PDA

View Full Version : Clady # 1 yet again..


Bronco Rob
06-29-2009, 06:16 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/positional-rankings/OFF/OT


Offensive tackles

1.) Ryan Clady, Broncos
Games played: 16
Games started: 16

Analysis: As a rookie in 2008 he didn't give up a sack. That's amazing. He's that good.








:thumbs:

DomCasual
06-29-2009, 06:26 PM
"Pete Prisco ranks his top NFL players at each position. Clovdyx provided his list of top offensive tackles."

Who in the heck is Clovdyx?

Prodigal19
06-29-2009, 06:30 PM
"Pete Prisco ranks his top NFL players at each position. Clovdyx provided his list of top offensive tackles."

Who in the heck is Clovdyx?

I dont know, but his rankings are beyond terrible.

BroncoDoug
06-29-2009, 06:31 PM
he gave up .5 a sack... garbage. Trade him!

DomCasual
06-29-2009, 06:32 PM
"Pete Prisco ranks his top NFL players at each position. Clovdyx provided his list of top offensive tackles."

Who in the heck is Clovdyx?

Okay, quoting myself here. How's this for some solid analysis from this Clovdyx clown: "9. Michael Roos, Titans - Comment: I had to do a bit of research to compile this list, and his name came up. For those who don't know, he's a starting tackle for Tennessee, who posted the league's best record last year."

Wow.

Kaylore
06-29-2009, 06:58 PM
I love how Clady was handed the starting job before OTA's and no one said anything and it worked out. Orton was announced the starting QB for training camp with the caveat that he could still lose the job, and people were pissing and moaning about it.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 07:08 PM
I love how Clady was handed the starting job before OTA's and no one said anything and it worked out. Orton was announced the starting QB for training camp with the caveat that he could still lose the job, and people were pissing and moaning about it.

I DO think complaining about naming Orton the starter for camp is silly, BUT I don't find the two situations all that comparable. Here's why:

Clady was drafted on his immense talent. His primary competition was Erik Pears (or was he already cut, making it even more shallow?)

Orton and immense talent don't belong in the same sentence. Even his biggest supporters won't argue that. His primary competition is Chris Simms, who's on the exact same level as he is.

Kaylore
06-29-2009, 07:11 PM
I DO think complaining about naming Orton the starter for camp is silly, BUT I don't find the two situations all that comparable. Here's why:

Clady was drafted on his immense talent. His primary competition was Erik Pears (or was he already cut, making it even more shallow?)

Orton and immense talent don't belong in the same sentence. Even his biggest supporters won't argue that. His primary competition is Chris Simms, who's on the exact same level as he is.

Clady was a freaking rookie playing one of the hardest positions in the NFL. Let's not forget that Harris was still on the roster and Pears had experience in games. People that had misgivings about naming Orton the starter for camp that didn't at least entertain skepticism about Clady being the named the starter the day he was drafted should punch themselves in the balls.

UberBroncoMan
06-29-2009, 07:12 PM
How this guy didn't make the pro-bowl still shocks me.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 07:21 PM
Clady was a freaking rookie playing one of the hardest positions in the NFL. Let's not forget that Harris was still on the roster and Pears had experience in games. People that had misgivings about naming Orton the starter for camp that didn't at least entertain skepticism about Clady being the named the starter the day he was drafted should punch themselves in the balls.

And Orton's an untalented fruit-cake playing THE most difficult position in the NFL, but that's just my opinion. What's not my opinion: He was beaten repeatedly by Rex Grossman and Brian Griese.

But I digress, this thread should be about Clady love and should be all about adoration of one of our top 3 (if not TOP) football players.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 07:22 PM
How this guy didn't make the pro-bowl still shocks me.

Fan vote is pretty silly, along with some east coast bias. Still, I think a good chunk of the reason is that he played a lot of his stiffest competition towards the end of the season when a lot of the voting was already done. It's a tragedy either way.

BroncoBuff
06-29-2009, 07:25 PM
Half a sack?

One half of one sack?!?!?!


Guys just cannot get around him. His lateral quickness is freaking amazing, and he's obviously a rock against a bull rush too.

The half he gave up was prolly when Jay was scrambling, and he and Hamilton lost track of some pass-rusher who shot a gap ...

DarkHorse30
06-29-2009, 07:30 PM
And Orton's an untalented fruit-cake playing THE most difficult position in the NFL, but that's just my opinion. What's not my opinion: He was beaten repeatedly by Rex Grossman and Brian Griese.


Let's not forget the genius OC in Chicago...Norv Turner's brother. Anyone think that Orton or any QB from Chicago will be coached up by McDaniels?

BroncoMan4ever
06-29-2009, 07:34 PM
Clady was a freaking rookie playing one of the hardest positions in the NFL. Let's not forget that Harris was still on the roster and Pears had experience in games. People that had misgivings about naming Orton the starter for camp that didn't at least entertain skepticism about Clady being the named the starter the day he was drafted should punch themselves in the balls.

think about it this way. in the NFL, more than likely 80% of 1st round draft picks are put in as starters almost from day 1, or by the middle of TC when they have learned the system. 1st round picks are not drafted to learn the position and in a couple years crack the starting lineup, usually they are brought in to contribute the minute the ink is dry on their mega contract with huge guaranteed dollars.

BroncoMan4ever
06-29-2009, 07:39 PM
And Orton's an untalented fruit-cake playing THE most difficult position in the NFL, but that's just my opinion. What's not my opinion: He was beaten repeatedly by Rex Grossman and Brian Griese.

But I digress, this thread should be about Clady love and should be all about adoration of one of our top 3 (if not TOP) football players.

Orton was never beaten out by Grossman. Grossman was simply given the job and numerous opportunities regardless of how bad he sucked because he was a 1st round draft pick. most teams will give a 1st round QB chances and years to become what they drafted, even when it appears obvious they will never be who they wee supposed to be. look at Harrington, Carr, even Ryan Leaf was given time.

and last season when actually given a legit shot as a starter he began the season as one of the top QBs in the league. he was getting notice as a possible MVP candidate at the midway point of the season.

if he has help around him and a chance the guy can play.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 07:43 PM
Orton was never beaten out by Grossman. Grossman was simply given the job and numerous opportunities regardless of how bad he sucked because he was a 1st round draft pick. most teams will give a 1st round QB chances and years to become what they drafted, even when it appears obvious they will never be who they wee supposed to be. look at Harrington, Carr, even Ryan Leaf was given time.

and last season when actually given a legit shot as a starter he began the season as one of the top QBs in the league. he was getting notice as a possible MVP candidate at the midway point of the season.

if he has help around him and a chance the guy can play.

That's 100% wild speculation.

It's on the same level as saying that currently, Orton is being given the opportunity and has not outperformed Chris Simms to earn it.

It's silly.

DenverBrit
06-29-2009, 07:58 PM
That's 100% wild speculation.

It's on the same level as saying that currently, Orton is being given the opportunity and has not outperformed Chris Simms to earn it.

It's silly.

What does it matter?

If Simms performs better in TC, then he'll get the job.

tsiguy96
06-29-2009, 08:08 PM
That's 100% wild speculation.

It's on the same level as saying that currently, Orton is being given the opportunity and has not outperformed Chris Simms to earn it.

It's silly.

really, you have proof of this how? were you there? or are you just making **** up again?

BMarsh615
06-29-2009, 08:13 PM
And Orton's an untalented fruit-cake playing THE most difficult position in the NFL, but that's just my opinion. What's not my opinion: He was beaten repeatedly by Rex Grossman and Brian Griese.



You should download a few Bear's games from the first 8 games of last season. Orton was not that bad. He is a MUCH smarter QB than Jay Cutler ever was here, he has an above average arm, he doesn't make many dumb throws... I think you will change your tune once you see Orton behind the offensive line we have. Orton was lucky to get 2 seconds to pass the ball behind Chicago's line. And the play calling he had to put up with was atrocious.

Popps
06-29-2009, 08:15 PM
O.K.. I won't argue that.

But, many worse QBs have been part of productive playoff teams and SB winners. In an age of parity, anything can happen from year to year. Chicago was an offensive void. It'll be interesting to see what an offensive coach can do with Orton and Co.

[QUOTE=TheReverend;2459534
Even his biggest supporters won't argue that. His primary competition is Chris Simms, who's on the exact same level as he is.

Maybe. Orton has a nice record as a starter and Simms has been out of the game for a bit. Orton also has experience in the system, so I don't think it's at all surprising or odd that he was named the starter. I also believe McDaniels when he says that it's "for now." Guys are going to have to earn their jobs this year, and I guarantee yo Orton will be no different. This was likely a move to establish some continuity with the offense and perhaps even give Simms an extra incentive to speed up his learning curve. McD knows he's got to get both of these guys performing at their highest level.

It also might be just that Orton is picking up things much faster, and this serves as a practical move to know who's taking reps with the starters when day 1 kicks in.

A lot of possible reasons for doing it... none that far fetched, and it's a move that can be retracted at any time. If Simms shines in the PS and Orton flops, watch how fast Kyle's butt hits the plywood.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 08:16 PM
really, you have proof of this how? were you there? or are you just making **** up again?

You moron. I'm using his flawed logic to show how silly that sounds. You continue to exemplify you're stupidity at every opportunity.

Popps
06-29-2009, 08:16 PM
On topic, though... props to Clady. I hope he follows up with an even stronger year. What a huge grab that was, solidifying the LT spot for years to come.

TheReverend
06-29-2009, 08:17 PM
O.K.. I won't argue that.

But, many worse QBs have been part of productive playoff teams and SB winners. In an age of parity, anything can happen from year to year. Chicago was an offensive void. It'll be interesting to see what an offensive coach can do with Orton and Co.



Maybe. Orton has a nice record as a starter and Simms has been out of the game for a bit. Orton also has experience in the system, so I don't think it's at all surprising or odd that he was named the starter. I also believe McDaniels when he says that it's "for now." Guys are going to have to earn their jobs this year, and I guarantee yo Orton will be no different. This was likely a move to establish some continuity with the offense and perhaps even give Simms an extra incentive to speed up his learning curve. McD knows he's got to get both of these guys performing at their highest level.

It also might be just that Orton is picking up things much faster, and this serves as a practical move to know who's taking reps with the starters when day 1 kicks in.

A lot of possible reasons for doing it... none that far fetched, and it's a move that can be retracted at any time. If Simms shines in the PS and Orton flops, watch how fast Kyle's butt hits the plywood.

People are getting this way twisted. I DON'T CARE ONE BIT THAT ORTON GOT NAMED THE STARTER. I was only pointing out I don't think it compares to Clady being named the starter last season.

FFS, this is a Clady thread.

SoDak Bronco
06-29-2009, 09:01 PM
I personally love his death club that is going to knock Meriman the F*ck out...Sleep roid boy

BroncoMan4ever
06-29-2009, 09:38 PM
That's 100% wild speculation.

It's on the same level as saying that currently, Orton is being given the opportunity and has not outperformed Chris Simms to earn it.

It's silly.

Simms was brought in specifically for the reason of being a backup. he was never looked at as a guy to start for us, even when Jay was traded. Orton was brought in to start here, and informing him of that early builds up his confidence and shows that the team has faith in him. also, by telling him now, McDaniels has put more pressure on him to keep the job. it is much harder to keep the job than it is to get the job.

Atlas
06-29-2009, 09:41 PM
I love how Clady was handed the starting job before OTA's and no one said anything and it worked out. Orton was announced the starting QB for training camp with the caveat that he could still lose the job, and people were pissing and moaning about it.

Clady is a top 15 pick, Orton is a scrub.... maybe that's it.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/kyle-orton-stoned.jpg

Popps
06-29-2009, 10:00 PM
Clady is a top 15 pick[/img]

So was George Foster.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-29-2009, 10:36 PM
So was George Foster.

If pick #20 is now higher than #15, then yes, you are correct that Foster was a Top 15 pick.

TheChamp24
06-29-2009, 10:44 PM
I still remember there was a decent amount on the board who were moaning about the Clady pick and talking about how he wouldn't even get playing time if we took him.
lol, especially was it lex's meltdown?

Kaylore
06-29-2009, 11:20 PM
The whole Orton sucks now because years ago he couldn't beat out Griese argument is complete horse ****, by the way.

By that logic Brees sucks because he lost his job to Doug Flutie his first years in the league.

And keep posting dated photos of Orton when he had his alcohol problem he's since overcome.

And yes, Clady is awesome.

atomicbloke
06-29-2009, 11:38 PM
I love how Clady was handed the starting job before OTA's and no one said anything and it worked out. Orton was announced the starting QB for training camp with the caveat that he could still lose the job, and people were pissing and moaning about it.

Clady was replacing a crippled retired Matt Lepsis.

Orton is replacing Jay Cutler

You are a moron.

Kaylore
06-30-2009, 07:17 AM
Clady was replacing a crippled retired Matt Lepsis.

Orton is replacing Jay Cutler

You are a moron.

What does that have to do with anything? Neither are/were on the team and so had no bearing on anything. So because Cutler played well we should question the coach naming Orton the starter for training camp? That's moronic.

Dukes
06-30-2009, 07:27 AM
Cutler will miss him the most.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 08:34 AM
On topic, though... props to Clady. I hope he follows up with an even stronger year. What a huge grab that was, solidifying the LT spot for years to come.

Shanahan, despite his non-ability at evaluating defensive players/situations, had a great couple of drafts in what would prove to be his twilight here.

He solidified many spots for "years to come."

QB - Jay Cutler
OT - Clady/Harris
TE - Scheffler
WR - Marshall/Royal


That could have been 6 to 10 years of offensive bliss...

Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 08:42 AM
Clady was replacing a crippled retired Matt Lepsis.

Orton is replacing Jay Cutler

You are a moron.

Neither decision, to me, was a big deal. Clady was expected to have a Joe Thomas-like season, which he actually bested. And Orton is more seasoned than Simms, who by the way had a ruptured spleen and really hasn't seen much playing time in the last couple years. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Yes, Orton is the best quarterback... on this team.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-30-2009, 08:51 AM
Shanahan, despite his non-ability at evaluating defensive players/situations, had a great couple of drafts in what would prove to be his twilight here.

He solidified many spots for "years to come."

QB - Jay Cutler
OT - Clady/Harris
TE - Scheffler
WR - Marshall/Royal


That could have been 6 to 10 years of offensive bliss...

Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

Yeah, because most first round QB's become franchise players. The list of busts is much longer than the list of hits.

Traveler
06-30-2009, 09:15 AM
Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

This would be true if the new HC ran the same or similar WC offense. There have not been many instances where a new regime didn't make changes to fit the new scheme regardless how well that unit performed the previous year.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

HUH?


If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mentioned the pick we sent to Seattle for the right to select Smith was ours. If that the case, why is Smith being mentioned in this discussion? Can't we still select another QB with our pick from CHI?

rmsanger
06-30-2009, 09:33 AM
Shanahan, despite his non-ability at evaluating defensive players/situations, had a great couple of drafts in what would prove to be his twilight here.

He solidified many spots for "years to come."

QB - Jay Cutler
OT - Clady/Harris
TE - Scheffler
WR - Marshall/Royal


That could have been 6 to 10 years of offensive bliss...

Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

Agreed....

Last time I buy a Broncos jersey of anykind..

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 09:37 AM
This would be true if the new HC ran the same or similar WC offense. There have not been many instances where a new regime didn't make changes to fit the new scheme regardless how well that unit performed the previous year.

So let me ask you this... How many times has a new coach come in and attempted to trade away the starting quarterback before even holding a practice? If that's even happened, find one the caliber of Jay Cutler that has gotten traded.

HUH?

Come on, really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mentioned the pick we sent to Seattle for the right to select Smith was ours. If that the case, why is Smith being mentioned in this discussion? Can't we still select another QB with our pick from CHI?

We could. Heck, we could select a QB with our 6th rounder next year too, right?

The fact is that the Broncos pick will be a top 10 while the Bears pick will be, at the very least, outside of the top 15. So yes, we could pick a QB with the Bears pick, but in case you haven't noticed, the more talented players tend to go first. While there are many more busts than sure things, it's very nice to be able to have your first choice.

What would you rather have? Pick 6 overall, or Pick 16 overall? That's really not even a question. In fact, that's not even THE question, because we could have had BOTH.

The real question is, would you draft a 5'9'' CB in the top 10? Answer: You would if you were the ownder and he costed the same as a 2nd round pick.

Kaylore
06-30-2009, 09:38 AM
I also take issue with someone saying Clady was "expected to have a Joe Thomas like season." That's really not true. Clady was considered the riskier choice. He was only a Junior who played defensive line his freshmen year and had not played against elite level competition very regularly. He also had issues with his wonderlick score and there were rumors he didn't interview well at camp. Conventional wisdom was that he had more upside than Long but also was more likely to bust and that he would need to play RT for a season before being able to move to LT.

Clady was an incredible and pleasant surprise, not the expectation.

DenverBrit
06-30-2009, 09:38 AM
But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not, then why would you be happy with the 16th ranked offense??

That's mediocre by any standards and needs help.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 09:38 AM
Yeah, because most first round QB's become franchise players. The list of busts is much longer than the list of hits.

So let's just swap with everyone who comes up with a crappy trade idea for us. Since it's better to just sit back and let the others pick their "busts" first.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 09:55 AM
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not, then why would you be happy with the 16th ranked offense??

That's mediocre by any standards and needs help.

Needs help, yes. Needs better coaching, possibly. Needs to be put in better field position by the punter and the defense? Most definitely. Needs Kyle Orton? Please. The trade wasn't about making the offense better in any way. It was about balancing the team out. McDaniels never claimed that this trade would make the offense better. If he did he's an idiot. He just wanted a better all around team. I feel that the Ayers pick was good, but like I said before, trading away that sure-fire top 10 pick for a small cb is a stupid stupid move.

To add to that, it is possible to build a defense without trading your franchise quarterback.

Traveler
06-30-2009, 09:56 AM
We could. Heck, we could select a QB with our 6th rounder next year too, right?

The fact is that the Broncos pick will be a top 10 while the Bears pick will be, at the very least, outside of the top 15. So yes, we could pick a QB with the Bears pick, but in case you haven't noticed, the more talented players tend to go first. While there are many more busts than sure things, it's very nice to be able to have your first choice.

What would you rather have? Pick 6 overall, or Pick 16 overall? That's really not even a question. In fact, that's not even THE question, because we could have had BOTH.

The real question is, would you draft a 5'9'' CB in the top 10? Answer: You would if you were the ownder and he costed the same as a 2nd round pick.

You either have sight into the future or are making a huge assumption. You may eventually be correct in that our choice might be in the top ten. But odds are just as good that it won't. Point being is that we just don't know.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 09:57 AM
I also take issue with someone saying Clady was "expected to have a Joe Thomas like season." That's really not true. Clady was considered the riskier choice. He was only a Junior who played defensive line his freshmen year and had not played against elite level competition very regularly. He also had issues with his wonderlick score and there were rumors he didn't interview well at camp. Conventional wisdom was that he had more upside than Long but also was more likely to bust and that he would need to play RT for a season before being able to move to LT.

Clady was an incredible and pleasant surprise, not the expectation.

Conventional wisdom is different than the OM expectation and isn't that what we are talking about right now? People here backed him from the start.

SportinOne
06-30-2009, 10:10 AM
You either have sight into the future or are making a huge assumption. You may eventually be correct in that our choice might be in the top ten. But odds are just as good that it won't. Point being is that we just don't know.

Here is my crystal ball:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2011/broncosschedule.jpg

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2009, 10:11 AM
http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/kyle-orton-stoned.jpg

Hilarious!

Beantown Bronco
06-30-2009, 10:12 AM
You may eventually be correct in that our choice might be in the top ten. But odds are just as good that it won't.

Vegas makes the odds and they disagree with you.

tsiguy96
06-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Conventional wisdom is different than the OM expectation and isn't that what we are talking about right now? People here backed him from the start.

so you actually gonna watch teh season this year? i mean, we havent even started training camp yet, but the season is over, you should prolly wait til 2011 or later before you start watching and "supporting" the team again.

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2009, 10:14 AM
Shanahan, despite his non-ability at evaluating defensive players/situations, had a great couple of drafts in what would prove to be his twilight here.

He solidified many spots for "years to come."

QB - Jay Cutler
OT - Clady/Harris
TE - Scheffler
WR - Marshall/Royal


That could have been 6 to 10 years of offensive bliss...

Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

Dude, this has been hashed out and hashed out about a 100 different times on this board. Really, do we have to go here again?

Traveler
06-30-2009, 10:15 AM
Here is my crystal ball:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2011/broncosschedule.jpg

And?

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii273/Papi728/chicago-bears-2009-schedule.jpg

DenverBrit
06-30-2009, 11:16 AM
Needs help, yes. Needs better coaching, possibly. Needs to be put in better field position by the punter and the defense? Most definitely. Needs Kyle Orton? Please. The trade wasn't about making the offense better in any way. It was about balancing the team out. McDaniels never claimed that this trade would make the offense better. If he did he's an idiot. He just wanted a better all around team. I feel that the Ayers pick was good, but like I said before, trading away that sure-fire top 10 pick for a small cb is a stupid stupid move.

To add to that, it is possible to build a defense without trading your franchise quarterback.

I'm not going to rehash the draft and Cutler fiasco, I was commenting on the notion that the offense was ok.
I agree, field position might have helped, but the red-zone issue has been with us for several years.
I will be anxious to see if the new offensive scheme solves the problem.

Kaylore
06-30-2009, 11:27 AM
Conventional wisdom is different than the OM expectation and isn't that what we are talking about right now? People here backed him from the start.

That's because there are a bunch of homers (and lately anti-homers) here. Every first round pick is expected to be "the best 3V@rrrr!!!!" from day one. The fact is that Clady's season is one of the most remarkable for any rookie left tackle prospect in the last ten years. Given the lack of defense, the number of times we were playing from behind, the absence of a running game, and the number of times Cutler dropped back to pass, not allowing a sack the entire season in those conditions, with only two years starting in college, as a rookie is one of the most legendary things any Broncos rookie has done in recent memory. I don't think even the most homerish of homers anticipated that...well maybe the ones on Broncomania did.

joe9999
06-30-2009, 01:58 PM
Shanahan, despite his non-ability at evaluating defensive players/situations, had a great couple of drafts in what would prove to be his twilight here.

He solidified many spots for "years to come."

QB - Jay Cutler
OT - Clady/Harris
TE - Scheffler
WR - Marshall/Royal


That could have been 6 to 10 years of offensive bliss...

Fire Shanahan, fine. But there was no reason to mess with the offense. None. Not even a trade that "makes the team better." The trade DIDN'T make the team better, FYI.

Popps, your "anything can happen" logic is quite true but it's also quite true for 31 other teams out there.... of which, there are more teams that have a much better shot than us than those who don't.

If we had just kept our draft pick next year the sting wouldn't be so bad. We could get a talented QB in here and things would start to make sense...

5'9'' CB over a franchise QB... He better have 12 interceptions and 4 touchdowns next year.

Shanahan and the Goodmans had this team going in the right direction. This year the defense would have been majorly improved under them. And we would have been a contender. With all the bright decisions from Mr. Furcoat, we are bottom dwellers for years to come.

fdf
06-30-2009, 02:27 PM
Shanahan and the Goodmans had this team going in the right direction. This year the defense would have been majorly improved under them. And we would have been a contender. With all the bright decisions from Mr. Furcoat, we are bottom dwellers for years to come.

I really could not disagree more. We have been perennially mediocre since the Super Bowl years, a .500 team kept that high by solid game day offensive coaching by Kubiak and to some extent, Shanahan. They were playing above their talent level. Then, beginning in 2005, the defense went into a steady decline from mediocre to the worst Denver defense since the 1960's--and they were really, really bad in the 60's. It's not that management didn't try. They were thrashing about trying to fix things, convincing themselves each year that they had done so.

That D was going nowhere under Shanahan. In my heart, I knew that from the Moss, Crowder, draft when we traded away our picks because, as Shanahan said, we were so good on both sides of the ball that there wasn't room for more than three or four draftees. That was almost a laughable contention and the following season proved it.

At that point, Shanahan had lost all ability to see the enormous problems the team had on D--too many years, too close to the decisions, whatever. That he was going to keep Slowick after last season underlined that problem. The D was broke and Shanahan had no idea what to do to fix it.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-30-2009, 04:16 PM
Shanahan and the Goodmans had this team going in the right direction. This year the defense would have been majorly improved under them. And we would have been a contender. With all the bright decisions from Mr. Furcoat, we are bottom dwellers for years to come.

Who would Shanny and the Goodmans have acquired that McDaniels/Xanders did not? Either the Goodmans' picks haven't panned out (Moss and Crowder), or if you credit those to Bates, the Goodmans' have no track record for drafting defense that entitles them to any benefit of the doubt. For all the **** McDaniels gets (some of it rightly), he put together a defensive staff that is light years ahead of what Shanahan would have had this year.

Atlas
06-30-2009, 08:16 PM
Shanahan and the Goodmans had this team going in the right direction. This year the defense would have been majorly improved under them. And we would have been a contender. With all the bright decisions from Mr. Furcoat, we are bottom dwellers for years to come.

You are right. If Shanny was here Denver would have drafted very heavily on defense and everyone in the forum would be talking about what it would take for Denver to win the division. There is no talk about that now. Denver is in a fight with the Chefs, and raiders to see who will NOT be last.

tsiguy96
06-30-2009, 08:31 PM
You are right. If Shanny was here Denver would have drafted very heavily on defense and everyone in the forum would be talking about what it would take for Denver to win the division. There is no talk about that now. Denver is in a fight with the Chefs, and raiders to see who will NOT be last.

and bob slowik would have ran prevent year in and year out and let other teams kill us with the extremely short pass that was indefendable on 3rd down last year.

Kaylore
06-30-2009, 08:34 PM
and bob slowik would have ran prevent year in and year out and let other teams kill us with the extremely short pass that was indefendable on 3rd down last year.

It really wouldn't have mattered who we had on defense. Slowick calling the plays would have made the team horrible on D again and any talent we had would have not been able to develop with our poor coaching staff.

Popps
06-30-2009, 09:10 PM
You are right. If Shanny was here Denver would have drafted very heavily on defense

Says who?

Even if he did, how has that worked out for us in the last decade?

What about free agency? We couldn't find our asses with both hands in free agency with regards to defense. That was going to change?

Oh, and then there's the keeping Slowick element. That would have been fun.

Denver is in a fight with the Chefs, and raiders to see who will NOT be last.

Don't project your frightened, feeble state of mind to the rest of us. Stay in the corner by your miserable self.

Some of us are excited about the season, and god forbid... optimistic.

Again, I'm taking bets... name the amount that this team will improve on defense and not be markedly different at putting points on the board.
Haven't found a single taker, despite all of the ****-talking 'fraidy-cats around here.

I'm guessing that's because at the end of the day, people can kick and scream.. but they know we needed change. Some people just can't move on.

TheReverend
06-30-2009, 09:29 PM
Don't project your frightened, feeble state of mind to the rest of us. Stay in the corner by your miserable self.

Some of us are excited about the season, and god forbid... optimistic.

Again, I'm taking bets... name the amount that this team will improve on defense and not be markedly different at putting points on the board.
Haven't found a single taker, despite all of the ****-talking 'fraidy-cats around here.

I'm guessing that's because at the end of the day, people can kick and scream.. but they know we needed change. Some people just can't move on.

Improving on defense MEANS you will put more points on the board... field position and creating turnovers and short fields = points. That's not disputable.

If you want to bet that we'll be worse in wins and losses, feel free to look me up.

tsiguy96
06-30-2009, 09:38 PM
Improving on defense MEANS you will put more points on the board... field position and creating turnovers and short fields = points. That's not disputable.

If you want to bet that we'll be worse in wins and losses, feel free to look me up.

its possible to get better as a team but have less wins. especially since we had a few wins gift wrapped to us last year.

the schedule could easily destroy a few wins that we have good games in...

Atlas
06-30-2009, 10:01 PM
Says who?

Even if he did, how has that worked out for us in the last decade?

What about free agency? We couldn't find our asses with both hands in free agency with regards to defense. That was going to change?

Oh, and then there's the keeping Slowick element. That would have been fun.



Don't project your frightened, feeble state of mind to the rest of us. Stay in the corner by your miserable self.

Some of us are excited about the season, and god forbid... optimistic.

Again, I'm taking bets... name the amount that this team will improve on defense and not be markedly different at putting points on the board.
Haven't found a single taker, despite all of the ****-talking 'fraidy-cats around here.

I'm guessing that's because at the end of the day, people can kick and scream.. but they know we needed change. Some people just can't move on.


Shanny this decade had almost a .60 winning percentage. I fear in three years people will look back and say those were the good 'ole days.

tsiguy96
06-30-2009, 10:04 PM
Shanny this decade had almost a .60 winning percentage. I fear in three years people will look back and say those were the good 'ole days.

again, as you know, it has to amount to something in postseason to mean something. ask the cowboys how regular season wins are doing for them.

Kaylore
06-30-2009, 10:22 PM
Shanny this decade had almost a .60 winning percentage. I fear in three years people will look back and say those were the good 'ole days.
That may well be, but Shanahan's boat had sailed it was time to move on. After three years of horribly inconsistent teams and mediocre .500 football, I think it's safe to say Mike was even below his own standard.

FireFly
07-01-2009, 12:09 AM
Is it just me or has some of the content in this thread already been covered fairly comprehensively already this offseason?

For what its worth, my 2 cents:

Clady= Epic

Orton= fine; if we don't win games this year it won't be on his shoulders alone!

Decisions made by new regime= questionable, but not necessarily bad

I think that just about covers it?

Hulamau
07-01-2009, 04:50 AM
O.K.. I won't argue that.

But, many worse QBs have been part of productive playoff teams and SB winners. In an age of parity, anything can happen from year to year. Chicago was an offensive void. It'll be interesting to see what an offensive coach can do with Orton and Co.



Maybe. Orton has a nice record as a starter and Simms has been out of the game for a bit. Orton also has experience in the system, so I don't think it's at all surprising or odd that he was named the starter. I also believe McDaniels when he says that it's "for now." Guys are going to have to earn their jobs this year, and I guarantee yo Orton will be no different. This was likely a move to establish some continuity with the offense and perhaps even give Simms an extra incentive to speed up his learning curve. McD knows he's got to get both of these guys performing at their highest level.

It also might be just that Orton is picking up things much faster, and this serves as a practical move to know who's taking reps with the starters when day 1 kicks in.

A lot of possible reasons for doing it... none that far fetched, and it's a move that can be retracted at any time. If Simms shines in the PS and Orton flops, watch how fast Kyle's butt hits the plywood.

Yep ... and Simms had a two month head start on learning the system working everyday with McD, and still Orton was the quicker one to pick up some of the nuances according to McD. All of which supports one of Orton's main strengths which is his intelligence.

This system, in particular, values a smart QB on gameday.

Reading a couple of preseason training camp reports last year from Chicago, the take on Orton was that he is a guy who practices well to okay, but plays better on game day than he practices .

Something about Kyle making better decisions at the line in live games than Grossman and the other QBs on the roster. I can live with that.

chrisp
07-01-2009, 05:46 AM
Sorry, is this still a Clady thread? I'm confused.......:wiggle:

Popps
07-01-2009, 08:26 AM
that we'll be worse in wins and losses, feel free to look me up.

We won't be winning a SB this year, nor would we with Shanahan, no defense and Slowick. So, wins/losses are sort of a fleeting concept.

Did we really win 8 games last year? No. We won 7 and were given one. Did it really matter if we won 7 or 8? If we win 7 games this year as opposed to 6, will that be the true mark of anything? Probably not. Our schedule also looks much worse on paper than it did last season.


I'm talking about real improvement on both sides of the ball. All I hear about from the whiners here is how ****ed we are without Shanahan, Slowick and co. So, I simply made the statement that we'll improve on defense and put more points on the board. CLEARLY, if we're so screwed, people should be ALL OVER that bet.

Yet, no takers.

✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
07-01-2009, 12:36 PM
hey chief lovers, where is branden albert?