PDA

View Full Version : Schein ranks Denver 29th


watermock
05-30-2009, 03:57 AM
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&brand=foxsports&vid=4253fcf5-26d3-4858-b902-9d0753231cc3&playlist=&editor=&from=FOXSPORTS&fg=/nfl/story/9601836/Ranking-the-NFL:-Insider-grading-on-every-franchise&rf=http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9601836/Ranking-the-NFL:-Insider-grading-on-every-franchise.
.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 05:08 AM
Chiefs at 20, ahead of the Texans, Bills, and Redskins? This guy just lost all credibility with me. As much as I hate them, the skins are going to be in the mix this year, they will have a top 10 defense this year in almost every catagory, top 5 in sacks. The Texans are a sleeper team, and while I can understand why someone would undervalue them, below the Chiefs? Come on now. 5 worst teams Raiders, Lions, Rams, Browns, and us? One of these things is not like the others.

Merlin
05-30-2009, 05:17 AM
Come on now. 5 worst teams Raiders, Lions, Rams, Browns, and us? One of these things is not like the others.
It pains me to say it, but if you are suggesting Denver, I think you are way off. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, I think the Raiders will finish at least a couple of games ahead of Denver this season. Better running, better D, and maybe (depending on how fatso is doing) better QB. As to the coaching, the jury is still out and it would be homering to suggest otherwise (although we do know their HC stinks).

The Joker
05-30-2009, 05:22 AM
It pains me to say it, but if you are suggesting Denver, I think you are way off. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, I think the Raiders will finish at least a couple of games ahead of Denver this season. Better running, better D, and maybe (depending on how fatso is doing) better QB. As to the coaching, the jury is still out and it would be homering to suggest otherwise (although we do know their HC stinks).

In fairness, what has Jamarcus Russell ever done to be considered a good QB?

Add in our superior line and receivers and it's a laughable suggestion.

Raiders might actually be half decent this year though, aside from that. I'm more concerned about them than Kansas, who are getting a lot of love from some places that I just can't fathom. People expecting Cassel to turn them around on offense are in for a comedown, particularly with Tony G gone.

Merlin
05-30-2009, 05:35 AM
Add in our superior line and receivers and it's a laughable suggestion.
I think our line was also affected by JC's mobility and arm as were our WR. That is, they are good, but I don't think they will be nearly as good without him (and our present QB). As to JM, you are right, but he does have a lot of talent, that is why I added the disclaimer regarding progress. Now as to Cassel, I was never in his bandwagon and that is why I have a high level of mistrust regarding MacD's ability to gauge talent. As to KC, considering what they had back there, you gotta think he is a huge improvement over last yr (although you do have a point about Gonzo). I wonder how many times Cassel will get sacked this yr.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 05:46 AM
I think our line was also affected by JC's mobility and arm as were our WR. That is, they are good, but I don't think they will be nearly as good without him (and our present QB). As to JM, you are right, but he does have a lot of talent, that is why I added the disclaimer regarding progress. Now as to Cassel, I was never in his bandwagon and that is why I have a high level of mistrust regarding MacD's ability to gauge talent. As to KC, considering what they had back there, you gotta think he is a huge improvement over last yr (although you do have a point about Gonzo). I wonder how many times Cassel will get sacked this yr.

he worked with cassel, he is probably the best QB coach in the league, yet you dont trust him to be good at finding a QB for this team? under mcdaniels, cassell looked pretty good last year, minus the sacks. we have a far better pass blocking oline than the pats do, similar receivers and probably better running game this year than they did last year.

and dont start the whole cutler thing again, cutler is not here because he didnt want to be here. mcdaniels did not try to force him out for cassel.

HILife
05-30-2009, 05:50 AM
Chiefs at 20, ahead of the Texans, Bills, and Redskins? This guy just lost all credibility with me. As much as I hate them, the skins are going to be in the mix this year, they will have a top 10 defense this year in almost every catagory, top 5 in sacks. The Texans are a sleeper team, and while I can understand why someone would undervalue them, below the Chiefs? Come on now. 5 worst teams Raiders, Lions, Rams, Browns, and us? One of these things is not like the others.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tZIvgQ9ik48&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tZIvgQ9ik48&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 05:55 AM
It pains me to say it, but if you are suggesting Denver, I think you are way off. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, I think the Raiders will finish at least a couple of games ahead of Denver this season. Better running, better D, and maybe (depending on how fatso is doing) better QB. As to the coaching, the jury is still out and it would be homering to suggest otherwise (although we do know their HC stinks).

Disagree on the bolded parts, our line plus Hillis comes close to thier running game, if Moreno is half of what is advertised we win that hands down. As for the coaching Al Davis relaying hail marys on second down through the cable guy is no where close to a guy that was a part of 18-1. Look I am not a big McDaniels supporter, but Oakland is a joke. What has you scared about them? The past five years of an average around 3-13 seasons or the draft they just put together that had most analysts comparing them to XFL teams?

Overall I don't think Denver is a powerhouse, but to lump us in with the 0-16 lions, the St Louis rams that may give us back to back 0-16 seasons, and the Raiders who have an Alzheimers patient micro-managing everything from hot dog vendors to defensive schemes is a mistake. I also think he missed on the Browns, who I believe will be better than the Bengals and are on the right track to move up. The Raiders might beat us by a game just based off the scheduling difference though. We get Indy and NE, they get the Texans and the Bills I believe. That gives them slight edge there, although even then I doubt they will beat either of those teams.

Edit: Correction Oakland gets the Texans and the Jets, nets about the same for thier W/L potential though. Sorry for the faulty memory on last years AFC standings.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 06:07 AM
he worked with cassel, he is probably the best QB coach in the league, yet you dont trust him to be good at finding a QB for this team? under mcdaniels, cassell looked pretty good last year, minus the sacks. we have a far better pass blocking oline than the pats do, similar receivers and probably better running game this year than they did last year.

and dont start the whole cutler thing again, cutler is not here because he didnt want to be here. mcdaniels did not try to force him out for cassel.

Wow, I get to play both sides of the arguement in one thread, cool. The problem is we have seen what we have at QB now. Orton (assuming he beats out the spleenless wonder) is a career game manager. He has shown some good flashes now and then in his career, but he has also shown enough downside that he was a tag along to two first rounders in a trade for a real QB. I am not interested in rehashing the same old Cutler debate here, but the fact is Orton (though i am behind him 100% now that he is a Bronco) is just not that good. Can McDaniels make him better than he was? I certainly hope so, but to get him to a top 10 QB level is very optomistic. On the same hand though JaFatass Russel ain't a top 10 QB either. Rocket arm, but lacks in everything else. Another bad draft pick for the Raiders...I seem to see a trend.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 06:15 AM
orton is not that good, but he is not near as bad as people here will tell you. ask any logical bears fan they will agree. i live in northern illinois i hear about it all the time, and no one has ever really said orton is BAD, especially after last years season, with no oline and no WR he still put up good numbers, almost pro bowl like the fisrt half of the season.

im not saying hell be great, but he catches a lot more flack for being awful than necessary.

elsid13
05-30-2009, 06:16 AM
he worked with cassel, he is probably the best QB coach in the league, yet you dont trust him to be good at finding a QB for this team? under mcdaniels, cassell looked pretty good last year, minus the sacks. we have a far better pass blocking oline than the pats do, similar receivers and probably better running game this year than they did last year.

and dont start the whole cutler thing again, cutler is not here because he didnt want to be here. mcdaniels did not try to force him out for cassel.

But he not the QB coach anymore, he's the head coach. There is a lot additional time constrains on him that he never never experienced. Does he know talent maybe, or maybe Pioli and Bellicheck know talent and McDaniels reputation benefits from having good players around Cassel to make Cassel better then he is.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 06:18 AM
But he not the QB coach anymore, he's the head coach. There is a lot additional time constrains on him that he never never experienced. Does he know talent maybe, or maybe Pioli and Bellicheck know talent and McDaniels reputation benefits from having good players around Cassel to make Cassel better then he is.

orton just said in an interview like 2 days ago he can tell mcdaniels has a soft spot for the QB position. every head coach does that, spends a little more time on their side of the ball/position they favor because thats what they know. he knows offenses and he knows the QB position very well, so he should, and does, spend a lot of time there.

and like i said earlier in some post, the surrounding cast from here to NE is not different as far as talent. we have more RB talent, a far better pass blocking oline, similar receievers (we have similar depth but moss and welker > marshall and royal). talent is not the problem on the offensive side of the ball

elsid13
05-30-2009, 06:22 AM
orton just said in an interview like 2 days ago he can tell mcdaniels has a soft spot for the QB position. every head coach does that, spends a little more time on their side of the ball/position they favor because thats what they know. he knows offenses and he knows the QB position very well, so he should, and does, spend a lot of time there.

Him spending time there doesn't mean that good thing. He was hired to be the Head Coach not the Offense Coordinator not the Quarterbacks Coach, the Head Coach.

One of the worse sin anyone that gets promoted can do is stay in their comfort zone and do their old job instead of what they were promoted to do.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 06:31 AM
orton is not that good, but he is not near as bad as people here will tell you. ask any logical bears fan they will agree. i live in northern illinois i hear about it all the time, and no one has ever really said orton is BAD, especially after last years season, with no oline and no WR he still put up good numbers, almost pro bowl like the fisrt half of the season.

im not saying hell be great, but he catches a lot more flack for being awful than necessary.

I'm not saying he'll be awful, I'm just saying expecting him to get close to Cutlers numbers for last year which set a few team records is unrealistic. It seems to be all or nothing this offseason. Either we have the best QB or the worst, the best coach or the worst. We will win 10 to 12 games and take the division, or we will win less than the Raiders. It all depends on who you ask. I see some shades of gray here. I think we will be in the middle. Improved from last year in some areas, declining at others.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 06:41 AM
I'm not saying he'll be awful, I'm just saying expecting him to get close to Cutlers numbers for last year which set a few team records is unrealistic. It seems to be all or nothing this offseason. Either we have the best QB or the worst, the best coach or the worst. We will win 10 to 12 games and take the division, or we will win less than the Raiders. It all depends on who you ask. I see some shades of gray here. I think we will be in the middle. Improved from last year in some areas, declining at others.

no one said we will have the best QB, plenty seem to think we will have the worst. he wont put up better numbers than cutler but the offense will likely put up better numbers (points) than last year. the defense cant be worse than last year.

most people are in shades of grey on this board, and a lot of haters converted to "lets wait and see" after they realized their endless crying did no good.

cmhargrove
05-30-2009, 06:49 AM
A couple things.

First. Schein has been laying on the hate ever since the Cutler thing started. He is a sissy bitch and i'm getting sick of his rants. He has lost all objectivity, and now he just comes off like a jilted girlfriend. Marshall should go slap him around a little (if Marshall ever comes back).

Second. Let's get over this Jay Cutler mobility thing ok. It was an asset, but Jay also held the bell too long, made risky throws, stared down his receivers, went for homeruns instead of first downs, and trusted his arm way too much. If we have a "chicken" at QB that dumps the passes off more quickly and continues drives instead of throwing deep into double coverage - i'm all for it. I was totally pumped about watching Jay play for McD, but I knew in my heart the biggest issue was whether Jay would listen to his new coach and protect the ball by making quicker, less risky decisions. I wasn't quite sure that would ever happen, but now we'll never know.

Schein sucks, and he should wait for the preseason before releasing junk like this. If just helps him lose more credibility. I think at this time of the season, the analysts should just rank in "tiers" of great teams, good teams, teams that need work, and bad teams. They shouldn't even bother trying to order next year's draft.

Ironlung
05-30-2009, 06:55 AM
This Schein character must be a "fan" from this board.

TheReverend
05-30-2009, 07:47 AM
A couple things.

First. Schein has been laying on the hate ever since the Cutler thing started. He is a sissy b**** and i'm getting sick of his rants. He has lost all objectivity, and now he just comes off like a jilted girlfriend. Marshall should go slap him around a little (if Marshall ever comes back).

Second. Let's get over this Jay Cutler mobility thing ok. It was an asset, but Jay also held the bell too long, made risky throws, stared down his receivers, went for homeruns instead of first downs, and trusted his arm way too much. If we have a "chicken" at QB that dumps the passes off more quickly and continues drives instead of throwing deep into double coverage - i'm all for it. I was totally pumped about watching Jay play for McD, but I knew in my heart the biggest issue was whether Jay would listen to his new coach and protect the ball by making quicker, less risky decisions. I wasn't quite sure that would ever happen, but now we'll never know.

Schein sucks, and he should wait for the preseason before releasing junk like this. If just helps him lose more credibility. I think at this time of the season, the analysts should just rank in "tiers" of great teams, good teams, teams that need work, and bad teams. They shouldn't even bother trying to order next year's draft.

What?

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 07:50 AM
Him spending time there doesn't mean that good thing. He was hired to be the Head Coach not the Offense Coordinator not the Quarterbacks Coach, the Head Coach.

One of the worse sin anyone that gets promoted can do is stay in their comfort zone and do their old job instead of what they were promoted to do.

him trying to do what he does best - develop quarterbacks and make effective offensives, is what he should be doing. he picked a defensive staff to let them do their job and they said earlier in the year he doesnt interfere, just checks in with them. thats the role of a head coach, to do whats in the best interest of the team. if he is very good at turning moderate QBs into highly good and effective ones that can run his offense, thats what he should be doing.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 07:51 AM
I'm not saying he'll be awful, I'm just saying expecting him to get close to Cutlers numbers for last year which set a few team records is unrealistic. It seems to be all or nothing this offseason. Either we have the best QB or the worst, the best coach or the worst. We will win 10 to 12 games and take the division, or we will win less than the Raiders. It all depends on who you ask. I see some shades of gray here. I think we will be in the middle. Improved from last year in some areas, declining at others.

Orton was right there with Cutler last year in TD%, Orton was less in INT%, slightly less in YPA. Once a QB gets above 400 attempts (that's 25 attempts/gm), the % stats are very telling.

Cutler 2008:

616 attempts (38.5 attempts/gm)
4.1 TD%
2.9 INT%
7.3 YPA
Comp % 62.3

Orton 2008:

465 attempts (31 attempts/gm)
3.9 TD%
2.6 INT%
6.4 YPA
Comp % 58.5

Orton was right near Cutler last year, so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to come real close to Cutler's total numbers this year. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)

Let's look at Cassel just for comparison:

Cassel 2008:

516 attempts (32.25 attempts/gm)
4.1 TD%
2.1 INT%
7.2 YPA
Comp % 63.4

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 07:53 AM
no one said we will have the best QB, plenty seem to think we will have the worst. he wont put up better numbers than cutler but the offense will likely put up better numbers (points) than last year. the defense cant be worse than last year.

most people are in shades of grey on this board, and a lot of haters converted to "lets wait and see" after they realized their endless crying did no good.

I was going to go back and link to a few of the Orton is better than Cutler threads, You know, the case for Orton as an upgrade, Kyle Orton: Best Red Zone Quarterback (Jay Cutler: Worst Red Zone Quarterback), but you are right, it has become much more civil around here. Rather than rake up the past lets move forward. Maybe if you stopped calling people names like haters it might be a step in the right direction.

Kaylore
05-30-2009, 07:53 AM
Mobile QB's take more sacks than pocket passers. That's a fact.

broncofan7
05-30-2009, 07:57 AM
5-11 in one of the worst divisions in football should get you ranked in the bottom 5 of the NFL--we will be 1-5 to start the season this year with our 1 win coming against CLE @ home in our home openner. By then, Schein will have us ranked at 31 or 32..........

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 08:00 AM
Come on now. 5 worst teams Raiders, Lions, Rams, Browns, and us? One of these things is not like the others.
Figuring QB and defense as probably the most important factors, we shared the worst honors with Detroit last year on defense. Rams and Browns have more proven QB's. Russel's a wild card. He was picked #1 for a reason but I don't know if anybody can thrive in that mess Al Davis has concocted. 29 seems to low...but there are to many question marks to put us above maybe 24 or so in 2009. Keys to this D IMO are Marcus Thomas emerging as a legitimate stopper and at least one UDFA in the line making a Woodyard-like mark for us. Even if that happens, we still have at least 3 guys starting at LB who have either never played LB at all, or haven't seen time in a 3-4 defense. Add it up and it means we need to score a lot of points.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 08:01 AM
I was going to go back and link to a few of the Orton is better than Cutler threads, You know, the case for Orton as an upgrade, Kyle Orton: Best Red Zone Quarterback (Jay Cutler: Worst Red Zone Quarterback), but you are right, it has become much more civil around here. Rather than rake up the past lets move forward. Maybe if you stopped calling people names like haters it might be a step in the right direction.

there is things orton IS better at than cutler, but cutler obviously has a much, much higher ceiling. orton knows to check down instead of force throws, QBs who trust their arms too much throw a lot of picks ala brett favre, jay cutler etc. i think orton will have a better grasp on this offense than cutler would have because of that ability to check down when needed, and i think ortons leadership ability is far and away better simply because hes not a huge dick to everyone. you never heard good reports about cutlers intangibles, but when orton was traded, 5+ players spoke out about how good he was. when cutler forced his way out of denver due to hurt feelings, he left a bad taste in a lot of players mouths and you can tell, just listen to marshalls interview on nfln.

that said, cutler has far more physical ability and if he can realize that throwing it deep does not win games and having YAC monsters like scheff and marshall are great things, he would have won more games and had less picks. i think he felt he needed to carry the entire offense on his back, which obviously wasnt true at all.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 08:04 AM
Orton was right near Cutler last year, so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to come real close to Cutler's total numbers this year. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)


You have no idea how much I hope you are right, I just don't believe it personally at this point. Having seen Orton play, I just don't think he is that good.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 08:10 AM
You have no idea how much I hope you are right, I just don't believe it personally at this point. Having seen Orton play, I just don't think he is that good.

this is hte problem though, look at everything in context. the bears had more points then we did (marginally, but still). he had little supporting cast there, poor pass blocking etc. now hes got everything he can want to be successful, he just has to use it and be effective.

he may not be great, but he is pretty good and in this system can be highly effective (thats the key word...) in scoring points

disclaimer: he might not even win the starting job.

broncofan7
05-30-2009, 08:11 AM
You have no idea how much I hope you are right, I just don't believe it personally at this point. Having seen Orton play, I just don't think he is that good.

I think that ALL of us would love for Orton or Simms to have 4500 yards and 25 TD's ---but I doubt that either one gets enough PT this year to reach those #'s---I have a feeling that we will be changing QB's after our BYE Week this year after we get off to a horrendous start.........

JJJ
05-30-2009, 08:21 AM
Did you guys see you were in the poll of 5 for the worst franchise in the NFL?

I was very surprised to see that. One year ago you would have been in the poll for the top 5.

I must admit I did take advantage of this opportunity and voted for you for the worst franchise. Was kind of fun after all those years of hearing how terrific the Bronco organization was. I am sure you all would do the same if the Bolts were there.

Pseudofool
05-30-2009, 08:44 AM
What a hack. Even if we are incredibly bad, it won't be for the reason this guy suggests.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 08:45 AM
this is hte problem though, look at everything in context. the bears had more points then we did (marginally, but still).
That's because Chicago's defense and special teams outscored ours 51-14. Their offense only scored 324 points to Denver's 356.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 09:01 AM
i think he felt he needed to carry the entire offense on his back, which obviously wasnt true at all.

See I think he felt he needed to compensate for the entire defense, and that was unfortunately true. I also think Orton will have to do much of the same, as I am still very uncertain about our D-Line. Now what you are saying is that Orton and McDaniels will be able to more effectively use the weapons around them than Shanahan and Cutler were. I disagree, I think McDaniels will be forced to go with big plays to keep the team in the game many times through the course of the season, and I don't think Orton has the arm to do what Jay did.

Moreno and a healthy Hillis might help by giving us a consistant run game and keeping defenses from focusing on the pass, thus avoiding many of the double coverages Jay had to throw into, in addition to eating up the clock and resting the defense more. But overall I simply don't buy into the Jay making big plays hurt us logic, he took risks because he had to. It is a fundamental disagreement and the reason why I said I didn't want to get into the debate at the beginning of this thread. I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. We will just have to wait for the season and see. Once again I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Spider
05-30-2009, 09:04 AM
meh ......... none of these so called experts have any clout .........

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 09:07 AM
Did you guys see you were in the poll of 5 for the worst franchise in the NFL?

I was very surprised to see that. One year ago you would have been in the poll for the top 5.

I must admit I did take advantage of this opportunity and voted for you for the worst franchise. Was kind of fun after all those years of hearing how terrific the Bronco organization was. I am sure you all would do the same if the Bolts were there.

Don't worry they will be soon :wave:

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 09:23 AM
See I think he felt he needed to compensate for the entire defense, and that was unfortunately true. I also think Orton will have to do much of the same, as I am still very uncertain about our D-Line. Now what you are saying is that Orton and McDaniels will be able to more effectively use the weapons around them than Shanahan and Cutler were. I disagree, I think McDaniels will be forced to go with big plays to keep the team in the game many times through the course of the season, and I don't think Orton has the arm to do what Jay did.

Moreno and a healthy Hillis might help by giving us a consistant run game and keeping defenses from focusing on the pass, thus avoiding many of the double coverages Jay had to throw into, in addition to eating up the clock and resting the defense more. But overall I simply don't buy into the Jay making big plays hurt us logic, he took risks because he had to. It is a fundamental disagreement and the reason why I said I didn't want to get into the debate at the beginning of this thread. I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. We will just have to wait for the season and see. Once again I hope you are right and I am wrong.
You're describing Shanahan's strategy in 2005 when he had a leash on Jake Plummer, who he knew didn't have the arm to stretch defenses so Shanny refused to let him run the entire offense. He used Anderson and Bell to contol the TOP...(I recall they finished either1st or 2nd in TOP that year)...with a strong ground game and tried to keep the defense off the field as much as possible. That defense was rested throughout the year, and they finished #3 overall and #2 against the run, not because they were so talented, but because Denver controlled the clock with a ground game that chalked up 2200 yards between the Anderson/Bell/Dayne trio and short passes. Teams were always behind so they were always passing...we finished #29 against the pass, even though they were better than that. This is a similar situaiton in terms of the talents of the QB and the running game, though that defense was better than this one. The same strategy will have to suffice here.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 09:27 AM
You're describing Shanahan's strategy in 2005 when he had a leash on Jake Plummer, who he knew didn't have the arm to stretch defenses so Shanny refused to let him run the entire offense. He used Anderson and Bell to contol the TOP...(I recall they finished either1st or 2nd in TOP that year)...with a strong ground game and tried to keep the defense off the field as much as possible. That defense was rested throughout the year, and they finished #3 overall and #2 against the run, not because they were so talented, but because Denver controlled the clock with a ground game that chalked up 2200 yards between the Anderson/Bell/Dayne trio and short passes. Teams were always behind so they were always passing...we finished #29 against the pass, even though they were better than that. This is a similar situaiton in terms of the talents of the QB and the running game, though that defense was better than this one. The same strategy will have to suffice here.

i actually agree with you...except you say it like this is a bad strategy. this is how most teams win...

TonyR
05-30-2009, 09:31 AM
Rams and Browns have more proven QB's.

Maybe, but our QB may be put in a better situation when you factor in system and surrounding offensive talent.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 09:48 AM
Figuring QB and defense as probably the most important factors, we shared the worst honors with Detroit last year on defense. Rams and Browns have more proven QB's. Russel's a wild card. He was picked #1 for a reason but I don't know if anybody can thrive in that mess Al Davis has concocted. 29 seems to low...but there are to many question marks to put us above maybe 24 or so in 2009. Keys to this D IMO are Marcus Thomas emerging as a legitimate stopper and at least one UDFA in the line making a Woodyard-like mark for us. Even if that happens, we still have at least 3 guys starting at LB who have either never played LB at all, or haven't seen time in a 3-4 defense. Add it up and it means we need to score a lot of points.

I would say the quality on our O-line, receiving corp, and defensive backfield takes us out of the 5 worst. I agree somewhere around 24ish is right, though I might go a little more to the high side, 20ish or so. I think we have a lot of the pieces, but am not sure we put them together right and have just enough holes in talent to take us out of the midrange teams. We need to get real lucky on the line with UDFA's/emerging 3 year players, and we need some transitions to go right, but really if we had a front 7 that was worthwhile we aren't bad off.

Re. the Browns proven Qb, which one? Anderson and Quinn are still deadlocked in a multi year QB competition. Keep in mind that is the same Anderson that lost a QB competition to Matt Hasslebacks backup 3 years ago. He lost the competition to a coin flip. One good 8 game stretch followed by falling apart for over a year now, and a 1st round bench warmer...not exactly proven IMHO.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 09:56 AM
You have no idea how much I hope you are right, I just don't believe it personally at this point. Having seen Orton play, I just don't think he is that good.

The #'s don't lie.

616 attempts @ 6.4 YPA = 3942 yds
616 attempts @ 7.3 YPA = 4496 yds
34 passing YPG difference

465 attempts @ 6.4 YPA = 2976 yds
465 attempts @ 7.3 YPA = 3394 yds
26 passing YPG difference


616 attempts @ 4.1% TD ratio = 25 TD passes
616 attempts @ 3.9% TD ratio = 24 TD passes

465 attempts @ 4.1% TD ratio = 19 TD passes
465 attempts @ 3.9% TD ratio = 18 TD passes

616 attempts @ 2.9% INT ratio = 18 INT's
616 attempts @ 2.6% INT ratio = 16 INT's

465 attempts @ 2.9% INT ratio = 13.5 INT's
465 attempts @ 2.6% INT ratio = 12 INT's

Orton in 2008 was pretty much the same QB as Cutler in 2008. Cutler is nothing special. It's just that he gets slobbered over more.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 10:12 AM
I would say the quality on our O-line, receiving corp, and defensive backfield takes us out of the 5 worst. I agree somewhere around 24ish is right, though I might go a little more to the high side, 20ish or so. I think we have a lot of the pieces, but am not sure we put them together right and have just enough holes in talent to take us out of the midrange teams. We need to get real lucky on the line with UDFA's/emerging 3 year players, and we need some transitions to go right, but really if we had a front 7 that was worthwhile we aren't bad off.

Re. the Browns proven Qb, which one? Anderson and Quinn are still deadlocked in a multi year QB competition. Keep in mind that is the same Anderson that lost a QB competition to Matt Hasslebacks backup 3 years ago. He lost the competition to a coin flip. One good 8 game stretch followed by falling apart for over a year now, and a 1st round bench warmer...not exactly proven IMHO.
Point taken. I was going on the basis of Quinn being a more highly rated QB coming into the NFL than Orton, and Anderson > Simms. Unfortunately however I also forgot how bad the Rams defnse was so that adds a third common denominator we share in this list.

Punisher
05-30-2009, 10:20 AM
I really don't pay any mind to anybodies 'power rankings".

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 10:27 AM
You're describing Shanahan's strategy in 2005 when he had a leash on Jake Plummer, who he knew didn't have the arm to stretch defenses so Shanny refused to let him run the entire offense. He used Anderson and Bell to contol the TOP...(I recall they finished either1st or 2nd in TOP that year)...with a strong ground game and tried to keep the defense off the field as much as possible. That defense was rested throughout the year, and they finished #3 overall and #2 against the run, not because they were so talented, but because Denver controlled the clock with a ground game that chalked up 2200 yards between the Anderson/Bell/Dayne trio and short passes. Teams were always behind so they were always passing...we finished #29 against the pass, even though they were better than that. This is a similar situaiton in terms of the talents of the QB and the running game, though that defense was better than this one. The same strategy will have to suffice here.

So what's wrong with that? Don't tell me you're getting on the bandwagon. No, it couldn't be.

No, I don't believe it!!!

Tell me it isn't true.

All I thought was stable on this board was lies!!!!!!!

Where is reality? For the love of god, where is reality? :~ohyah!:

Actually, in 2009 the Bronc D might be a little bit better than in 2005, the ST's better, and the O better.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 10:38 AM
I would say the quality on our O-line, receiving corp, and defensive backfield takes us out of the 5 worst. I agree somewhere around 24ish is right, though I might go a little more to the high side, 20ish or so. I think we have a lot of the pieces, but am not sure we put them together right and have just enough holes in talent to take us out of the midrange teams. We need to get real lucky on the line with UDFA's/emerging 3 year players, and we need some transitions to go right, but really if we had a front 7 that was worthwhile we aren't bad off.

Re. the Browns proven Qb, which one? Anderson and Quinn are still deadlocked in a multi year QB competition. Keep in mind that is the same Anderson that lost a QB competition to Matt Hasslebacks backup 3 years ago. He lost the competition to a coin flip. One good 8 game stretch followed by falling apart for over a year now, and a 1st round bench warmer...not exactly proven IMHO.


That's the gamble Nolan and McD made right there. Nolan got 3 out of the first four draft picks, Nolan got plenty of FA guys to bolster the D. Now we'll see how it pans out.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:01 AM
So what's wrong with that?
I didn't say anything was "wrong" with it, since that's what you have to do when you have to protect your QB and keep your defense off the field. You might recall however, that it was our inability to contend with a more talented, more physical Steelers team that kept us out of the Super Bowl and this kind of team was not suited to beating them, or the Colts either for that matter. Cutler was drafted to give this team the QB who could open up the complete offense and attack defenses rather than just trying to control the clock. Jake and the 2005 team represented a departure from what Shanahan had used as his formula for success up till this time. That team was fine as long as it stayed ahead, but that offense was not geared toward playing catchup football or scoring points in a hurry. Remember also that offense finished #1 in turnovers and the D finished 4th...we not only didn't turn it over, we forced alot of other teams turnovers. Obviously if you add up controlling the clock, having a huge advantage in TO margin and mix in a very strong ground game you can win without a great QB, but you may get beat in the playoffs unless you have a Ravens type D that simply stuffs people. My main point is that we can play this style...because we'll have to. Whether it works as well now or not will depend on factors that are completely unknown at this point.

SoCalBronco
05-30-2009, 11:28 AM
Did you guys see you were in the poll of 5 for the worst franchise in the NFL?

I was very surprised to see that.

Why?

JJJ
05-30-2009, 11:37 AM
Why?

Just how quickly things have changed. Denver Broncos to the outside world had a reputation of a class organization, stable ownership and coaches, excellent facilities, and a consistent winner. A place players wanted to play.

To see the organization now being compared amongst the likes of the Raiders and Lions is really unbelievable.

SoCalBronco
05-30-2009, 11:39 AM
Just how quickly things have changed. Denver Broncos to the outside world had a reputation of a class organization, stable ownership and coaches, excellent facilities, and a consistent winner. A place players wanted to play.

To see the organization now being compared amongst the likes of the Raiders and Lions is really unbelievable.

It's all too believable unfortunately.

NFLBRONCO
05-30-2009, 11:43 AM
I think WE could be heading down that far but, I think we should get a few years or 4 win seasons before we earn that title. Let's see what happens first who knows we might take a huge step back this year and take two steps forward in 2010.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2009, 11:51 AM
orton is not that good, but he is not near as bad as people here will tell you. ask any logical bears fan they will agree. i live in northern illinois i hear about it all the time, and no one has ever really said orton is BAD, especially after last years season, with no oline and no WR he still put up good numbers, almost pro bowl like the fisrt half of the season.

im not saying hell be great, but he catches a lot more flack for being awful than necessary.

90% of the posters here now believe Orton is a better QB then Cutler so I don't know what the hell that bold part is even trying to say.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-30-2009, 11:59 AM
I just dont buy that having Cutler would suddenly make us a great team if you think Orton is the ultimate problem. If you think Denver would be in the bottom 5 with Shanahan and Cutler still around (as a result of a horrid D) then fine, but I refuse to believe replacing Cutler with Orton/Simms (and improving the depth in the offense around him) makes us much worse. We're overrating Cutler and his 17-20 record.

Now, having said that, McDaniels seems to be a real detail oriented guy who runs a real tight ship. He's surrounded himself with great proven coaches and the team seems to have bought into everything he's doing. He's actually decided to pay attention to special teams, which will help. I dunno, i just don't see why losing Cutler makes us THAT much worse if worse at all.

telluride
05-30-2009, 12:10 PM
First, I don't care how people have Denver ranked. Please rank us in the bottom five. Please lower expectations for this team. Please. It'll only help when we start surprising some people.

That said, Schein has a personal axe to grind here. Let's take apart his comments (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9601836/Ranking-the-NFL:-Insider-grading-on-every-franchise):

What happens when you trade a franchise quarterback, sink morale in an organization, screw up a draft and chase out valued front-office staffers? You become a coach on the hot seat before your first ever game. Josh McDaniels has ruined this organization. Denver has lost a lot of excellent talent at quarterback, head coach and on their public relations staff in the last 365 days.

It's pretty obvious from his over-the-top rant and the specific mention of people being fired from the PR office that Schein had a friend or friends in that office that got bounced. And he's pissed about it. And using them as anonymous sources. Putting aside for a moment the fact that McDaniels would have had nothing to do with any hirings/firings in the PR office, since when does a franchise's PR office have any bearing on the overall quality of that franchise? Really? The Pats are #1 in part because they have a great PR office?

Give me a break.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 12:16 PM
I didn't say anything was "wrong" with it, since that's what you have to do when you have to protect your QB and keep your defense off the field. You might recall however, that it was our inability to contend with a more talented, more physical Steelers team that kept us out of the Super Bowl and this kind of team was not suited to beating them, or the Colts either for that matter. Cutler was drafted to give this team the QB who could open up the complete offense and attack defenses rather than just trying to control the clock. Jake and the 2005 team represented a departure from what Shanahan had used as his formula for success up till this time. That team was fine as long as it stayed ahead, but that offense was not geared toward playing catchup football or scoring points in a hurry. Remember also that offense finished #1 in turnovers and the D finished 4th...we not only didn't turn it over, we forced alot of other teams turnovers. Obviously if you add up controlling the clock, having a huge advantage in TO margin and mix in a very strong ground game you can win without a great QB, but you may get beat in the playoffs unless you have a Ravens type D that simply stuffs people. My main point is that we can play this style...because we'll have to. Whether it works as well now or not will depend on factors that are completely unknown at this point.

Excellent recap of the 2005 season.

The bolded is what Shanny's O's were all about. But, BUT, Cutler couldn't overcome that either. Cutler couldn't score points in a hurry.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 12:22 PM
It's all too believable unfortunately.

Sissy.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 12:32 PM
Excellent recap of the 2005 season.

The bolded is what Shanny's O's were all about. But, BUT, Cutler couldn't overcome that either. Cutler couldn't score points in a hurry.

that was a recap of basically all of shanahans teams...

id love to see his career stats of runs in 1st period vs runs in 2nd period. even last year when the offense was clicking, he would let off the gas and tighten up big time, then wed stop moving the ball, stop scoring etc.

i remember complaining about taht all year, he would get some points on the board then tighten up, not keep attacking, and it was so frustrating because slowik's amazing Ds could not hold the lead.

Popps
05-30-2009, 12:55 PM
It pains me to say it, but if you are suggesting Denver, I think you are way off. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, I think the Raiders will finish at least a couple of games ahead of Denver this season. Better running, better D, and maybe (depending on how fatso is doing) better QB. As to the coaching, the jury is still out and it would be homering to suggest otherwise (although we do know their HC stinks).

Better running? Where the **** do you get that? We've turned turds into 5YPC rushers in our system and just brought in a truckload of talented runners. How do you figure that **** team up in Oakland runs more effectively than us?

As for McDaniels, I'd say there's plenty of evidence that he'll put together a better offense than Oakland, and last I looked... Oakland's D wasn't lighting the world on fire.


I'm not predicting big things for us as far as W/L... but to assume the Raiders will be more effective is a bit much.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 01:09 PM
Excellent recap of the 2005 season.

The bolded is what Shanny's O's were all about. But, BUT, Cutler couldn't overcome that either. Cutler couldn't score points in a hurry.
When the defense slid from top to bottom, and the running game went south, the focus shifted from playing the waiting game and controlling the clock to having to score every time downfield, which is why he was forced to take risks Plummer2005 didn't have to.

The thing about that gameplan...it requires the perfect storm of converging elements in order to make it work. You have to have the dynamic chain moving running game, the opportunistic defense that causes turnovers and you have to play mistake free football on offense. The odds of that happening consistently in the NFL are significantly less than the odds that a star QB can guide an offense to a lot of points on a regular basis.

As I noted...it got us beat at the end when it counted most.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 01:09 PM
that was a recap of basically all of shanahans teams...

id love to see his career stats of runs in 1st period vs runs in 2nd period. even last year when the offense was clicking, he would let off the gas and tighten up big time, then wed stop moving the ball, stop scoring etc.

i remember complaining about taht all year, he would get some points on the board then tighten up, not keep attacking, and it was so frustrating because slowik's amazing Ds could not hold the lead.

Search my posts over the past 4 years. You'll find all the details you need about Shanny and his O stats in the second half of games since 1998.

Hopefully, the new regime insists on a 60-minute team, and especially a team that turns it up a notch in the 4th quarter, and turns it up a notch down the stretch and into the playoffs.

tsiguy96
05-30-2009, 01:16 PM
Search my posts over the past 4 years. You'll find all the details you need about Shanny and his O stats in the second half of games since 1998.

Hopefully, the new regime insists on a 60-minute team, and especially a team that turns it up a notch in the 4th quarter, and turns it up a notch down the stretch and into the playoffs.

you did work confirming this?

you have far too many posts to search, care to sum it up?

TonyR
05-30-2009, 01:18 PM
The odds of that happening consistently in the NFL are significantly less than the odds that a star QB can guide an offense to a lot of points on a regular basis.


I don't disagree with your overall post but want to point out that we didn't have this the last couple of years with Cutler if that's at all what you're saying.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 01:27 PM
I don't disagree with your overall post but want to point out that we didn't have this the last couple of years with Cutler if that's at all what you're saying.
We also didn't have a defense that could keep teams from ringing up Madden numbers on us. Had Plummer or someone in that category played with the 2007 and 2008 defenses, this team would have gone 4-12 at best. That kind of pressure to score every time down field will force ANY quarterback to take unacceptable risks, AND on top of this, the running game no longer being able to consistently move the chains, especially inside the 20...contributed to the gap between yards and scoring. Even Manning didn't win with a crappy defense, which is why you need to hope this no-name D-line takes a HUGE jump forward.

TonyR
05-30-2009, 01:43 PM
...you need to hope this no-name D-line takes a HUGE jump forward.

We certainly do need to hope for improvement no defense. But I think improvement on offense is also needed. After week 3 they averaged less than 20 points a game and scored over 30 only twice. That's below average offensive production. Not good enough. Just as a better defense helps the offense, a better offense helps the defense. And our defense needed, and will need again this year, all the help it can get.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 01:51 PM
When the defense slid from top to bottom, and the running game went south, the focus shifted from playing the waiting game and controlling the clock to having to score every time downfield, which is why [QUOTE]he was forced to take risks Plummer2005 didn't have to.

Cutler was pretty lackadaiscal in games where there was no pressure, and lackadaisical in games where there was pressure. Very inconsistent dude. That is why I figure the team won't miss him too much.

The thing about that gameplan...it requires the perfect storm of converging elements in order to make it work. You have to have the dynamic chain moving running game, the opportunistic defense that causes turnovers and you have to play mistake free football on offense.

That's the object, sure. Doesn't mean you gotta have Jay Cutler.

The odds of that happening consistently in the NFL are significantly less than the odds that a star QB can guide an offense to a lot of points on a regular basis.

Well, again, doesn't mean you gotta have Jay Cutler. Orton is actually a good QB. He's a gamer. We'll see how he does .

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 02:31 PM
In all honesty...why bother with this anymore? This discussion will never EVER be resolved in here...NEVER. Nobody on either side is open minded and nobody is going to change how they think. Cutler could win 4 Super Bowls and it wouldn't matter. He'll be hated and despised for the rest of his career here, which will never change.

Think whatever you want to. I'm sick of the whole damn thing. If we win you'll all be back in here to lord it over those who had the opposing view and same goes if we lose. A year from now half the people in here will likely switch sides.

Tired of all this...I don't really care anymore either.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 03:31 PM
In all honesty...why bother with this anymore? This discussion will never EVER be resolved in here...NEVER. Nobody on either side is open minded and nobody is going to change how they think. Cutler could win 4 Super Bowls and it wouldn't matter. He'll be hated and despised for the rest of his career here, which will never change.

Think whatever you want to. I'm sick of the whole damn thing. If we win you'll all be back in here to lord it over those who had the opposing view and same goes if we lose. A year from now half the people in here will likely switch sides.

Tired of all this...I don't really care anymore either.

Sissy.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 04:58 PM
Sissy.
Fine...keep on squawking about this **** if it makes you feel good.

watermock
05-30-2009, 05:51 PM
The real point is: Considering our company in the divsion, woldn't you thunk we woud be eatter than 29?

Our division gives us 4 wins.

Popps
05-30-2009, 06:17 PM
It's all too believable unfortunately.

Yea, SoCal... it's so believable.

We haven't played a single game, but it's believable that we're suddenly a horrible franchise. We were struggling around .500, missing the playoffs for years... but now we're suddenly one of the worst franchises because some writer said so.

It's only believable if you want it to be, and it's been very apparent that you do.

Popps
05-30-2009, 06:19 PM
In all honesty...why bother with this anymore? This discussion will never EVER be resolved in here...NEVER. Nobody on either side is open minded and nobody is going to change how they think. Cutler could win 4 Super Bowls and it wouldn't matter..

Thing is, I think most fans understand that he's capable of winning a SB with the right supporting cast.

Then again, so was Brad Johnson.

Jay Cutler didn't want to be in Denver. He put himself above the franchise and the franchise called his bluff. So, what he does from here on out as far as wins is irrelevant.

He's a douche-bag who didn't want to be a Bronco. Plain and simple. Nothing is going to change that. Our future lies elsewhere.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 06:46 PM
Yea, SoCal... it's so believable.

We haven't played a single game, but it's believable that we're suddenly a horrible franchise. We were struggling around .500, missing the playoffs for years... but now we're suddenly one of the worst franchises because some writer said so.

It's only believable if you want it to be, and it's been very apparent that you do.

Ah, SoCal's had a burr under his saddle for a long time. Look at his tagline - Mc****face. Jesus. Like a little kid would express himself.

kdissette
05-30-2009, 06:48 PM
and why did we trade our 1st rd pck for a 2nd rnd pck.....oh yeah cuz we are now the Denver Patriots

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 06:54 PM
That's the gamble Nolan and McD made right there. Nolan got 3 out of the first four draft picks, Nolan got plenty of FA guys to bolster the D. Now we'll see how it pans out.

My problem there is they are once again relyling on luck to fix that part of the team. It was Shanahans downfall, and it might well be McDaniels downfall. The odds of getting a single high quality lineman from the group we have is slim, hoping for two is like buying a powerball ticket, you could get lucky, but the odds aren't good. Nolan went with the backfield for his picks, I hope the line doesn't make him and our draftees look like fools, but I think it will. This organization needs to move toward actually solving this problem, and not just hoping it works out OK.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-30-2009, 06:54 PM
and why did we trade our 1st rd pck for a 2nd rnd pck.....oh yeah cuz we are now the Denver Patriots

Huh?

SonOfLe-loLang
05-30-2009, 06:55 PM
My problem there is they are once again relyling on luck to fix that part of the team. It was Shanahans downfall, and it might well be McDaniels downfall. The odds of getting a single high quality lineman from the group we have is slim, hoping for two is like buying a powerball ticket, you could get lucky, but the odds aren't good. Nolan went with the backfield for his picks, I hope the line doesn't make him and our draftees look like fools, but I think it will. This organization needs to move toward actually solving this problem, and not just hoping it works out OK.

I'm still not sure who you wanted? There werent any great D-lineman to choose. Its not like he chose Moreno over Raji.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 06:57 PM
Thing is, I think most fans understand that he's capable of winning a SB with the right supporting cast.

Then again, so was Brad Johnson.

Jay Cutler didn't want to be in Denver. He put himself above the franchise and the franchise called his bluff. So, what he does from here on out as far as wins is irrelevant.

He's a douche-bag who didn't want to be a Bronco. Plain and simple. Nothing is going to change that. Our future lies elsewhere.

I liked you better when you were incessantly rambling about Pit Bull attacks. At least I didn't have to hear you whine about Pit bulls whining. Jay Cutler wears diapers, we get it, move on. How about some of your fix the D-line material, that was classic stuff there...oh wait, thats not your angle this week. Got it.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm still not sure who you wanted? There werent any great D-lineman to choose. Its not like he chose Moreno over Raji.

He could have had Raji. With this years first and next years first I bet we could have moved up, it's not like not trading next years first wasn't on the table now is it?. Then again there was Arakpo, just behind Moreno, and Brace if he still wanted to use that next year first instead of Smith. Ayers was a ray of hope, but he's going OLB from the looks of things. A big body in free agency? Shaun Rodgers and Quinn in the Cutler trade to get us a true NT? I guess Orton is just that much better than Brady huh? There were linemen available, and he sure wasnt stingy went it came to moving up. I happen to like that about McDaniels, at least he's not afraid to go after what he wants, I just wish what he wanted was D-line so that unit had more than a snowballs chance.

fdf
05-30-2009, 07:23 PM
I didn't say anything was "wrong" with it, since that's what you have to do when you have to protect your QB and keep your defense off the field. You might recall however, that it was our inability to contend with a more talented, more physical Steelers team that kept us out of the Super Bowl and this kind of team was not suited to beating them, or the Colts either for that matter. Cutler was drafted to give this team the QB who could open up the complete offense and attack defenses rather than just trying to control the clock. Jake and the 2005 team represented a departure from what Shanahan had used as his formula for success up till this time. That team was fine as long as it stayed ahead, but that offense was not geared toward playing catchup football or scoring points in a hurry. Remember also that offense finished #1 in turnovers and the D finished 4th...we not only didn't turn it over, we forced alot of other teams turnovers. Obviously if you add up controlling the clock, having a huge advantage in TO margin and mix in a very strong ground game you can win without a great QB, but you may get beat in the playoffs unless you have a Ravens type D that simply stuffs people. My main point is that we can play this style...because we'll have to. Whether it works as well now or not will depend on factors that are completely unknown at this point.

Of course, the big weakness in this strategy in 2005 was that Plummer was a good quarterback outside the pocket and a pretty bad one in it. Once teams figured that out and how to keep Plummer in the pocket, it was over for that offense. That was a special problem given our OL that year. Ughh.

Hopefully, Orton or Simms will work better from the pocket than Plummer. It is almost certain the OL this year will perform at a MUCH higher level than the 2005 OL. The receivers (assuming Marshall keeps his act together) should also perform at a much higher level than the 2005 team.

BroncsRule
05-30-2009, 08:03 PM
Chiefs at 20, ahead of the Texans, Bills, and Redskins? This guy just lost all credibility with me. As much as I hate them, the skins are going to be in the mix this year, they will have a top 10 defense this year in almost every catagory, top 5 in sacks. The Texans are a sleeper team, and while I can understand why someone would undervalue them, below the Chiefs? Come on now. 5 worst teams Raiders, Lions, Rams, Browns, and us? One of these things is not like the others.

You're right. The Broncos are new to sucking.

BroncoInSkinland
05-30-2009, 08:13 PM
You're right. The Broncos are new to sucking.

That's just it though, with all the problems I see with this team, and trust me there are many, we still are nowhere near the level of the Lions for suckage. Show me one unit on the Lions, Raiders, or Rams that comes anywhere close to as good as our O-line. Our receiving core? Our Defensive backfield? We aren't the Patriots or Steelers, but at the same time we aren't the Raiders either. Bowlen has pissed me off this offseason to the point I ain't buying his **** any more (hear me Pat? Fix the D-line, or watch your bottom line fall), but at the same point in time he isn't Al Davis crazy. McDaniels vs the Cable guy, I guess it has still to be proven, but even I think McD can coach circles around the latest unfortunate enough to be stuck at titular HC of the Raiders. Arguably the Raiders strongest unit would be the running game. With eight guys going down to injury last season we STILL had a better running game than the Raiders. It's like saying the new Porsche you just bought is like a Hyundai just because you scratched the hood. We might not have the Patriots Ferrari, but we are more than a little ahead of the Rams Yugo.

Edit: Pardon me the Raiders running game finished 10th, we finished 12th, so their "strength" does beat our cellphone salesman turned running back, barely. If Davis trusted Jamarcus enough to throw the ball on third and 8 that would be different. Having actually watched the games though I still say our rushing attack was stronger.

TonyR
05-30-2009, 08:30 PM
Then again there was Arakpo...

You know so much about him you don't even know how to spell his name...


Shaun Rodgers and Quinn in the Cutler trade to get us a true NT? I guess Orton is just that much better than Brady huh?

Do you have some evidence that such a deal was ever on the table from Cleveland?

watermock
05-30-2009, 08:43 PM
So let's draft for offense.

BroncoInSkinland
05-31-2009, 06:24 AM
You know so much about him you don't even know how to spell his name...

Do you have some evidence that such a deal was ever on the table from Cleveland?


Yeah, it was late locally, I was drunk, I made a typo, and the first time I was talking about the guy I spelled his name wrong so now its a bit of a mental block. Nice spelling/gramar smack though, that'll teach me.

Did we pursue such a deal? Or move on another deal that would net us a big name proven lineman at all? See, that's my issue with this situation, not the specifics of who we went after, I LIKE most of the draft picks we made and think several will work out. It is the lack of attention the line got that kills me.

Rock Chalk
05-31-2009, 10:27 AM
I think that ALL of us would love for Orton or Simms to have 4500 yards and 25 TD's ---but I doubt that either one gets enough PT this year to reach those #'s---I have a feeling that we will be changing QB's after our BYE Week this year after we get off to a horrendous start.........

No, intelligent people dont want ANY QB from Denver throwing for 4500 yards. When your team is that pass happy, nothing good EVER comes from it.

If Orton throws for 3500 yards, 20 TDs and has fewer than 10 picks, Denver is going to win 10 games at least.

With the power running game we are going to have and a more ball control offense thats methodical in going down the field, Denver will be a more dangerous team to play.

You people think gaudy passing numbers are awesome but historically they dont do teams very much good. Peyton Manning puts up stupid numbers but the year he won the Superbowl HIS numbers weren't insanely high as per his usual self.

Im so stoked about this season. People are going to realize that without the weapons Denver has, Cutler is going to struggle and Orton, with the weapons Denver has, is going to flourish.

✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
05-31-2009, 03:08 PM
HOORAY for Schein!!! Another one of my cousins:)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/870/thumbp.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thumbp.jpg)

DarkHorse30
05-31-2009, 09:41 PM
Second. Let's get over this Jay Cutler mobility thing ok. It was an asset, but Jay also held the bell too long, made risky throws, stared down his receivers, went for homeruns instead of first downs, and trusted his arm way too much. If we have a "chicken" at QB that dumps the passes off more quickly and continues drives instead of throwing deep into double coverage - i'm all for it.

I'm wondering what Jay learned in his 3 years at Denver.....and I still can't believe that his most memorable play in the probowl was a tricky handoff, while his game "winning" drive in that game was highlighted by 4 badly thrown balls. Does anybody remember the announcers blaming it on his diabetes? Embarrassing.

kamakazi_kal
06-01-2009, 08:53 AM
orton is not that good, but he is not near as bad as people here will tell you. ask any logical bears fan they will agree. i live in northern illinois i hear about it all the time, and no one has ever really said orton is BAD, especially after last years season, with no oline and no WR he still put up good numbers, almost pro bowl like the fisrt half of the season.

im not saying hell be great, but he catches a lot more flack for being awful than necessary.

ha ha ha logical meaning they agree with you?

That O-line did a fine job blocking for forte. Orton don't scramble very well .... Our O-line sack numbers will go up this year, live with it. I love how you act like Orton carried that team. Look at the stats .... in every game the bears won, the Defense or Forte had a great game.... Orton is an offense manager not a game winner. As for his "almost pro-bowl like start to the first half" I hope your refering to the games that he had vs. Minn. and Atl...... BTW they owned his a$$ in games later that year.

And like your "orton is not that good" comment, I'll say he's not that bad but really, to think he's now all world cause he plays for Denver is homerism at it's finest.

tsiguy96
06-01-2009, 09:11 AM
ha ha ha logical meaning they agree with you?

That O-line did a fine job blocking for forte. Orton don't scramble very well .... Our O-line sack numbers will go up this year, live with it. I love how you act like Orton carried that team. Look at the stats .... in every game the bears won, the Defense or Forte had a great game.... Orton is an offense manager not a game winner. As for his "almost pro-bowl like start to the first half" I hope your refering to the games that he had vs. Minn. and Atl...... BTW they owned his a$$ in games later that year.

And like your "orton is not that good" comment, I'll say he's not that bad but really, to think he's now all world cause he plays for Denver is homerism at it's finest.

i never said hes great or all world, try rereading the post. im saying hes not bad, and hes a capable QB of winning games. sack numbers will obviously go up but the bears oline does not compare to ours, not even a little bit, so now he will have a far better oline than he did last year. theres nothing wrong with an offense manager if they win games, and we have the offensive unit to make that a reality.

kamakazi_kal
06-01-2009, 09:20 AM
i never said hes great or all world, try rereading the post. im saying hes not bad, and hes a capable QB of winning games. sack numbers will obviously go up but the bears oline does not compare to ours, not even a little bit, so now he will have a far better oline than he did last year. theres nothing wrong with an offense manager if they win games, and we have the offensive unit to make that a reality.

I think the wildcard for us winning games will be the Defense ..... scoring allot of points didn't really work for us last year. If our D sucks again then a "game manager" will just earn us a blowout vs. a close loss.......yeah I know their both still losses.

tsiguy96
06-01-2009, 09:28 AM
I think the wildcard for us winning games will be the Defense ..... scoring allot of points didn't really work for us last year. If our D sucks again then a "game manager" will just earn us a blowout vs. a close loss.......yeah I know their both still losses.

scoring alot of points and winning super bowls have zero correlation like always. but you always want to score as many points as possible, obviously thats the job of the offense. the defense cant get worse, if they allow any less than 400 pts itll be a good year.

kamakazi_kal
06-01-2009, 09:57 AM
scoring alot of points and winning super bowls have zero correlation like always. but you always want to score as many points as possible, obviously thats the job of the offense. the defense cant get worse, if they allow any less than 400 pts itll be a good year.

Well since the D wasn't 32nd so, they can get worse. Considering they are in process of switching to a 3-4 without the personel it can easily get worse.

I'm thinking we will be 8-8 at best...... I hope I'm wrong though. I would love for these headscratching Mcd moves to workout and prove me wrong. The only thing that keeps me hopefull is Moreno. I would like to see more Hillis but really I don't think he will be as involved as some people want him to be. Honestly he did only have like 3 good games .... the silver lining though if he plays more they will show his sister in the stands every now and then ..... she was hot.

I'm not sure but I don't think Mcd used allot of FB action in his playcalling. It was mostly 2 TE shotgun stuff right?

Rock Chalk
06-01-2009, 06:20 PM
ha ha ha logical meaning they agree with you?

Probably meant logical, as in not a dumb****, i.e. you

That O-line did a fine job blocking for forte. Orton don't scramble very well .... Our O-line sack numbers will go up this year, live with it. I love how you act like Orton carried that team. Look at the stats .... in every game the bears won, the Defense or Forte had a great game.... Orton is an offense manager not a game winner. As for his "almost pro-bowl like start to the first half" I hope your refering to the games that he had vs. Minn. and Atl...... BTW they owned his a$$ in games later that year.

They are a fine run blocking offensive line, Chicago that is. They are a horrendous pass blocking line.

Later that year, Orton was playing on a bum ankle which he hurt in game 7. In his first 7 games of the 2008 season, Orton had great statistics for a "game manager", once he hurt his ankle, he was definitely hampered.

And like your "orton is not that good" comment, I'll say he's not that bad but really, to think he's now all world cause he plays for Denver is homerism at it's finest.

Who said he was all world?

Where did you get that from? The part you quoted doesnt even remotely imply that. Dude said "he's not that bad" which is not even close to all world.

****ing retarded dip****s.