft picks(UDFA also) we didn't address the DL during the draft, but signed a group of good players to build with after the draft, who were rated as mid round talents. we paid attention to the ST in the draft by drafting the guy commonly referred to as the best ST player in the draft.

footstepsfrom#27
05-17-2009, 11:52 PM
so your worried about a QB who was capable of making that kind of leap in production as a player even though he was overlooked by a team for basically 3 seasons, and played with almost no offensive weapons or line to protect him. i have to ask what the hell is wrong with you. he went from average to really good with almost no offensive help.
First of all, he didn't go from "average to really good". He went from total crap (31st ranked) to mediocre, and almost ANY NFL quarterback is going to improve over 4 training camps even if he doesn't start so why are you so impressed by that? Second...he wasn't "overlooked" as you spun it. He was benched because he sucked and they were so desperate they tried Griese and Grossman in his place, two guys who define the word mediocrity. Third, this idea that he had "no offensive help" is pure fantasy. Forte had over 1700 yards total offense, Hester and Davis combined for 86 catches and over 1100 yards, and the TE duo of Olsen/Clark had 96 catches/941 yards and 6 TD's.
and with your argument about the Steelers and Pats allowing 49 and 48 sacks respectively. you are forgetting that Big Ben holds onto the ball for far to long, and that has always been a knock against him. and with the Pats, it was the same thing. Cassel was a 1st time starter and the team rathered him take a sack as opposed to force a pass, or make ill-advised throws. it had nothing to do with the teams around them sucking like it did for Orton in Chicago
And conversly our O-line's sack numbers were decreased by the fact that Cutler's an excellent scrambler...so what? Only 12 teams gave up fewer sacks than Chicago in 2008. Do your homework.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 12:23 AM
how is that a homer post?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
that was truly thought out. players get better with experience, and our young OL and starting receivers have a year of experience to build upon. we brought in a lot of secondary help including one of the best Safeties of the last decade who is also one of the best vocal and emotional leaders in the game. Orton doesn't have Jay's physical talents, but has a better football mind than Jay, so even without the physical tools Jay gave us, we now have a QB capable of being a more intellectual QB.
There is zero evidence that Orton is "more intellectual" than Cutler. Dawkins gives us about the same thing Lynch did before he slid off the edge of the table last year. Nobody knows if these rookie DB's are worth anything yet, and stating that Smith was the best CB in the draft is silly since the other NFL teams didn't think so...almost as absurd as, "he'd have been a top 15 pick if he were 3" taller"...so what? He's not. To many other ridiculous comments to list.
our running game has been addressed a lot with the drafting of Moreno, and signings of Arrington, Jordan and Buckhalter.
Moreno will probably be very good...he better be, because these other guys are nothing to write home about. Jordan and Buckhalter are 30 and haven't done anything in several years...Jordan's had 1 good season out of 8 and Buckhalter and JJ Arington are career scrubs. Arrington's started 8 games in 4 years...I'm hoping the Arizona kid beats him out.
we brought in depth at the receiver spot with Gaffney and draft picks(UDFA also) we didn't address the DL during the draft, but signed a group of good players to build with after the draft, who were rated as mid round talents. we paid attention to the ST in the draft by drafting the guy commonly referred to as the best ST player in the draft.
"Mid round talents" are usually cut from the D-line in the NFL. This of course was in a weak draft...hardly the stuff to base a prediction of us being improved upon.
<o:p> </o:p>
The facts are much different than you present them, so yes...that was definitely a huge homer take based on no real evidence, just hopeful propaganda.

Hulamau
05-18-2009, 12:41 AM
Any one else notice there was not ONE WORD about the defense, but alot of talk of "inheriting' players.

Take my name. 6-10 and we give Seattle the 9th pick.

Be careful of looking too far in the rear view mirror on the D Mock.

Though we didn't land any big marquee names for the first three spots on the line, we got rid of a lot of dead wood that, in combination with the ****** up schizoid scheme(s) last year, was at the root of most all of our problems. Being decimated at LB and losing Champ for much of the year didn't help either.

We've got solid D coaches from top to bottom now with a consistent message and an attacking style transition to a 3/4.

Vince Wilfork would have looked lost much of the time in that miss-mash of a D scheme last year, much less BJ Raji and Tyson Jackson!

Between a beefed up Thomas (who played last year between 315 and 320 and is going to be much improved in this scheme, and in his third year and first with some decent consistent coaching), Ron Fields who though not a Wilfork, is no slouch either and has experience at NT in Nolan's 3/4, and promising Chris Baker, we will have a serviceable anchor at the NT.

Kenny Peterson and Thomas were two of the steadier more productive guys on an otherwise porous line, and yet no one could look good in that farce of a scheme. And they are both back.

Carlton Powell we haven't had a chance to see in action yet, but he has all the cred and tools to be a successful DE in this system and was a high motor highly productive run stuffer in college.

Competing with these three most likely to start at DE, we have Darrell Reid who can definitely play, Ryan McBean who should be ready to contribute and UDFAs Rulon Davis and Everett P. plus Nic Clemons and Mathias Askew. I particularly like Davis and Everett P ( not even trying his last name) to push McBean and Reid as rotation for the two DE spots.

From this group, at least two to three guys will emerge as viable decent rotation guys at least.

Oh and don't forget Robert Ayers when lining up in the three point stance, as well!

This isn't nearly so hopeless as a few of you guys seem to assume. Granted we're not going to have the top D-line in the league and maybe just average, but with the rest of the changes on D, that might be more than good enough to make us competitive again on D and get the ball back to our offense a few more times and win more games.

The back 4 of the front seven is definitely ahead of last years group ,even just having Woodyard and Larsen as second year guys. Sure Woodyard is undersized, but he plays like he's 245. ( Yanking Larsen and Woodyard last year in those last three games and putting back in a still injured DJ and Webster probably cost us at least one win of the last three games ... and the playoffs)

Plus with Andra Davis joining DJ, plus Ayers, Doom and Reid at OLB we'll be decent there.

The secondary I'm not even going talk about , its a done deal.

Below is a little excerpt from a talk by Pete Carroll from USC on the value of having and sticking to a philosophy on D. The lack of THIS was easily as much the reason we stunk the past two years on D, as it was on lack of talent on the field, and we got rid of the worst of that talent already.

"I was asked to speak about defense today. Iíll try to give you some general thoughts that might help you on this topic. Iím not trying to get you to change your defense, but Iíll show you what we are doing.

In order to be successful on defense you need to develop a philosophy. You have to know what you want to do, how you want it to look, and how you want it to feel. A philosophy is like a railroad track. You have a clear cut direction in which you are going. If you start to get off track it becomes real obvious to you. If you donít know what you want and what you are about you wonít know when you are off course. If you do realize you are off course you wonít know how to fix the problems you are having without a philosophy.

If you canít write down your philosophy then you still have some work to do. If you donít have a clear view of your philosophy you will be floundering all over the place. It you win, it will be pure luck. One year you will win, it will be pure luck. One year you will run a 3-4 defense and the next year you will run a 4-3 based defense. You will never get zeroed in on what is important. "

Pete Carroll

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 01:19 AM
Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.

Guess which will be true more often this year?

Are we done here?

Anybody who thinks we can make any kind of case for our team being improved despite the loss of a stud QB better because we 1) had a draft, 2) signed a bunch of UDFA guys, 3) added two over 30 guys to the defense, and 4) have a better scheme...is looking at this through orange colored glasses. In the NFL you win with defense, and you almost never do so with rookies, certainly not by depending on a lot of them. We have the same problems we had last year with the lone exception that we appear to have a solid starting RB now. Other than that, whlie we might be better here and there, expecting that to over come the large gaping hole left by Cutler is wishful thinking. I wish it were true...but wishing is all it is at this point.

summerdenver
05-18-2009, 01:22 AM
Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

btw, the one loss is the MNF OT game against GB where we did not get the ball in over time.

BroncoBuff
05-18-2009, 01:33 AM
You're already here Popps ...

!Booya! !Booya! !Booya!

Haha, rep.

Actually that was a damn good article. The only whiff was saying Quinn is "no slouch as a reciever." I wonder which of the 12 balls he caught in his college career the writer in to that?

BroncoBuff
05-18-2009, 01:35 AM
1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.
Powerful indicators ... although it's definitely true the "other 10" on offense here are vastly superior to the "other 10" for the Bears.

My only question is, why are you so concerned with our backup quarterback? ???

Hogan11
05-18-2009, 01:48 AM
The difference between Cutler and Orton? Orton won't fall completely apart if he turns the ball over. That's good enough in these parts...bring on the neck beard! Ha!

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:23 AM
Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.

Guess which will be true more often this year?

Are we done here?

Anybody who thinks we can make any kind of case for our team being improved despite the loss of a stud QB better because we 1) had a draft, 2) signed a bunch of UDFA guys, 3) added two over 30 guys to the defense, and 4) have a better scheme...is looking at this through orange colored glasses. In the NFL you win with defense, and you almost never do so with rookies, certainly not by depending on a lot of them. We have the same problems we had last year with the lone exception that we appear to have a solid starting RB now. Other than that, whlie we might be better here and there, expecting that to over come the large gaping hole left by Cutler is wishful thinking. I wish it were true...but wishing is all it is at this point.

What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well. :rofl:

GreatBronco16
05-18-2009, 02:36 AM
What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well. :rofl:

We have already been through this. The W/L on the majority of the QBs in the NFL when their defense gives up over 21 points a game is pretty crappy. Just the same as it is when their defense gives up less than 21 points a game, the W/L record looks a lot better.

Anyone can makes stats go in their favor for anything.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 02:40 AM
What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well. :rofl:
You entirely missed the point, that being that defense is critical to winning for any quarterback, something repeatedly ignored on this board in a constant attempt to blame Cutler for us not getting into the playoffs. I've countered this foolishness with two arguments, first by demonstrating that even Peyton Manning couldn't win with a defense like the one Jay had, and second, taking it closer to home, I just showed you that 1) Cutler came through when the defense did, and 2) that Orton had to have his defense perform well in order for the Bears to win while he was behind center.

Game over.

elsid13
05-18-2009, 02:42 AM
The difference between Cutler and Orton? Orton won't fall completely apart if he turns the ball over. That's good enough in these parts...bring on the neck beard! Ha!


Watch the highlights of CHI/TB game last season, Orton fell apart completely under pressure.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:45 AM
We have already been through this. The W/L on the majority of the QBs in the NFL when their defense gives up over 21 points a game is pretty crappy. Just the same as it is when their defense gives up less than 21 points a game, the W/L record looks a lot better.

Anyone can makes stats go in their favor for anything.

Ya, I already knew that, but what he's saying is that based off those stats, for some reason Orton is going to be posting a rather crappy W/L season. It doesn't take into consideration that Chicago's defense wasn't all too great last year at 16th in the league - which is considerably better than Denver's, but that also brings up the point... how are the defenses going to perform THIS year? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Denver's defense is only going to get better while Chicago's defense has only gotten older (that is to say, I can't see any significant changes in the defense to show evidence that positive change will take place). Also that doesn't include the "weaponry" so to speak that each quarterback had to play with in his offense. Orton is picking up Jay's upgraded O-line, wide receivers, and very possibly a better running game - something that will obviously affect how effective a quarterback performs.

All I'm saying is that those stats and the conclusion implied from comparing them only take in a very narrow part of the complete scheme of things taking place in the Orton-Cutler flip-flop.

elsid13
05-18-2009, 02:49 AM
Jay is more athletically gifted, Orton is better at the mental aspects of the game, and even though he doesn't have the howitzer for an arm that Jay did, he has a good arm, throws a catchable ball, and wins. he has won for teams with no offensive line to protect him and no receivers to catch for him. now he has a line that will keep him upright, and he has the receiving talent to take his game to a new level, as well as legit rushing threats to take pressure off him. i don't forsee any real dropoff that will occur from what Jay did for us, to what Orton will do for us.

In fact with Orton not having the ego of having the supposed best arm on the planet that Jay thought he did, we can kiss goodbye those few passes a game Jay used to throw that either did or nearly did end up in INTs that hurt the team, and because of that the QB play will be better. Less flashy but solid.

and with McDaniels, he has taken firm control of this team. he brought in a lot of good guys to lead on the field and from the sidelines, and showed with the Ayers pick that he will listen to and take advice from his coaching staff, which shows he knows he is in charge but doesn't know everything, which means he has a good grasp on what it is going to take to be a good coach for us.

OK there is no proof for that statement at all. In fact the media reported multiply times that reason that Cutler was good fit for Shanahan was that had the football intelligence to understand very complex playbook and was able to master offense game plan that was the hardest in the NFL,week in and week in the NFL.

And your Ayers statement is BS. Ever Coach/GM listen to his staff when comes to draft choices, even Mike Brown doesn't do it alone.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:49 AM
I just showed you that 1) Cutler came through when the defense did, and 2) that Orton had to have his defense perform well in order for the Bears to win while he was behind center.

Game over.

Wow, you really think you just proved a point? Sorry bud, you basically just told me that Cutler won when his defense did well (So did Orton) and that Orton did poorly when his defense did poorly (So did Cutler).

:notworthy

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 02:49 AM
I'm pretty sure I didn't leave out anything in that quote.
Then you need to read post #46.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:53 AM
Then you need to read post #46.

Lol, here we go:

Post #46 - "The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him."

Last time I checked, most poeople don't refer to defenses ranked 16th in the league as a "great defense."

Maybe i'm just twisted, but I'd consider that defense perfectly... mediocre.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 02:53 AM
Wow, you really think you just proved a point? Sorry bud, you basically just told me that Cutler won when his defense did well (So did Orton) and that Orton did poorly when his defense did poorly (So did Cutler).

:notworthy
I was countering the ridiculous argument that began a few posts ago that suggested that Cutler was at fault for us missing the playoffs even though his defense stunk. Manning was used as an example of a QB who took a team to the playoffs with a defense as bad as our...which I showed to be untrue. Second...the continuous reference to Orton being a winner ignores than he DIDN'T WIN whenever he was asked to generate more than 21 points.

The point is this...the team didn't make the playoffs, not Cutler. The team was primarily failing due to the defense, despite what the spin doctors want us to believe about this offense being a red zone failure...a fact anyone who watche the games knows had to do mostly with our inconsistent running game and 7 backs starting last year.

I'm merely pointing out that the obvious is being ignored in an attempt to support the ridiculous.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 02:57 AM
Lol, here we go:

Post #46 - "The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him."

Last time I checked, most poeople don't refer to defenses ranked 16th in the league as a "great defense."

Maybe i'm just twisted, but I'd consider that defense perfectly... mediocre.
Do I really have to spell this out for you? You suggested I referenced the Bears #1 ranked defense with the 2008 version...I clearly indicated it was Orton's 2005 season when they ranked #1 in scoring...and 2nd in yards BTW...when he went 10-5 as a starter. Translation...Orton's won/lost record with Chicago was built on the back of a superior defense, one vastly superior to the one Cutler worked with. Even the 16th ranked version was so far ahead of us it's absurd not to factor this in as the overwhelming variable in support of Orton winning games.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:59 AM
I was countering the ridiculous argument that began a few posts ago that suggested that Cutler was at fault for us missing the playoffs even though his defense stunk. Manning was used as an example of a QB who took a team to the playoffs with a defense as bad as our...which I showed to be untrue. Second...the continuous reference to Orton being a winner ignores than he DIDN'T WIN whenever he was asked to generate more than 21 points.

The point is this...the team didn't make the playoffs, not Cutler. The team was primarily failing due to the defense, despite what the spin doctors want us to believe about this offense being a red zone failure...a fact anyone who watche the games knows had to do mostly with our inconsistent running game and 7 backs starting last year.

I'm merely pointing out that the obvious is being ignored in an attempt to support the ridiculous.

I agree 100%, but you're also arguing that Orton simply isn't going to do well in Denver because he had "a great D and was never more than a game manager." And what I'm basically saying is that your wrong to discredit him based only on how well the defense has done and how Cutler and Orton will fare with those defenses.They arn't going to be the same defenses as last year, and the quarterbacks are going to be switching the talent on their offensive team.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 03:03 AM
Do I really have to spell this out for you? You suggested I referenced the Bears #1 ranked defense with the 2008 version...I clearly indicated it was Orton's 2005 season when they ranked #1 in scoring...and 2nd in yards BTW...when he went 10-5 as a starter. Translation...Orton's won/lost record with Chicago was built on the back of a superior defense, one vastly superior to the one Cutler worked with. Even the 16th ranked version was so far ahead of us it's absurd not to factor this in as the overwhelming variable in support of Orton winning games.

Actually, you really weren't referencing to 2005 in the quote that I replied to, case in point:

"I think you're going to find that Orton playing on a team with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL versus playing on this one will tend to force him to do what Jay did...try to score every time downfield. If so...this will be a brand new experience for him."

And trust me, the quote you were referencing to was referring to the 2008 season, don't kid yourself. Regardless, lets just drop this, it's retarded to keep arguing about it if your just going to beat around the bush.

You're right, I'll concede... Orton was kept afloat during 2005 by his defense alone his ROOKIE SEASON. Jesus, i'm not arguing that Orton was any good his rookie season, I'm referring strictly to his 2008 season, where his defense didn't carry him much and he had a 91 passer rating before he got severely injured in the 8th game. Oh wait, did I just bring that up?

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 03:05 AM
OK there is no proof for that statement at all. In fact the media reported multiply times that reason that Cutler was good fit for Shanahan was that had the football intelligence to understand very complex playbook and was able to master offense game plan that was the hardest in the NFL,week in and week in the NFL.
Both players scored a 26 on the Wonderlic and last time I checked, Vanderbilt's one of the toughest academic institutions in the country, which is why they've generally come up on the short end of the SEC for decades. Cutler's tendency to try to squeeze the ball into tight places is a combination of the defense being unable to stop anyone and him having a bit to much confidence in his arm, both things that were fixable had we kept him.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 03:09 AM
Actually, you really weren't referencing to 2005 in the quote that I replied to, case in point:

"I think you're going to find that Orton playing on a team with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL versus playing on this one will tend to force him to do what Jay did...try to score every time downfield. If so...this will be a brand new experience for him."

And trust me, the quote you were referencing to was referring to the 2008 season, don't kid yourself.
I don't need you to tell me what I was referring to, and in fact I referenced BOTH years in that post, so you're simply wrong.
Regardless, lets just drop this, it's retarded to keep arguing about it if your just going to beat around the bush.
I'm doing no such thing. You simply missed the post and now you're trying to spin my post as something different than it was.
You're right, I'll concede... Orton was kept afloat during 2005 by his defense alone his ROOKIE SEASON. Jesus, i'm not arguing that Orton was any good his rookie season, I'm referring strictly to his 2008 season, where his defense didn't carry him much and he had a 91 passer rating before he got severely injured in the 8th game. Oh wait, did I just bring that up?
And they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. BTW...his passer rating was also skewed by the fact that they threw mostly high percentage passes to the short zones. He also was helped out by a nice RB with 1700 yards total offense...not quite the same as the mess Cutler worked with.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 03:12 AM
Here's my post from #46. As you can see...it's clear as day what I said.

Nonsense.

Check Orton's stats and here's what you find:

The 2005 season when he was a rookie and went 11-5 he played with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL. Three years later, after watching Griese and Grossman start ahead of him because Bears coaches didn't see him as the answer, he played with a defense ranked 16th instead. In virtually every categoy he improved from his rookie season, which one would expect, but the Bears finished with a 9-7 record. His completion percentage jumped by 7%, yardage increased by over 1100 yards, TD passes doubled, he threw the ball over 100 times more but had 1 fewer INT and 3 fewer sacks, yards per attempt jumped from 5.1 to 6.4 and he threw for more than 70 yards per game more...and his QB rating went from 59.7 to 79.6...a whopping 20 point gain. And in all this improvement, the Bears offense even improving from 26th in scoring to 14th...as a starter Orton won 2 fewer games. As for him having to run for his life...last year he was sacked 29 times, 20th overall...and the Steelers and Patriots gave up 49 and 48 respectively...this while playing in a short yardage passing game designed to let him dump the ball off and avoid taking sacks.

The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 03:16 AM
I don't need you to tell me what I was referring to, and in fact I referenced BOTH years in that post, so you're simply wrong.

I'm doing no such thing. You simply missed the post and now you're trying to spin my post as something different than it was.

And they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. BTW...his passer rating was also skewed by the fact that they threw mostly high percentage passes to the short zones. He also was helped out by a nice RB with 1700 yards total offense...not quite the same as the mess Cutler worked with.

Lol, ok, you're right.

However, you're wrong again discrediting Orton. I don't know why you insist on being so pessimistic. Shorter passes for a higher percentage rating actually works against you in quarterback passer rating - check it out for yourself: http://www.primecomputing.com/

Cutler had a running game as well, don't kid yourself. Every running back that ran for Cutler had over a 5 ypc. Forte? 3.9 ypc.

This doesn't take into consideration the fact that the Chicago's wide receivers were vastly inferior to that of the Broncos, and that the Offensive line for the Broncos was much better at keeping pressure off Cutler as well. Orton's got some goodies to play with now!

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 03:18 AM
Here's my post from #46. As you can see...it's clear as day what I said.

Sorry bud, you weren't referencing to that paragraph, that post came several after the one where you were talking about comparing Orton in Chicago with a #1 defense and the one he's going to be stuck with in Denver. Haha, you're quite resilient in making yourself look right =)

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 03:27 AM
Lol, ok, you're right.

However, you're wrong again discrediting Orton. I don't know why you insist on being so pessimistic. Shorter passes for a higher percentage rating actually works against you in quarterback passer rating - check it out for yourself: http://www.primecomputing.com/
Short passes contribute to safe passes, which help keep the INT percentage down, which is what most posters here are suggesting is the reason Orton is going to be superior as a decision maker...not making mistakes. We'll see how much Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal and Tony Scheffler like catching 5 yard out patterns now that we no longer have the deep zones threatened like we did. We'll also find out how good this offensive line is at holding blocks for a QB who is more or less immobile compared to Cutler.
Cutler had a running game as well, don't kid yourself. Every running back that ran for Cutler had over a 5 ypc. Forte? 3.9 ypc.
Cutler had no consistent chain mover. Denver's RB's gained yardage mostly because of the threat of Jay's arm that kept defenses honest. Once the field shortened however and they got inside the 20 where the deep threat was removed by the boundaries of the end zone, the running threat was significantly curtailed and our mediocre backs came up short. Forte also caught 65 passes out of the backfield...which is just as good as a run because it removes the risk of the pass...nobody on our team came close to that.
This doesn't take into consideration the fact that Chicago's were vastly inferior to that of the Broncos, and that the Offensive line for the Broncos was much better at keeping pressure off Cutler as well. Orton's got some goodies to play with now!
Part of the reason you think Chicago had no weapons is because they had no real downfield passing threat to get them the ball. Do you think Hester will be a different player when he can run 20 yard patterns instead of 10? Denver has a superior O-line but Chicago's line is not bad and they now have two of the best in the league in Pace and 6 time pro bowler Olin Kreutz.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 03:37 AM
Powerful indicators ... although it's definitely true the "other 10" on offense here are vastly superior to the "other 10" for the Bears.

My only question is, why are you so concerned with our backup quarterback? ???
He's the one who still has a spleen. ;D

BroncoBuff
05-18-2009, 03:38 AM
He's the one who still has a spleen. ;D

2-Shay!

BroncoInSkinland
05-18-2009, 05:01 AM
Plus with Andra Davis joining DJ, plus Ayers, Doom and Reid at OLB we'll be decent there.

Not that I want to thread jack this from the fascinating discussion on Orton vs. Cutler, but you may not want to put too much faith in Davis. My fiancee is a Browns fan, and I have seen an awful lot on Davis over the past few seasons. I haven't looked up stats so I don't have support for this right now, but Davis has looked like he is declining on the field.

He is still an excellent hitter, but his play recognition is lacking for a veteran IMHO, and his coverage skills are mediocre at best. If I were using Andra, it would be as a situtaional player for obvious running downs. He is an excellent leader and motivator however, and I think his attitude may rub off on some of our players, which I believe is his primary value and the reason McDaniels went after him.

TonyR
05-18-2009, 06:40 AM
Maybe if we hadn't given up 30, 30 and FIFTY TWO POINTS in their last 3 games we wouldn't be having this idiotic disucssion.

Or maybe Cutler could have shown up in the losses to Miami (3 picks, 60.7 rating) and Oakland (1 pick, 49.8 rating), among others, and then winning one of the final 3 games wouldn't have been necessary. And regardless of the poor defense in those final 3 games Cutler didn't exactly light the world on fire himself.

You've built up in your own mind this legendary Jay Cutler that doesn't exist. Good for you, it's nice that you can have such fond memories of him. But back in the real world he was an inconsistent, above average QB last year. I'll point out once again that the offense averaged 15.5 points in the 8 losses and Cutler had 13 of his 18 picks in those losses. Go ahead and blame it all on the defense but a lot of the blame lies at the feet of the QB who failed to get the offense he leads into the endzone.

gyldenlove
05-18-2009, 07:43 AM
Or maybe Cutler could have shown up in the losses to Miami (3 picks, 60.7 rating) and Oakland (1 pick, 49.8 rating), among others, and then winning one of the final 3 games wouldn't have been necessary. And regardless of the poor defense in those final 3 games Cutler didn't exactly light the world on fire himself.

You've built up in your own mind this legendary Jay Cutler that doesn't exist. Good for you, it's nice that you can have such fond memories of him. But back in the real world he was an inconsistent, above average QB last year. I'll point out once again that the offense averaged 15.5 points in the 8 losses and Cutler had 13 of his 18 picks in those losses. Go ahead and blame it all on the defense but a lot of the blame lies at the feet of the QB who failed to get the offense he leads into the endzone.

You are clearly from the "The QB should win every game" school of thinking. I find it remarkable that we ONLY won games last year when Cutler played at a very high level.

Cutler was clearly the reason we won every game we won, his stats in those games are through the roof. If you also want to place the blame on him for every game we lost, you are saying we might as well have played with no defense since their involvement in games is completely irrelevant. Cutler clearly played badly in a lot of the games we lost, but not once, not a single time did the defense step up and win a game.
Here are some of the QBs who had triple digit passer ratings against us: Jamarcus Russel (twice, in fact 67% of the 100+ passer rating games of his career came against us last year), Damon Huard (only 100+ rating of last year) and David Garrard. Three of those efforts came in games we could have and should have won, but when you allow a lackluster group of QBs like that to put up 100+ ratings, you are just not going to have a lot of success.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 07:53 AM
Or maybe Cutler could have shown up in the losses to Miami (3 picks, 60.7 rating) and Oakland (1 pick, 49.8 rating), among others, and then winning one of the final 3 games wouldn't have been necessary. And regardless of the poor defense in those final 3 games Cutler didn't exactly light the world on fire himself.

You've built up in your own mind this legendary Jay Cutler that doesn't exist. Good for you, it's nice that you can have such fond memories of him. But back in the real world he was an inconsistent, above average QB last year. I'll point out once again that the offense averaged 15.5 points in the 8 losses and Cutler had 13 of his 18 picks in those losses. Go ahead and blame it all on the defense but a lot of the blame lies at the feet of the QB who failed to get the offense he leads into the endzone.
That offense was also essentially lacking any legitimate talent at running back, which meant that it was entirely on his back to not only produce points every time down the field, but to do so when other teams didn't fear our running game. Yes I know the stats say we had a respectable running game...they are utterly deceiving. Our RB's were so pathetic the only ones left now are those that didnt' see the field...the rest were sent packing. Our running game existed solely as a by-product of teams fearing Cutler's arm and playing to defend the pass. This is why the ground game stalled inside the red zone, because the ability to stretch the field vertically declined by virtue of the end zone lines shortening the field, hence the defense no longer needed worry about the deep zones. All QB's have off games, and young ones have more of them. I've already demonstrated that Manning couldn't win without at least a passable defense, so why would you expect Cutler to do so?

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 08:06 AM
Competing with these three most likely to start at DE, we have Darrell Reid who can definitely play, Ryan McBean who should be ready to contribute and UDFAs Rulon Davis and Everett P. plus Nic Clemons and Mathias Askew. I particularly like Davis and Everett P ( not even trying his last name) to push McBean and Reid as rotation for the two DE spots.
Reid can "definitely play"? Says who? He's a career scrub and hasn't played LB either. That "logic" fascinates me. The other guys are also unheralded...mostly UDFA types...promising, perhaps...but every team in the NFL thinks that about the unwanted rookies they scoop off the scrap heap. For every Woodyard there are 30 flops.
From this group, at least two to three guys will emerge as viable decent rotation guys at least.
It's more likely that they'll emerge by default since our talent sucks, which you might consider something that makes them "viable"...I don't.
Oh and don't forget Robert Ayers when lining up in the three point stance, as well!
The typical 3-4 DE is 25-30 pounds bigger than him. I expect him to play OLB, which he'll have to learn since he's not done it before, much like Elvis will also have to learn.
[quoteThe secondary I'm not even going talk about , its a done deal.[/quote]
Champ is a year older and coming off his first significant injuries. Dawkins is 36 this year and basically what Lynch was to us two years ago. The two Miami guys are average...neither was coveted enough for the Dolphins to keep them. The top rookie's possibly better suited to a nickel back. If that's what you call a "done deal"...what do you call a problem that needs fixing? We *might* be improved a bit...we might not be.

colonelbeef
05-18-2009, 09:35 AM
People used to say Manning (both of them) couldn't win a championship.

Stupid logic.

Both Mannings. Stupid logic to say the least.

Drew Brees must be awful too from that standpoint

TonyR
05-18-2009, 10:43 AM
...when you allow a lackluster group of QBs like that to put up 100+ ratings, you are just not going to have a lot of success.

Very true. And when you average 15.5 points a game, as we did in our 8 losses, you're also not going to have a lot of success.

Take the Buffalo game as an example. We outgained the Bills 532-275. That's right, almost double the offensive yardage output. But we didn't put the ball in the endzone enough and turned the ball over twice. And somehow this is the defense's fault?!?

Our defense was awful, I'll grant you that. But the defense isn't the only problem this team had and doesn't deserve ALL of the blame.

TonyR
05-18-2009, 10:46 AM
That offense was also essentially lacking any legitimate talent at running back, which meant that it was entirely on his back to not only produce points every time down the field, but to do so when other teams didn't fear our running game. Yes I know the stats say we had a respectable running game...they are utterly deceiving.

We had at least 1 competent back healthy for 5 of our 8 losses.

And how was Arizona able to get it done with a much worse running game than ours? Other than the fact that they had a better QB...

BABronco
05-18-2009, 11:09 AM
btw, the one loss is the MNF OT game against GB where we did not get the ball in over time.

Don't get me started on that game. I was so ****ing pissed at the D! One play and a TD. Pathetic. And against an aged QB who is a major douche. Made the loss even worse.

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 11:25 AM
We had at least 1 competent back healthy for 5 of our 8 losses.
You mean one of those McD cut before getting to minicamp because they sucked eggs? Impressive for sure...
And how was Arizona able to get it done with a much worse running game than ours? Other than the fact that they had a better QB...
They went a mediocre 9-7 then put it together in the playoffs...it happens once in a blue moon.

TonyR
05-18-2009, 12:05 PM
You mean one of those McD cut before getting to minicamp because they sucked eggs? Impressive for sure...

They went a mediocre 9-7 then put it together in the playoffs...it happens once in a blue moon.

To your first point, Hillis was healthy for the first 5 losses.

To your second point, Arizona was tied for 3rd in scoring (we were 16) and 4th in yards (we were 2nd) despite being 32nd (last!) in the league in rushing. They averaged 73.6 ypg and 3.5 ypc. We were 116.4 and 4.8. See what this does to your running game excuse? Their QB got it done in the red zone, ours didn't.

Warner in the red zone: 104.4 (despite a lesser rush attack and O-line)

Cutler in the red zone: 74.1

Case closed.

BroncoMan4ever
05-18-2009, 12:12 PM
OK there is no proof for that statement at all. In fact the media reported multiply times that reason that Cutler was good fit for Shanahan was that had the football intelligence to understand very complex playbook and was able to master offense game plan that was the hardest in the NFL,week in and week in the NFL.

And your Ayers statement is BS. Ever Coach/GM listen to his staff when comes to draft choices, even Mike Brown doesn't do it alone.

The Ayers statement isn't crap. it wasn't until the last few years when Mike was listening to advice from the Goodmans that our drafts were actually good. everyone knows that almost every decision made with the team was made by Shanahan alone.

And i am not saying Cutler is a complete dummy when it comes to the mental aspects of the game, i am saying that Orton is better, and unlike Jay he doesn't have the ego of thinking he can throw a ball through a brick wall, which means he will think before he throws and make better decisions than Jay did. we all know there were a few plays every game, sometimes more, where Jay threw passes that made everyone think WTF is he thinking, and that occured because he was too egotistical thinking he could squeeze a ball anywhere.
Orton doesn't have that arm or ego. He is going to come in be smart with the ball, and listen to his coaches.

fdf
05-18-2009, 12:23 PM
. . . In virtually every categoy he improved from his rookie season, which one would expect, but the Bears finished with a 9-7 record. His completion percentage jumped by 7%, yardage increased by over 1100 yards, TD passes doubled, he threw the ball over 100 times more but had 1 fewer INT and 3 fewer sacks, yards per attempt jumped from 5.1 to 6.4 and he threw for more than 70 yards per game more...and his QB rating went from 59.7 to 79.6...a whopping 20 point gain. And in all this improvement, the Bears offense even improving from 26th in scoring to 14th...as a starter Orton won 2 fewer games . . .

Not sure how you get from the above quoted language to the conclusion that Orton is a crappy quarterback--especially given that he played the second half of last season on a really bad ankle and his stats suffered badly after his injury. Those are pretty decent numbers and more important, improving numbers after two years of sitting on the bench.

Seems to me like he's Griese with a stronger arm, better pocket presence (Griese's was awful, even before his shoulder injury--seemed like he fumbled 75% of the time he got sacked) and without Griese's weird personality and almost autistic leadership skills. Despite that, Griese was a pretty good QB for us before his injury took a barely adequate arm and turned it into a noodle.

My biggest beef with grabbing Orton as the replacement is that I understand he has only a year left on his contract. If McDaniels coaches him to a good year, he costs us a barrel of money and soon.

IMHO, Cutler was gone as soon as Shanahan and Bates left. Just my opinion and I'm not interested in arguing that again. I understand you feel differently. In any event, by the time he refused to call the owner back, we had to replace him (regardless how we got there and whether McPoopyPants was the stupidest person in the world in making that happen). Replacing him with a guy with only a year left under contract is going to turn out to be expensive, unless Orton has a bad year. Worse, that hit is going to occur about the same time we have to resign the class of 2006, who are going to get some big numbers, either in Denver or elsewhere.

But, if he works out well in McDaniel's system, he'll be worth the money (of course, it's easy for me to spend Pat Bowlen's money--I should be in Congress, huh?).

But I'm pretty comfy the team is starting back in the right direction after some years of depressing deterioration on D and special teams. The franchise was a mess. And yes, I'm one of the guys that really really really wanted a 330 lb nose tackle and was disappointed we didn't take one until free agency :)

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 12:27 PM
To your first point, Hillis was healthy for the first 5 losses.

To your second point, Arizona was tied for 3rd in scoring (we were 16) and 4th in yards (we were 2nd) despite being 32nd (last!) in the league in rushing. They averaged 73.6 ypg and 3.5 ypc. We were 116.4 and 4.8. See what this does to your running game excuse? Their QB got it done in the red zone, ours didn't.

Warner in the red zone: 104.4 (despite a lesser rush attack and O-line)

Cutler in the red zone: 74.1

Case closed.

Orton: 96 passer rating in the red zone. And while you might attribute that to his running game (which has already been dispelled as being much better than Denvers if at all), his TD-INT ratio of 13-1 goes to show you that he isn't going to make those stupid decisions when it comes down to the clutch like Cutler did in the red zone.

Mr.Meanie
05-18-2009, 01:07 PM
Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.


Really, really bad analogy. That's just horribly bad.

If you're trying to say how good Jay is vs. Orton when teams hold each other under 21 points, here is how you make the comparison:

Defense holding opponent under 21 points:

Cutler - 10-1 - .909 career winning percentage
Orton - 17-3 - .850 career winning percentage

That's not a really big difference...

On the other hand, Defense allowing opponent more than 21 points:

Cutler - 5-24 - .208 career winning percentage
Orton - 4-6 - .400 career winning percentage

Who looks better there? It's still not a huge difference.... but by that ridiculous measuring stick it looks like Orton is the better player.

The point is, football is all about team. There are some times when the defense wins and loses games, when the QB wins and loses games, when the kicker and ST wins and loses games. It's beyond retarded to use those stats to say one player is better than the other.

QB rating is a better stat to use if you're going to try to compare. Better yet... leadership on and off the field, work ethic, intelligence, and what their teammates say about them is a much better indicator of which QB is superior. I think we would all agree that Orton is far superior to Vick, although Vick is more athletically gifted. He just doesn't posess the intangibles that make a QB great in the NFL.

edit: actually I went back and checked those numbers. Orton was actually .400 when defenses allowed >21

BroncoMan4ever
05-18-2009, 01:33 PM
To your first point, Hillis was healthy for the first 5 losses.

To your second point, Arizona was tied for 3rd in scoring (we were 16) and 4th in yards (we were 2nd) despite being 32nd (last!) in the league in rushing. They averaged 73.6 ypg and 3.5 ypc. We were 116.4 and 4.8. See what this does to your running game excuse? Their QB got it done in the red zone, ours didn't.

Warner in the red zone: 104.4 (despite a lesser rush attack and O-line)

Cutler in the red zone: 74.1

Case closed.

one problem with this post. yes Hillis was healthy for the 1st 5 losses, however he was being used as a FB at the time. he was a complete non factor in 3 of those games. and only during the Miami game where he had a great receiving day but was a non factor in the running game and against Oakland where he had a decent rushing performance was he a factor in our 1st 5 losses

gyldenlove
05-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Very true. And when you average 15.5 points a game, as we did in our 8 losses, you're also not going to have a lot of success.

Take the Buffalo game as an example. We outgained the Bills 532-275. That's right, almost double the offensive yardage output. But we didn't put the ball in the endzone enough and turned the ball over twice. And somehow this is the defense's fault?!?

Our defense was awful, I'll grant you that. But the defense isn't the only problem this team had and doesn't deserve ALL of the blame.

That is not our defenses fault, but we didn't get any turnovers in that game. Not only that, but after the 1st period the defense held Buffalo without a score one 1 drive. On 6 of their 7 drives they came away with points.

Our offense in that game started 6 of 9 drives inside our own 30 yard line. Buffalo on the other hand started inside their 30 only 4 of 9 times.

There are so many reasons we lost that game, a part of it is the interception Cutler threw in the red zone, no doubt, but another and much larger part is that we couldn't keep Buffalo from getting points and we couldn't get good field position.

elsid13
05-18-2009, 02:23 PM
The Ayers statement isn't crap. it wasn't until the last few years when Mike was listening to advice from the Goodmans that our drafts were actually good. everyone knows that almost every decision made with the team was made by Shanahan alone.

And i am not saying Cutler is a complete dummy when it comes to the mental aspects of the game, i am saying that Orton is better, and unlike Jay he doesn't have the ego of thinking he can throw a ball through a brick wall, which means he will think before he throws and make better decisions than Jay did. we all know there were a few plays every game, sometimes more, where Jay threw passes that made everyone think WTF is he thinking, and that occured because he was too egotistical thinking he could squeeze a ball anywhere.
Orton doesn't have that arm or ego. He is going to come in be smart with the ball, and listen to his coaches.

Dude every coach listen to the guys under him. Shanahan made the finally decision but it was based on what his staff told him. Moss was Bates, MOC was Turner, Marshall was the WR coach and Goodman. TD was Kubes. And McDaniels has the finally say just like Shanahan did and he too bases it on what the scouts and position coaches tell him (just like Mike). To
praise what happen all over the league as something special is BS

And on Cutler let see what a pro say about him.

"Former Cowboys defensive coordinator Brian Stewart doesn't need the tutorial on Bears quarterback Jay Cutler. Stewart saw it up close, coaching in joint training camp practices and preseason games against the Broncos the last two years.

"I saw that he's a very competitive person who had a deep understanding of what they do," Stewart said. "He could go to receivers and say, 'Do this, do that,' and he was gonna get after them. The receivers understood that. And in that system, he came across as a smart, athletic, bigarmed guy." ( http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=550107)

Rationally all you want but there is reason everyone in the league wanted Cutler and not Orton.

RubberDuckie24
05-18-2009, 02:34 PM
Really, really bad analogy. That's just horribly bad.

If you're trying to say how good Jay is vs. Orton when teams hold each other under 21 points, here is how you make the comparison:

Defense holding opponent under 21 points:

Cutler - 10-1 - .909 career winning percentage
Orton - 17-3 - .850 career winning percentage

That's not a really big difference...

On the other hand, Defense allowing opponent more than 21 points:

Cutler - 5-24 - .208 career winning percentage
Orton - 4-6 - .400 career winning percentage

Who looks better there? It's still not a huge difference.... but by that ridiculous measuring stick it looks like Orton is the better player.

The point is, football is all about team. There are some times when the defense wins and loses games, when the QB wins and loses games, when the kicker and ST wins and loses games. It's beyond retarded to use those stats to say one player is better than the other.

QB rating is a better stat to use if you're going to try to compare. Better yet... leadership on and off the field, work ethic, intelligence, and what their teammates say about them is a much better indicator of which QB is superior. I think we would all agree that Orton is far superior to Vick, although Vick is more athletically gifted. He just doesn't posess the intangibles that make a QB great in the NFL.

edit: actually I went back and checked those numbers. Orton was actually .400 when defenses allowed >21

Lol, thank you. That's exactly what i was trying to get across in my earlier posts.

I'm assuming by "Vick" you meant Cutler right? ;)

CEH
05-18-2009, 02:55 PM
Here's my main beef with Orton

His 60 QB rating when he throws more than 21 passes. Plus having to go 80 yards I don't see Orton and his 6 ypa seeing the red zone as much as Cutler did.

Not until our D starts generating turnovers and shorter fields for our O to work with

TonyR
05-18-2009, 04:44 PM
That is not our defenses fault...

Exactly. The defense only gave up 275 total yards. The offense put up 532 pretty yards but didn't cross the goal line enough. Some of you guys want to start chanting MVP every time you hear Jay Cutler's name but games like this expose him for what he really is.

elsid13
05-18-2009, 04:52 PM
Exactly. The defense only gave up 275 total yards. The offense put up 532 pretty yards but didn't cross the goal line enough. Some of you guys want to start chanting MVP every time you hear Jay Cutler's name but games like this expose him for what he really is.

Young talented QB that didn't have running game and is just coming into his own. With more playing time he would have stop making the young QB mistake and game would slow down for him.

BroncoMan4ever
05-18-2009, 06:26 PM
"I saw that he's a very competitive person who had a deep understanding of what they do," Stewart said. "He could go to receivers and say, 'Do this, do that,' and he was gonna get after them. The receivers understood that. And in that system, he came across as a smart, athletic, bigarmed guy." ( http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=550107)

Rationally all you want but there is reason everyone in the league wanted Cutler and not Orton.

i never said that i thought Cutler was an idiot. I was simply saying that with his strong arm, occasionally he didn't fully use his head because his ego got in the way, thinking he could fit a ball into any opening no matter how small or that he could throw a football through a brick wall. if he made a mistake he became mopey and he wasn't using his head afterwards.

Orton doesn't have the howitzer arm that will cloud his mind, making him think he can squeeze a ball into any opening meaning no ego and less mistakes, also with his prior experiences in Chicago where he had no receiving weapons and did make mistakes because of the lack of weapons he doesn't get down on himself for his mistakes. he moves on immediately. Little things don't cloud his mind, the way they did Jay.

BroncoMan4ever
05-18-2009, 06:29 PM
Here's my main beef with Orton

His 60 QB rating when he throws more than 21 passes. Plus having to go 80 yards I don't see Orton and his 6 ypa seeing the red zone as much as Cutler did.

Not until our D starts generating turnovers and shorter fields for our O to work with

Cutler couldn't go 80 yards either. He was golden between the 20s but the moment he got to the red zone he turned to ****.

also, now that Orton will have time to throw and will have actual receiving weapons his QB rating will go up.

elsid13
05-18-2009, 06:32 PM
i never said that i thought Cutler was an idiot. I was simply saying that with his strong arm, occasionally he didn't fully use his head because his ego got in the way, thinking he could fit a ball into any opening no matter how small or that he could throw a football through a brick wall. if he made a mistake he became mopey and he wasn't using his head afterwards.

Orton doesn't have the howitzer arm that will cloud his mind, making him think he can squeeze a ball into any opening meaning no ego and less mistakes, also with his prior experiences in Chicago where he had no receiving weapons and did make mistakes because of the lack of weapons he doesn't get down on himself for his mistakes. he moves on immediately. Little things don't cloud his mind, the way they did Jay.

Everyone continue to make that statement Orton won't screw up. This clip show why I think we're in trouble. This decision is one of the worse I have ever seen from veteran QB.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b05488/Buccaneers-Defense-Highlight-WK-03-vs-Bears-2008

watermock
05-18-2009, 07:05 PM
I'd sure like to bring up some of Elway's boneheaded plays his first years, but then agan, he had at least as respectable defense.

Remember the 1991 buffalo game where we got shut downn the second half of the 1997 AFC title game against the Jets were we shut them out in the second half?

Or how Elway would get so pumped up in SB's he couldn't get a pass 10 yards near a reciever or the entire first quarter?

broncosteven
05-18-2009, 07:14 PM
I'd sure like to bring up some of Elway's boneheaded plays his first years, but then agan, he had at least as respectable defense.

Remember the 1991 buffalo game where we got shut downn the second half of the 1997 AFC title game against the Jets were we shut them out in the second half?

Or how Elway would get so pumped up in SB's he couldn't get a pass 10 yards near a reciever or the entire first quarter?

Didn't John have turf toe in the 1991 championship game? Maybe we win if John is healthy but we would have been embarrased in the SB anyway that year.

You are right about the SB's.

80smith
05-18-2009, 08:51 PM
As of right now.... I would rather have Matt Ryan than any other QB if we are going to play this game!

80smith
05-18-2009, 08:53 PM
The Ayers statement isn't crap. it wasn't until the last few years when Mike was listening to advice from the Goodmans that our drafts were actually good. everyone knows that almost every decision made with the team was made by Shanahan alone.

And i am not saying Cutler is a complete dummy when it comes to the mental aspects of the game, i am saying that Orton is better, and unlike Jay he doesn't have the ego of thinking he can throw a ball through a brick wall, which means he will think before he throws and make better decisions than Jay did. we all know there were a few plays every game, sometimes more, where Jay threw passes that made everyone think WTF is he thinking, and that occured because he was too egotistical thinking he could squeeze a ball anywhere.
Orton doesn't have that arm or ego. He is going to come in be smart with the ball, and listen to his coaches.


Dude. I love your avie..............

BroncoMan4ever
05-18-2009, 09:09 PM
Everyone continue to make that statement Orton won't screw up. This clip show why I think we're in trouble. This decision is one of the worse I have ever seen from veteran QB.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b05488/Buccaneers-Defense-Highlight-WK-03-vs-Bears-2008

i am also not saying Orton will never make mistakes. but unlike Cutler he doesn't get all mopey after a mistake, and he doesn't have 3 or 4 WTF moments a game like Cutler does. sure he has made some stupid mistakes, every QB has and every QB will, but he moves on, Cutler lets that **** fester on his mind

Circle Orange
05-18-2009, 09:40 PM
As a member of the screaming meemies, I can only say this may or may not work. :crazy:

footstepsfrom#27
05-18-2009, 09:59 PM
Really, really bad analogy. That's just horribly bad.
Have you ever been sitting in your car at a red light and the guy next to you started rolling backwards? You thought you were going forward instead? That's what you're doing here...you think you see what's happening, but you don't because you're focused on the wrong thing. You missed the entire point, which was NOT to compare the performance record of these guys...I offered it here to make another point however...
If you're trying to say how good Jay is vs. Orton when teams hold each other under 21 points, here is how you make the comparison:
that's not the intention but let's continue anyway...

Defense holding opponent under 21 points:

Cutler - 10-1 - .909 career winning percentage
Orton - 17-3 - .850 career winning percentage

That's not a really big difference...

On the other hand, Defense allowing opponent more than 21 points:

Cutler - 5-24 - .208 career winning percentage
Orton - 4-6 - .400 career winning percentage
Let's start with these numbers, which are wrong since it's 33 games started, not 30 for Orton. Orton is 4-8 not 4-6 in games where the Bears gave up 21 or more. He's 17-4, not 17-3 in games they gave up fewer than 21. Cutler is 12-1 not 10-1 in games the opposition scores under 21 and 5-19, not 5-24 in games where the opposition scores 21 or more...where are you getting these stats from? All of them were incorrect.

None of this is the point however, becaue the REAL point is not to compare them to each other...that's what you're missing. The point is that a QB needs a defense to win and both of these guys do. Orton's winning % is .333 without the defensive support and Cutler is .208%. With the defensive support Orton's at .809% and Cutler's at .923%...basically it's a wash. Cutler's better by about the same margin when his defense holds teams under 21 as Orton is when his team gave up 21 or more.

That is NOT the point I'm making. If you DO want to make this point, then consider that in games where the opposition gave up more than 21 (where Orton's record is better) Chicago's defense surrendered an average of 28 ppg and Denvers gave up 33 per game, which is a distinct advantage for Orton and obviously negates any edge he displays in winning percentage.

The real point here...is not what there records are. The point is this; while Orton played in only 12 games where his defense gave up 21 or more points, Cutler has played in 24...twice as many.

In other words...Orton had a huge advantage in games bolstered by his defense.

Who looks better there? It's still not a huge difference.... but by that ridiculous measuring stick it looks like Orton is the better player.
Wrong again. Besides the 5 ppg advantage enjoyed by Orton when his defense gave up 21 or more...he also had the advantage in games under the 21 threshold because Denver's D surrendered 16.2 ppg and Chicago's gave up 10.6, about 5 1/2 points a game, an enormous edge in low scoring games. So not only did Orton play half as many games where the defense didn't come through, but he enjoyed a 5 point advantage whenever they did. Given tha their winning percentages broken down here were relatively close, Orton does NOT emerge from this looking better than Cutler.

Again...the only real point is that no QB wins without a defense. That should be clear by now.