PDA

View Full Version : Orton-Simms competition likely pre-determined


dbfan21
06-18-2009, 08:49 AM
Found this article on si.com. Not saying I agree with it...just thought I would share with the masses since it's Bronco-related. Enjoy!!


The NFL is supposed to be among the most objective places of employment around. If you can play, you can stay, as the saying goes. Or in regard to coaches, win and you can stay in. The best players should start, make the team, etc. Likewise, the best coaches should get the head jobs, coordinator roles, etc. Yet in an ultra-competitive industry, that isn't always the case. There are still a number of personnel decisions that are pre-ordained. Call it the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

The latest example comes out of Denver, where Kyle Orton "won" the battle for the starting quarterback position with Chris Simms. Now there's a shocker. After the whole drawn out Jay Cutler fiasco, was there ever any doubt who Josh McDaniels was going to tab as his starting quarterback? The only way Orton was going to lose the job to Simms was if Orton played horrendous and Simms played amazing, which was not the case.

That the Broncos announced their decision in June, without the players ever putting on shoulder pads, indicates this was more of a reaffirmation of what they already thought, not a genuine, no-holds barred competition. Making a decision about any position based upon OTAs, where there are no "live" bullets and no real threat of a pass rush, is questionable at best. So much for the pace of those practices being at a tempo conducive to learning and not evaluation, per the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Click link to see the rest...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/06/17/camps/index.html?eref=T1

rugbythug
06-18-2009, 08:52 AM
IE) Humans coach sports.

Man-Goblin
06-18-2009, 08:58 AM
He makes this claim based on what? Does anyone really think the competition is over? The reason you name a QB now is so people STFU and stop asking about it. This notion that Orton was annointed the job simply because he was invloved in the Culter trade is ludicris.

If Simms goes out there and clearly outplays Orton in camp he'll get the job.

Tombstone RJ
06-18-2009, 08:59 AM
Simms is a work in progress. Hell, he's been out of the game for like 3 years and he's just trying to get back into the flow of the game. Yah, he's got potential but due to his injury and the fact that he's not taken any snaps over a long period of time hampers his ability to step in and win the starting QB position.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-18-2009, 09:32 AM
Well, no **** Orton was going to be the starting QB...but it wasn't like McDaniels put up a big tent and sold tickets to the GREATEST QB BATTLE ON EARTH. Why does this writer sound like he's been duped?

SoDak Bronco
06-18-2009, 09:41 AM
I also bet that Champ wins a starting spot..well no ****tt

PRBronco
06-18-2009, 09:47 AM
Haha what a ****ing retard. "omg the broncos determined ahead of time that they wanted the better qb to start...FIRE MCYOUNGHEADCOACH OMFG"

Smiling Assassin27
06-18-2009, 10:08 AM
Found this article on si.com. Not saying I agree with it...just thought I would share with the masses since it's Bronco-related. Enjoy!!


The NFL is supposed to be among the most objective places of employment around. If you can play, you can stay, as the saying goes. Or in regard to coaches, win and you can stay in. The best players should start, make the team, etc. Likewise, the best coaches should get the head jobs, coordinator roles, etc. Yet in an ultra-competitive industry, that isn't always the case. There are still a number of personnel decisions that are pre-ordained. Call it the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

The latest example comes out of Denver, where Kyle Orton "won" the battle for the starting quarterback position with Chris Simms. Now there's a shocker. After the whole drawn out Jay Cutler fiasco, was there ever any doubt who Josh McDaniels was going to tab as his starting quarterback? The only way Orton was going to lose the job to Simms was if Orton played horrendous and Simms played amazing, which was not the case.

That the Broncos announced their decision in June, without the players ever putting on shoulder pads, indicates this was more of a reaffirmation of what they already thought, not a genuine, no-holds barred competition. Making a decision about any position based upon OTAs, where there are no "live" bullets and no real threat of a pass rush, is questionable at best. So much for the pace of those practices being at a tempo conducive to learning and not evaluation, per the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Click link to see the rest...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/06/17/camps/index.html?eref=T1

McD has already said that Orton has to keep the job. Somebody has to be #1 going into camp. Here's a novel idea--maybe Orton really performed better than Simms. Nah, couldn't be.

bronco_boi_5280
06-18-2009, 11:34 AM
What's interesting in that article is how it goes on to talk about (original poster did not post, click link) how offensive linemen could be protected and made to look good.

2 things that came to my mind;
1) We didn't do that with Clady, did we? He was on an island so to speak, wasn't he?
2) If this is true, explain Robert Gallery?

meangene
06-18-2009, 11:47 AM
Found this article on si.com.

Say no more. The only self-fulfilling prophecy is their skewing of facts to make a story.

DenverBrit
06-18-2009, 11:53 AM
.......and in other news.

9. Denver's decision

Warning I am actually going to write something positive about the Denver Broncos and coach Josh McDaniels.

I applaud him for naming Kyle Orton his starting quarterback and not faking a quarterback competition between Orton and Chris Simms.

When you have two guys splitting the reps with the first team when you know the ultimate conclusion, it does nothing for a new quarterback trying to establish a rapport with his offensive line and receivers.

Now Orton can establish leadership in the locker room and on the practice field.

Good job by McDaniels. You know, with the exception of trading away his franchise quarterback, a move that set Denver back years.

Now if they can only make Brandon Marshall happy ...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9688142/Schein%27s-Nine:-Texans-are-playoff-bound

BroncoBuff
06-18-2009, 12:27 PM
If you recall, it did seem odd they named Orton the starter just the day after McD said otherwise.

The article is correct, it's strange they name a starter before the pads even go on. But it McD's decision, whenever he makes it.

Too bad for Chris, though.

Popps
06-18-2009, 12:48 PM
Wow, did Chris Simms' mom write this article? Is this guy serious?

Beyond that, he's said that he's only the starter "for now," and was simply a bit further ahead in learning the system. Not a huge shocker, considering he's played in a similar system in college.

He also made it clear that the job could change hands if competition played out that way.

Honestly, what the **** is with the conspiracy theorists and the Denver Broncos. It's just football, folks. Get a grip.

BroncoBuff
06-18-2009, 12:55 PM
It's just football, folks. Get a grip.
That's definitely a lesson you should learn ;D

outdoor_miner
06-18-2009, 12:58 PM
If you recall, it did seem odd they named Orton the starter just the day after McD said otherwise.

The article is correct, it's strange they name a starter before the pads even go on. But it McD's decision, whenever he makes it.

Too bad for Chris, though.

:cuss: Aaaargh!!!

He did not say otherwise! Give me one quote where he said this!!!

It was Mike Klis's opinion that they were in "no rush" to name a starting quarterback... I will gladly eat crow if you can produce anything that directly states they were not going to name a starter.

:cuss:

(ps - my outrage is fake. :) )

BroncoBuff
06-18-2009, 01:29 PM
:cuss: Aaaargh!!!

He did not say otherwise! Give me one quote where he said this!!!

It was Mike Klis's opinion that they were in "no rush" to name a starting quarterback... I will gladly eat crow if you can produce anything that directly states they were not going to name a starter.

:cuss:

(ps - my outrage is fake. :) )

You are technically correct, the statement itself came from the reporter.

She did not have direct quotes specifically to that effect, but I just can't
imagine she would make that leap without having some understanding
elsewhere in the interview that this was true.

Either way, I think the article is correct ... it was Orton's position from the
start based on Cutler-gate. Now it's Simms job to out-play Orton in pre-season.

Won't be easy though ... he could outplay him somewhat - even decisively -
but still lose out. To win the job now, now that Orton is the named starter,
Simms will have to hope Orton falters in some demonstrable way, and I
doubt that will happen.

gyldenlove
06-18-2009, 01:35 PM
Did anyone honestly believe that this was an actual battle? I am pretty confident that even Simms knew that the QB position was Orton's to lose.

Some sports writers should just write about golf or some such when there is no football being played so we can avoid these completely meaningless pieces.

DenverBrit
06-18-2009, 01:44 PM
If you recall, it did seem odd they named Orton the starter just the day after McD said otherwise.

The article is correct, it's strange they name a starter before the pads even go on. But it McD's decision, whenever he makes it.

Too bad for Chris, though.

Whoa, that never happened.

outdoor_miner
06-18-2009, 01:52 PM
You are technically correct, the statement itself came from the reporter.

She did not have direct quotes specifically to that effect, but I just can't imagine she would make that leap without having some understanding elsewhere in the interview that this was true.

I disagree with this (and it is complete conjecture on your part), but it doesn't really matter. Just seems like you are taking a negative slant on the situation because you don't like McDaniels. If Jones (or Klis - not sure who wrote the article) had a direct quote, I think he or she would have used it. The Denver press clearly doesn't like McDaniels. If they had a direct quote to throw in his face after he named Orton the starter, I am sure they would have used it. They would delight in catching him in a "lie".

Either way, I think the article is correct ... it was Orton's position from the start based on Cutler-gate. Now it's Simms job to out-play Orton in pre-season.

I don't disagree with this. It was reported that one of the big reasons we traded with Chicago was because of Orton. So, I have no illusions that Orton was not the leader in the competition from the get go. He was the "favorite" to win the position.

What I do disagree with is that there is anything sinister about this. There was a competition... One guy may have started with a lead, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an open competition. And if practice confirmed that Orton was superior, why hesitate to name him the starter? I don't care that it was no-contact practice. If one guy is clearly superior to the other, why delay? My guess is that Orton is mentally far ahead of Simms... Now, that is conjecture on my part. :) But, McDaniels wants a guy in full command of the offense running the show. Simms even sort of alluded to that in one of the articles:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12586639
"He mentally probably picked up a few things a little quicker than I did."

Drek
06-18-2009, 03:07 PM
You are technically correct, the statement itself came from the reporter.

She did not have direct quotes specifically to that effect, but I just can't
imagine she would make that leap without having some understanding
elsewhere in the interview that this was true.

Either way, I think the article is correct ... it was Orton's position from the
start based on Cutler-gate. Now it's Simms job to out-play Orton in pre-season.

Won't be easy though ... he could outplay him somewhat - even decisively -
but still lose out. To win the job now, now that Orton is the named starter,
Simms will have to hope Orton falters in some demonstrable way, and I
doubt that will happen.

You really think that Buff?

That McDaniels would take even a microscopic downgrade at QB just to play the guy he got in return for Cutler? He wants to win and he knows if he does nothing else matters. He isn't going to sacrifice even the slightest hair of production at any position if he can help it.

BroncoMan4ever
06-18-2009, 03:20 PM
it truly didn't matter when Orton was named starter. he is better than Simms and has more recent playing and starting experience. naming him starter this early is just a way to have his confidence high heading into camp and the season.

BroncoBuff
06-18-2009, 03:33 PM
Whoa, that never happened.
Accordingly to Lindsay Jones it did happen. But like I said, she could have been wrong.


I disagree with this (and it is complete conjecture on your part), but it doesn't really matter. Just seems like you are taking a negative slant on the situation because you don't like McDaniels. If Jones (or Klis - not sure who wrote the article) had a direct quote, I think he or she would have used it. The Denver press clearly doesn't like McDaniels.
Actually my post you responded to there had no conjecture in it ... I merely pointed out that Lindsay Jones' article the day before Orton was named starter was slugged "McD in no hurry to name starter," and as I said, even though she had no direct quotes to that effect, Josh did saying something like "we're pleased that these two guys are competing and pushing each other, that will only make them better." And I don't dislike McD as a coach - this is a coaching funcion. I dislike McD's front office perfromance, I think I've been pretty specific about both those points. Actually, I'm pretty damned excited about this offense of his ... can't wait.

And while I'm not sure the Denver media dislikes McD, I'm not in Denver, so I'll defer to you on that. I do know Woody hasn't exactly embraced him yet :~ohyah!:



You really think that Buff?

That McDaniels would take even a microscopic downgrade at QB just to play the guy he got in return for Cutler? He wants to win and he knows if he does nothing else matters. He isn't going to sacrifice even the slightest hair of production at any position if he can help it.
Too much is being made of this I think, let me repeat: Josh can name a starter whenever he likes, that's his job. And I'm quite certain Orton has outplayed Simms thusfar (although that article raises a fairly good point that they haven't even gone full speed yet). I dunno, I just like Simms. But it's really not that big of a deal.

My reference to "Simms will have to decisively outplay Orton to win the job," actually I think that's basically true. With any player as an incumbent starter, the backup has to win the job ... he can't merely come close.

DenverBrit
06-18-2009, 03:56 PM
Accordingly to Lindsay Jones it did happen. But like I said, she could have been wrong.


Buff, Jones wrote a headline and gave an opinion that is not supported by anything McD said in the same article.....or at any other time.

Her headline.
McDaniels in no hurry to name No. 1 QB

Her personal opinion, unsupported by any statement from the HC
In reality, McDaniels seems in no rush to name a leader in the quest to replace Jay Cutler.
It was poor journalism on a slow news day.
Events proved Lindsey was wrong.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12581252

Atlas
06-18-2009, 04:08 PM
Orton-Simms............. Wow, the Plummer/Griese years have returned.

Popps
06-18-2009, 05:43 PM
Orton-Simms............. Wow, the Plummer/Griese years have returned.

Yea, that would suck if we ended up on the doorstep of a SB again.

I hope that doesn't happen.

Better that we stay in the crap-house with a .500 record, huh?

I mean, when you're .500 and missing the playoffs... you NEVER make any changes. God forbid you tinker with that kind of chemistry.

Drek
06-18-2009, 06:18 PM
Too much is being made of this I think, let me repeat: Josh can name a starter whenever he likes, that's his job. And I'm quite certain Orton has outplayed Simms thusfar (although that article raises a fairly good point that they haven't even gone full speed yet). I dunno, I just like Simms. But it's really not that big of a deal.

My reference to "Simms will have to decisively outplay Orton to win the job," actually I think that's basically true. With any player as an incumbent starter, the backup has to win the job ... he can't merely come close.

I'd agree completely that this gets overblown. Its as simple as someone needed to go into camp as the #1, and McDaniels obviously felt Orton was ahead of Simms. Sure previously its all been OTAs, but its not like he hasn't been drilling them on the mental aspects of his system. Orton apparently is a step ahead. It makes sense, he was used to a spread in college so its a bit more familiar to him than any of it is to Simms. But being named the #1 going into camp isn't worth much, Orton could just as easily lose the job next week as keep it depending on how the two look when its time so start throwing the football in pads.

watermock
06-18-2009, 06:38 PM
That's why we have ace reported Lindsey Jones reporting straight from the Horse's Ass.

No wonder she's got sh!t on her face.

elsid13
06-18-2009, 06:39 PM
QB is the only position that isn't earned on team. The QB slot comes down who the coach wants to be the man and run his team.