PDA

View Full Version : awesome broncos discussion on sirius..


tsiguy96
06-20-2009, 10:46 AM
they talked about how even before the trade happened, cutler and scheffler had been watching tape on the patriots and decided that they do not fit the roles of the new england offense, and were unhappy far before mcdaniels ever discussed trading them. one guy was saying how last years offense may have put a lot more stress on the defense than an offense that mcdaniels would run, and how this year you may see defensive improvement based soley on the offense being more "sound". he differentiated being high powered and being sound, saying last years offense was high powered, but this year will be more balanced, more TOP etc.

they said in the last few years the new england defenses have overachieved based on talent they have on the field in part due to the offense that was being run, and he said that is part belicheck but mcdaniels defenitely had a part in that as well, so we may see improvement based on that alone.

if theres anything else i remember i will post it, but it was a very good discussion on how this year even though we lost the QB, hope certainly is not gone for a good season especially with mike nolan converting to a 3-4 and a more balanced offensive attack.

Pseudofool
06-20-2009, 10:50 AM
whose opinion is this? is it talking heads or someone in the know?

interesting nonetheless, thanks for the summary.

Man-Goblin
06-20-2009, 10:52 AM
they talked about how even before the trade happened, cutler and scheffler had been watching tape on the patriots and decided that they do not fit the roles of the new england offense, and were unhappy far before mcdaniels ever discussed trading them.

Certainly haven't heard this before. Who said it and how would they know?

Los Broncos
06-20-2009, 10:55 AM
Thanks for the post, interesting stuff.

Punisher
06-20-2009, 10:56 AM
I think Bolwen hired that guy to talk about the broncos in a positive way to sell more tickets......

Turefully I think will start winning next year but this year i don't really expect nothing because of the very hard schedule we have.....

Popcorn Sutton
06-20-2009, 11:07 AM
TSI, Do you know who said that about Cutler and Scheff?

tsiguy96
06-20-2009, 11:09 AM
whoever is on sirius radio around 1130am central time...

Paladin
06-20-2009, 11:44 AM
The discussion is good enough to have been done by someone who truly knows about the game and the Broncos. I have no doubt about the authenticity of the desires of Quitler to leave the system. It would not be as much of a deal for Sheffler since the TE does have a role in the NE style of O, and could be expanded in the McD/Broncos version. Sp,e evidence is found on the McD qoutes about th eversatility of Hillis, a role that is different from anything in teh NE O IIRC. What I think Quitler did not understand is that Os change over time and plans adjust to each opponent and the O is designed based on the talent of the players at hand. To be honest, I am glad Quitler is gone. Orton and Simms are apt to be much more suited to the O this year, which will be bolstered by the Oline's talent and experience, and a stable of RBs.

I am one that also believes the Broncos will have a much better season than many here believe. They may well surprise the h3ll out of some people.

MileHighMagic
06-20-2009, 11:48 AM
I'm pretty cheesed off that the sirius iPhone app doesn't come with the NFL channel.

boltaneer
06-20-2009, 11:59 AM
I'm pretty cheesed off that the sirius iPhone app doesn't come with the NFL channel.

Really?

I can listen to Sirius NFL on my iPod Touch and it should be the same app as the one the iPhone uses.

The thing that sucks is that they started charging a monthly fee for "premium internet radio" a few months back.

BTW, I think the guys who did the Bronco discussion were Vic Carucci & Dan Leberfeld. Not a fan of either one of them for whatever it's worth.

Chris
06-20-2009, 11:59 AM
Is this available somewhere online? Also, is this going to be a regular thing?

Thanks for posting.

BearMan18
06-20-2009, 12:06 PM
That's awesome!

They had Jay Cutler and Tony Scheffler on their Saturday bad programming, and managed to get them to tell that story?!

That's should be making headline news!

Go Orton!

Pseudofool
06-20-2009, 12:08 PM
The discussion is good enough to have been done by someone who truly knows about the game and the Broncos. I have no doubt about the authenticity of the desires of Quitler to leave the system. It would not be as much of a deal for Sheffler since the TE does have a role in the NE style of O, and could be expanded in the McD/Broncos version. Sp,e evidence is found on the McD qoutes about th eversatility of Hillis, a role that is different from anything in teh NE O IIRC. What I think Quitler did not understand is that Os change over time and plans adjust to each opponent and the O is designed based on the talent of the players at hand. To be honest, I am glad Quitler is gone. Orton and Simms are apt to be much more suited to the O this year, which will be bolstered by the Oline's talent and experience, and a stable of RBs.

I am one that also believes the Broncos will have a much better season than many here believe. They may well surprise the h3ll out of some people.I tend to agree with the optimism, here, even if it's based on a hunch as much as observation.

Baba Booey
06-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Glad to see the media is almost exclusively on our side during this particular debacle.

NYBronco
06-20-2009, 12:12 PM
The discussion is good enough to have been done by someone who truly knows about the game and the Broncos. I have no doubt about the authenticity of the desires of Quitler to leave the system. It would not be as much of a deal for Sheffler since the TE does have a role in the NE style of O, and could be expanded in the McD/Broncos version. Sp,e evidence is found on the McD qoutes about th eversatility of Hillis, a role that is different from anything in teh NE O IIRC. What I think Quitler did not understand is that Os change over time and plans adjust to each opponent and the O is designed based on the talent of the players at hand. To be honest, I am glad Quitler is gone. Orton and Simms are apt to be much more suited to the O this year, which will be bolstered by the Oline's talent and experience, and a stable of RBs.

I am one that also believes the Broncos will have a much better season than many here believe. They may well surprise the h3ll out of some people.

I happen to agree...

Pseudofool
06-20-2009, 12:13 PM
Is this what you were listening to?
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">TODAY ON SIRIUS NFL RADIO CH. 124 (http://www.sirius.com/nfl)</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" align="left">http://www.sirius.com/wo/i/sports/nfl/NFL_top-rule.gif</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="3" valign="top"> Saturday:
11 am ET - Press Coverage w/ Vic Carucci & Dan Leberfeld
</td></tr></tbody></table>

broncswin
06-20-2009, 12:40 PM
That's awesome!

They had Jay Cutler and Tony Scheffler on their Saturday bad programming, and managed to get them to tell that story?!

That's should be making headline news!

Go Orton!

No friend of Cutlers every got pics of him drinking, because it was usaully around 2 a.m before gameday...and he was alone :welcome:

Man-Goblin
06-20-2009, 12:47 PM
I'm pretty cheesed off that the sirius iPhone app doesn't come with the NFL channel.

You should just download pocket tunes. It's 9.99 but you can listen to any streaming radio out there. It's an awesome app.

I'm pretty sure NFL radio is included in on the Sirius app, though. It's just play by play that won't be included.

~Crash~
06-20-2009, 01:02 PM
new depths ....

MileHighMagic
06-20-2009, 02:04 PM
You should just download pocket tunes. It's 9.99 but you can listen to any streaming radio out there. It's an awesome app.

I'm pretty sure NFL radio is included in on the Sirius app, though. It's just play by play that won't be included.

Stern, MLB, and NFL aren't on it.

I will check out pocket tunes. thx!

ghwk
06-20-2009, 02:09 PM
in our two superbowl seasons the offense also took as lot of the pressure off the D because out ime of posession was so good. We did have a better D then though. Because we usually were ahead early on it gave Robinson the freedom to blitz a lot because other teams were passing to catch up. Being consistently in that position will help a decent defense a lot.

tnedator
06-20-2009, 03:15 PM
in our two superbowl seasons the offense also took as lot of the pressure off the D because out ime of posession was so good. We did have a better D then though. Because we usually were ahead early on it gave Robinson the freedom to blitz a lot because other teams were passing to catch up. Being consistently in that position will help a decent defense a lot.

You don't have to go back to the SB years to see the Broncos with great time of possession.

In the '97 and '98 our TOP was 4th (32:33), 6th (32:08)

In 2004 and 2005 it was 2nd (32:38 - Pitt off the charts with 34:00) , 1st (32:40)

However, from 2006-2008 it fell off the charts to 15th (30:24), 22nd (29:35), 25th (28:44)

maher_tyler
06-20-2009, 03:44 PM
You don't have to go back to the SB years to see the Broncos with great time of possession.

In the '97 and '98 our TOP was 4th (32:33), 6th (32:08)

In 2004 and 2005 it was 2nd (32:38 - Pitt off the charts with 34:00) , 1st (32:40)

However, from 2006-2008 it fell off the charts to 15th (30:24), 22nd (29:35), 25th (28:44)

Not surprising that our records were lousey in the years we had average to crappy TOP and a good record when we were in the top 10...TO differential plays a lot into that as well. We've been pathetic at creating TO's the last 3 years!!

Also, i hope your right paladin but i'm not going to get my hopes up. 7-9 is my prediction. Won't be shocked if we go something like 5-11/6-10 though!!

tnedator
06-20-2009, 03:48 PM
Not surprising that our records were lousey in the years we had average to crappy TOP and a good record when we were in the top 10...TO differential plays a lot into that as well. We've been pathetic at creating TO's the last 3 years!!

I think in '05 were were something like +20 in TO diff.

BroncoBuff
06-20-2009, 03:56 PM
they talked about how even before the trade happened, cutler and scheffler had been watching tape on the patriots and decided that they do not fit the roles of the new england offense, and were unhappy far before mcdaniels ever discussed trading them.
Wow, just wow.

Problem is, Jay said he would report to all mandatory functions. I think he really meant it, though of course we'll never know.

Still hurts, for me anyway.

tsiguy96
06-20-2009, 04:06 PM
Wow, just wow.

Problem is, Jay said he would report to all mandatory functions. I think he really meant it, though of course we'll never know.

Still hurts, for me anyway.

this is not the first report of jay being unhappy about the firing of shanahan and bates, they talked about that quite a bit, how all this stuff, in his own mind added together meant he just wanted to get out of town. the trade thing just gave him an excuse.

maher_tyler
06-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Wow, just wow.

Problem is, Jay said he would report to all mandatory functions. I think he really meant it, though of course we'll never know.

Still hurts, for me anyway.

He was high fiving guys back at Vandy when he found out he was getting traded...**** Jay Cutler!!

tnedator
06-20-2009, 04:47 PM
He was high fiving guys back at Vandy when he found out he was getting traded...**** Jay Cutler!!

That may be, but as Buff said, Jay stated that he would attend all mandatory team activities.

BroncoBuff
06-20-2009, 04:48 PM
this is not the first report of jay being unhappy about the firing of shanahan and bates, they talked about that quite a bit, how all this stuff, in his own mind added together meant he just wanted to get out of town. the trade thing just gave him an excuse.

No, I knew all that ... but the report that Jay and Scheff watched Pats film early on and didn't like how they'd fit in ... that's news to me.

rastaman
06-20-2009, 04:53 PM
they talked about how even before the trade happened, cutler and scheffler had been watching tape on the patriots and decided that they do not fit the roles of the new england offense, and were unhappy far before mcdaniels ever discussed trading them. one guy was saying how last years offense may have put a lot more stress on the defense than an offense that mcdaniels would run, and how this year you may see defensive improvement based soley on the offense being more "sound". he differentiated being high powered and being sound, saying last years offense was high powered, but this year will be more balanced, more TOP etc.

they said in the last few years the new england defenses have overachieved based on talent they have on the field in part due to the offense that was being run, and he said that is part belicheck but mcdaniels defenitely had a part in that as well, so we may see improvement based on that alone.

if theres anything else i remember i will post it, but it was a very good discussion on how this year even though we lost the QB, hope certainly is not gone for a good season especially with mike nolan converting to a 3-4 and a more balanced offensive attack.

I believe having 7 running backs suffering season ending injuries hurt both the offense and the defense. Denver would have had a more balanced attack except injuries to the RB's. An inconsistent running attack played key roles in the offense sputtering out and countless 3 plays and punt. Shanny's game plan in 2008 was to score as much as possible in the first half, then in the second half and take time off the clock, kick FG, going for 6 if the opportunity presented itself while keeping oppossing offenses off the field as much as possible.

Imagine McDaniels or any playoff bound team, having a balanced attack on offense having to depend on Tatum Bell and Selvin Young. Even a healthy Peyton Hillis down the stretch would have been just enough to either win the division or make the playoff.

tnedator
06-20-2009, 04:57 PM
No, I knew all that ... but the report that Jay and Scheff watched Pats film early on and didn't like how they'd fit in ... that's news to me.

I have also never heard this, but I did hear interviews with Cutler on Sirius after McDaniels was hired where he talked positively about the NE offense.

Also, before the start of the '08 season, Cutler talked about how they had broken down NE's '07 and would be incorporating some of there stuff into the offense.

maher_tyler
06-20-2009, 04:58 PM
No, I knew all that ... but the report that Jay and Scheff watched Pats film early on and didn't like how they'd fit in ... that's news to me.

I don't know whats not to like about it? Maybe the fact that it attacks each teams weakness and changes from week to week and that is just to complicated for them to understand or just don't want to put in the work to game plan..rather, run the same offense every week..win or lose!!

Florida_Bronco
06-20-2009, 10:44 PM
How do these people even have jobs discussing football? Cutler, I can somewhat see the logic behind, but (as we've discussed on this forum many times) Scheffler is the exact same skill set as Ben Watson, who was an integral part of McDaniel's offenses. Also, Scheffler is still here.

Drek
06-21-2009, 06:25 AM
How do these people even have jobs discussing football? Cutler, I can somewhat see the logic behind, but (as we've discussed on this forum many times) Scheffler is the exact same skill set as Ben Watson, who was an integral part of McDaniel's offenses. Also, Scheffler is still here.

I could see it.

While Watson fills a vital role in their offense he has now clearly become the #3 option behind Moss and Welker. Scheffler is used to being at worst option #2, more like 1B. He obviously got preferential looks from Cutler and our old offense made more use of the TE at the expense of the #2 WR. If Marshall hadn't missed the first game of the season Royal's numbers probably wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive for example.

Its been the way in Denver for a long time. McCaffery was the #2 WR but he was still third tier in passing priority behind Smith and Sharpe, or at least dead even with Sharpe whereas most offenses feature the top two WRs preferentially over the TE.

Scheffler fits the system but it isn't a system that is going to put 70-80 balls in his hands ever, and with Cutler/Bates he probably would've seen that chance at some point (likely at the expense of Royal and our RBs catching passes out of the backfield).

From a "I'm going to supplant Jason Whitten" standpoint its a step back for him.

If its true that is exactly the me first attitude McDaniels is trying to stamp out on this team, so either Scheffler is keeping it to himself, got over it, or will be the source of more problems in the not so distant future.

SportinOne
06-21-2009, 07:17 AM
What I think Quitler did not understand is that Os change over time and plans adjust to each opponent and the O is designed based on the talent of the players at hand. To be honest, I am glad Quitler is gone. Orton and Simms are apt to be much more suited to the O this year, which will be bolstered by the Oline's talent and experience, and a stable of RBs.

I am one that also believes the Broncos will have a much better season than many here believe. They may well surprise the h3ll out of some people.

So, by "players at hand", i'm assuming that you mean the players on the current team. At one point, Cutler was a current player on the team. On one hand you are saying the offense should have adapted to him, but also, you are saying that he didn't fit the offense and wanted out.

For all of you still hanging on to this debate of Cutler vs. McDaniels (and it's mostly the McDaniels folks that won't shut up), there is NO reason that they couldn't have worked together and came up with an offense that basically could have gone unrivaled. The improvements we needed to make: Get better at screen passes, run betters routes, make smarter decisions, establish a game plan without trying to out-think yourself (sorry shanahan), are all all things that could have been done and Cutler would have made this offense twice as good. Now we are forced to watch Orton and Simms "battle it out" to see who gets to lead the 5-11 season.

Rationalize it however you want. We did not get the better end of that trade and I really hope you all have fun waiting to see where, between 20 and 32, that last pick happens to fall.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 08:23 AM
That may be, but as Buff said, Jay stated that he would attend all mandatory team activities.

Jay said a lot of things.

But when he wouldn't return any of Bowlen's calls, Xavier called his agent and was told that Cutler didn't want to play in Denver and wanted to be traded.

That's when Bowlen pulled the trigger and told McD to trade him..

Cutler, of course, wore out the patience of the Broncos, especially owner Pat Bowlen who released a statement Tuesday night announcing that Cutler's agent Bus Cook, "clearly communicated and confirmed to us that Jay no longer has any desire to play for the Broncos. We will begin discussions with other teams in an effort to accommodate his request to be traded."

http://blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/2009/04/c.html

tnedator
06-21-2009, 08:32 AM
Jay said a lot of things.

But when he wouldn't return any of Bowlen's calls, Xavier called his agent and was told that Cutler didn't want to play in Denver and wanted to be traded.

That's when Bowlen pulled the trigger and told McD to trade him..



http://blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/2009/04/c.html

No longer having an 'desire' to play for the Broncos, and more specifically McDaniels, and keeping his word about attending mandatory events could have been two very different things. We will never know if Jay would have kept his word.

Pseudofool
06-21-2009, 08:39 AM
(and it's mostly the McDaniels folks that won't shut up)That's just not true. The anti-Cutler take might muddy peoples view of the Bears, but it's the anti-McD take that is pervasively coloring people's analyses of our current team. So it's a given you'll see much more anti-McD talk.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 08:42 AM
No longer having an 'desire' to play for the Broncos, and more specifically McDaniels, and keeping his word about attending mandatory events could have been two very different things. We will never know if Jay would have kept his word.


His agent wouldn't inform the Broncos that he doesn't want to play for the team and trigger a trade if he planned on being at mandatory events.

tnedator
06-21-2009, 08:44 AM
I could see it.

While Watson fills a vital role in their offense he has now clearly become the #3 option behind Moss and Welker. Scheffler is used to being at worst option #2, more like 1B. He obviously got preferential looks from Cutler and our old offense made more use of the TE at the expense of the #2 WR. If Marshall hadn't missed the first game of the season Royal's numbers probably wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive for example.

Its been the way in Denver for a long time. McCaffery was the #2 WR but he was still third tier in passing priority behind Smith and Sharpe, or at least dead even with Sharpe whereas most offenses feature the top two WRs preferentially over the TE.

Scheffler fits the system but it isn't a system that is going to put 70-80 balls in his hands ever, and with Cutler/Bates he probably would've seen that chance at some point (likely at the expense of Royal and our RBs catching passes out of the backfield).

From a "I'm going to supplant Jason Whitten" standpoint its a step back for him.

If its true that is exactly the me first attitude McDaniels is trying to stamp out on this team, so either Scheffler is keeping it to himself, got over it, or will be the source of more problems in the not so distant future.

Scheffler has never gotten the ball 70-80 times, would he have under Bates a few years down the road? Maybe, but highly unlikely if Marshall and Royal were still around (barring injuries). The Broncos have been tight end centric when: one, they had one of the greatest TE's in NFL history on the field or two, they had injuries or for other reasons, had little to no depth at WR.

2007 was one of those "no WR depth' years, where Walker was hurt, and Stokely had to move into the WR2 spot, and Scheffler got more balls as a result.

The fact is that Scheffler playing on a NE team 'could' result in fewer receptions, but that wouldn't be because Scheffler was going from 1b to 3 or 4 (he was never 1b, except out of injury induced necessity), but instead because a lot of balls the Broncos throw to TE's, NE throws to RB's.

That said, the bigger problem Scheffler will have is whether he will be considered as competent a blocker as Graham and the new kid (Quinn?). As NE will run far fewer two back sets, they will rely more on the TE(s) for run and pass blocking, and a TE that can't cut it there, likely won't see time on the field, and as a result won't get targeted for receptions.

tnedator
06-21-2009, 08:47 AM
His agent wouldn't inform the Broncos that he doesn't want to play for the team and trigger a trade if he planned on being at mandatory events.

I guess you didn't follow the Broncos this off season???

Jay said in multiple times, after requesting the trade, that he would attend all mandatory club activities. I never once read where he or his agent retracted that promise.

Plenty of guys request a trade, but honor their contract until the trade happens, or even if it doesn't. Happens all the time in sports. Some Denver fans that either didn't like Jay to begin with, or are pissed that he asked for the trade, make this out to be something that has never happened before.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 08:51 AM
I guess you didn't follow the Broncos this off season???

Jay said in multiple times, after requesting the trade, that he would attend all mandatory club activities. I never once read where he or his agent retracted that promise.

Plenty of guys request a trade, but honor their contract until the trade happens, or even if it doesn't. Happens all the time in sports. Some Denver fans that either didn't like Jay to begin with, or are pissed that he asked for the trade, make this out to be something that has never happened before.

I didn't follow the Broncos this offseason? What makes you think that?
As for the rest, you're right, I guess we'll never know.

Pseudofool
06-21-2009, 08:59 AM
Why on earth should we take Cutler's promise to attend mandatory camps with anything other than a grain of salt? How sheepish can these people be? Jesus.

In other news, Brandon Marshall promises to put all his problems behind him.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 08:59 AM
Jay said in multiple times, after requesting the trade, that he would attend all mandatory club activities. I never once read where he or his agent retracted that promise.



Jay said a lot of things publicly.

After his meeting with McDaniles:
Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler said Sunday night he has formally asked Denver to trade him

After he was traded to the Bears:
I didn't want to get traded.

tnedator
06-21-2009, 09:03 AM
I didn't follow the Broncos this offseason? What makes you think that?
As for the rest, you're right, I guess we'll never know.

Why, because you keep referring to one piece of the 'story' that was the Culer/McDaniels saga.

However, in the end, we will never know, so all that debating the unknown does is pass the months until training camp begins.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 09:09 AM
Why, because you keep referring to one piece of the 'story' that was the Culer/McDaniels saga.

However, in the end, we will never know, so all that debating the unknown does is pass the months until training camp begins.

I was responding to the 'one piece of the story' you posted.

I hadn't realized that if I didn't re-hash the entire story.........I wasn't following the Broncos. ;D

tnedator
06-21-2009, 09:10 AM
Jay said a lot of things publicly.

After his meeting with McDaniles:


After he was traded to the Bears:

If you look at it without your slanted view, that makes sense.

Jay and his agent said on multiple occasion, that they wanted to know that Jay was going to be the QB and wanted an explanation on what happened with McD attempting to trade for Cassel.

However, McDaniels wouldn't make anything close to a "Jay my man" comment, except for one time in a one sentence prepared statement (prepared, because he repeated what the Broncos PR guy said the day before).

Instead, McDaniels kept flexing his muscle and whenever talking to press would say things like, we have no plans to trade Jay, but any player would be available if an offer was made that makes the team better. Is something like that a true statement? Sure, should a head coach that just chucked a hand grenade into his locker room by trying to trade for his former QB 'smart' for making a statement like that? NO.

McDaniels first job of damage control should have been to make his player feel comfortable after he screwed the pooch (he screwed the pooch in that if he was going to attempt to trade jay and get Cassel, he should have damn well made sure he got Cassel).

So, in that sense, Cutler's comments after the trade were consistent with what we heard before. He reached the point of not trusting McDaniels, and feeling he was two-faced, but that doesn't mean that he wanted to be traded, vs. feeling that was his best option.

tnedator
06-21-2009, 09:12 AM
I was responding to the 'one piece of the story' you posted.

I hadn't realized that if I didn't re-hash the entire story.........I wasn't following the Broncos. ;D

That's ok, you're entitled to make a mistake here or there.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 09:27 AM
If you look at it without your slanted view,

I would rather have Jay as a Bronco and didn't want to see him traded, but Jay forced the issue after McDaniel discussed a scenario that would bring Cassel to Denver.

If that's slanted, I'm guilty.

tnedator
06-21-2009, 09:31 AM
I would rather have Jay as a Bronco and didn't want to see him traded, but Jay forced the issue after McDaniel discussed a scenario that would bring Cassel to Denver.

If that's slanted, I'm guilty.

If that is how you have simplified the facts, then yes, you are slanted and guilty.

footstepsfrom#27
06-21-2009, 09:48 AM
Certainly haven't heard this before. Who said it and how would they know?
This question asked way back in post #3 was never answered. It's the only question here worth debating.

Otherwise...this is just the OM on the radio.

Pseudofool
06-21-2009, 09:57 AM
This question asked way back in post #3 was never answered. It's the only question here worth debating.

Otherwise...this is just the OM on the radio.

Well, here's who was on: 11 am ET - Press Coverage w/ Vic Carucci & Dan Leberfeld.

I don't know Dan Leberfeld, but doesn't Vic write for SI?

footstepsfrom#27
06-21-2009, 10:01 AM
Well, here's who was on: 11 am ET - Press Coverage w/ Vic Carucci & Dan Leberfeld.

I don't know Dan Leberfeld, but doesn't Vic write for SI?
The primary focus of my question was, "how do they know"?

I theorize that in the absence of them telling us that...they probably don't.

DenverBrit
06-21-2009, 02:59 PM
If that is how you have simplified the facts, then yes, you are slanted and guilty.

Who isn't? You?

cmhargrove
06-21-2009, 05:32 PM
How do these people even have jobs discussing football? Cutler, I can somewhat see the logic behind, but (as we've discussed on this forum many times) Scheffler is the exact same skill set as Ben Watson, who was an integral part of McDaniel's offenses. Also, Scheffler is still here.

Also remember - McD created Welker's role in the potent NE offense. He was just an "average" receiver before coming to the Pats.

McD created the plays that made Welker special - he can do the same with Scheff, Hillis, Moreno, Gaffney, etc.. He has enough weapons (and brains) to get any of our talented athletes in single coverage. Also, he has an O-line talented enough to provide time for routes to properly develop. IMO - any of our receiving threats are able to outplay their defensive counterparts if given a few seconds.

McD created Welker, he's certainly smart enough to create a role for Scheffler if he wants to. It's all about the mismatch.

TonyR
06-21-2009, 05:42 PM
McD created the plays that made Welker special - he can do the same with Scheff, Hillis, Moreno, Gaffney, etc...

And you left out the most intriguing prospect in McD's offense: Eddie Royal. Think about how good he can possibly be in that offense.

cmhargrove
06-21-2009, 06:24 PM
And you left out the most intriguing prospect in McD's offense: Eddie Royal. Think about how good he can possibly be in that offense.

I truly hope that the future of the Broncos becomes Royal and Moreno. Those are two guys that I really like, and I feel (so far) are team-first players. If our stars are "team first" guys, I will feel much better about our chances of making it to another SB.

BearMan18
06-21-2009, 07:01 PM
I truly hope that the future of the Broncos becomes Orton, Royal and Moreno. Those are two guys that I really like, and I feel (so far) are team-first players. If our stars are "team first" guys, I will feel much better about our chances of making it to another SB.

Fixed

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-22-2009, 06:23 AM
If you look at it without your slanted view, that makes sense.

Jay and his agent said on multiple occasion, that they wanted to know that Jay was going to be the QB and wanted an explanation on what happened with McD attempting to trade for Cassel.

However, McDaniels wouldn't make anything close to a "Jay my man" comment, except for one time in a one sentence prepared statement (prepared, because he repeated what the Broncos PR guy said the day before).

Instead, McDaniels kept flexing his muscle and whenever talking to press would say things like, we have no plans to trade Jay, but any player would be available if an offer was made that makes the team better. Is something like that a true statement? Sure, should a head coach that just chucked a hand grenade into his locker room by trying to trade for his former QB 'smart' for making a statement like that? NO.

McDaniels first job of damage control should have been to make his player feel comfortable after he screwed the pooch (he screwed the pooch in that if he was going to attempt to trade jay and get Cassel, he should have damn well made sure he got Cassel).

So, in that sense, Cutler's comments after the trade were consistent with what we heard before. He reached the point of not trusting McDaniels, and feeling he was two-faced, but that doesn't mean that he wanted to be traded, vs. feeling that was his best option.

And then he should have taken Jay's cock out of his mouth and proceeded to coach the football team, right? I mean, as long as Jay is comfortable, everything's hunky ****ing dory, huh?

tnedator
06-22-2009, 07:28 AM
And then he should have taken Jay's cock out of his mouth and proceeded to coach the football team, right? I mean, as long as Jay is comfortable, everything's hunky ****ing dory, huh?

Sorry, I'm not into gay porn, I'll let you play this fantasy out on your own.

fdf
06-22-2009, 07:47 AM
Scheffler is used to being at worst option #2, more like 1B. He obviously got preferential looks from Cutler and our old offense made more use of the TE at the expense of the #2 WR. If Marshall hadn't missed the first game of the season Royal's numbers probably wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive for example.

. . . .

Scheffler fits the system but it isn't a system that is going to put 70-80 balls in his hands ever, and with Cutler/Bates he probably would've seen that chance at some point (likely at the expense of Royal and our RBs catching passes out of the backfield).

. . .


The pass targeting would have have to change a LOT for Schleffler to see more receptions than Royal (46 for Schleffler vs 90+ for Royal).

I've read your posts and you seem to know a lot about the game. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But how is Schleffler the number 2 target when he has only half the receptions of our second most prolific receiver? Even if you remove the Oakland game, Royal is still WAY ahead of Schleffler.

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 07:59 AM
And you left out the most intriguing prospect in McD's offense: Eddie Royal. Think about how good he can possibly be in that offense.

Eddie can't handle getting 100 plus touches year in and year out.

He WILL get hurt.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-22-2009, 09:53 AM
Sorry, I'm not into gay porn, I'll let you play this fantasy out on your own.

Clearly you're the one with the mind for fantasy. McDaniels should have done anything and everything to keep Quitler "comfortable." I'm sure you'd let him brick on your face if it made him more "comfortable."

bronco militia
06-22-2009, 09:56 AM
they talked about how even before the trade happened, cutler and scheffler had been watching tape on the patriots and decided that they do not fit the roles of the new england offense, and were unhappy far before mcdaniels ever discussed trading them.



.

that's interesting considering Jeremy Bates spent last off season copying the Pats offense.

TonyR
06-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Eddie can't handle getting 100 plus touches year in and year out.

He WILL get hurt.

Why? Welker's not a big guy and he does it.

Man-Goblin
06-22-2009, 10:15 AM
Why? Welker's not a big guy and he does it.

It's a silly comment. Royal has no greater chance than anyone else at getting hurt.

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 10:18 AM
Why? Welker's not a big guy and he does it.
Welker seems like he has a more solid body than Eddie does.

tsiguy96
06-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Welker seems like he has a more solid body than Eddie does.

nice, solid argument from the winner!

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 10:23 AM
nice, solid argument from the winner!

Do you not think Eddie Royal is scrawny?

2KBack
06-22-2009, 10:26 AM
Do you not think Eddie Royal is scrawny?

well there is that massive 3 pound difference in their weights

tsiguy96
06-22-2009, 10:28 AM
Do you not think Eddie Royal is scrawny?

are you really this stupid?

body type does not mean they will be healthy or not, and just by looking at them isnt going to tell, you see a lot of big strong guys who are injury prone, it doesnt matter. ad to say he will be injury prone because he looks "scrawny" is just dumb as well, especially when comparing him to wes welker, who royal appears to be bigger than. steve smith is no beast either but hes been pretty good.

Man-Goblin
06-22-2009, 10:36 AM
Plus, Royal put up linebacker type numbers lifting at the combine; not that it matters when it comes to staying healthy. But like I said, it was a silly comment.

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 10:41 AM
are you really this stupid?

body type does not mean they will be healthy or not, and just by looking at them isnt going to tell, you see a lot of big strong guys who are injury prone, it doesnt matter. ad to say he will be injury prone because he looks "scrawny" is just dumb as well, especially when comparing him to wes welker, who royal appears to be bigger than. steve smith is no beast either but hes been pretty good.
Thanks for the insult!

Body type does have something to do with how prone to injuries you are. I will make myself look like a dumb ass if I try to explain it myself, but it is true.

I don't know the correct term I'm looking for but people like Welker, Steve Smith, Calvin Johnson, and TO are "solid", and are less likely to get injured. Eddie Royal isn't. His body type reminds me of Dante Hall or Reggie Bush. Eddie had a few injuries last year and had quite a few in college.

tnedator
06-22-2009, 10:48 AM
Clearly you're the one with the mind for fantasy. McDaniels should have done anything and everything to keep Quitler "comfortable." I'm sure you'd let him brick on your face if it made him more "comfortable."

You seem to be obsessed with this gay sex ****. You a guy or gal? Either way, your creeping me out dude.

Any chance we can switch back to talking football, rather than your obsession with gay sex?

tsiguy96
06-22-2009, 10:50 AM
Thanks for the insult!

Body type does have something to do with how prone to injuries you are. I will make myself look like a dumb ass if I try to explain it myself, but it is true.

I don't know the correct term I'm looking for but people like Welker, Steve Smith, Calvin Johnson, and TO are "solid", and are less likely to get injured. Eddie Royal isn't. His body type reminds me of Dante Hall or Reggie Bush. Eddie had a few injuries last year and had quite a few in college.

there is so much more that goes into injury status than being "solid" it isnt even funny. that and you have never seen these guys body's before how can you really compare them at all? because of their arm size?

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 10:57 AM
there is so much more that goes into injury status than being "solid" it isnt even funny. that and you have never seen these guys body's before how can you really compare them at all? because of their arm size?

Their entire body is "solid". Their legs, calves, arms, torso... If you have a TV bigger than 30'' you can see it.

Rabb
06-22-2009, 11:01 AM
the body type thing is just stupid, a knee is a knee...I don't care what type of body type you have if you get hit wrong it's game over

footstepsfrom#27
06-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Do you not think Eddie Royal is scrawny?
He pressed 225 lbs x 24 (#1 at the combine) and maxes at close to 400 pounds. I wish I was that scrawny. ;D

BMarsh615
06-22-2009, 12:08 PM
Analysis Positives: Tight-skinned athlete with good overall musculature.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/profiles/knowshon-moreno?id=79619#profiles-tabs:players-analysis

Why would this be in Knowshon's scouting profile if body type isn't important?

tsiguy96
06-22-2009, 12:18 PM
Analysis Positives: Tight-skinned athlete with good overall musculature.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/profiles/knowshon-moreno?id=79619#profiles-tabs:players-analysis

Why would this be in Knowshon's scouting profile if body type isn't important?

do you realize how stupid you sound?

no one is saying body type isnt important, what were saying is that
a. you are wrong about eddie royals body type
b. its not make or break as far as injury status or durability goes, if it was then small guys would never make it in this league
c. the fact taht you are so obsessed with the bodies of different players around the league is slightly concerning

Man-Goblin
06-22-2009, 12:25 PM
I thought the Knowshon pick was good, but now that I know he has tight skin I think it might just be the best draft pick of all time.