PDA

View Full Version : Gerard Warren says breakup of '05 team led to Shan demise


TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 11:40 AM
LINK (http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/23/warren-shouldnt-have-broken-up-2005-team/1421/)

"I think we should have kept the team from '05 intact and try to make a run for the Super Bowl instead of trying to reorganize and go in a different direction," Warren said in a teleconference with Colorado reporters Wednesday. "We had the formula and the chemistry together in the locker room to maybe succeed and win two or three championships. But Mike wasn't going in that direction and it kind of threw a lot of guys' lives off course."

"Mike," of course, if former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan. Warren said he thought Shanahan's biggest mistake was breaking up the team that came so close to making the Super Bowl.

I think players stopped playing for Mike once he ran Plummer off with the Cutler pick. That locker room LOVED Plummer, and never really took to Cutler's selfish, pouty, non-team oriented demeanor.

Cool Breeze
09-23-2009, 11:45 AM
Probably the smartest thing out of his mouth.
He forgot the character of the players Shanny picked up. Including work ethic.
Speaking of giving it all, is Gerard a back up or 3rd string?

Popcorn Sutton
09-23-2009, 11:48 AM
I think Plummer still had a couple good years in that offense... He's probably happier playing handball. :)

Rock Chalk
09-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Gerrard is starting for the Raiders and playing pretty well.

broncofan2438
09-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Gerard is a starter i think

baja
09-23-2009, 11:55 AM
LINK (http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/23/warren-shouldnt-have-broken-up-2005-team/1421/)

"I think we should have kept the team from '05 intact and try to make a run for the Super Bowl instead of trying to reorganize and go in a different direction," Warren said in a teleconference with Colorado reporters Wednesday. "We had the formula and the chemistry together in the locker room to maybe succeed and win two or three championships. But Mike wasn't going in that direction and it kind of threw a lot of guys' lives off course."

"Mike," of course, if former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan. Warren said he thought Shanahan's biggest mistake was breaking up the team that came so close to making the Super Bowl.



<b>I think players stopped playing for Mike once he ran Plummer off with the Cutler pick. That locker room LOVED Plummer, and never really took to Cutler's selfish, pouty, non-team oriented demeanor.


You could see this played out on the field.

crush17
09-23-2009, 12:01 PM
Never should have put Jay in that season.

tsiguy96
09-23-2009, 12:02 PM
Never should have put Jay in that season.

at the time i wanted him in, in hindsight however, no he should have never went in.

bronco militia
09-23-2009, 12:03 PM
he look everybody!!!!!!! it's 2006 all over again!

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:07 PM
LINK (http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/23/warren-shouldnt-have-broken-up-2005-team/1421/)

"I think we should have kept the team from '05 intact and try to make a run for the Super Bowl instead of trying to reorganize and go in a different direction," Warren said in a teleconference with Colorado reporters Wednesday. "We had the formula and the chemistry together in the locker room to maybe succeed and win two or three championships. But Mike wasn't going in that direction and it kind of threw a lot of guys' lives off course."

"Mike," of course, if former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan. Warren said he thought Shanahan's biggest mistake was breaking up the team that came so close to making the Super Bowl.

I think players stopped playing for Mike once he ran Plummer off with the Cutler pick. That locker room LOVED Plummer, and never really took to Cutler's selfish, pouty, non-team oriented demeanor.

Dude ... Warren didn't say the stuff in bold, you did.

Try to remember to separate your own opinions please ;D

Tombstone RJ
09-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Mike's time was due. He lost focus and started making assinine decisions. Kudos to Bowlen for cutting the cord.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Besides, Champ Bailey disagrees with your opinion there ... although Nate Jackson apparently agrees.

I'm gonna go ahead and trust Champ ;D

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Dude ... Warren didn't say the stuff in bold, you did.

Try to remember to separate your own opinions please ;D

right, and it's not in quotes. Sorry you were so easily led astray.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:10 PM
Besides, Champ Bailey disagrees with your opinion there ... although Nate Jackson apparently agrees.

I'm gonna go ahead and trust Champ ;D

Haven't seen a link or a quote to state that. Is that just your opinion that Champ differs from my take, or is it fact?

Please post if you have something substantial.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:11 PM
right, and it's not in quotes. Sorry you were so easily led astray.

Well, Edward R. Murrow, there is text in your post - outside quote marks - that was included in the tweet. So I was "led astray" only briefly, and only by your SHODDY REPORTING! :moody:

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:13 PM
Haven't seen a link or a quote to state that. Is that just your opinion that Champ differs from my take, or is it fact?

Please post if you have something substantial.

Champ said Cutler reminded him of Elway or Marino, that he was a good leader, and that he will miss him.

Can't believe you don't remember that .... maybe try Ginkgo ???

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:14 PM
So if it was the reporter's opinion, you wouldn't have a problem, but since it's mine, it's SHODDY REPORTING.

Got it. Thank you for clarifying.

I never, ever, EVER claimed that the information not in quotes was attributable to Warren. Yet you thought it might be and took a stand.

Pretty much everyone else knew the difference between a message board opinion and the opinion of Gerard Warren. Quotes.

broncofan7
09-23-2009, 12:15 PM
Well, Edward R. Murrow, there is text in your post - outside quote marks - that was included in the tweet. So I was "led astray" only briefly, and only by your SHODDY REPORTING! :moody:

:rofl:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Champ said Cutler reminded him of Elway or Marino, that he was a good leader, and that he will miss him.

Can't believe you don't remember that .... maybe try Ginkgo ???

Considering I will probably forget Warren's comments by tomorrow -- since frankly, remembering quotes from football players isn't exactly a priority for me -- no thanks on the Ginko.

Champ didn't play with Elway OR Marino.

And players say positive things about guys they can't stand all the time. It's called "playing nice."

Will you remember that?

jhns
09-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Well plummer fell apart at the start of that year. The defense fell apart as it took on injuries and never was the same once Wilson went down. If they all stopped playing while Plummer was in just because we picked Cutler, it is their fault Plummer got benched. Otherwise Plummer just sucked, as well as the rest of them, by then and needed to go. If competition scares him into playing horrible, he isn't much of an athlete. Those of you saying it was a mistake to bench Plummer did not watch that season.

Plus, Warren is just upset that he had to go to the raiders.

rbackfactory80
09-23-2009, 12:17 PM
Champ said Cutler reminded him of Elway or Marino, that he was a good leader, and that he will miss him.

Can't believe you don't remember that .... maybe try Ginkgo ???

For someone who claims to be as smart as you, you know a lawyer, I would think you understood a little more about politics.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:18 PM
Anyone who does any sort of statistical analysis of Plummer during big games can see pretty clearly why Mike lost faith in the guy. It's unfortunate that Jake was such a choker in big games, but what is Mike going to do? He did what he could: draft someone to push Plummer. And how did Plummer respond? He retired mentally.

Nobody wanted Plummer as a starter anymore after that Chiefs game. This board, after that game, was in near universal agreement that Plummer had written his own ticket to the bench. Jake's performance didn't give Mike many options at that point in the season.

I would have liked to have seen Plummer win a Superbowl. In fact, I predicted it in 2004, and now we have the "I'm going to go ahead and call it," meme. What I learned about Plummer that season - and what Shanahan learned about Plummer in the Home AFC Championship Pittsburgh game - and what everybody else learned about Plummer during that primetime Thanksgiving night game against KC is that when you count on Plummer to control the ball and play smart during a big game, he will let you down. That's his record.

Plummer may have been a well liked guy, but being well liked doesn't win big games.

rbackfactory80
09-23-2009, 12:21 PM
Anyone who does any sort of statistical analysis of Plummer during big games can see pretty clearly why Mike lost faith in the guy. It's unfortunate that Jake was such a choker in big games, but what is Mike going to do? He did what he could: draft someone to push Plummer. And how did Plummer respond? He retired mentally.

Nobody wanted Plummer as a starter anymore after that Chiefs game. This board, after that game, was in near universal agreement that Plummer had written his own ticket to the bench.

I would have liked to have seen Plummer win a Superbowl. In fact, I predicted it in 2004, and now we have the "I'm going to go ahead and call it now," meme. What I learned about Plummer that season - and what Shanahan learned about Plummer in the Pittsburgh game - and what everybody else learned about Plummer during that primetime Thanksgiving night game against KC is that when you count on Plummer to control the ball and play smart during a big game, he will let you down. That's his record.

Plummer may have been a well liked guy, but being well liked doesn't win big games.

Not like he was surrounded with all world talent. Handing the ball of to Mike Anderson or even Griffen and throwing to the claw and Ashley I only catch the deep ball Lelie didn't make his job any easier.

bronco militia
09-23-2009, 12:22 PM
Not like he was surrounded with all world talent. Handing the ball of to Mike Anderson or even Griffen and throwing to the claw and Ashley I only catch the deep ball Lelie didn't make his job any easier.

Javon Walker and Rod Smith weren't good enough?

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:22 PM
Not like he was surrounded with all world talent. Handing the ball of to Mike Anderson or even Griffen and throwing to the claw and Ashley I only catch the deep ball Lelie didn't make his job any easier.


Of course. It's everyone elses fault that Plummer made bad decisions in big games. If only we had replaced everyone else and kept Plummer, Shanahan might still be coaching us.

rbackfactory80
09-23-2009, 12:23 PM
Javon Walker and Rod Smith weren't good enough?

Smith was done. Walker was up and down. He was obviously fighting mental demons. He didn't play much with walker.

bronco militia
09-23-2009, 12:24 PM
Smith was done. Walker was up and down. He was obviously fighting mental demons.

not in 2006

baja
09-23-2009, 12:24 PM
at the time i wanted him in, in hindsight however, no he should have never went in.

Same here, but Plummer fell apart when Shanny drafted Cutler so you see Cutler started to ruin this team even before he arrived in town.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:25 PM
same here, but plummer fell apart when shanny drafted cutler so you see cutler started to ruin this team even before he arrived in town.

lol

TheDave
09-23-2009, 12:25 PM
JMO, but firing larry coyer and hiring Bates is what led to Shahans demise...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:25 PM
Didn't mean to make this a(nother?) Plummer debate. I just think, especially after reading A Few Seconds of Panic, that Shanahan lost the '06 season and beyond when he drafted Cutler. The moment it happened, that was the beginning of the end.

it was also the moment when he started to build an all-out offensive juggernaut and completely ignore the defense. "Must give Cutler more weapons!" was the prevailing theme of the next three years.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:26 PM
JMO, but firing larry coyer and hiring Bates is what led to Shahans demise...

I would agree wholeheartedly with this, and said so vehemently at the time. I think firing COyer was the beginning of the end, not cutting a mentally weak quarterback.

rbackfactory80
09-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Of course. It's everyone elses fault that Plummer made bad decisions in big games. If only we had replaced everyone else and kept Plummer, Shanahan might still be coaching us.

But that is exactly what we did with Cutler. If Jake had been plugged into this offense, with this O-line he would have had great success.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:26 PM
JMO, but firing larry coyer and hiring Bates is what led to Shahans demise...

And I think that firing Bates after just one season (when his track record clearly shows vast improvement in year two of a defense coached by Bates) was the final nail.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Javon Walker and Rod Smith weren't good enough?

Yeah, we definitley had some guys on that roster ... Warren is right, firing Coyer was the beginning of the end.

jhns
09-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Didn't mean to make this a(nother?) Plummer debate. I just think, especially after reading A Few Seconds of Panic, that Shanahan lost the '06 season and beyond when he drafted Cutler. The moment it happened, that was the beginning of the end.

it was also the moment when he started to build an all-out offensive juggernaut and completely ignore the defense. "Must give Cutler more weapons!" was the prevailing theme of the next three years.

No, they just were able to hit on most every offensive move. They spent a lot of FA money and draft picks on defense in that time (including most the entire 2007 draft), they just didn't know what to look for or something.

It is why I do and don't like the goodmans going. They didn't miss on offensive talent but may not have been good at getting defense. Really, they could have gotten great talent and the defensive coaching just wasn't there.

Chris
09-23-2009, 12:30 PM
While I disagree that the team was anywhere good enough (i.e. one or two steps away) from being a two to three championship team, let alone a single championship team, I think it was destructive for the team.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:31 PM
But that is exactly what we did with Cutler. If Jake had been plugged into this offense, with this O-line he would have had great success.

...up until a big game came, at which point he'd have choked.

Do the work. I have. It's why I turned on a kid from my home state who I actually got the priviledge of playing against in high school (he tore us to shreds - it was a real honor to watch him continue to move up the ladder and then end up on my own favorite team). Jake Plummer is statistically abysmal during big games. Something happens between his ears, and no matter how much the coaches try to limit his impact, he manages to blow it. The Patirots win is a great example. They limited Jake all game long, and he still managed to throw the game away. Thank God for Champ Bailey.

TheDave
09-23-2009, 12:31 PM
And I think that firing Bates after just one season (when his track record clearly shows vast improvement in year two of a defense coached by Bates) was the final nail.

Actually he fired Bates mid way through his one season... By the Pit game that year Slowick was calling all the plays.

How does a coach that won 2 superbowls make a decision that stupid?

Weird...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:31 PM
No, they just were able to hit on most every offensive move. They spent a lot of FA money and draft picks on defense in that time (including most the entire 2007 draft), they just didn't know what to look for or something.

It is why I do and don't like the goodmans going. They didn't miss on offensive talent but may not have been good at getting defense. Really, they could have gotten great talent and the defensive coaching just wasn't there.

I agree, and think switching defensive coordinators every year does nothing to help the situation. Football players respond to continuity. They've had none in Denver for YEARS.

Rohirrim
09-23-2009, 12:32 PM
I would guess that the last three games of 2008 had more to do with Mike's demise than anything else. Well, maybe that and "Slowik isn't going anywhere."

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:32 PM
Same here, but Plummer fell apart when Shanny drafted Cutler so you see Cutler started to ruin this team even before he arrived in town.
LOL



(that was meant as a funny, right? ::))

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:33 PM
Actually he fired Bates mid way through his one season... By the Pit game that year Slowick was calling all the plays.

How does a coach that won 2 superbowls make a decision that stupid?

Weird...

He did have a hall of fame QB running his offense... what was that guy's name again?

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:34 PM
He did have a hall of fame QB running his offense... what was that guy's name again?

The creator of heaven and earth and football... Mark Sanchez.

Or so I have been recently led to believe.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:34 PM
I would guess that the last three games of 2008 had more to do with Mike's demise than anything else. Well, maybe that and "Slowik isn't going anywhere."

And I wonder what would have happened if Slowick had been fired by the end of the Chargers game. Would Mike still be here?

I thought Shanahan deserved one more year, honestly, and thought that if we didn't make the playoffs in '09 he'd "retire" (not REALLY retire, just, you know, PARCELLS retire).

rbackfactory80
09-23-2009, 12:36 PM
...up until a big game came, at which point he'd have choked.

Do the work. I have. It's why I turned on a kid from my home state who I actually got the priviledge of playing against in high school (he tore us to shreds - it was a real honor to watch him continue to move up the ladder and then end up on my own favorite team). Jake Plummer is statistically abysmal during big games. Something happens between his ears, and no matter how much the coaches try to limit his impact, he manages to blow it. The Patirots win is a great example. They limited Jake all game long, and he still managed to throw the game away. Thank God for Champ Bailey.

He didn't choke in the Pats game. We couldn't move the ball an inch on the ground. In the pitt loss he he was behind the eight the whole time, just like the Colts. He was not a guy that could do it alone, I will give you that. I don't understand the choker label though.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 12:36 PM
18
6
7
3
3
7

What do those numbers mean?

They are the total points scored by the Broncos first 6 opponents in 2006. Anyone who seriously believes the team gave up on Mike the minute Cutler was drafted are just insane.

Oh yeah, and that 18? That was 0 TDs and 6 field goals, 5 of which were the result of 5 Bronco turnovers. This was the best 6 game stretch of Broncos defense I ever saw.

The only person who gave up on Mike once Cutler was drafted was Plummer. How anyone can come to any other conclusion, I'll never know. And this is coming from a big time Plummer fan.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:38 PM
And I wonder what would have happened if Slowick had been fired by the end of the Chargers game. Would Mike still be here?



Shanahan wouldn't have fired Slowick. He knew what all of us knew: resources up to that point had been put into offense, and Slowick didn't have the guys to run his defense. I posted an article here where Slowick had said as much in August after the first preseason game.

It was something like, "well, we don't have the talent here to run my scheme right now, but we're installing everything we can, especially the terminology. We'll lay a foundation this year and do what we can, and then target specific players next year to bring the system fully online."

That's not a direct quote, but it's the gist of what Slowick was saying.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 12:40 PM
And I think that firing Bates after just one season (when his track record clearly shows vast improvement in year two of a defense coached by Bates) was the final nail.

It's easy to show vast improvement in year two, when you took a decent unit and made it 32nd in year one. I don't want an improvement from year one to year two in those circumstances. I want an improvement from the year BEFORE you took over to year two of your reign.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:40 PM
Champ didn't play with Elway OR Marino.
Yeah, pffft ... what does Champ know about quarterbacks? He's just a defensive back.

Don't feel bad ... you have Nate Jackson on your side! ^5

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:41 PM
He didn't choke in the Pats game. We couldn't move the ball an inch on the ground. In the pitt loss he he was behind the eight the whole time, just like the Colts. He was not a guy that could do it alone, I will give you that. I don't understand the choker label though.

He did choke though. He threw a boneheaded interception that would have cost us the game if it weren't for Champ's amazing pick. And then in the very next game, Plummer was responsible for 4 turnovers.

The reason Plummer holds the choker label is because he throws interceptions instead of touchdowns in playoff games.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 12:41 PM
Shanahan wouldn't have fired Slowick. He knew what all of us knew: resources up to that point had been put into offense, and Slowick didn't have the guys to run his defense. I posted an article here where Slowick had said as much in August after the first preseason game.

It was something like, "well, we don't have the talent here to run my scheme right now, but we're installing everything we can, especially the terminology. We'll lay a foundation this year and do what we can, and then target specific players next year to bring the system fully online."

That's not a direct quote, but it's the gist of what Slowick was saying.

Yet he was perfectly willing to fire Bates after one season -- a guy with a real, live track record -- and replace him with his buddy who was most famous for 4th and 26.

Just ODD.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 12:46 PM
Shanahan wouldn't have fired Slowick. He knew what all of us knew: resources up to that point had been put into offense, and Slowick didn't have the guys to run his defense. I posted an article here where Slowick had said as much in August after the first preseason game.

It was something like, "well, we don't have the talent here to run my scheme right now, but we're installing everything we can, especially the terminology. We'll lay a foundation this year and do what we can, and then target specific players next year to bring the system fully online."

That's not a direct quote, but it's the gist of what Slowick was saying.

Wow. A (marginally) reasonable defense of Bob Slowick.

The apocalypse is nigh!

24champ
09-23-2009, 12:47 PM
JMO, but firing larry coyer and hiring Bates is what led to Shahans demise...

Disagree. I would have liked to have seen what Bates could do with the players he wanted. Bates wanted too much, and Shanny didn't like that since he was reconstructing an offense...so off Bates goes.

Secondly, I never liked what Shanahan did with Plummer. The team was 7-4, and I don't care what Taco says. Cutler wasn't ready to take the reins in the middle of a playoff race. You just DON'T switch out a veteran QB for a rookie that has never played in a meaningful game in his pro football career. Cutler was talented sure, but he never had a clue what it took to lead a football team anywhere. We could have been in the playoffs in 06' but the locker room chemistry was way too screwed up. The offensive line didn't want to play for Jay Cutler. As evident in the Seattle game. Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked. It's not rocket science. Had we kept Cutler on the bench, maybe Jay would learn from Jake and others what it's like to lead a team to the playoffs....because he never got that down in his career with Denver.

baja
09-23-2009, 12:49 PM
But that is exactly what we did with Cutler. If Jake had been plugged into this offense, with this O-line he would have had great success.

Plummer had great success is it was He won about 73% of his games. As has been mentioned he lost it on the mental side with the drafting of Jay Cutler after that he lost his MoJo.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 12:51 PM
We could have been in the playoffs in 06' but the locker room chemistry was way too screwed up. The offensive line didn't want to play for Jay Cutler. As evident in the Seattle game. Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked. It's not rocket science.

If this were even remotely true, then the offensive production wouldn't have gone up by 10 points per game once the switch was made. But it did.

broncofan7
09-23-2009, 12:51 PM
And Bates sure is doing a bang up job in Tampa this year too! That guy rode the coattails of an incredibly talented Cowboy team to build his reputation...........Shanny still regrets his hiring I bet

bronco militia
09-23-2009, 12:52 PM
Plummer had great success is it was He won about 73% of his games. As has been mentioned he lost it on the mental side with the drafting of Jay Cutler after that he lost his MoJo.

amazing! jake plummer lost exactly 75% of his playoff games in denver

jsco70
09-23-2009, 12:52 PM
Didn't read all the comments, but a huge impact was the murder of D-Will. To lose the AFC Championship, then have one of the most popular players murdered crippled the team for the next season and beyond, IMO.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:53 PM
Yet he was perfectly willing to fire Bates after one season -- a guy with a real, live track record -- and replace him with his buddy who was most famous for 4th and 26.

Just ODD.


Indeed. I think Shanahan realized firing Coyer was a mistake at that time. How could he not?

What's done is done. I'm a big Shanahan fan, and have been ever since I was a kid reading ELway quotes about what Shanahan has done for his game. I was pissed at Reeves for canning Shanahan, and was ready to see him go at that point. I rejoiced when Shanahan was hired as our coach, and knew in my heart of hearts that Elway would win MULTIPLE superbowls with Shanahan. As a young adult, I read Shanahan's book, and took his approach to life to heart. I was a fan of Shanahan in my young adulthood in the same way that I was a fan of Elway in my youth. Shanahan and Elway to me are immortal symbols of the Broncos.

Between Bowlen and Shanahan, it's not even a question for me: Shanahan. Bowlen gives me little to inspire me - a kid who was handed family money vs. a man who overcame obstacle after obstacle on his way to success. I would have liked to have seen Bowlen stick to his word, and kept Shanahan a Bronco for life. I wanted to see Shanahan retire to the front office, and be the Bill Walsh of the Denver Broncos.

So I'll admit - I probably was holding on to nostalgia. But I still think Shanahan deserved one more year to show the method behind his madness. I think we'd have had a great offense this year, and a new look defense moving in the right direction.

In any case, what's done is done. And as far as that goes, Josh is a pretty inspirational figure in himself. I don't agree with every move he's made, but like with Shanahan, I can see the method behind the madness and can respect what he's trying to do.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 12:58 PM
Disagree. I would have liked to have seen what Bates could do with the players he wanted. Bates wanted too much, and Shanny didn't like that since he was reconstructing an offense...so off Bates goes.

Secondly, I never liked what Shanahan did with Plummer. The team was 7-4, and I don't care what Taco says. Cutler wasn't ready to take the reins in the middle of a playoff race. You just DON'T switch out a veteran QB for a rookie that has never played in a meaningful game in his pro football career. Cutler was talented sure, but he never had a clue what it took to lead a football team anywhere. We could have been in the playoffs in 06' but the locker room chemistry was way too screwed up. The offensive line didn't want to play for Jay Cutler. As evident in the Seattle game. Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked. It's not rocket science. Had we kept Cutler on the bench, maybe Jay would learn from Jake and others what it's like to lead a team to the playoffs....because he never got that down in his career with Denver.


Shanahan let Jake choke his way out of a job. What's another game or two matter? The switch was Shanahan saying, "we're not going to the playoffs with this guy, and even if we do it's clear that he's not going to handle the pressure well. We might as well see what we can do with the rook."

Plummer's play that season, and especially during that big game against KC didn't give Shanahan many options.

lex
09-23-2009, 01:01 PM
Shanahan did give those guys a chance the next year. Its too bad Plummer pissed down his leg all year. Ideally, it would have been better to not play Cutler until a future time, provided Plummer was getting it done. But Plummer was horrible and this is what accelerated the insertion of Cutler into the lineup. But beyond that year, the team was getting old. They needed a new offensive line whether because of age or because of guys like Foster and Pears.

But its also not surprising to hear a veteran say that they werent up to playing as much while a rookie was QB. Its gotta be hard for a veteran to put his best foot forward when they see that the team is looking to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:03 PM
If this were even remotely true, then the offensive production wouldn't have gone up by 10 points per game once the switch was made. But it did.

It's true. I have been told about things that were said in the locker room. The Oline loved Jake, he took them out to dinner, hung out with them etc. Nobody followed the new guy, nobody knew him. I feel Jay should have sat out the season and learned from the sidelines...about how to build team chemistry and leading a team.

The fire wasn't there. I have been told that players just felt like Shanahan just canned a good season so he can see what his pet project can do. A lot of players were really unhappy...and still are today. There's a lot of resentment.

Rigs11
09-23-2009, 01:04 PM
13-3 and one game away from the SB? draft a new qb.

7-4? yup lets bench the starting qb and put in a rookie.

makes sense to me.Hilarious!

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 01:05 PM
Anyone who does any sort of statistical analysis of Plummer during big games can see pretty clearly why Mike lost faith in the guy. It's unfortunate that Jake was such a choker in big games, but what is Mike going to do? He did what he could: draft someone to push Plummer. And how did Plummer respond? He retired mentally.

Nobody wanted Plummer as a starter anymore after that Chiefs game. This board, after that game, was in near universal agreement that Plummer had written his own ticket to the bench. Jake's performance didn't give Mike many options at that point in the season.

I would have liked to have seen Plummer win a Superbowl. In fact, I predicted it in 2004, and now we have the "I'm going to go ahead and call it," meme. What I learned about Plummer that season - and what Shanahan learned about Plummer in the Home AFC Championship Pittsburgh game - and what everybody else learned about Plummer during that primetime Thanksgiving night game against KC is that when you count on Plummer to control the ball and play smart during a big game, he will let you down. That's his record.

Plummer may have been a well liked guy, but being well liked doesn't win big games.

Taco, you have always held a high horse position about the AFFCG against Pitt.

You have always put it on Jake and never seem to acknowledge that the D, and George Foster just completely failed in that game.

Just assume for the moment that Shanny did not want to dump off Jake at that time..... we had 2 first round picks the next draft.... 22 and 29.... in a draft class deep with DEs and DTs...... if Shanny had picked 2 stud DEs that draft.... don't you feel we would have been a better football team now?

Many fans truly believe the 2005 AFCCG team was 1 or 2 impact players away from a Lombardi.... Shanny could have given that team just one more year.... but he decided to blow up a 13-3 AFCCG team..... and thats where I think the Broncos went off track.....

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:06 PM
It's true. I have been told about things that were said in the locker room. The Oline loved Jake, he took them out to dinner, hung out with them etc. Nobody followed the new guy, nobody knew him. I feel Jay should have sat out the season and learned from the sidelines...about how to build team chemistry and leading a team.

The fire wasn't there. I have been told that players just felt like Shanahan just canned a good season so he can see what his pet project can do. A lot of players were really unhappy...and still are today. There's a lot of resentment.

No, no, no. I could care less about any of that. What I'm talking about being false is the following claim that you made above:

Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked.

Again, if that were really true, then there is simply no way that offensive production would've gone UP by 10 pts per game under Jay that year.

jhns
09-23-2009, 01:08 PM
13-3 and one game away from the SB? draft a new qb.

7-4? yup lets bench the starting qb and put in a rookie.

makes sense to me.Hilarious!

If only some of you actually watched the games. It wouldn't be so hard to understand if you did.

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 01:09 PM
Plummer's play that season, and especially during that big game against KC didn't give Shanahan many options.

Plummer was a lame duck QB for the KC game....

After the San Diego loss, it was reported that Shanny planned to play Plummer for the KC game due to a short week (it was a thursday game)..... and then put Cutler in for the Hawks game (10 days b/w games)... irrespective of the outcome of the KC game....

Shanny should never have put Plummer in that situation.... much as I admire Shanny, he screwed up big time in the personnel management front in 2006....

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Shanahan let Jake choke his way out of a job. What's another game or two matter? The switch was Shanahan saying, "we're not going to the playoffs with this guy, and even if we do it's clear that he's not going to handle the pressure well. We might as well see what we can do with the rook."

Plummer's play that season, and especially during that big game against KC didn't give Shanahan many options.

I love both Jake and Jay, but hey if you go down with a veteran like Jake, then that is the way it goes. I am not a big fan of pinning all the hopes on rookie....like Jay, and expect things to happen...which they didn't. He would have been better served seeing what goes into a playoff race and getting there. Instead we see him thrown into the fire, making the same mistakes as Jake, and the situation is worse off because the locker room was more than split.

Jay wasn't ready, and wasn't ready to lead...there's more to being a quarterback than just an arm that can sling the ball around. Throwing him into the fire, probably stunted his growth as a QB.

WolfpackGuy
09-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Shanahan's demise was trying to become the Ravens after losing to them in the 2000 playoffs.
He never should've taken the defensive minded route.
Too bad he waited until 2006 to start building a talented offense.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 01:14 PM
No, no, no. I could care less about any of that. What I'm talking about being false is the following claim that you made above:

Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked.

Again, if that were really true, then there is simply no way that offensive production would've gone UP by 10 pts per game under Jay that year.


Yeah, despite the fact that Plummer was so well liked, they played better as a team out there under Jay. And if it weren't for some piss poor officiating in that final SF game, we'd have gone to the playoffs behind the rook. Not to put it all on the refs - our guys made some pretty terrible moves out there (Tatum Bell comes to mind).

I don't like to think about that game, though, because it makes me think about that weekend. And that weekend hurt this team as much as any move Shanahan made.

lex
09-23-2009, 01:15 PM
Plummer was a lame duck QB for the KC game....

After the San Diego loss, it was reported that Shanny planned to play Plummer for the KC game due to a short week (it was a thursday game)..... and then put Cutler in for the Hawks game (10 days b/w games)... irrespective of the outcome of the KC game....

Shanny should never have put Plummer in that situation.... much as I admire Shanny, he screwed up big time in the personnel management front in 2006....

How did Shanahan screw up? Plummers ineffectiveness started to bottle up the entire offense. Teams didnt respect Plummer and it was starting to affect the running game. Shanahan had no choice but to make a change. In fact, he should have done it earlier.

jhns
09-23-2009, 01:15 PM
Plummer was a lame duck QB for the KC game....

After the San Diego loss, it was reported that Shanny planned to play Plummer for the KC game due to a short week (it was a thursday game)..... and then put Cutler in for the Hawks game (10 days b/w games)... irrespective of the outcome of the KC game....

Shanny should never have put Plummer in that situation.... much as I admire Shanny, he screwed up big time in the personnel management front in 2006....

Plummer tanked that entire season. He never once played good. If competition messes with him that much, he shouldn't be in the NFL anyways. It only further proves the point that Plummer couldn't handle tough situations. That is not a good thing for an NFL QB.

I don't get how anyone that watched that season could say Plummer needed to stay. It doesn't make sense.

Old Dude
09-23-2009, 01:17 PM
I dunno about all of this.

AFC Championship game, January 22, 2006. "No mistake Jake" turns the ball over four times (2 INTs and 2 fumbles) en route to a 34-17 loss to the visiting Steelers.

The 2006 draft wasn't that bad.

1. Cutler
2. Sheffler
3. Marshall
4. Dumervil
5. Hixon
6. Kuper
7. Eslinger

In fact, most people think it was Denver's strongest overall draft ever.

They also picked up Javon Walker (for a 2d round pick) while trading Ashlie Lelie (for a 3d and 4th). In the long run, that probably turned out to be a wash, but Ashlie wanted out of here anyway. It certainly wasn't a case of Shanny breaking up a special combination.

In retrospect, the biggest mistake was probably the release of Trevor Pryce.


Jake did not play well through most of the 2006 season. It wasn't all his fault. A lot of teams watched how Pittsburgh attacked Denver's offense, and once a weakness like that is exposed, everyone learns to exploit it.

Denver's offensive output in early 2006"

10 vs. the Rams
9 vs. the Chiefs (in overtime, no less)
17 vs. New England
13 vs. Baltimore
13 vs. Oakland
17 vs. Cleveland

The only reason Denver was 5-1 at that point was because the defense had held opponents to an incredible 36 points in 6 games.

Over the next four games, Denver had good production against the Steelers, lost an offensive shootout against the Colts and won another defensive struggle against the Raiders.

Then they lost a huge game to the Chargers, where LT ripped them for about 180 yds in total offense and multiple TDs.

It wasn't until the next week that Plummer's job was really on the line, in Kansas City. Sort of a do or die game.

Result: The Chiefs won, and held Denver to 10 points.

The next week, Shanahan rolled the dice and started Cutler.

Did the players "quit on the team" at that point?

Sure looks to me like it had a lot more to do with a defense that finally collapsed and imploded with key injuries (especially the career ending injury to Al Wilson) plus an offense that was sputtering and inconsistent regardless of who was running it.

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:19 PM
Again, if that were really true, then there is simply no way that offensive production would've gone UP by 10 pts per game under Jay that year.

It's true...7-4 under Jake that season and then 2-3 under Jay, including the 48-20 blowout vs the Chargers which was the worst of the season. Tells it all there.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 01:22 PM
If only some of you actually watched the games. It wouldn't be so hard to understand if you did.

What a moron.

Yeah, we don't watch the games, but we spend our time discussing the team on a frigging message board.

Your sarcasm is absurd and stupid. IF you can't handle actually talking about football and dealing with other opinions, you probably shouldn't be here.

WolfpackGuy
09-23-2009, 01:26 PM
Then they lost a huge game to the Chargers, where LT ripped them for about 180 yds in total offense and multiple TDs.


Darrent Williams returning that INT for a touchdown was the high point of the season. After that, it was all downhill.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 01:26 PM
Taco, you have always held a high horse position about the AFFCG against Pitt.

You have always put it on Jake and never seem to acknowledge that the D, and George Foster just completely failed in that game.

Just assume for the moment that Shanny did not want to dump off Jake at that time..... we had 2 first round picks the next draft.... 22 and 29.... in a draft class deep with DEs and DTs...... if Shanny had picked 2 stud DEs that draft.... don't you feel we would have been a better football team now?

Many fans truly believe the 2005 AFCCG team was 1 or 2 impact players away from a Lombardi.... Shanny could have given that team just one more year.... but he decided to blow up a 13-3 AFCCG team..... and thats where I think the Broncos went off track.....



Honestly, while the popular opinion is that Cutler is the reason Plummer was so bad that next season - I personally have a suspicion that his four turnover performance in the AFC Championship game is what finally did him in.

After the Raiders got demolished by Tampa Bay, I told my friends how happy I was because that loss would send Oakland in a tailspin that would last for almost a decade. After the AFC Championship game, I told the Maners who I was at the game with that Plummer is not going to be the same guy after that performance - that it was too big a game and he came up way too small in it for it not to affect him mentally.

Plummer was finished after that game, and he confirmed it by retiring after he lost his job with the Broncos. There was no fire in him anymore. Only doubt.

jhns
09-23-2009, 01:26 PM
I dunno about all of this.

AFC Championship game, January 22, 2006. "No mistake Jake" turns the ball over four times (2 INTs and 2 fumbles) en route to a 34-17 loss to the visiting Steelers.

The 2006 draft wasn't that bad.

1. Cutler
2. Sheffler
3. Marshall
4. Dumervil
5. Hixon
6. Kuper
7. Eslinger

In fact, most people think it was Denver's strongest overall draft ever.

They also picked up Javon Walker (for a 2d round pick) while trading Ashlie Lelie (for a 3d and 4th). In the long run, that probably turned out to be a wash, but Ashlie wanted out of here anyway. It certainly wasn't a case of Shanny breaking up a special combination.

In retrospect, the biggest mistake was probably the release of Trevor Pryce.


Jake did not play well through most of the 2006 season. It wasn't all his fault. A lot of teams watched how Pittsburgh attacked Denver's offense, and once a weakness like that is exposed, everyone learns to exploit it.

Denver's offensive output in early 2006"

10 vs. the Rams
9 vs. the Chiefs (in overtime, no less)
17 vs. New England
13 vs. Baltimore
13 vs. Oakland
17 vs. Cleveland

The only reason Denver was 5-1 at that point was because the defense had held opponents to an incredible 36 points in 6 games.

Over the next four games, Denver had good production against the Steelers, lost an offensive shootout against the Colts and won another defensive struggle against the Raiders.

Then they lost a huge game to the Chargers, where LT ripped them for about 180 yds in total offense and multiple TDs.

It wasn't until the next week that Plummer's job was really on the line, in Kansas City. Sort of a do or die game.

Result: The Chiefs won, and held Denver to 10 points.

The next week, Shanahan rolled the dice and started Cutler.

Did the players "quit on the team" at that point?

Sure looks to me like it had a lot more to do with a defense that finally collapsed and imploded with key injuries (especially the career ending injury to Al Wilson) plus an offense that was sputtering and inconsistent regardless of who was running it.

This is exactly how it happened. There is no better breakdown than what is said here.

The defense fell apart due to injuries. The offense was mistake prone with both jake and jay but was more productive with jay. Jake would have still been winning if not for the defensive collapse though. Jay would have been winning if he had the defense from the start of the year. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when Wilson went down, we gave up points every drive after that in that game.

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 01:27 PM
But that is exactly what we did with Cutler. If Jake had been plugged into this offense, with this O-line he would have had great success.

If Plummer was playing in this offense, he would continue to be exactly what he is and has always been: inconsistent. He could follow up the most amazing play with the most boneheaded one... and vice versa.

At any rate, who cares that Gerard Warren is apparently still butthurt over some of Shanahan's decisions? He deserves to be in Oakland. :P

lex
09-23-2009, 01:28 PM
Yeah, despite the fact that Plummer was so well liked, they played better as a team out there under Jay. And if it weren't for some piss poor officiating in that final SF game, we'd have gone to the playoffs behind the rook. Not to put it all on the refs - our guys made some pretty terrible moves out there (Tatum Bell comes to mind).

I don't like to think about that game, though, because it makes me think about that weekend. And that weekend hurt this team as much as any move Shanahan made.

You can harpoon their arguments all you want but the Plummer Minnows are still going to be swimming around your feet.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 01:31 PM
If Plummer was playing in this offense, he would continue to be exactly what he is and has always been: inconsistent. He could follow up the most amazing play with the most boneheaded one... and vice versa.

At any rate, who cares that Gerard Warren is apparently still butthurt over some of Shanahan's decisions? He deserves to be in Oakland. :P

You realize you could put "Cutler" in place of "Plummer" there and still be correct, right?

jhns
09-23-2009, 01:31 PM
What a moron.

Yeah, we don't watch the games, but we spend our time discussing the team on a frigging message board.

Your sarcasm is absurd and stupid. IF you can't handle actually talking about football and dealing with other opinions, you probably shouldn't be here.

If you can't handle my posts maybe you shouldn't be here. I have no problem discussing football when people aren't spewing complete crap just because they hate a player or coach.

You didn't watch that season and pay attention if you think Plummer should still be playing. Period. Why don't one of you make a case that says otherwise then? Where is the breakdown that shows why plummer should not have been benched?

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 01:31 PM
How did Shanahan screw up? Plummers ineffectiveness started to bottle up the entire offense. Teams didnt respect Plummer and it was starting to affect the running game. Shanahan had no choice but to make a change. In fact, he should have done it earlier.

Shanny shouldn't have made Plummer a lame duck QB for the KC game.

Either he should have benched Plummer after the Rams game (1st game).... or waited until the end of the season....

I can see the logic in thinking the 2006 team wasn't going to win it all... hence bring in Cutler...

But the players aren't people of logic.... they play with emotion.... they felt Shanny switched horses in the middle of a playoff run....

Shanny was brilliant strategically.... he should also have paid attention to personnel management...

In conslusion, Shanny SHOULD NOT have made Plummer a lame duck QB for the KC game....

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:33 PM
It's true...7-4 under Jake that season and then 2-3 under Jay, including the 48-20 blowout vs the Chargers which was the worst of the season. Tells it all there.

The entire concept of context eludes you. Jake didn't have to deal with the injuries, namely to Al Wilson, that Jay did. The defense gave up more points per game, but the offense in no way quit on Jay. PROVE they did. Wins and losses don't prove anything when the team pre switch and post switch are different. The variables changed.

I PROVED that the offense performed better under Jay than Jake; therefore, your statement that the entire team quit is false. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:35 PM
Shanny shouldn't have made Plummer a lame duck QB for the KC game.

In conslusion, Shanny SHOULD NOT have made Plummer a lame duck QB for the KC game....

Another OMane myth that is now going to become law because one poster said it and another repeated it as if it was somehow reality.

WolfpackGuy
09-23-2009, 01:37 PM
Plummer was horribly inconsistent from the pocket.
When teams concentrated on containing him, the offense went to ****.
That was happening before way before 2006.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-23-2009, 01:39 PM
If you can't handle my posts maybe you shouldn't be here. I have no problem discussing football when people aren't spewing complete crap just because they hate a player or coach.

You didn't watch that season and pay attention if you think Plummer should still be playing. Period. Why don't one of you make a case that says otherwise then? Where is the breakdown that shows why plummer should not have been benched?

Actually, I did watch the season, and nowhere did I say that Plummer "should still be playing." That came out of your own idiotic imagination.

I don't hate any players or coaches, so that's another stab in the dark that you missed on.

As for a breakdown of why Plummer should have stayed, here you go:
He had the trust and respect of the locker room
He was 7-4
The offense he was running was inefficient based on a poor running back situation and some bad playcalling (the difference in playcalling between when Plummer was starting and when Cutler started was NIGHT AND DAY -- of course you'd have to "watch the games" to know that)
It was Shan's plan to start Cutler against Seattle weeks in advance -- before the "make or break" KC performance; numerous sources have confirmed this

Cutler started for a team that was still on the inside track for the playoffs and went 2-3. Yes, he put up more points, and yes he had more raw talent than Plummer. But he wasn't ready.

Furthermore, Shanahan's fascination with a strong-armed QB is what led him to be fired, which is actually what this thread is about. Concentrating all your efforts to improve a unit that is already pretty good is moronic, and that's being very kind.

lex
09-23-2009, 01:40 PM
The entire concept of context eludes you. Jake didn't have to deal with the injuries, namely to Al Wilson, that Jay did. The defense gave up more points per game, but the offense in no way quit on Jay. PROVE they did. Wins and losses don't prove anything when the team pre switch and post switch are different. The variables changed.

I PROVED that the offense performed better under Jay than Jake; therefore, your statement that the entire team quit is false. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Thats not true. While Cutler had more hit points, he didnt have the ability to cast a spell from the sideline to help the defense. Apparently Plummer did.

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:41 PM
The entire concept of context eludes you. Jake didn't have to deal with the injuries, namely to Al Wilson, that Jay did. The defense gave up more points per game, but the offense in no way quit on Jay. PROVE they did. Wins and losses don't prove anything. Individual performance does. And I PROVED that the offense performed better under Jay than Jake; therefore, your statement that the entire team quit is false. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Entire team is judged on W-L buddy. Wasn't like we were playing great teams in the NFL down the stretch. Cards, Chargers, Bungles, Seachickens, Niners...yet we went 2-3.

I didn't state the offense quit...I said the whole team took a giant dog poo down the stretch. We were a botched PAT snap away from being 1-4, assuming Bungles got the ball back in OT.

You know it got to the point where the players were heckling the coaches, Coyer got the brunt of it, after the Chargers game which we were blown out. It was sad how the whole situation turned out.

We simply put Jay in the fire too early, and it probably stunted his growth. He still doesn't know how or what it is like to lead a team to the playoffs.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:43 PM
Thats not true. While Cutler had more hit points, he didnt have the ability to cast a spell from the sideline to help the defense. Apparently Plummer did.

Everything I wrote about the offense is fact and undeniable.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:46 PM
Entire team is judged on W-L buddy. Wasn't like we were playing great teams in the NFL down the stretch. Cards, Chargers, Bungles, Seachickens, Niners...yet we went 2-3.

I didn't state the offense quit...I said the whole team took a giant dog poo down the stretch. We were a botched PAT snap away from being 1-4, assuming Bungles got the ball back in OT.

Oh my effing God......Are you changing your argument now?

Here is what you wrote, word for word:

Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked.

Did the offense score more points after the switch? Yes.
Are the offensive players part of the whole team? Yes.
Can one say, then, that the "whole team tanked"? No.

cutthemdown
09-23-2009, 01:47 PM
Probably the smartest thing out of his mouth.
He forgot the character of the players Shanny picked up. Including work ethic.
Speaking of giving it all, is Gerard a back up or 3rd string?

He starts and plays well. He's only looked down on because he was supposed to be this dominant guy who would lift Clevelands defense up. In reality he's just a solid DT, but still IMO a good football player.

IMO he was better inside then anything we had last yr at DT.

cutthemdown
09-23-2009, 01:49 PM
Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team. Plummer had his moments but not like Cutler.

In fact I was amazed he went a whole game without throwing a pick. Had Troy P. been playing Pitt wins that game.

jhns
09-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Actually, I did watch the season, and nowhere did I say that Plummer "should still be playing." That came out of your own idiotic imagination.

I don't hate any players or coaches, so that's another stab in the dark that you missed on.

As for a breakdown of why Plummer should have stayed, here you go:
He had the trust and respect of the locker room
He was 7-4
The offense he was running was inefficient based on a poor running back situation and some bad playcalling (the difference in playcalling between when Plummer was starting and when Cutler started was NIGHT AND DAY -- of course you'd have to "watch the games" to know that)
It was Shan's plan to start Cutler against Seattle weeks in advance -- before the "make or break" KC performance; numerous sources have confirmed this

Cutler started for a team that was still on the inside track for the playoffs and went 2-3. Yes, he put up more points, and yes he had more raw talent than Plummer. But he wasn't ready.

Furthermore, Shanahan's fascination with a strong-armed QB is what led him to be fired, which is actually what this thread is about. Concentrating all your efforts to improve a unit that is already pretty good is moronic, and that's being very kind.

Did I ever direct that stuff at you before you butted in? Did I say you said that stuff in this past post? So, what exactly are your first couple of paragraphs crying about? None of the people that I directed that at had anything other than a record, as if that is all on a single player and there weren't other factors.

As for all the other stuff. Do you actually feel you had some inside information? How do you know what the play calling was like? You justknow what the execution was like. If you don't understand the difference, that is on you. Cutler had more of a playbook because he can make more throws. His play calling was different because he is a different player.

Fact: Our offense played better with cutler that season.

Fact: We were winning at the start of the season when our defense was on pace to smoke all point records.

Fact: We started losing bad BEFORE Plummer was benched because that defense fell apart and the offense wasn't doing anything.

Fact: All this other crap being spewed is opinion that has no basis.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:52 PM
Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team. Plummer had his moments but not like Cutler.

Plummer had 3 INTs and lost a fumble in the opener that season against St. Louis. Cutler never did that.

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:52 PM
Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team.

Someone gets it.

lex
09-23-2009, 01:53 PM
Everything I wrote about the offense is fact and undeniable.

Ive agreed with what youve said. Im just making fun of the argument that bases Plummer's performance on wins and losses. We all know that the defense carried that team for almost the entire first half of that season.

SouthStndJunkie
09-23-2009, 01:55 PM
he look everybody!!!!!!! it's 2006 all over again!

Sweet....I am only 34 years old and we just drafted this kick ass QB from Vandy named Jay Cutler....he has a bad haircut, but a cannon for a right arm.

I was surprised the Bears did not draft him. I will be pissed if we ever trade him away.

lex
09-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Did I ever direct that stuff at you before you butted in? Did I say you said that stuff in this past post? So, what exactly are your first couple of paragraphs crying about? None of the people that I directed that at had anything other than a record, as if that is all on a single player and there weren't other factors.

As for all the other stuff. Do you actually feel you had some inside information? How do you know what the play calling was like? You justknow what the execution was like. If you don't understand the difference, that is on you. Cutler had more of a playbook because he can make more throws. His play calling was different because he is a different player.

Fact: Our offense played better with cutler that season.

Fact: We were winning at the start of the season when our defense was on pace to smoke all point records.

Fact: We started losing bad BEFORE Plummer was benched because that defense fell apart and the offense wasn't doing anything.

Fact: All this other crap being spewed is opinion that has no basis.

Dont you realize he's already called you stupid? Dont you realize that this eradicates any argument you may have? While what youre saying might make sense, theres a protocol to adhere to, which is that the first guy to call the other one stupid wins.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Someone gets it.

Someone gets what?

In the opener that year, when the Broncos lost 18-10, it was 100% Jake's fault they lost. The Rams scored all but 3 of those points on turnovers. And who turned it over? Jake. 4 freaking times. Literally ANY other QB starts that game and the Broncos win by at least 10.....probably a lot more.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team.


You might have a point if this is true. But I have a hard time believing this is true. Where are you getting your facts?

24champ
09-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Oh my effing God......Are you changing your argument now?

Here is what you wrote, word for word:

Once we made that switch...the whole team tanked.

Did the offense score more points after the switch? Yes.
Are the offensive players part of the whole team? Yes.
Can one say, then, that the "whole team tanked"? No.

That's great, he has an arm and can put points up. He's talented but he never understood leadership. That was the only thing that Jay was missing. He couldn't lead the team to the playoffs...and IMO it was too early to throw him into the fire. Not to mention it was too late into the season with playoff implications, which was unfair since Jay was never in a bowl game, never knew what it took to get his team where it needed to go...still doesn't know.

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 01:59 PM
It was Shan's plan to start Cutler against Seattle weeks in advance -- before the "make or break" KC performance; numerous sources have confirmed this



That's my whole beef....

Jake was a lame duck QB for the KC game....

It should never have come to that....

Shanny should have been more decisive...

Either bench Plummer early in the season.... or at the end of the season.... doing so in the middle of a playoff run was not good.....

conrad7120
09-23-2009, 02:01 PM
As a long time observer of the mane i have to praise almost everyone in this thread.

In a time where a lot of threads is filled with personal attacks, name-calling, bitching and moaning about the past, and just alot of completly useless negativity, this thread truly stands out.

People in this thread is actually discussing football, using facts and well thought opinions, without ending up in childish namecalling.

Threads like this is why i stated reading on the mane in the first place, so thanks for reminding me and keep up the level headed discussions. :thumbs:

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 02:01 PM
Plummer was a lame duck QB for the KC game....

After the San Diego loss, it was reported that Shanny planned to play Plummer for the KC game due to a short week (it was a thursday game)..... and then put Cutler in for the Hawks game (10 days b/w games)... irrespective of the outcome of the KC game....

Shanny should never have put Plummer in that situation.... much as I admire Shanny, he screwed up big time in the personnel management front in 2006....
Excellent recounting, now that you mention all this, that's exactly how I recall it too.

I also recall, a) Jay admitting we would've won the Seattle game had Jake started, and b) that was the first game Marshall showed his other-worldly yac skills. Remember he caught that 20 yarder up the seam, then spun 360 to get free and score 25+ yards later? I'll never forget that play, that was an eye-opener zowie!


I think Mike had developed some quasi-megalomaniacal features (shopping mall-sized house, wanting a new and bigger Dove Valley, insensitive blurting out of Ray Rhodes' medical problems), and I think the AFC Ch-ship game just flicked his switch on Plummer. Jake was done and gone after that game.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 02:01 PM
That's great, he has an arm and can put points up. He's talented but he never understood leadership. That was the only thing that Jay was missing. He couldn't lead the team to the playoffs...and IMO it was too early to throw him into the fire. Not to mention it was too late into the season with playoff implications, which was unfair since Jay was never in a bowl game, never knew what it took to get his team where it needed to go...still doesn't know.

Now you're sounding like Brandon Marshall in his latest interviews. Not one word of this response has anything to do with the post of mine that you quoted.

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 02:02 PM
You realize you could put "Cutler" in place of "Plummer" there and still be correct, right?

The difference between the two? Plummer was a 10-year veteran. He was never going to be any better than he was in 2005; he had hit his "ceiling". Cutler hasn't.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Someone gets what?

In the opener that year, when the Broncos lost 18-10, it was 100% Jake's fault they lost. The Rams scored all but 3 of those points on turnovers. And who turned it over? Jake. 4 freaking times. Literally ANY other QB starts that game and the Broncos win by at least 10.....probably a lot more.


Yeah but wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that Jay threw 4 interceptions?

TonyR
09-23-2009, 02:06 PM
I wanted to see Shanahan retire to the front office, and be the Bill Walsh of the Denver Broncos.

But I still think Shanahan deserved one more year to show the method behind his madness. I think we'd have had a great offense this year, and a new look defense moving in the right direction.


To your first point about, I'm not sure why anyone would want a guy who was a sometimes great coach but a usually mediocre FO guy to retire to the front office.

To your second point, I'm not sure why anyone thinks they were going to suddenly figure out defense after to horrible job they did the previous two seasons.

jhns
09-23-2009, 02:07 PM
Dont you realize he's already called you stupid? Dont you realize that this eradicates any argument you may have? While what youre saying might make sense, theres a protocol to adhere to, which is that the first guy to call the other one stupid wins.

Well dang, I thought I was doing good this time. I guess it's time to read the omane manual on how to win arguments again.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 02:08 PM
Yeah but wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that Jay threw 4 interceptions?

Different team, system, variables. We were and are dealing strictly with 2006 here, as is evidenced by the very specific post that was being responded to:

Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team.

In 2006, Cutler did not have a game as bad as Plummer had in the opener. He single-handedly cost us that game against St. Louis. It's undeniable.

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 02:08 PM
Excellent recounting, now that you mention all this, that's exactly how I recall it too.

I also recall, a) Jay admitting we would've won the Seattle game had Jake started, and b) that was the first game Marshall showed his other-worldly yac skills. Remember he caught that 20 yarder up the seam, then spun 360 to get free and score 25+ yards later? I'll never forget that play, that was an eye-opener zowie!


I think Mike had developed some quasi-megalomaniacal features (shopping mall-sized house, wanting a new and bigger Dove Valley, insensitive blurting out of Ray Rhodes' medical problems), and I think the AFC Ch-ship game just flicked his switch on Plummer. Jake was done and gone after that game.

If Shanny really felt that way, he should have started Cutler at the beginning of the season and gone in to a full fledged rebuilding then and there....

He should have been more decisive...

Switching QBs in the middle of a playoff race was moronic....

Taco John
09-23-2009, 02:11 PM
If Shanny really felt that way, he should have started Cutler at the beginning of the season and gone in to a full fledged rebuilding then and there....

He should have been more decisive...

Switching QBs in the middle of a playoff race was moronic....


I disagree. I think Plummer had at least earned the start that year based on the year previous. The job was Plummer's to lose - and that's exactly what he did.

BigPlayShay
09-23-2009, 02:13 PM
Can't believe I just read through this whole thread and there is not one mention of the impact of Kubiak moving on to the Texans and Shanny hiring his college roomate in Heimerdinger. Kubiak was obviously a good buffer between Shanny and Plummer. Inserting Heimerdinger certainly added to the friction between the 2 and was probably a part of the reason Plummer struggled with Cutler waiting in the wings.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:13 PM
Different team, system, variables. We were and are dealing strictly with 2006 here, as is evidenced by the very specific post that was being responded to:

Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team.

In 2006, Cutler did not have a game as bad as Plummer had in the opener. He single-handedly cost us that game against St. Louis. It's undeniable.

We always had ****y openers with Jake.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:17 PM
I disagree. I think Plummer had at least earned the start that year based on the year previous.

What did Jay earn at that point? Nothing. He didn't know squat.

Tossed him in the fire, and it backfired big time.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 02:20 PM
I disagree. I think Plummer had at least earned the start that year based on the year previous. The job was Plummer's to lose - and that's exactly what he did.

I dunno .... just a gut feeling here, but I think Mike felt he deserved all the credit for "no-mistake Jake," and that if Jake couldn't be trusted to follow Mike's blueprint in the clutch (int @ end of 1st half vs Pitt), that Jake couldn't be the guy.

I just think that after that game Mike decided come hell or high water he was drafting a QB. Just so happens he got the best of the three, but he would've taken whichever he could.

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 02:22 PM
I disagree. I think Plummer had at least earned the start that year based on the year previous. The job was Plummer's to lose - and that's exactly what he did.

The economic realities of the NFL suggest otherwise. When you move up in the first round to draft a QB and give him a 6-year $48,000,000 contract, your incumbent QB is on the clock, no matter what.....

Taco John
09-23-2009, 02:23 PM
What did Jay earn at that point? Nothing. He didn't know squat.

Tossed him in the fire, and it backfired big time.

It didn't really backfire at all. Jay, the rookie, out played Plummer, the 10-year vet. We weren't going to the playoffs with Plummer, and we didn't go with Jay.

Where's the backfire?

The real loss that season was Al Wilson, not Jake Plummer.

2KBack
09-23-2009, 02:24 PM
Can't believe I just read through this whole thread and there is not one mention of the impact of Kubiak moving on to the Texans and Shanny hiring his college roomate in Heimerdinger. Kubiak was obviously a good buffer between Shanny and Plummer. Inserting Heimerdinger certainly added to the friction between the 2 and was probably a part of the reason Plummer struggled with Cutler waiting in the wings.

This bears repeating. Kubiak was far more important to this team than I even realized at the time. Not only was he great as far as working with Plummer, but I think he was another very smart football mind that worked as a sort of check on Shanahan. The team hasn't been anywhere near the same since he left.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 02:26 PM
The economic realities of the NFL suggest otherwise. When you move up in the first round to draft a QB and give him a 6-year $48,000,000 contract, your incumbent QB is on the clock, no matter what.....

That may be true, but Jake still had earned the opportunity to start. Shanahan already learned with the Griese situation what happens when you start a young QB over the veteran without giving the veteran the opportunity to either win or lose the job on his own merit.

You're welcome to your opinion - and as much as I'd have personally rather seen Jay start that entire season, I don't think it's really valid to second-guess Shanahan's decision to allow Jake to start the season. I think he did the right thing by allowing Jake to play his way out of a job, rather than just benching him.

Rigs11
09-23-2009, 02:27 PM
If only some of you actually watched the games. It wouldn't be so hard to understand if you did.

i watch every game professor. perhaps you could enlighten us with your expert analysis.

Bronco LB52
09-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Three years in the NFL is an eternity. Many of the stars on that team now are out of football, i.e. Plummer, Anderson, Tatum Bell, Rod Smith, Lelie, Nalen, Lepsis, Dan Neil, Courtney Brown, Al Wilson, Gold, Lynch. I don't think that team could have won 2-3 Super Bowls. Upgrades and change are part of the business. New blood is constantly pumped into the business and even quality vets eventually are flushed out due to age, erosion of skills and injury.

I still think Shanahan did the right thing by taking a chance and trying to get a quarterback like Farve, Marino, Elway, Manning, Brady, McNabb who would have given this franchise of 10-12 years of stability at the most important position in football. That's staying power. Offensive lines, running backs, front sevens and cornerbacks come and go. It's hard to get 10-12 years of stability out of those units.

tubbs
09-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Different team, system, variables. We were and are dealing strictly with 2006 here, as is evidenced by the very specific post that was being responded to:

Cutler did put up more points then Plummer, but he also gave away more then plummer did to the other team.

In 2006, Cutler did not have a game as bad as Plummer had in the opener. He single-handedly cost us that game against St. Louis. It's undeniable.

I think the original poster (cutthemdown) was referring to the pick6 Cutler threw vs Seattle and SF. One could argue those interceptions cost the Broncos those football games and effectively a trip to post season.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:31 PM
It didn't really backfire at all. Jay, the rookie, out played Plummer, the 10-year vet. We weren't going to the playoffs with Plummer, and we didn't go with Jay.


That's your opinion, it's a fact that we have been there a few times with Jake. It's possible it could have been another playoff appearance under Jake that year. Like it was mentioned before, even Jay said Jake could have won the Seattle game. Fact is ever since the switch we never went to the playoffs. We are still trying to figure out our way back there. It was the wrong move.

jhns
09-23-2009, 02:33 PM
i watch every game professor. perhaps you could enlighten us with your expert analysis.

I have gone over it many times now in much better detail than you. Perhaps you would like to expand on your reasoning? Mabe you think wins and losses are all on one guy in this team sport? Is that all you have?

jhns
09-23-2009, 02:36 PM
That's your opinion, it's a fact that we have been there a few times with Jake. It's possible it could have been another playoff appearance under Jake that year. Like it was mentioned before, even Jay said Jake could have won the Seattle game. Fact is ever since the switch we never went to the playoffs. We are still trying to figure out our way back there. It was the wrong move.

We went bad because of injuries to the defense. The defense has never recovered. How exactly is this the QBs fault or responsibility in any way? I just don't get it...

Taco John
09-23-2009, 02:37 PM
That's your opinion, it's a fact that we have been there a few times with Jake. It's possible it could have been another playoff appearance under Jake that year. Like it was mentioned before, even Jay said Jake could have won the Seattle game. Fact is ever since the switch we never went to the playoffs. We are still trying to figure out our way back there. It was the wrong move.


Do you, or do you not believe that Jake played his way out of a job?

Popps
09-23-2009, 02:38 PM
LINK (http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/23/warren-shouldnt-have-broken-up-2005-team/1421/)

"I think we should have kept the team from '05 intact and try to make a run for the Super Bowl instead of trying to reorganize and go in a different direction," Warren said in a teleconference with Colorado reporters Wednesday. "We had the formula and the chemistry together in the locker room to maybe succeed and win two or three championships. But Mike wasn't going in that direction and it kind of threw a lot of guys' lives off course.".

Look, this is just obvious. Shanahan should have gone out and tried to make a major defensive move or two... and seen if he could make the push to a championship.

Instead, he tore up the team... it it eventually cost him his job.

Really simple stuff, here,

jhns
09-23-2009, 02:41 PM
The economic realities of the NFL suggest otherwise. When you move up in the first round to draft a QB and give him a 6-year $48,000,000 contract, your incumbent QB is on the clock, no matter what.....

This means his clock started counting down the years, not months. This also doesn't explain why he went to crap and why you think that is acceptable.

Brees, Elway, and Favre(just picked some random ones that popped into my head) all had their replacements drafted and I don't remember any going to crap right after. In fact, two of those three got better and Favre was just old at the time.

If you fall apart when their is competition, it says a lot about you.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:47 PM
Do you, or do you not believe that Jake played his way out of a job?

No the job was his for the whole season, because the team was in a playoff race Taco. You don't under any circumstances throw a rookie in there at that point in time, even as talented a QB Jay was. There's a lot of factors that go into it, not just the cannon of a QB.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 02:48 PM
No the job was his for the whole season, because the team was in a playoff race Taco. You don't under any circumstances throw a rookie in there at that point in time, even as talented a QB Jay was. There's a lot of factors that go into it, not just the cannon of a QB.


You don't think Jake played his way out of a job? Really?

We're not going to find much agreement on this issue if you can't even admit that much.

Popps
09-23-2009, 02:54 PM
No the job was his for the whole season, because the team was in a playoff race Taco. You don't under any circumstances throw a rookie in there at that point in time, even as talented a QB Jay was. There's a lot of factors that go into it, not just the cannon of a QB.

Oddly enough, as poor as Jake was playing under the QB circus Shanahan had created... he still had a winning record. Something Jay with all of his superhero (supposed) talents could never manage.

Oh well. History has proven Shanahan made a mistake. Probably wasn't his first or last. He had a chance to beef up the defense and make a run, and chose to tear it all apart. It took guts to make that move... but it backfired.

Since the day he made that decision... the team went straight downhill and ended up costing him his job.

Not much more proof needed than that.

Hopefully our new staff will build a complete team again.

BroncoInferno
09-23-2009, 02:55 PM
Honestly, while the popular opinion is that Cutler is the reason Plummer was so bad that next season - I personally have a suspicion that his four turnover performance in the AFC Championship game is what finally did him in.

Actaully, both points of view are wrong. The reason for Plummer's demise in 2006 was that Shanahan had spent years spending resources to try and get the defense in shape and largely ignored the offense, instead plugging in late rounders to fill voids. To be fair, Shanny obviously got great results most years mererly by trusting his system and plugging in no-frills players to fit that system. But at some point it became hubris and it was the downfall of the offense. That's precisely why Shanny spent the '06 draft rebuilding the ENTIRE offense. If he had thought the only problem was Plummer, he would have picked Cutler and gone defense for the rest of the draft. But he saw the writing on the wall. Just take a look at the 2006 offensive starting lineup and it is absolutely pitiful. Rod Smith was washed up at that point, and the only player worth a damn was Walker. The offensive line had Foster and Pears at tackle. Two guys who shouldn't even have been on an NFL roster. Peyton Manning would have struggled with that offense.

With Cutler, Shanny felt he was getting the best player in that draft and a once every twenty years talent (he has said as much). I guarentee you that if Arizona had picked Cutler at 10 Shanny would NOT have traded up for Leinart as you wanted us to do (thank goodness we didn't ltake your advice on that one--would have set us back a decade). Shanny knew the rest of the offense had detiorated to a periless point, hence the trade for Walker and the largely offensive draft. Unfortunately, the rookies who would be the backbone of the new offense needed time to develop, and while they were developing Plummer had to play with a below average group of talent on offense. He was never a guy who could do it on his own (how many QBs can?), and so the results in that light are not surprising.

Old Dude
09-23-2009, 02:55 PM
We went bad because of injuries to the defense. The defense has never recovered. How exactly is this the QBs fault or responsibility in any way? I just don't get it...

Not to put too fine a point on things, but we also lost LT Matt Lepsis in game seven that year. I think that by that point in time Lepsis was starting to drop off from his 2004-05 performances, but losing him certainly didn't help anyone. As I recall, he was replaced by Erik Pears, who didn't perform too badly for a rookie, but the point is that our offensive line was also having its share of problems.

And, the odd thing about the defensive injuries is that the only other starter we lost was SS Nick Ferguson (in week ten.) I guess it just goes to show how much of a factor in that defense Al Wilson really was.

I agree with you that this team probably wasn't going anywhere that year, regardless of who was at QB. Under the best case scenario, Plummer might have won an extra game or two. That would probably have earned a wildcard spot. Then, assuming we could somehow have pulled out an upset win, we'd have had the joy of getting blown out by Indianapolis for the third time in four years.

Bottom line: Warren's notion that this team was just a couple different draft picks away from back-to-back Lombardis is just kinda silly.

24champ
09-23-2009, 02:57 PM
You don't think Jake played his way out of a job? Really?.

No I don't because there were still a lot of teammates in that locker room willing to keep going forward with Jake. They believed they could still do it...then in comes the rookie Jay and the locker room morale falls apart. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what went wrong.

Would have been better to have Jake finish it out, and Jay continue to learn as backup. Then after the season, Jake would have restructured his contract and probably would have been ok with being a backup...making the transition smooth and everyone would be on the same page.

Instead the complete opposite happened and this franchise has been in a state of turmoil since.

Bronco LB52
09-23-2009, 03:01 PM
No the job was his for the whole season, because the team was in a playoff race Taco. You don't under any circumstances throw a rookie in there at that point in time, even as talented a QB Jay was. There's a lot of factors that go into it, not just the cannon of a QB.

At the time, Shanahan and the Broncos cited Dan Marino circa 1983 as their rationale for inserting Cutler into a playoff race.

You might say that is an unrealistic expectation, but you never know how a rookie might fare until you play them.

24champ
09-23-2009, 03:15 PM
At the time, Shanahan and the Broncos cited Dan Marino circa 1983 as their rationale for inserting Cutler into a playoff race.

You might say that is an unrealistic expectation, but you never know how a rookie might fare until you play them.

It was very unrealistic...and unfair to Jay Cutler.

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 03:20 PM
When your veteran QB is out there making rookie mistakes, then where is your risk in just starting the rookie (who is also going to make rookie mistakes)? Plummer's level of play that year was subpar. No getting around that. And had we gone to the playoffs, we would likely have been eliminated (again) in the first game we played, as beat-up as our defense was by that time. We weren't going to the SB with Plummer that year... it simply wasn't gonna happen.

Popps
09-23-2009, 03:34 PM
When your veteran QB is out there making rookie mistakes.

You mean like our vet last year throwing the 2nd most INTs in the league? Or that same vet pissing their opening game away this season?

Maybe you're referring to Jake Plummer, who had the best TD/INT ratio of any starter in our history with more than 3 years?


Anyway, it's great to see you, Blueflame. You've been pretty absent since we started winning.

Probably just a coincidence.

;)

Bronco LB52
09-23-2009, 03:34 PM
It was very unrealistic...and unfair to Jay Cutler.

In 1982, Miami went to the Super Bowl with David Woodley at quarterback. The next season, he was replaced by Dan Marino after a 3-2 start.

Unlike Don Shula, Shanahan gave Plummer 11 games to straighten his **** together. After the loss to Kansas City on Thanksgiving, it was obvious this team needed better play from the quarterback to salvage their season. I don't blame Shanahan for taking a chance.

One thing I always admired about Shanahan, he never was afraid to make a bold move that he thought was best for the team. Players had to not only perform in games, but also in practice. He held everybody accountable.

I don't see how it was unrealistic when quarterbacks like Ben Roethlisberger and Matt Ryan have proven in recent years that rookies can perform well with a supporting cast around them. It wasn't like Cutler fell flat on his face (88.5 rating, 9 TD, 5 INT).

Rabb
09-23-2009, 03:37 PM
One thing I always admired about Shanahan, he never was afraid to make a bold move that he thought was best for the team.

we need an asterisk with this statement to exclude defensive coordinators

FireFly
09-23-2009, 03:48 PM
Besides, Champ Bailey disagrees with your opinion there ... although Nate Jackson apparently agrees.

I'm gonna go ahead and trust Champ ;D

Dude!?

How can you go past action Jackson!? Dude was a weapon!

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 04:32 PM
You mean like our vet last year throwing the 2nd most INTs in the league? Or that same vet pissing their opening game away this season?

Maybe you're referring to Jake Plummer, who had the best TD/INT ratio of any starter in our history with more than 3 years?


Anyway, it's great to see you, Blueflame. You've been pretty absent since we started winning.

Probably just a coincidence.

;)

Again, Plummer was (in 2006) as good as he was ever going to get... in fact, his best NFL playing days were in the rearview mirror. He was given the best possible opportunity to succeed with the Denver Broncos but his teams (for whatever reason) weren't quite good enough to hang with the AFC's best (as was abundantly clear vs the Colts a couple of times).

Blart
09-23-2009, 05:16 PM
The '05 team is my 2nd favorite team in all sports ('97 broncos is 1st).

I felt a personal connection because I was there for the home opener, as everyone boo'ed Rod Smith, Jake Plummer and the whole team, while I cheered. I never gave up on them, and they came back to crush the Chargers - then proceeded to crush every other team in the league up until they were the super bowl favorites. I felt like I was one of the few who always believed.

Also Jake Plummer was hot.

maher_tyler
09-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Anyone who does any sort of statistical analysis of Plummer during big games can see pretty clearly why Mike lost faith in the guy. It's unfortunate that Jake was such a choker in big games, but what is Mike going to do? He did what he could: draft someone to push Plummer. And how did Plummer respond? He retired mentally.

Nobody wanted Plummer as a starter anymore after that Chiefs game. This board, after that game, was in near universal agreement that Plummer had written his own ticket to the bench. Jake's performance didn't give Mike many options at that point in the season.

I would have liked to have seen Plummer win a Superbowl. In fact, I predicted it in 2004, and now we have the "I'm going to go ahead and call it," meme. What I learned about Plummer that season - and what Shanahan learned about Plummer in the Home AFC Championship Pittsburgh game - and what everybody else learned about Plummer during that primetime Thanksgiving night game against KC is that when you count on Plummer to control the ball and play smart during a big game, he will let you down. That's his record.

Plummer may have been a well liked guy, but being well liked doesn't win big games.

THIS!! That KC game was horrible..i was pretty disappointed in Jake. He just didn't seem to have the fire or the moxie he once had. The AFCC game was the beginning of the end for Jake!

DenverBrit
09-23-2009, 05:59 PM
Jake went all 'Bubby Brister' and was replaced. No real surprise.

baja
09-23-2009, 06:22 PM
Taco, you have always held a high horse position about the AFFCG against Pitt.

You have always put it on Jake and never seem to acknowledge that the D, and George Foster just completely failed in that game.

Just assume for the moment that Shanny did not want to dump off Jake at that time..... we had 2 first round picks the next draft.... 22 and 29.... in a draft class deep with DEs and DTs...... if Shanny had picked 2 stud DEs that draft.... don't you feel we would have been a better football team now?

Many fans truly believe the 2005 AFCCG team was 1 or 2 impact players away from a Lombardi.... Shanny could have given that team just one more year.... but he decided to blow up a 13-3 AFCCG team..... and thats where I think the Broncos went off track.....

Interesting, very interesting.....

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 06:34 PM
Oddly enough, as poor as Jake was playing under the QB circus Shanahan had created... he still had a winning record. Something Jay with all of his superhero (supposed) talents could never manage.

Couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the defense giving up less than 7 pts per game for the first 6 games of 2006, now could it? Even with Plummer throwing picks and fumbling away the ball left and right. Unreal.

Tombstone RJ
09-23-2009, 06:50 PM
Anyone who does any sort of statistical analysis of Plummer during big games can see pretty clearly why Mike lost faith in the guy. It's unfortunate that Jake was such a choker in big games, but what is Mike going to do? He did what he could: draft someone to push Plummer. And how did Plummer respond? He retired mentally.

Nobody wanted Plummer as a starter anymore after that Chiefs game. This board, after that game, was in near universal agreement that Plummer had written his own ticket to the bench. Jake's performance didn't give Mike many options at that point in the season.

I would have liked to have seen Plummer win a Superbowl. In fact, I predicted it in 2004, and now we have the "I'm going to go ahead and call it," meme. What I learned about Plummer that season - and what Shanahan learned about Plummer in the Home AFC Championship Pittsburgh game - and what everybody else learned about Plummer during that primetime Thanksgiving night game against KC is that when you count on Plummer to control the ball and play smart during a big game, he will let you down. That's his record.

Plummer may have been a well liked guy, but being well liked doesn't win big games.

Can't really argue this. My contention with Shanny is that he consistently made mistakes on the defense. Consistently. I've also argued in the past that ultimately, defense is easier to fix than offense and once you have a good offense, the rest is pretty much gravy. Case in point: Nolan and this defense.

I also contend that Shanny dumped Plummer too soon. He should have finished the season with Plummer come hell or high water. You and I cannot know the outcome of the season had Plummer finished as the starting QB.

Plummer should have finished the season and then Shanny SHOULD have let Cutler compete with Plummer for the starting spot in 2007. That's what he should have done to maintain locker room continuity and team spirit.

Shanny should have also kept Coyer. Period. No excuse for firing that guy.

I like Shanahan, I love his time with the Broncos. However, he started making stupid football decisions, esp. on defense and it's inexcusable.

Again, defense is easier to fix than offense. Yet, in all of Shanny's brilliance, he just couldn't get it done.

Beantown Bronco
09-23-2009, 07:07 PM
To the "should've let Jake finish the year" crowd:

In 11 games, he was only completing 55% of his passes
Had more INTs than TDs
Averaged more than one INT per game
Had 7 fumbles

All while his defense was literally playing at historic levels and didn't ask him to do anything beside manage the game.

He was KILLING the team.

May as well get the kid experience and go through his growing pains during 2006, when there was no real chance of them doing anything anyway. Had they waited until 2007, then they'd pretty much be conceding another year of rebuilding.

maher_tyler
09-23-2009, 07:12 PM
Plummer was horribly inconsistent from the pocket.
When teams concentrated on containing him, the offense went to ****.
That was happening before way before 2006.

I think it had more to containing the run game and our stretch plays. If you shut down the run game you shut down the bootlegs making Jake throw from the pocket...which was pretty scary. Everytime i remember him dropping back in the pocket i was nervous as ****!

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 07:15 PM
To the "should've let Jake finish the year" crowd:

In 11 games, he was only completing 55% of his passes
Had more INTs than TDs
Averaged more than one INT per game
Had 7 fumbles

All while his defense was literally playing at historic levels and didn't ask him to do anything beside manage the game.

He was KILLING the team.

May as well get the kid experience and go through his growing pains during 2006, when there was no real chance of them doing anything anyway. Had they waited until 2007, then they'd pretty much be conceding another year of rebuilding.

He was killing the team ... didn't we start 4-0 with the lowest number of points ever ... something like that? We beat the Rams like 6-3 or something?

This is a good thread.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 07:22 PM
Plummer had a fragile ego, and understandably so: He started nearly every game at QB his entire life. All three years in high school, all four years at Arizona State. As a rookie he sat behind Kent Graham for exactly 10 games, afrer that he started every game until the Seattle game in '06.

I felt he played all that year with one eye fixed on Jay. It was just a matter of time before he buckled under the pressure ... and I agree, Beantown, he played pretty badly.

atomicbloke
09-23-2009, 07:33 PM
To the "should've let Jake finish the year" crowd:

In 11 games, he was only completing 55% of his passes
Had more INTs than TDs
Averaged more than one INT per game
Had 7 fumbles

All while his defense was literally playing at historic levels and didn't ask him to do anything beside manage the game.

He was KILLING the team.

May as well get the kid experience and go through his growing pains during 2006, when there was no real chance of them doing anything anyway. Had they waited until 2007, then they'd pretty much be conceding another year of rebuilding.

Thats easy for fans like us to say.. we will be fans for the rest of our lives.... we can wait for a Lombardi...

Tell that to the players.... they sweat blood and tears together through the gruelling training camp days and put their emotion in to a team just for that season.... players NEVER think about next season or the future in the context of a team... players know that in any off season, they culd be cut, traded to another team, etc... players have no incentive to sacrifice the current season for next season.... players don't think that we will only win at most one playoff game this season, so might as well miss it this year so we can give a future starting QB some experience....

no sir, for the players its that season only.... when you change QBs in the middle of a playoff race, you absolutely have to think about the players too.... starting a rookie QB signals to the players that the current season is not important everything is preparation for the future.... why should players who may not even be with the team in future care? at that moment they just go out to do a job and the passion goes out...

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 07:35 PM
He was killing the team ... didn't we start 4-0 with the lowest number of points ever ... something like that? We beat the Rams like 6-3 or something?

This is a good thread.

Actually we lost to the Rams in Week One... the defense held them to FGs, but the offense committed like 6 turnovers... after watching that game, I knew we were going to have a QB controversy because Jake was absolutely horrid that day.

Popps
09-23-2009, 07:39 PM
Tell you what... we've heard countless insiders and now former players say that Shanahan made the wrong move, but let's just keep assuming these people that were THERE are all wrong, huh?

Look, I said when we benched Jake that it was probably done late. In other words, Shanahan should have probably stuck Cutler in from the get go, or not at all. He waited until it was such a ****ing mess... nothing was going to salvage the season.

Warren was there. He's got no reason to make this **** up. Shanahan screwed up, period. He stepped in crap. He thought he could outsmart a fairly simple situation. Instead of making a couple of moves to try to shore up a defense that routinely caved in... or beefing up the O-line or adding a top offensive weapon, he drafted a QB and started gutting the defense.

As I said, it's very simple. You can trace Shanahan's demise in Denver to the day he drafted Cutler. It went directly downhill from there... and ended in his firing.

Proof is in the pudding, folks.

Would we have won a SB if we made some big defensive moves? Who knows... but what we DO know is that gutting the thing and swapping QBs ended up in total and complete failure.

It's not a debatable subject... it's just historical fact, at this point.

rastaman
09-23-2009, 07:43 PM
Same here, but Plummer fell apart when Shanny drafted Cutler so you see Cutler started to ruin this team even before he arrived in town.

Naw I don't buy that. A ten year seasoned vet like Jake shouldn't have become paranoid with the drafting of Cutler. Jake just new he had short commings in his passing and decison making abilities. It showed in 04, 05, and 06.

Shanny drafted Cutler in 06 b/c he felt Jake had taken the Broncos as far as he could. Especially after the way Plummer layed an egg with numerous turn overs in the AFC Title game in 2005. In fact, Shanny really elevated and improved Jake's ability as a QB while in Denver, if you compare how Jake performed while with the AZ Cardinals.

When Jake was forced to stand in the pocket and throw, thats when he fell apart by throwing incompletions or interceptions. However, put Jake in a bootleg situation and he performed well. However, once teams started to figure out the bootleg, Jake was limited a QB.

UberBroncoMan
09-23-2009, 07:44 PM
Shanahan wouldn't have fired Slowick. He knew what all of us knew: resources up to that point had been put into offense, and Slowick didn't have the guys to run his defense. I posted an article here where Slowick had said as much in August after the first preseason game.

It was something like, "well, we don't have the talent here to run my scheme right now, but we're installing everything we can, especially the terminology. We'll lay a foundation this year and do what we can, and then target specific players next year to bring the system fully online."

That's not a direct quote, but it's the gist of what Slowick was saying.

Sorry man but Slowik has no RECENT SUCCESSFUL system. He was ****ing pathetic in Green Bay and just as bad for us. He had a year to get his people, look what Nolan and the rest of the new defensive coaches have been able to do with 1 off season. He did alright at the START of his career in Chicago... you know, in the early 90's.

He set NFL RECORDS for ****ty defense in Green Bay in relation to turnovers produced, sacks, and I believe passing yards allowed... I think he challenged them in Denver, and might have topped one.

After Chicago it was 1 and done in Cleavland, Green Bay, and then Denver (granted he was our DC for half of our pathetic 2007 season).

The only reason I was never insanely pissed about Shanahan being gone is because it means Slowik would never show his face in this city again... and if he did it meant we were going to pop 30+ points.

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 07:46 PM
Tell you what... we've heard countless insiders and now former players say that Shanahan made the wrong move, but let's just keep assuming these people that were THERE are all wrong, huh?

Look, I said when we benched Jake that it was probably done late. In other words, Shanahan should have probably stuck Cutler in from the get go, or not at all. He waited until it was such a ****ing mess... nothing was going to salvage the season.

Warren was there. He's got no reason to make this **** up. Shanahan screwed up, period. He stepped in crap. He thought he could outsmart a fairly simple situation. Instead of making a couple of moves to try to shore up a defense that routinely caved in... or beefing up the O-line or adding a top offensive weapon, he drafted a QB and started gutting the defense.

As I said, it's very simple. You can trace Shanahan's demise in Denver to the day he drafted Cutler. It went directly downhill from there... and ended in his firing.

Proof is in the pudding, folks.

Would we have won a SB if we made some big defensive moves? Who knows... but what we DO know is that gutting the thing and swapping QBs ended up in total and complete failure.

It's not a debatable subject... it's just historical fact, at this point.

Um...no. Gerard is not objective re: Shanahan; he's still bitter about being let go and has an axe to grind. This is not the first time he's publicly slammed Shanahan (much like Plummer) and it most likely won't be the last either. Oh, well. Hope he enjoys Oakland (and losing).

Meck77
09-23-2009, 07:49 PM
Plummer had a fragile ego,

Wrong. He didn't care what his critics thought

I sat down and had a beer with his brother. Jake was about winning and that was it.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 07:50 PM
Tell you what... we've heard countless insiders and now former players say that Shanahan made the wrong move, but let's just keep assuming these people that were THERE are all wrong, huh?
Who are these people .. Nate Jackson and Gerard Warren? Big Money was kicked off the plane on the way to the first pre-season game in '07. He admits he still holds a grudge, what's to trust?

You can trust Nate if you want, it's a free country. I prefer to trust Champ Bailey, who compared Cutler to Elway, Marino, and himself.


As I said, it's very simple. You can trace Shanahan's demise in Denver to the day he drafted Cutler. It went directly downhill from there... and ended in his firing.

Proof is in the pudding, folks. It's not a debatable subject... it's just historical fact, at this point.
It's "not debatable" in your twisted mind maybe. But those of us who pay attention, understand football, and don't obsess about Cutler, know it was the defense that doomed Shanahan. Our offense was excellent last year, despite seven RBs on IR.

Pudding boy, you are so obsessed with Jay, it's just laughable.

Popps
09-23-2009, 07:50 PM
Um...no. Gerard is not objective re: Shanahan; he's still bitter about being let go and has an axe to grind. .

Oh RIIIIIIGHT.

It's a conspiracy. Gotcha. Should have known.

Gee, or... maybe Gerard is right. While we're at it, maybe Shanahan shouldn't have dumped the only DT that could play a little bit into the laps of a divisional rival, huh?

Yea, axe to grind. That must be it.

I'm sure the other speculation that the locker room was in shambles over that was just all part of the conspiracy.

But, then there are those pesky facts that show the team falling apart... sucking for three years and Shanahan losing his gig.

But, let's not get bogged down with facts and first-hand accounts. Let's stick with message board conspiracy nuts!

watermock
09-23-2009, 07:51 PM
You can't argue with the 06 draft. or the 08 draft.

As far as Plummer goes, plenty of players have overcome high QB draftees.

QB's drafted high have about a 30% chance of delivering, despite being pusghed to start. Also, starting a rookie QB has been proven as much right as wrong.

We obviously got the best QB in 06, otherwise we wouldn't of gotten the bounty of picks. So regardless, it was a good pick, altho I am still unhappy trading away a potential Colt McCoy for 37.

Anyway, I'm surprised this thread made 8 pages in 1 day. Just shows it's still a lingering issue.

IMO, we were on the way to dominance if we could of given almost 100% attention in the offseason to defense, both in Fa and the draft and possibly still gtting Nolan, along withbout 3 backs. Too bad Torain busted his knee, but we still needed a franchise back.

Beavis concentration on drafting offense was puzzling.

Anyway, Slowick was a disaster, and Shanny dug his own grave with that.

Just had to cut line and ring in talent.

I still don't see that much from the rooks oir Orton, but the deal was good once Bowlen and Beavis decided to cut ties.

Anyone that thinks Bowlen cut ties wihout McD knowing is kidding themselves.

Also, the Bears trade was much better than the presumed Cassell trade, dspite the fact I didn't like our draft this year, or have much faith in KingNeckBeard.

watermock
09-23-2009, 07:54 PM
Plummer had a fragile ego, and understandably so: He started nearly every game at QB his entire life. All three years in high school, all four years at Arizona State. As a rookie he sat behind Kent Graham for exactly 10 games, afrer that he started every game until the Seattle game in '06.

I felt he played all that year with one eye fixed on Jay. It was just a matter of time before he buckled under the pressure ... and I agree, Beantown, he played pretty badly.

10 games is a pretty odd coincidence.

Natedogg
09-23-2009, 07:54 PM
I dunno about all of this.

AFC Championship game, January 22, 2006. "No mistake Jake" turns the ball over four times (2 INTs and 2 fumbles) en route to a 34-17 loss to the visiting Steelers.

The 2006 draft wasn't that bad.

1. Cutler
2. Sheffler
3. Marshall
4. Dumervil
5. Hixon
6. Kuper
7. Eslinger

In fact, most people think it was Denver's strongest overall draft ever.

They also picked up Javon Walker (for a 2d round pick) while trading Ashlie Lelie (for a 3d and 4th). In the long run, that probably turned out to be a wash, but Ashlie wanted out of here anyway. It certainly wasn't a case of Shanny breaking up a special combination.

In retrospect, the biggest mistake was probably the release of Trevor Pryce.


Jake did not play well through most of the 2006 season. It wasn't all his fault. A lot of teams watched how Pittsburgh attacked Denver's offense, and once a weakness like that is exposed, everyone learns to exploit it.

Denver's offensive output in early 2006"

10 vs. the Rams
9 vs. the Chiefs (in overtime, no less)
17 vs. New England
13 vs. Baltimore
13 vs. Oakland
17 vs. Cleveland

The only reason Denver was 5-1 at that point was because the defense had held opponents to an incredible 36 points in 6 games.

Over the next four games, Denver had good production against the Steelers, lost an offensive shootout against the Colts and won another defensive struggle against the Raiders.

Then they lost a huge game to the Chargers, where LT ripped them for about 180 yds in total offense and multiple TDs.

It wasn't until the next week that Plummer's job was really on the line, in Kansas City. Sort of a do or die game.

Result: The Chiefs won, and held Denver to 10 points.

The next week, Shanahan rolled the dice and started Cutler.

Did the players "quit on the team" at that point?

Sure looks to me like it had a lot more to do with a defense that finally collapsed and imploded with key injuries (especially the career ending injury to Al Wilson) plus an offense that was sputtering and inconsistent regardless of who was running it.

What a horrible season.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 07:55 PM
Oh RIIIIIIGHT.

It's a conspiracy. Gotcha. Should have known.

Gee, or... maybe Gerard is right.
Pudding boy, she's right. Gerard even ADMITS he still holds a grudge.

I recall he said something about being embarrassed in front of the young buck D-lineman from his alma mater. Jarvis Moss, Marcus Thomas, and Steve Harris were rookie Gator d-linemen who almost certainly admired, even revered Bog Money. He said something about feeling he was dissed in front of his young Gator proteges when they basically kicked him off the plane on the way to SF.

Like I said, you trust Nate Jackson ... I'll stick with Champ.

Natedogg
09-23-2009, 07:56 PM
JMO, but firing larry coyer and hiring Bates is what led to Shahans demise...

I honestly think it all started with the firing of ray rhodes. shanny just wouldnt let d coordinators have 2 or 3 years to install systems and get their players.

and when he fired a coordinator, it just set the defensive personnel back that much further.

too bad he finally "realized this" by keeping the Slowdick instead of a quality coordinator.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 07:56 PM
Nce to see such a good thread ... lets' have threads like this more often ;D

rastaman
09-23-2009, 07:57 PM
Shanny should have allowed Coyer to stay as DC and allowed Coyer the freedom to build the defense and draft the players to fit the scheme he was trying to deploy; as well as for developing continuity and identity.

Within 3 years after the 05 season.....Denver may have had a pretty decent Defense and Shanny would have still been coaching in 09.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 08:02 PM
Shanny should have allowed Coyer to stay as DC and allowed Coyer the freedom to build the defense and draft the players to fit the scheme he was trying to deploy; as well as for developing continuity and identity.

Within 3 years after the 05 season.....Denver may have had a pretty decent Defense and Shanny would have still been coaching in 09.
Word.


10 games is a pretty odd coincidence.
?

Natedogg
09-23-2009, 08:11 PM
Oh RIIIIIIGHT.

It's a conspiracy. Gotcha. Should have known.

Gee, or... maybe Gerard is right. While we're at it, maybe Shanahan shouldn't have dumped the only DT that could play a little bit into the laps of a divisional rival, huh?

Yea, axe to grind. That must be it.

I'm sure the other speculation that the locker room was in shambles over that was just all part of the conspiracy.

But, then there are those pesky facts that show the team falling apart... sucking for three years and Shanahan losing his gig.

But, let's not get bogged down with facts and first-hand accounts. Let's stick with message board conspiracy nuts!

This always confused the hell out of me. Big money played hard and was in the top half of d tackles in the league... One of the reclamation projects that actually worked.

Then he got kicked to the curb pretty hard.... Supposedly because he didn't fit into Bate's system??

Not a good omen, Warren does probably have an axe to grind, and personally, i think he is correct about "the 2007 implosion."

Blueflame
09-23-2009, 08:11 PM
Oh RIIIIIIGHT.

It's a conspiracy. Gotcha. Should have known.

Gee, or... maybe Gerard is right. While we're at it, maybe Shanahan shouldn't have dumped the only DT that could play a little bit into the laps of a divisional rival, huh?

Yea, axe to grind. That must be it.

I'm sure the other speculation that the locker room was in shambles over that was just all part of the conspiracy.

But, then there are those pesky facts that show the team falling apart... sucking for three years and Shanahan losing his gig.

But, let's not get bogged down with facts and first-hand accounts. Let's stick with message board conspiracy nuts!

No conspiracy whatsoever. Gerard Warren doesn't like Shanahan, so it's totally expected and predictable that he would (again) slam him in the media. His is not an objective opinion, however and I personally think his own emotions are clouding his perspective.

rastaman
09-23-2009, 08:12 PM
Actually we lost to the Rams in Week One... the defense held them to FGs, but the offense committed like 6 turnovers... after watching that game, I knew we were going to have a QB controversy because Jake was absolutely horrid that day.

Don't forget Jake struggled once Kubiak left as well. Kubiak called the offense that really suited how Jake played. Kubiak played to Jake's strengths, but Jake was a turn over machine either with fumbles or interceptions.

Meck77
09-23-2009, 08:14 PM
Taco could you please do your "Statistical analysis" on Cutlers big games? I won't hold my breath.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 08:21 PM
Taco could you please do your "Statistical analysis" on Cutlers big games? I won't hold my breath.

These are some massive numbers .... especially in that he soldiered thru the 'beetus in '07:


http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6047/82512249.png


Who cares anymore though?

Jay is an excellent quarterback, but we traded him.

No amount of hatred or regret can change that.

Over. Done.

Meck77
09-23-2009, 08:24 PM
Big games meaning playoff games, games with playoff implications etc.

Answer Cutler choked at what little opportunities he even put himself in position for.

I agree with you Buff. I certainly don't care. I'm in that minority that was glad to see Shanny and Cutler gone to begin with.

maher_tyler
09-23-2009, 08:28 PM
You can't argue with the 06 draft. or the 08 draft.

As far as Plummer goes, plenty of players have overcome high QB draftees.

QB's drafted high have about a 30% chance of delivering, despite being pusghed to start. Also, starting a rookie QB has been proven as much right as wrong.

We obviously got the best QB in 06, otherwise we wouldn't of gotten the bounty of picks. So regardless, it was a good pick, altho I am still unhappy trading away a potential Colt McCoy for 37.

Anyway, I'm surprised this thread made 8 pages in 1 day. Just shows it's still a lingering issue.

IMO, we were on the way to dominance if we could of given almost 100% attention in the offseason to defense, both in Fa and the draft and possibly still gtting Nolan, along withbout 3 backs. Too bad Torain busted his knee, but we still needed a franchise back.

Beavis concentration on drafting offense was puzzling.

Anyway, Slowick was a disaster, and Shanny dug his own grave with that.

Just had to cut line and ring in talent.

I still don't see that much from the rooks oir Orton, but the deal was good once Bowlen and Beavis decided to cut ties.

Anyone that thinks Bowlen cut ties wihout McD knowing is kidding themselves.

Also, the Bears trade was much better than the presumed Cassell trade, dspite the fact I didn't like our draft this year, or have much faith in KingNeckBeard.

Who the **** is Beavis??

24champ
09-23-2009, 08:52 PM
May as well get the kid experience and go through his growing pains during 2006, when there was no real chance of them doing anything anyway.

They still had a chance, and players believed they had a chance with Jake. It's different from a fans perspective, and it's easy to say plug in the kid and get him some NFL experience but there is real resentment to make that move in the middle of a playoff race. I wonder if the question was posed to Shanahan, if he would have changed some things about the switch.

Fact is, it was a mistake to make the switch. Cost us the playoffs. It wasn't Jay's team...it was Jake's. Then turmoil ensued afterwards for 3 years.

rastaman
09-23-2009, 09:03 PM
Big games meaning playoff games, games with playoff implications etc.

Answer Cutler choked at what little opportunities he even put himself in position for.

I agree with you Buff. I certainly don't care. I'm in that minority that was glad to see Shanny and Cutler gone to begin with.

Oh well.....the jury is still out on McDaniels and Cutler. Lets see how Orton performs in big games now that he has so many more weapons here in Denver that he didn't have Chi-town. Orton hasn't proven to me that he's the long term deal. In fact I'm sure Orton doesn't even rank as a poor mans Brady in McDaniels eyes. Just stating the obvious.

No1BroncoFan
09-23-2009, 09:05 PM
I'm in that minority that was glad to see Shanny and Cutler gone to begin with.

:notworthy

rastaman
09-23-2009, 09:10 PM
They still had a chance, and players believed they had a chance with Jake. It's different from a fans perspective, and it's easy to say plug in the kid and get him some NFL experience but there is real resentment to make that move in the middle of a playoff race. I wonder if the question was posed to Shanahan, if he would have changed some things about the switch.

Fact is, it was a mistake to make the switch. Cost us the playoffs. It wasn't Jay's team...it was Jake's. Then turmoil ensued afterwards for 3 years.

Players also thought it was a mistake when Shanny benched Bubby Brister in favor of Brian Greise back in 1999!

HEAV
09-23-2009, 09:14 PM
Well it's nice to see that this thread has given the Shanny Kliq something to type about... I mean with McDaniels (so far) having shut them up:~ohyah!:

HEAV
09-23-2009, 09:15 PM
Players also thought it was a mistake when Shanny benched Bubby Brister in favor of Brian Greise back in 1999!

It was.

rastaman
09-23-2009, 09:16 PM
Well it's nice to see that this thread has given the Shanny Kliq something to type about... I mean with McDaniels (so far) having shut them up:~ohyah!:

Don't worry, McDaniels days are coming! Just look at it as a Right of Passage!:sunshine:

baja
09-23-2009, 09:56 PM
They still had a chance, and players believed they had a chance with Jake. It's different from a fans perspective, and it's easy to say plug in the kid and get him some NFL experience but there is real resentment to make that move in the middle of a playoff race. I wonder if the question was posed to Shanahan, if he would have changed some things about the switch.

<b>Fact is, it was a mistake to make the switch. Cost us the playoffs. It wasn't Jay's team...it was Jake's. Then turmoil ensued afterwards for 3 years.

Great point and likely true which would explain alot and the last three seasons.

HEAV
09-23-2009, 10:04 PM
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/092009/1253527918_referee_vs_helmet.gif (http://www.gifbin.com/983429)


Jay have an ego? Never...

tsiguy96
09-23-2009, 10:07 PM
Who are these people .. Nate Jackson and Gerard Warren? Big Money was kicked off the plane on the way to the first pre-season game in '07. He admits he still holds a grudge, what's to trust?

You can trust Nate if you want, it's a free country. I prefer to trust Champ Bailey, who compared Cutler to Elway, Marino, and himself.



need me to post the interview yet again, on national radio, not chicago radio, where he clearly thought jay was being an immature brat about how he handled the situation?

baja
09-23-2009, 10:21 PM
need me to post the interview yet again, on national radio, not chicago radio, where he clearly thought jay was being an immature brat about how he handled the situation?

Yes please do I must have missed it.

Popps
09-23-2009, 10:25 PM
Fact is, it was a mistake to make the switch. Cost us the playoffs. It wasn't Jay's team...it was Jake's. Then turmoil ensued afterwards for 3 years.

You've got a round Earth and a group of people around here that are simply going to keep insisting that it's flat because that's the position they took before we knew the answer.

We know the answer. Players have spoken. Shanahan lost the team. The results couldn't be any more black and white. The team went in the ****ter and he lost his job.

We were a game from the SB and instead of adding to a winning formula, Shanahan pushed all of his chips in on Jay Cutler. Bad decision. The team went downhill and was a laughing stock by the end of last season.


As I said, there's nothing to debate or discuss, here. We have our answer... so people can either accept it or choose not to. It's up to them.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 10:34 PM
need me to post the interview yet again, on national radio, not chicago radio, where he clearly thought jay was being an immature brat about how he handled the situation?

He didn't say that, not even close.

Why the problem with reality for you Jay-haters?

BroncoMan4ever
09-23-2009, 11:07 PM
I think Plummer still had a couple good years in that offense... He's probably happier playing handball. :)

we would have won the super bowl in 2006 had Mike not used the 2-1st rounders to get Cutler and torn apart that team. had he gone after a RB, and some defensive playmakers, we would have another Lombardi trophy in Denver.

Bob's your Information Minister
09-23-2009, 11:16 PM
Shanny was screwed the moment Elway retired.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 11:32 PM
Taco could you please do your "Statistical analysis" on Cutlers big games? I won't hold my breath.
Last year he did have a few big games: at Atlanta, the Jets and especially Cleveland. The season was over as the 3rd quarter ended in Cleveland. Over as in O-V-E-R. Wouldda been our 4th straight loss. But then Jay threw 3 TDs and set a record for passing yards in the 4th quarter to pull out that win and salvage the season. Elway-like. Of course we blew it later, mostly because of the defense, but you can't take those three away from him

And Pudding Boy, if there's "nothing to debate and discuss," then why do the professionals - the guys who know a helluva lot more than any of us do - love Jay? Hence, the bidding war, and ultimately two first-round picks and a starting QB in return. But sure Popps, you know more than the professionals.

I suppose if blaming Cutler for everything makes you happy, go for it. Whatever gets you through your day

watermock
09-23-2009, 11:35 PM
we would have won the super bowl in 2006 had Mike not used the 2-1st rounders to get Cutler and torn apart that team. had he gone after a RB, and some defensive playmakers, we would have another Lombardi trophy in Denver.

WRONG.

After attracting interest from the Oakland Raiders, the Detroit Lions, the Arizona Cardinals and the Baltimore Ravens, Cutler was selected by the Denver Broncos with the 11th pick in the draft, after the Broncos acquired the pick from the St. Louis Rams by trading their 15th and 68th overall picks.

Which we recouped double with the trade, at first, before we gave away our #1 in '10.

We gave up a 68th. 3rd round, not first.

Besides, the 06 draft was probably the best draft in Bronco history.

08 wasn't too shabby either, but hey, we got Beavis and his 100 name index card, right?

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 11:39 PM
WRONG.

After attracting interest from the Oakland Raiders, the Detroit Lions, the Arizona Cardinals and the Baltimore Ravens, Cutler was selected by the Denver Broncos with the 11th pick in the draft, after the Broncos acquired the pick from the St. Louis Rams by trading their 15th and 68th overall picks.

Which we recouped double with the trade, at first, before we gave away our #1 in '10.

We gave up a 68th. 3rd round, not first.
That's correct, it was a steal ... a 3rd rounder was all it took to move up.

24champ
09-23-2009, 11:46 PM
I suppose if blaming Cutler for everything makes you happy, go for it. Whatever gets you through your day

I liked Cutler, I can't blame him for the situation he came into. Would have preferred if the move was done the following season, making the transition from Jake to Jay...a smooth one. Instead it was a disaster, with locker room divisions and so on.

I blame Shanahan for the move. It was a mistake of epic proportions. You don't ever toss a rookie QB in the middle of a playoff race, unless your veteran QB is injured and unable to play.

BroncoBuff
09-23-2009, 11:58 PM
I liked Cutler, I can't blame him for the situation he came into. Would have preferred if the move was done the following season, making the transition from Jake to Jay...a smooth one. Instead it was a disaster, with locker room divisions and so on.

I blame Shanahan for the move. It was a mistake of epic proportions. You don't ever toss a rookie QB in the middle of a playoff race, unless your veteran QB is injured and unable to play.

24 I just don't get why people are blaming Jay for everything this side of the California fires. What do people gain by thinking Jay is at fault for everything? Amazing how the 07 and 08 defenses - cumulatively #32 in the league over Jay's two years as a starter - seem to be completely overlooked as the cause of problems here.

Actually, the most rational description of Jay's 2008 season would be: It was amazing he managed to put together an 8-8 season with such a horrific defense, and with 7 running backs on IR. In 2007 he soldiered through a draining bout with diabetes to rack up impressive numbers. That's how I'll remember Jay.

watermock
09-24-2009, 12:21 AM
And how much he would of enjoyed a Nolan D this year.

And a couple healthy backs.

Denver might be blowing out teams rankd in the basement instead of needing a miracle to go 2-0.

Still, winning Sunday might create more and more cohesion.

All I can say is we better win sunday, because it's a rough stretch ahead, altho not as tough as it looked just a month ago.

A win Sunday, it's hard not to see us not going 6-10 or better. Still, the offense is significantly weakened, despite a better running game.

cutthemdown
09-24-2009, 01:35 AM
Cutler not at fault for the 2 bad seasons we had. It's a team game. This team is better then both of those teams though.

The only game I put on Cutlers shoulders was the Bills game. He ****ed the pooch on that one. He missed so many chances to win it.

TonyR
09-24-2009, 05:52 AM
24 I just don't get why people are blaming Jay for everything this side of the California fires. What do people gain by thinking Jay is at fault for everything? Amazing how the 07 and 08 defenses - cumulatively #32 in the league over Jay's two years as a starter - seem to be completely overlooked as the cause of problems here.

Actually, the most rational description of Jay's 2008 season would be: It was amazing he managed to put together an 8-8 season with such a horrific defense, and with 7 running backs on IR. In 2007 he soldiered through a draining bout with diabetes to rack up impressive numbers. That's how I'll remember Jay.

LOL The guy who's always saying how others are obsessed with Jay and can't let go and stop talking about him can't seem to let go and stop talking about him. Buff, do you have any mirrors in your house?

TonyR
09-24-2009, 05:53 AM
The only game I put on Cutlers shoulders was the Bills game. He ****ed the pooch on that one. He missed so many chances to win it.

Take a quick look at the home Oakland debacle and add that one to the list. The whole team was awful but Jay helped lead the charge.

TonyR
09-24-2009, 06:04 AM
Well it's nice to see that this thread has given the Shanny Kliq something to type about... I mean with McDaniels (so far) having shut them up:~ohyah!:

LOL Many of these same people think General Custer deserved another year. He was just a few soldiers away from winning at Little Bighorn...

barryr
09-24-2009, 06:53 AM
Shanahan made many mistakes after Elway and TD retired. I point to the inability to draft and develop defensive players and hire a DC.

BroncoBuff
09-24-2009, 07:43 AM
LOL The guy who's always saying how others are obsessed with Jay and can't let go and stop talking about him can't seem to let go and stop talking about him. Buff, do you have any mirrors in your house?
I suppose it seems that way, but I'd rather look at is as defending what really happened. Jay was a very small portion of the problem these last two years ... the defense was about 80% at fault. Can't see how anybody who really knows football can see it any other way.

The free market has spoken on Jay, the professionals launched themselves into a borderline feeding-frenzy, throwing packages of picks and players at us for Jay. Mike Mayock, most all commentators, Dan Marino and the entire studio groups on CBS and Fox think it was a mistake.

I miss Jay, but I'm not ready to say it was a mistake yet. Ayers and Alphonso and Orton all seem to be making serious contributions ... and the new-look defense is a huge shot in the arm ... they'll probably get us further than Jay could have without them. Josh's offense needs a smart QB, not a gunslinger.

So, from a W-L perspective, I think for us it probably will be a good trade. I hope sooner rather than later.

Cito Pelon
09-24-2009, 07:46 AM
Discussions about this will reappear ten years and more from now. Same as discussions about Reeves/Elway/Maddox/Shanahan have reappeared for years, because it's interesting to discuss.

There certainly was a deterioration in the team from the AFC West Title in 2005 (the lone one since 1998). I remember saying about 200 times in 2006 if you wanted Cutler to start take it up with Shanny, he clearly wanted Plummer in there through game 8 or so. I remember when Jay took over, turned out he had never taken a snap from Nalen at any point in 2006 until Shanny named him the starter.

Shanny was a god-like figure, and people couldn't understand that all their b****ing about Jake should have been directed at Shanny. Shanny decided who would be starting at QB. But, no, according to the Mane, it was all Jake's problem. Shanny had nothing to do with it. Then Coyer got scape-goated, then Shanny brings in Bates as the savior, then he got scape-goated, and so on and so on . . . .

jhns
09-24-2009, 08:15 AM
Why do people keep saying we were in the playoff hunt that year? We were only winning at the beginning of the year because of the defense. There is no arguing this. Go look for yourself. The defense fell apart well before Jake was benched. When the defense fell apart, we stopped winning. What makes you guys so confident that Jake just needed another game to get in rythm and turn it all around? He couldn't do it up to that point. So, what changed that gave you all so much faith in him?

The facts don't support your theories. Our offense was better that year with Jay. What kind of logic are you using to say Jay made the unit he plays on better but made the team worse? What? The defense was already bad by the time he came in. How is it his fault they got bad? If it is that they picked Jay, why did they stop playing for Jake while he was still in?

Another question I have is how exactly can you think a single defensive player from that draft can make that team a SB contender? How does this one player, who would be a rookie trying to learn, stop the mid-season collapse of the defense?

Tombstone RJ
09-24-2009, 08:27 AM
As others have stated, another problem with the 2006 team was injuries. You can and should put the blame on Shanahan for that too.

In fact, aside for the SB run in the late 1990's, Shanny's teams always had injuries. Now, why is that?

Peeps here want to blame Antonopolis but he is still considered one of the best. The same with Tuten.

Again, I think Shanny was way too lax on stretching and conditioning. So, I will point the finger at him for the consistent injuries to the team.

WolfpackGuy
09-24-2009, 08:33 AM
Shanahan saw the writing on the wall in the 2005 AFCCG.
The Broncos went from one of the oldest teams to one of the youngest basically overnight after that.
If he'd kept Coyer around, he'd still be here.

Beantown Bronco
09-24-2009, 08:36 AM
As others have stated, another problem with the 2006 team was injuries. You can and should put the blame on Shanahan for that too.

In fact, aside for the SB run in the late 1990's, Shanny's teams always had injuries. Now, why is that?

Peeps here want to blame Antonopolis but he is still considered one of the best. The same with Tuten.

Again, I think Shanny was way too lax on stretching and conditioning. So, I will point the finger at him for the consistent injuries to the team.

BS.

Hammy injuries and things of that ilk can be blamed on lack of stretching and conditioning sometimes. But broken arms, legs, fingers, etc. and the myriad other injuries suffered during those years cannot.

Think about it. Guys like Lelie had CHRONIC problems with hammy injuries in college. What happened after Denver drafted him? Not one single incident of a hammy acting up. Not one.

Sorry, try again.

DBroncos4life
09-24-2009, 08:36 AM
LOL Many of these same people think General Custer deserved another year. He was just a few soldiers away from winning at Little Bighorn...

Well Custer had under 300 soldiers vs anywhere from 3000 to 5000 Crow Indians. Given the fact that Custer was KILLED in the Battle of Little Big Horn another year would have been sort of hard to give him. I think a few more soldiers would have greatly helped Custer out though. He was vastly out numbered and people he was counting on failed to show up on time.

Orange_Beard
09-24-2009, 09:10 AM
LINK (http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/23/warren-shouldnt-have-broken-up-2005-team/1421/)

"I think we should have kept the team from '05 intact and try to make a run for the Super Bowl instead of trying to reorganize and go in a different direction," Warren said in a teleconference with Colorado reporters Wednesday. "We had the formula and the chemistry together in the locker room to maybe succeed and win two or three championships. But Mike wasn't going in that direction and it kind of threw a lot of guys' lives off course."

"Mike," of course, if former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan. Warren said he thought Shanahan's biggest mistake was breaking up the team that came so close to making the Super Bowl.

I think players stopped playing for Mike once he ran Plummer off with the Cutler pick. That locker room LOVED Plummer, and never really took to Cutler's selfish, pouty, non-team oriented demeanor.
**** off Raider.

rastaman
09-24-2009, 09:18 AM
Well it's nice to see that this thread has given the Shanny Kliq something to type about... I mean with McDaniels (so far) having shut them up:~ohyah!:

Well fans should be careful to view McD as light a the end of the tunnel, b/c before its all said and done, that light could be an on rushing breakless Locomotive! :sunshine:

Tombstone RJ
09-24-2009, 12:57 PM
BS.

Hammy injuries and things of that ilk can be blamed on lack of stretching and conditioning sometimes. But broken arms, legs, fingers, etc. and the myriad other injuries suffered during those years cannot.

Think about it. Guys like Lelie had CHRONIC problems with hammy injuries in college. What happened after Denver drafted him? Not one single incident of a hammy acting up. Not one.

Sorry, try again.

Hmmm:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UvmKpHmZPnAJ:bleacherreport.com/articles/71909-chad-jackson-signs-with-denver-broncos-denver-still-decimated-with-injuries+2006+Broncos+injuries&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/22/injuries-hammer-broncos/164/

Just two article indicating injuries.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-24-2009, 01:19 PM
Well fans should be careful to view McD as light a the end of the tunnel, b/c before its all said and done, that light could be an on rushing breakless Locomotive! :sunshine:

Yes, because nobody wants to be optimistic about the team they root for.

You get dumber with each post. Astounding.

Beantown Bronco
09-24-2009, 01:28 PM
Hmmm:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UvmKpHmZPnAJ:bleacherreport.com/articles/71909-chad-jackson-signs-with-denver-broncos-denver-still-decimated-with-injuries+2006+Broncos+injuries&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://gazettebroncos.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/22/injuries-hammer-broncos/164/

Just two article indicating injuries.

You do realize that these articles you are citing actually support my side of the argument and not yours, don't you?

Ramsey - elbow
Pears - appendectomy
Boss Bailey - knee
Pittman - ribs

None of these injuries can in any way be blamed on poor conditioning or lack of stretching.

ScottXray
09-24-2009, 01:40 PM
Well Custer had under 300 soldiers vs anywhere from 3000 to 5000 Crow Indians. Given the fact that Custer was KILLED in the Battle of Little Big Horn another year would have been sort of hard to give him. I think a few more soldiers would have greatly helped Custer out though. He was vastly out numbered and people he was counting on failed to show up on time.

Yeah, but it still means that Custer screwed up big time. He divided his force in a hostile environment without adequate scouting of the situation. MAJOR ****-up, and his decisions led directly to the massacre.

Civil war hero general who had a major REP and no real military sense. Another year and only two or three more Key platoons and he STILL would have been killed...along with everyone else he brought in.
Hilarious!

DBroncos4life
09-24-2009, 02:36 PM
Yeah, but it still means that Custer screwed up big time. He divided his force in a hostile environment without adequate scouting of the situation. MAJOR ****-up, and his decisions led directly to the massacre.

Civil war hero general who had a major REP and no real military sense. Another year and only two or three more Key platoons and he STILL would have been killed...along with everyone else he brought in.
Hilarious!
Custer made many mistakes but I don't think it was because of lack of military sense but more so blind pride. Brig. Gen. George Crook was 30 miles away with 2K worth of soldiers but Custer didn't want them there. Custer ordering his men to get of the horse and stager was a popular military tactic but it was the damning decision in this battle.

Inkana7
09-24-2009, 04:24 PM
Custer was a blumbering military idiot. Last in his class at West Point. Know who was first? Robert E. Lee.

watermock
09-24-2009, 04:44 PM
Well Custer had under 300 soldiers vs anywhere from 3000 to 5000 Crow Indians. Given the fact that Custer was KILLED in the Battle of Little Big Horn another year would have been sort of hard to give him. I think a few more soldiers would have greatly helped Custer out though. He was vastly out numbered and people he was counting on failed to show up on time.

Actually, not only did he underestimate the number of warriors, which were ferel dogs at that point, being pushed north, starving, smallpox, you had a enemy with nothing to lose.


custer's impatience for glory left him without 5 or so gattling guns because they wouild of slowed him down.

DBroncos4life
09-24-2009, 07:55 PM
Custer was a blumbering military idiot. Last in his class at West Point. Know who was first? Robert E. Lee.

Yeah I guess being first in his class at West Point really helped Old Lee win the war eh?

cutthemdown
09-24-2009, 08:00 PM
someone has to be last.

baja
09-24-2009, 08:46 PM
someone has to be last.

Some of the better schools just shoot the last guy that way nobody has to wear the "Last man" title for the rest of his life, quite civilized actually.

BroncoMan4ever
09-24-2009, 11:31 PM
WRONG.

After attracting interest from the Oakland Raiders, the Detroit Lions, the Arizona Cardinals and the Baltimore Ravens, Cutler was selected by the Denver Broncos with the 11th pick in the draft, after the Broncos acquired the pick from the St. Louis Rams by trading their 15th and 68th overall picks.

Which we recouped double with the trade, at first, before we gave away our #1 in '10.

We gave up a 68th. 3rd round, not first.

Besides, the 06 draft was probably the best draft in Bronco history.

08 wasn't too shabby either, but hey, we got Beavis and his 100 name index card, right?

technically we had 2-1st rounders in that draft which were packaged so we could initially move up to get i think to 15 and then we gave the 68th pick to move up to 11 to get Cutler.
that is why i consider it being 2-1st rounders to move up for Cutler.

and i am not saying that draft wasn't awesome, because it was. i still think we gave up too early on Hixon and Eslinger. but had it been done differently, and had we gone after some defensive playmakers and a RB with the picks we had, that team could have built upon the 05 team and been a major threat for a super bowl win in 06.

Tombstone RJ
09-25-2009, 06:26 AM
You do realize that these articles you are citing actually support my side of the argument and not yours, don't you?

Ramsey - elbow
Pears - appendectomy
Boss Bailey - knee
Pittman - ribs

None of these injuries can in any way be blamed on poor conditioning or lack of stretching.

What about Champ Bailey's injury? You ignored that one.

I'm talking about a consistent pattern of sustained injuries over a long period of time. The term "decimated by injuries" is in the title of one article.

"Decimated by injuries" seemed to happen consistently under Shanahan.

Last year alone, 7 RBs go down with injuries.

A team being decimated with injuries once every few years is understandable. But having this happen over a 10 year span indicates a pattern. A pattern indicates a problem.

If you don't agree, fine. But you can't ignore the facts.

Beantown Bronco
09-25-2009, 06:35 AM
I'm talking about a consistent pattern of sustained injuries over a long period of time. The term "decimated by injuries" is in the title of one article.

"Decimated by injuries" seemed to happen consistently under Shanahan.

Last year alone, 7 RBs go down with injuries.

A team being decimated with injuries once every few years is understandable. But having this happen over a 10 year span indicates a pattern. A pattern indicates a problem.

If you don't agree, fine. But you can't ignore the facts.

I'm not ignoring the facts. To be clear, I'm not saying that the Broncos haven't sustained more than their share of injuries. All I'm doing is disagreeing with the "cause" of these injuries that you present. I don't believe conditioning and stretching have anything to do with it for 90% of these guys.

Why do I think they have become injury prone more than most teams? Simple. They have made a habit of drafting guys and picking up guys in free agency that ALREADY HAD a history of injuries in college or with their prior teams, respectively. Why? Because they obviously came cheaper and have a lot of upside if they can just stay healthy. Problem is, as we've seen, most can't.

Beantown Bronco
09-25-2009, 06:40 AM
Further to my point above, if stretching and conditioning were the problem, then the Broncos should be ok this year because obviously those have been made a point of emphasis by the new regime.

Certainly then, the Broncos wouldn't already be suffering from injuries to their top two QBs, two starting offensive linemen, Dawkins, etc.

Tombstone RJ
09-25-2009, 06:51 AM
I'm not ignoring the facts. To be clear, I'm not saying that the Broncos haven't sustained more than their share of injuries. All I'm doing is disagreeing with the "cause" of these injuries that you present. I don't believe conditioning and stretching have anything to do with it for 90% of these guys.

Why do I think they have become injury prone more than most teams? Simple. They have made a habit of drafting guys and picking up guys in free agency that ALREADY HAD a history of injuries in college or with their prior teams, respectively. Why? Because they obviously came cheaper and have a lot of upside if they can just stay healthy. Problem is, as we've seen, most can't.

Either way, Shanny still deserves the blame. He drafts and brings in guys with injuries, that is a problem. Either way injuries and Shanny are synonomous.

Tombstone RJ
09-25-2009, 06:53 AM
Further to my point above, if stretching and conditioning were the problem, then the Broncos should be ok this year because obviously those have been made a point of emphasis by the new regime.

Certainly then, the Broncos wouldn't already be suffering from injuries to their top two QBs, two starting offensive linemen, Dawkins, etc.

Lets see how the year pans out. Conditioning and things like stretching will help the team late in the season...

Old Dude
09-25-2009, 09:10 AM
technically we had 2-1st rounders in that draft which were packaged so we could initially move up to get i think to 15 and then we gave the 68th pick to move up to 11 to get Cutler.
that is why i consider it being 2-1st rounders to move up for Cutler.

and i am not saying that draft wasn't awesome, because it was. i still think we gave up too early on Hixon and Eslinger. but had it been done differently, and had we gone after some defensive playmakers and a RB with the picks we had, that team could have built upon the 05 team and been a major threat for a super bowl win in 06.

Denver went into that draft with two first round picks... #22 overall (acquired from the Redskins the year before) and their own pick ... #29 overall.

Most people felt that Denver's top need was at WR, especially since Lelie as traded to the Falcons.

Assuming Denver took a running back at 22 and a WR at 29, (and assuming players were drafted in the same order) they would have wound up with DeAngelo Williams and Chad Jackson.

Williams didn't really gel until his third year. Jackson never did.

If you assume instead that Denver had drafted the highest rated defensive players available (which wasn't really considered their problem at the time) that would have netted them either LB Manny Lawson, CB Jonathan Joseph or DT John McCargo. None of these guys have made any real impact in their first three years.

Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, maybe what the Broncos should have done was to trade those two first rounders for, say, three seconds, and a fifth and taken:

Marcus McNeil OT (at 50)
Devin Hester WR/PR (at 57)
Maurice Jones-Drew (at 60)
Antoine Bethea CB (at 207)

Blueflame
09-25-2009, 01:09 PM
Either way, Shanny still deserves the blame. He drafts and brings in guys with injuries, that is a problem. Either way injuries and Shanny are synonomous.

You can't hang "injuries" on the HC... they're simply "the luck of the draw"... totally random and can happen to anyone on any team at any time.