PDA

View Full Version : Casserly on "The Trade"


broncobum6162
11-18-2009, 06:58 AM
I know another Cutler vs. Orton. Not a big Casserly fan but thought it was a good read.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12536046/cutler-orton-living-up-and-down-to-expectations

azbroncfan
11-18-2009, 07:07 AM
I know another Cutler vs. Orton. Not a big Casserly fan but thought it was a good read.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12536046/cutler-orton-living-up-and-down-to-expectations

I'm guessing before I read it that he must of supported the broncos other wise the title of the thread would be Casserly is a moron.

Falconer
11-18-2009, 07:12 AM
I'm guessing before I read it that he must of supported the broncos other wise the title of the thread would be Casserly is a moron.

I'm guessing next time you should read an article before you comment on it. ;D

azbroncfan
11-18-2009, 07:18 AM
I'm guessing next time you should read an article before you comment on it. ;D

I said guessing right didn't say I read it. That is how posts go here he is a good writer if he says good things and bad writer who is an idiot that knows nothing if he says bad things. That is how it works here.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 07:28 AM
I'm guessing next time you should read an article before you comment on it. ;D
YEP! :~ohyah!:
I'm thinking AZBroncoFan should pay more attention to WHO posts a story/link before making an ASSumption!


Very good, constructive, non-biased read, with positives/negatives from both sides - pretty much what I would expect from a writer like Casserly!;)

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 07:32 AM
Casserly wrote the entire article as if the trade was Cutler for Orton.

No wonder he got fired. He's a moron.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 07:34 AM
Also-

First line: The right time to evaluate the Jay Cutler (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/409102/jaycutler)-Kyle Orton (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/418071/kyleorton) trade is not now, but a couple of years from now.

Last line: Right now, I would take the Bears in this trade.

http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/retard-owls.jpg

worm
11-18-2009, 07:36 AM
Casserly wrote the entire article as if the trade was Cutler for Orton.

No wonder he got fired. He's a moron.

Try reading it again.

The deal isn't just about Orton and Cutler. There are also a number of draft choices involved. Denver has a No. 1 pick in the 2010 draft as a result of the trade. With the first-round pick the Broncos got in the 2009 draft, they chose linebacker Robert Ayers, who played defensive end his senior season at Tennessee. Though he has some linebacker experience, there is still a learning curve in the 3-4 defense. He has played in all nine games this year with limited production, but he has shown some flashes of ability.

Later in the draft, the Broncos chose tight end Richard Quinn and guard Seth Olsen. They have not done much yet, but like Ayers you have to give these players time to develop.

One part of the trade that gets overlooked is the fifth-round pick the Bears received, which they used on receiver and kick returner Johnny Knox. He has shown a lot of potential, with 30 receptions for three touchdowns and a kickoff-return average of 27.4 yards with a score.

Mike Wallace is the second most productive rookie involved in this trade, but he is an afterthought because he is doing it for the Steelers. Pittsburgh acquired two third-round picks from the Broncos when Denver moved up to take tight end Richard Quinn. The Steelers chose Wallace, and he has 26 receptions and three touchdowns. He is a legit deep threat and combined with the Steelers' other receivers makes them even more dangerous on offense.

orangemonkey
11-18-2009, 07:36 AM
YEP! :~ohyah!:
I'm thinking AZBroncoFan should pay more attention to WHO posts a story/link before making an ASSumption!


Very good, constructive, non-biased read, with positives/negatives from both sides - pretty much what I would expect from a writer like Casserly!;)

Wow...most accurate and informative article I've read on the subject.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 07:36 AM
Casserly wrote the entire article as if the trade was Cutler for Orton.

No wonder he got fired. He's a moron.
Nice work on not reading the ENTIRE piece, dumb-ass!

Around the 10th paragraph ... "The deal isn't just about Orton and Cutler. There are also a number of draft choices involved. ...":welcome:

tsiguy96
11-18-2009, 07:52 AM
he drove the Bears the length of the field with a chance to win it

after throwing 4 interceptions and still having a chance to win the game, to give cutler credit for a comeback game like that is ridiculous.

peacepipe
11-18-2009, 07:52 AM
The book on Orton said he was smart, a leader and an accurate short passer. The questions concerned his ability to throw deep, move in the pocket and his durability. All them have surfaced in the first half of the season.
The Denver passing game is built on short throws. Baltimore was the first team to exploit the weakness in the Denver offense, the lack of a deep threat. They sat on the short routes and blitzed Orton, and that helped shut down the Broncos offense. Defenses have figured out the Denver offense and Orton's weakness in the deep passing game. Sunday against Washington, Denver hit some big plays but they came from Redskins breakdowns in the secondary not Orton's ability to stretch the field.


This is what stuck out to me.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 08:05 AM
Nice work on not reading the ENTIRE piece, dumb-ass!

Around the 10th paragraph ... "The deal isn't just about Orton and Cutler. There are also a number of draft choices involved. ...":welcome:

I read the whole thing, **** brain. When your lead and end are BOTH about the "Cutler vs. Orton" trade, and you bury the mention of draft picks in the tenth ****ing paragraph, YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT THE ORTON FOR CUTLER TRADE.

:pimp:

Stupid ass.

Rabb
11-18-2009, 08:08 AM
This is what stuck out to me.

agreed, but in my eyes then it boils down to coaching and preparing

they have to work with what they have, that is what good coaches do

I think McD maybe over steers with the short game, there has to be a happy medium there

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 08:13 AM
I read the whole thing, **** brain. When your lead and end are BOTH about the "Cutler vs. Orton" trade, and you bury the mention of draft picks in the tenth ****ing paragraph, YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT THE ORTON FOR CUTLER TRADE.

:pimp:

Stupid ass.
Maybe you could learn to use better words then? Look up the word "entire" in the dictionary even?

I now see this as kind of ironic:
http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/retard-owls.jpg
:rofl:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 08:20 AM
What's ironic is that Orton was a throw-in, not a main focus of the trade.

Then Casserly writes about the Orton for Cutler trade, not mentioning the draft picks until the tenth paragraph.

You're right, the entire article wasn't about the Orton for Cutler trade. The entire article is based on the preconception that the trade was Orton for Cutler, with a few draft picks that were thrown in for good measure.

But you're right. I probably deserve to have been called a dumb-ass. Is Casserly your dad? Why are you defending that moron? You should tell him the trade was Cutler for picks AND Orton, not Cutler for Orton, with a couple picks.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-18-2009, 09:22 AM
I still don't buy that both of the broncos long touchdowns were "breakdowns in the secondary," especially the first one. In fact, you can say it might have been the result of teams not respecting the broncos deep game. Rogers was beat on a double move probably because he saw the broncos consistently throw short on film. So,naturally, he bit and the broncos hit Marshall over the top.

jhns
11-18-2009, 09:29 AM
What's ironic is that Orton was a throw-in, not a main focus of the trade.

Then Casserly writes about the Orton for Cutler trade, not mentioning the draft picks until the tenth paragraph.

You're right, the entire article wasn't about the Orton for Cutler trade. The entire article is based on the preconception that the trade was Orton for Cutler, with a few draft picks that were thrown in for good measure.

But you're right. I probably deserve to have been called a dumb-ass. Is Casserly your dad? Why are you defending that moron? You should tell him the trade was Cutler for picks AND Orton, not Cutler for Orton, with a couple picks.

It is an evaluation of the trade as of now. Has our first from next year done a lot for the team? How about the two picks this year? The Bears have gotten far more production from their pick than we have from ours, as of now. Why would they be the focus of the article when he is evaluating how they have helped the team so far?

Orton also wasn't some throw in. He is our starting QB.... As soon as something else from that trade starts doing something, people will start talking about those parts of the trade being relevant.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-18-2009, 09:31 AM
It is an evaluation of the trade as of now. Has our first from next year done a lot for the team? How about the two picks this year? The Bears have gotten far more production from their pick than we have from ours, as of now. Why would they be the focus of the article when he is evaluating how they have helped the team so far?

Orton also wasn't some throw in. He is our starting QB.... As soon as something else from that trade starts doing something, people will start talking about those parts of the trade being relevant.

Our first from next season couldnt have done anything for the team because, well, he doesnt exist yet.

jhns
11-18-2009, 09:33 AM
Our first from next season couldnt have done anything for the team because, well, he doesnt exist yet.

Then it is kind of hard to say what impact he has had isn't it?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 09:34 AM
I still don't buy that both of the broncos long touchdowns were "breakdowns in the secondary," especially the first one. In fact, you can say it might have been the result of teams not respecting the broncos deep game. Rogers was beat on a double move probably because he saw the broncos consistently throw short on film. So,naturally, he bit and the broncos hit Marshall over the top.

^this

Also, breakdown in coverage or not, Orton still had to make the throw. Those saying that he couldn't throw deep can't argue that anymore.

He can throw. Our receivers can catch. The myth about not being able to go deep is out the window, and teams will have to be mindful of it.

Tombstone RJ
11-18-2009, 09:53 AM
Good read, good analysis by Mr. Casserly.

colonelbeef
11-18-2009, 09:58 AM
Good read, good analysis by Mr. Casserly.

Yep.


Cue the countdown until Poops, ApaOps, or Meck77 come in here with their homertastic takes, waving pom poms

Tombstone RJ
11-18-2009, 10:01 AM
I think Orton will be fine if the running game is more productive. My only beef with Mr. Casserly's article is that it really doesn't take the Broncos running game, or lack of running game, into account when it comes to the long term viability of Orton in McD's system.

I good running game cures a lot of woes and I'm disappointed with McD's inability to produce first downs with the running game.

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 10:05 AM
I still don't buy that both of the broncos long touchdowns were "breakdowns in the secondary," especially the first one. In fact, you can say it might have been the result of teams not respecting the broncos deep game. Rogers was beat on a double move probably because he saw the broncos consistently throw short on film. So,naturally, he bit and the broncos hit Marshall over the top.

I completely agree with this. The first one was a double-move, where Marshall ran a great route. How in the hell is that a "breakdown"? If that's the case, everytime a wide receiver beats a DB, it's a "breakdown". Also, the Royal near-miss was another example of a double move where he was open deep. Yes, they missed on it, but again, it served to stretch the field.

I hate hate hate when the media and fans get their teeth into a theory, and won't let go. It's like the whole string of articles we were force-fed this summer (and into the beginning of the season) where they were comparing Magini and McDaniels. Every single move McD made was "arrogance" or "ego". Drafting Moreno? Arrogance. Naming Orton the starter? Ego, as McD needed to justify the Cutler trade. Stephen Fatsis even attempted to suggest that the Broncos switching to a new video system was some sort of arrogant act by McD, as the old system wasn't good enough for him. The media tried to force every single action into that easily digestible sound bite.

Same with the Broncos not going down the field. Sure, that was a legit complaint against Pitt and Baltimore. I get it, and agree. Now, however, we have people stumbling all over themselves discrediting the Washington passes. WTF? We went deep 4 times in the first half! 2 were successful, 1 was a near-miss, and even the 4th pass to Marshall had a chance of being successful. But - we have to read all this crap about how the Broncos still aren't stretching the field. They only went downfield because of Washington's ineptitude. Just total crap.

By the way, this rant was partially spurred by this stupid article by Len Pasquarelli that basically said the same thing:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=4657872

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 10:10 AM
PS - I don't necessarily hate the article. I'm just getting mad reading people attempting to discredit Orton's downfield passes in the Washington game.

Also, this section of Casserly's article is dumb:

Ultimately this trade will come down to the play of the two quarterbacks. At this point I think both teams are happy and I believe both teams would do the trade over again. The Bears reinforced this, giving Cutler a contract extension

Umm - no, that is not correct, Charlie. This trade will come down to the play of the 2 quarterbacks and the draft picks that were traded. Orton may have been a key piece of the trade, but he was less important than the draft picks.

jhns
11-18-2009, 10:14 AM
Only going deep one game out of 9 does not mean we are good at throwing deep. If we can only go deep when someone has 0 defenders near them, we can't throw deep. I don't get how you can disagree with that. We have a problem throwing deep. You really think we are going to have guys running wide open every game? How about in the playoffs when we play the good defenses? That Washington game makes you confident we can stretch the field against competent teams? I don't get it.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-18-2009, 10:20 AM
Only going deep one game out of 9 does not mean we are good at throwing deep. If we can only go deep when someone has 0 defenders near them, we can't throw deep. I don't get how you can disagree with that. We have a problem throwing deep. You really think we are going to have guys running wide open every game? How about in the playoffs when we play the good defenses? That Washington game makes you confident we can stretch the field against competent teams? I don't get it.

I dont think anyone is suggesting that throwing deep is suddenly a strength, but how can you simply discredit the deep ball during the washington game. If nothing else, it puts other teams on notice that we are willing to do it so watch out for double moves. It'll keep them a little more honest.

Pseudofool
11-18-2009, 10:23 AM
He gives Cutler a complete pass, and hardly acknowledges what Orton has accomplished in Denver despite the recent losing streak.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 10:23 AM
But you're right. I probably deserve to have been called a dumb-ass. Is Casserly your dad? Why are you defending that moron? You should tell him the trade was Cutler for picks AND Orton, not Cutler for Orton, with a couple picks.
Props for acknowledging that you were "probably" incorrect! ;) (Not many people on this board can do that!):notworthy


In a SEA of new-age commentators like Dukes/Schlereth/Kornheiser, I appreciate that Casserly doesn't feel the need to "declare" a winner or loser before the race has even been run. (Remember preseason when Denver were 0-16?) :wiggle:
The story addresses what we have SEEN this year and issues that Denver and Chicago need to address, without trying to "tell you" the future. You can't really write much about this years and next years draft picks, ... remember the "stupidity" of picking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush?

IMO - The story is more for Bears fans who need to know they haven't just inked the next "Jeff George" to a long term deal!

jhns
11-18-2009, 10:26 AM
I dont think anyone is suggesting that throwing deep is suddenly a strength, but how can you simply discredit the deep ball during the washington game. If nothing else, it puts other teams on notice that we are willing to do it so watch out for double moves. It'll keep them a little more honest.

I'm not saying it isn't just "not a strength". I am saying it is an extreme weakness and these authors are correct. I'm not sure what you guys are seeing that says anything different. The Washington throws were good reads and good throws. That doesn't change the facts. Get some people wide open like that consistently and you guys will have a point. Until then, it is a weakness.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-18-2009, 10:38 AM
I'm not saying it isn't just "not a strength". I am saying it is an extreme weakness and these authors are correct. I'm not sure what you guys are seeing that says anything different. The Washington throws were good reads and good throws. That doesn't change the facts. Get some people wide open like that consistently and you guys will have a point. Until then, it is a weakness.

Its a perceived weakness that the Broncos used to their advantage last week. If coaches drill into your head that the broncos only throw hitches, slants, and crossing routes, you're going to jump on them. When the broncos threw short in spite of this, they had little success (in baltimore especially). But what the Washington game showed was that the Broncos are WILLING to throw double moves at you and beat you deep. NOW, knowing this, teams cannot jump on every route. If they do, they run the risk of getting beat deep. it doesnt matter if its a strength or a weakness, the point is, for the first time, they used it to their advantage and had 3 wide open receivers that worked for two tds (and if Royal hadn't been interfered with, probably 3). It's now on film and a d-coordinator is aware we are willing to do it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 10:43 AM
I'm not saying it isn't just "not a strength". I am saying it is an extreme weakness and these authors are correct. I'm not sure what you guys are seeing that says anything different. The Washington throws were good reads and good throws. That doesn't change the facts. Get some people wide open like that consistently and you guys will have a point. Until then, it is a weakness.

What you're overlooking (and what the writer overlooked) is that Denver hasn't really tried to go deep this season until the Washington game. As a result, the "Orton can't go deep" story was told, and retold, and read (obviously) by the Redskins, who were overly-aggressive and paid for it on two long bombs to Marshall.

Knowing that Orton CAN in fact go deep is something that teams will have to plan for. The idea that Baltimore had "exposed" us as not being capable, showing teams to just sit on the short routes, is not really relevant anymore. Teams will have to account for longer passes now, which will in turn open up more underneath, and hopefully let the ground game get going as well.

A lot of times in football, showing that you "can" do something will open up other options because teams have to account for the possibility.

It may still be a weakness, and I'm not arguing that. But it is in the book now, and it will be on the film now, and teams who overlook it will pay for doing so.

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 11:07 AM
Only going deep one game out of 9 does not mean we are good at throwing deep. If we can only go deep when someone has 0 defenders near them, we can't throw deep. I don't get how you can disagree with that. We have a problem throwing deep. You really think we are going to have guys running wide open every game? How about in the playoffs when we play the good defenses? That Washington game makes you confident we can stretch the field against competent teams? I don't get it.

My point is this. I agree that our deep ball has been pretty much non-existent this year. I agree that the Pittsburgh and Baltimore games clearly highlighted this weakness. However, Denver came out against Washington with a clear goal of going deep (4 times in the first half, 2 of which were successful and another was just barely missed). McD and Orton were making a concerted effort to go deep and it was successful. Why is that not a positive indication of our potential to go deep? Furthermore, why in the hell would you write an article about the Washington game talking about not going deep (the stupid Pasquarelli article which is what really annoyed me - Casserly just touched on the subject)? They went deep a whole bunch in that game! The deep ball was a strength in that game, no matter how you slice it (at least while our starting quarterback was in the game).

Furthermore - isn't this how McD's offense is supposed to work? You routinely make the safe play, and then suddenly hit a big play deep when the corners and safeties cheat up? The reason the first Marshall play worked was because we have been going with the short/intermediate passes frequently, and the cb jumped the route. On the second Marshall bomb, I believe it was Scheffler that was running a route across the middle of the field. The safety honed in on Scheffler, leaving Marshall open down field. The Broncos, for the first time, used the short passes to open up the deep game. That is a good thing. It is hopefully an indication that this will become a bigger part of the offense going forward.

People forget we are only 9 games into a new offense. I'm 100% positive that McD has not yet completely opened the entire playbook. The short game was working early, and the Broncos rode that horse as the players became accustomed to their roles. Now, hopefully we are seeing a new aspect to this offense. There is absolutely a chance that it will not be the case, but the Washington game was a good sign. Don't know how that can be disputed.

Lastly - it has been widely postulated that Orton can't throw the deep ball. This game is good evidence that he can throw it with success.

Pick Six
11-18-2009, 11:15 AM
Orton can throw the deep ball with accuracy. Yes, DeAngelo Hall was toasted (twice). However, Simms tried to do the same thing and UNDERTHREW Royal. Orton simply tries to do what the defense gives him...

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:20 AM
The deep ball is a weakness no matter the spin. This team can't complete deep balls if a single defender is near the receiver. That isn't all Orton or McDaniels. Marshall isn't pulling them down the majority of the time, even against one on one with smaller guys. Our receivers are just as much to blame.

You guys also act like just short routes are called. That is very wrong. They call deep plays all the time, Orton just throws the shorter routes that are also in the play. These writers are not wrong. Orton has horrible accuracy deep. Even with Marshall wide open, he had to stop or turn and jog backwards when the ball was in the air. He completely overthrew a wide open Royal, who wasn't interfered with after the ball was in the air. I'm not sure why it is so hard to admit this problem. I bet the Chargers still jump underneath routes next week. Want to bet on that? Teams that have confidence that their corners won't leave 20 yards between themselves and our reveivers are not going to change. If we make the playoffs, Pitt and Baltimore will have the exact same game plan.

Throwing deep is a major weakness of this team and these writers are absolutely correct with what they say. Of course Orton can throw deep in theory. He can only complete them if the reveiver has no defender within 20 yards though. I think that is their point. As I said, get our guys 20 yards of space in more than a single game, against a horrible team, and you guys will have a point.

Beantown Bronco
11-18-2009, 11:25 AM
I'd like us to go deep more if for no other reason than, more often than not, you are going to get a pass interference call.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 11:27 AM
You're still missing the point. Much like the Cold War, football is often based upon a "threat of force." When the threat is there, teams are going to have a much harder time jumping those routes. Are they still going to try? Absolutely! But is that going to open some things up deeper? Bet your ass.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 11:28 AM
Oh, and by the way, while Royal wasn't interfered with, from where I sat at the game, he did not appear to be going full speed, and it seemed to me like he misjudged that throw.

And are you really complaining that Orton can't throw deep and then complaining that he threw the ball too far? What an odd argument.

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:35 AM
Oh, and by the way, while Royal wasn't interfered with, from where I sat at the game, he did not appear to be going full speed, and it seemed to me like he misjudged that throw.

And are you really complaining that Orton can't throw deep and then complaining that he threw the ball too far? What an odd argument.

Throwing deep takes a lot more than arm strength. Is that a serious post? Maybe this is what you guys don't understand when the writers say these things....

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:41 AM
You're still missing the point. Much like the Cold War, football is often based upon a "threat of force." When the threat is there, teams are going to have a much harder time jumping those routes. Are they still going to try? Absolutely! But is that going to open some things up deeper? Bet your ass.

I get what you are trying to say and I'm telling you that you are wrong. We have called deep routes all season and only one team has let people run free. That one team is the only one to have long passes completed against them. To establish the deep ball as a threat, we will need to be a tad bit more consistent. Again, if we played Pitt or Baltimore next week, they would roll the exact same game plan they did before. You don't establish the deep ball as a threat they game plan for by having a single good game against one of the worst teams in the league. Good defenses still will not respect the deep ball if we don't complete some against at least one other team this year.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 11:43 AM
I get what you are trying to say and I'm telling you that you are wrong. We have called deep routes all season and only one team has let people run free. That one team is the only one to have long passes completed against them. To establish the deep ball as a threat, we will need to be a tad bit more consistent. Again, if we played Pitt or Baltimore next week, they would roll the exact same game plan they did before. You don't establish the deep ball as a threat they game plan for by having a single good game against one of the worst teams in the league. Good defenses still will not respect the deep ball if we don't complete some against at least one other team this year.

I disagree. Now that there is film of Denver going deep, teams will have to game plan for that. Period. Whether he was wide open or not really isn't relevant, no matter how much you hope and pray that it is.

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:48 AM
I disagree. Now that there is film of Denver going deep, teams will have to game plan for that. Period. Whether he was wide open or not really isn't relevant, no matter how much you hope and pray that it is.

We have called deep routes all season and only one crappy team has allowed them to be wide open. Baltimore and Pitt jumped underneath routes all day and didn't leave guys wide open. What makes you think they will suddenly change their game plans just because Washingtons corners are incompetent?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 11:49 AM
We have called deep routes all season and only one crappy team has allowed them to be wide open. Baltimore and Pitt jumped underneath routes all day and didn't leave guys wide open. What makes you think they will suddenly change their game plans just because Washingtons corners are incompetent?

We have called slow-developing deep routes all season, and not set off by play-action. Combining the play-action with a double move down the sideline, including a pump fake, was a new wrinkle. Giving Orton time was a part of it, too.

Tell me: when are we playing a team with a defense the caliber of Balto or Pitt?

Look, we're not going to agree. Not sure why you're gearing up for battle.

TonyR
11-18-2009, 11:49 AM
He completely overthrew a wide open Royal, who wasn't interfered with after the ball was in the air.

I thought Royal got his jersey and/or arm grabbed but I was watching the game on a little online viewer. Am I the only one who thinks this or was it just not much of a grab?

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:53 AM
I thought Royal got his jersey and/or arm grabbed but I was watching the game on a little online viewer. Am I the only one who thinks this or was it just not much of a grab?

He did but Orton didn't release the ball until he was already clear of the defender and wide open. It could be that he wasn't going full speed and Orton misjudged from that but I don't find that a good excuse. He was WIDE open. Throw it to him. He didn't need to be led a bunch with as open as he was.

bronco militia
11-18-2009, 11:55 AM
I don't have problem with the article...did any of you retards read the first paragraph?

The right time to evaluate the Jay Cutler-Kyle Orton trade is not now, but a couple of years from now.

You have to see how the draft picks work out. Also, both quarterbacks' success is somewhat dependent on the weapons they have to work with. Cutler is behind Orton in that area right now. Orton's offensive line with the Broncos is better than the one that protects Cutler, and that affects his play too. I think you have to see how much the Bears' supporting cast improves in the coming years.

HEAV
11-18-2009, 11:55 AM
So what does Casserly think of Heath Shuler?

Charley made soem solid draft selection (Champ Bailey) but in his later years he had a more than a few flops.

The guy is a talking head now and makes his cash being abrasive and critical about NFL player personel.

jhns
11-18-2009, 11:58 AM
We have called slow-developing deep routes all season, and not set off by play-action. Combining the play-action with a double move down the sideline, including a pump fake, was a new wrinkle. Giving Orton time was a part of it, too.

Tell me: when are we playing a team with a defense the caliber of Balto or Pitt?

Look, we're not going to agree. Not sure why you're gearing up for battle.

1) It has been every defense other than Washington that has held us from throwing the deep ball.

2) That is not even close to the first time we have had a double move on the outside with play action.

3) We would have to get by both of them in the playoffs.

4) You are arguing it just as much as me so I'm not sure what your last point is.

5) Organized thoughts are better than normal ones, which is why I have a numbered list. This means I win.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-18-2009, 12:02 PM
1) It has been every defense other than Washington that has held us from throwing the deep ball.

2) That is not even close to the first time we have had a double move on the outside with play action.

3) We would have to get by both of them in the playoffs.

4) You are arguing it just as much as me so I'm not sure what your last point is.

5) Organized thoughts are better than normal ones, which is why I have a numbered list. This means I win.

You're the greatest poster of all time. Congratulations. A numbered list!? OMG!

JHNS:
http://fullmetalcynic.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/super-hero.jpg
Internet Hero.

I am easily bored with internet know-it-alls whose sole purpose in life is to tell other people they're wrong. I have a different opinion than you do. I'm sorry that you can't handle a differing opinion.

jhns
11-18-2009, 12:06 PM
You're the greatest poster of all time. Congratulations. A numbered list!? OMG!

JHNS:
http://fullmetalcynic.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/super-hero.jpg
Internet Hero.

I am easily bored with internet know-it-alls whose sole purpose in life is to tell other people they're wrong. I have a different opinion than you do. I'm sorry that you can't handle a differing opinion.

Says the guy that does nothing but troll and talk smack to everyone that has a different opinion. The same one arguing with me and doing the exact thing I am doing in this thread, at the same time. Funny stuff.

I figured you would be impressed with the numbered list.

Williams
11-18-2009, 12:18 PM
With Jay literally throwing away the Bear season, and nearly 1/3 of the Chicago fan base preferring Caleb Hanie start (link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-bears-poll-nov12,0,5108803,post.poll)), it really takes a special type person to "take the Bears in this trade."

broncocalijohn
11-18-2009, 12:20 PM
Oh, and by the way, while Royal wasn't interfered with, from where I sat at the game, he did not appear to be going full speed, and it seemed to me like he misjudged that throw.

And are you really complaining that Orton can't throw deep and then complaining that he threw the ball too far? What an odd argument.

Please tell us you are not comparing "not throwing deep" and "throwing too far" as oxymorons. God, I think you are and you just backed yourself in a corner. Please try explaining this one.

HEAV
11-18-2009, 12:22 PM
With Jay literally throwing away the Bear season, and nearly 1/3 of the Chicago fan base preferring Caleb Hanie start (link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-bears-poll-nov12,0,5108803,post.poll)), it really takes a special type person to "take the Bears in this trade."

Get him night-vision goggles. And an O-line. And receivers. (1725 responses)

Hilarious!

TonyR
11-18-2009, 12:27 PM
He did but Orton didn't release the ball until he was already clear of the defender and wide open. It could be that he wasn't going full speed and Orton misjudged from that but I don't find that a good excuse. He was WIDE open. Throw it to him. He didn't need to be led a bunch with as open as he was.

I agree the play should have been made, but I also think a flag should have been thrown!

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 12:35 PM
I get what you are trying to say and I'm telling you that you are wrong. We have called deep routes all season and only one team has let people run free. That one team is the only one to have long passes completed against them. To establish the deep ball as a threat, we will need to be a tad bit more consistent. Again, if we played Pitt or Baltimore next week, they would roll the exact same game plan they did before. You don't establish the deep ball as a threat they game plan for by having a single good game against one of the worst teams in the league. Good defenses still will not respect the deep ball if we don't complete some against at least one other team this year.

Dude - you are acting like this offense has grown as far as it possibly can 9 games into a season with a completely new offense. Sorry - I believe it will take more time for the offense to fully come together. This to me was the first time that they focused on going deep and had the protection to do so. McD has absolutely been conservative so far, and has clearly coached Orton not to make mistakes. I believe this is due, in part, to the fact that the offense is so new to all involved.

Also, do you remember how everyone made a big deal out of "Year 3" in Mike Shanahan's offense? "Year 3" was supposed to be the year that Plummer broke out. Year 3 was supposed to be the year that Cutler broke out. We are 9 games in with Orton. You don't think they can improve on a weakness?

Lastly - my point was that the Washington game showed Orton has the ability to go deep. We heard people bitching and moaning after Baltimore and Pittsburgh that the team wasn't going deep often enough. Now, we go deep 4 times in the first half, and people are still bitching.

Anyway - I guess we will see over time. You could be right. Maybe Orton simply can't throw a consistent deep ball, and the game was simply an aberration against a bad pass defense (although, I sure heard a lot about Washington's #1 rated pass defense going into the game). However, I sure thought it looked like Orton has the ability to go deep, and that it can become a bigger part of the offense going forward.

peacepipe
11-18-2009, 01:06 PM
Dude - you are acting like this offense has grown as far as it possibly can 9 games into a season with a completely new offense. Sorry - I believe it will take more time for the offense to fully come together. This to me was the first time that they focused on going deep and had the protection to do so. McD has absolutely been conservative so far, and has clearly coached Orton not to make mistakes. I believe this is due, in part, to the fact that the offense is so new to all involved.

Also, do you remember how everyone made a big deal out of "Year 3" in Mike Shanahan's offense? "Year 3" was supposed to be the year that Plummer broke out. Year 3 was supposed to be the year that Cutler broke out. We are 9 games in with Orton. You don't think they can improve on a weakness?

Lastly - my point was that the Washington game showed Orton has the ability to go deep. We heard people b****ing and moaning after Baltimore and Pittsburgh that the team wasn't going deep often enough. Now, we go deep 4 times in the first half, and people are still b****ing.

Anyway - I guess we will see over time. You could be right. Maybe Orton simply can't throw a consistent deep ball, and the game was simply an aberration against a bad pass defense (although, I sure heard a lot about Washington's #1 rated pass defense going into the game). However, I sure thought it looked like Orton has the ability to go deep, and that it can become a bigger part of the offense going forward.

Yr 3 only applies to rookie QBs not 5 yr vets.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Yr 3 only applies to rookie QBs not 5 yr vets.

No it didnt, it applied to anyone new. Elway and Plummer were included in the year 3 conversation

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 01:36 PM
Yr 3 only applies to rookie QBs not 5 yr vets.

1. I distinctly remember Shanahan talking about Plummer's 3rd year in the system as a year when he should "break out", so no, it's not just about rookies. It's about the time it takes for any qb to master a complicated offense.

2. This was an example feeding the fact that 9 games is most definitely not enough time for a brand new offense to have fully clicked. To say that we are now exactly the offense we will be for the next couple years (assuming Orton stays around) is silly. McDaniels is supposedly an offensive guru. There are several quotes from Brady, Moss, and Welker saying similar things about how long it took them to become comfortable in the New England offense.

Ugh - I don't even know what I'm arguing about any more. My whole point is that people wanted us to go downfield more. We did that against Washington, but I guess that's no good because it was "too easy". I think it was part of the gameplan, and is a key strategy of McD's offense (using short passes to open up the deep game). Like I said - we'll see how it goes the rest of the year. Could be a trend or an aberration.

BroncoBuff
11-18-2009, 01:43 PM
What an excellent article ... I can't imagine a better overall evaluation.

He sold Orton a bit short, but overall it was a very good evaluation.

jhns
11-18-2009, 01:44 PM
Dude - you are acting like this offense has grown as far as it possibly can 9 games into a season with a completely new offense. Sorry - I believe it will take more time for the offense to fully come together. This to me was the first time that they focused on going deep and had the protection to do so. McD has absolutely been conservative so far, and has clearly coached Orton not to make mistakes. I believe this is due, in part, to the fact that the offense is so new to all involved.

Also, do you remember how everyone made a big deal out of "Year 3" in Mike Shanahan's offense? "Year 3" was supposed to be the year that Plummer broke out. Year 3 was supposed to be the year that Cutler broke out. We are 9 games in with Orton. You don't think they can improve on a weakness?

Lastly - my point was that the Washington game showed Orton has the ability to go deep. We heard people b****ing and moaning after Baltimore and Pittsburgh that the team wasn't going deep often enough. Now, we go deep 4 times in the first half, and people are still b****ing.

Anyway - I guess we will see over time. You could be right. Maybe Orton simply can't throw a consistent deep ball, and the game was simply an aberration against a bad pass defense (although, I sure heard a lot about Washington's #1 rated pass defense going into the game). However, I sure thought it looked like Orton has the ability to go deep, and that it can become a bigger part of the offense going forward.

I am not tring to say it can't improve. I am only arguing that those writters are not wrong just because we completed those two deep balls against one of the worst teams in the league. Again, if they start consistently getting guys open by 20 yards then I am wrong. I don't see that happening though.

I also don't see how this is the first time we focused on it. We have called deep routes all season. We have also tried throwing deep. We haven't been able to complete them though. Orton isn't the only one to blame but it is still the truth. We can't complete deep balls unless guys are open by 20 yards or so. That is the only thing you can take from the Washington game. Even then, they missed one when the receiver was open by 20 yards and didn't exactly make the others look good. Marshall jogged backwards for a while before catching one.

Yes, this offense is supposed to be complex and it does probably need some time. I don't think that is a good excuse for the lame offense though. Go back over the years and see what our offensive production was in the first and second year with those QBs. They just didn't have the full playbook until the 3rd year. The offenses still produced fairly well.

I can't say the problem is all on Orton. I can say there is a problem. This team has been better than I could have hoped for so it isn't like I am calling for someone to be fired. Those writters are correct though and we do have problems. I like to think we can fix them by getting a better QB(or Orton improving a lot). If that isn't the problem, it is the coach. That would be much worse. Not being able to reach the top half of the league in scoring, while already having more non-offensive TDs than last year, is a big problem. Since I don't think the o-line and recievers all of the sudden became incompetent, I am left with very few places to put the blame.

azbroncfan
11-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Orton can throw the deep ball with accuracy. Yes, DeAngelo Hall was toasted (twice). However, Simms tried to do the same thing and UNDERTHREW Royal. Orton simply tries to do what the defense gives him...

The second one was a terrible read by I think Landry or whoever the S was. He bit hard on the underneath route. I think both of them were bites by the S on the underneath routes. The CB's thought they had over the top help.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 02:30 PM
Cool, JHNS is back ... and we just lost 3 games straight ... I wonder where he was while we were 5-0 and 6-0? ???
;)

Beantown Bronco
11-18-2009, 02:32 PM
In fairness to Orton, it's not like we were completing any deep passes last year with Cutler. For as strong an arm as he has, he had almost no deep accuracy. There's no way we connected on more than 2 or 3 passes that travelled over 40 yards in the air last year.

jhns
11-18-2009, 02:33 PM
Cool, JHNS is back ... and we just lost 3 games straight ... I wonder where he was while we were 5-0 and 6-0? ???
;)

I was just waiting for the chance to blast Orton some. It is what I live for.

Rabb
11-18-2009, 02:44 PM
In fairness to Orton, it's not like we were completing any deep passes last year with Cutler. For as strong an arm as he has, he had almost no deep accuracy. There's no way we connected on more than 2 or 3 passes that travelled over 40 yards in the air last year.

zackly

outdoor_miner
11-18-2009, 03:15 PM
Hey, I'm appreciating the conversation on a slow day at work. :) A few responses to some of your points:

I am not tring to say it can't improve. I am only arguing that those writters are not wrong just because we completed those two deep balls against one of the worst teams in the league.

I'm not complaining about writers questioning our ability to go deep. It is a valid concern for our offense. My problem was that it was in no way related to our loss against Washington. What got me started on this was Pasquarelli's article (which Casserly's made me think of) where he somehow tried to attribute the Washington loss to our struggles going deep, similar to Pitt and Baltimore. I'm sorry, but the Washington loss was 100% on Chris Simms, and frankly, had nothing to do with Orton's ability to stretch the field (since he did friggin stretch the field).

I also don't see how this is the first time we focused on it. We have called deep routes all season. We have also tried throwing deep. We haven't been able to complete them though. Orton isn't the only one to blame but it is still the truth.

I don't doubt that we have had receivers running deep routes. My belief is that McDaniels was coaching Orton to play it safe and not turn the ball over. This was for several reasons, including the "newness" of the offense to the players and the fact that our defense had been dominating. Most importantly, we were 6-0 playing "complimentary football" (as McDaniels likes to say), so why would he force things downfield? That doesn't necessarily mean that Orton can't go downfield, though. After Baltimore and Pittsburgh, it became clear that our offense will need to take a few more chances. so I believe that McD is adjusting his playcalling accordingly.

Yes, this offense is supposed to be complex and it does probably need some time. I don't think that is a good excuse for the lame offense though. Go back over the years and see what our offensive production was in the first and second year with those QBs. They just didn't have the full playbook until the 3rd year. The offenses still produced fairly well.

Well, I agree that the offense needs to be better than it is. I don't think McDaniels will be satisfied with a middle of the pack offense over the long haul. He comes from an offensive background, and I think he will demand more. If Orton can't deliver, I have no doubt that he will look for someone that can. With that being said - in the Shanahan examples, it was only the quarterback that was new to the system. Most of the other players on the offense had several years previous experience. This year, everybody but Daniel Graham and Jabar Gaffney are learning an entirely new offense. The O-Line and running game have struggled. I think everyone is still adjusting.

I can't say the problem is all on Orton. I can say there is a problem. This team has been better than I could have hoped for so it isn't like I am calling for someone to be fired. Those writters are correct though and we do have problems. I like to think we can fix them by getting a better QB(or Orton improving a lot). If that isn't the problem, it is the coach. That would be much worse. Not being able to reach the top half of the league in scoring, while already having more non-offensive TDs than last year, is a big problem. Since I don't think the o-line and recievers all of the sudden became incompetent, I am left with very few places to put the blame.

Like I said before, I think we should all expect more from the offense. I just haven't seen anything to indicate that Orton is really the problem. But, if we are still struggling with the same issues next year, I will be right there with you. And, I think if you are right about Orton, we will see McD do something in the offseason. Orton's contract will obviously tell us a lot about what McDaniels thinks about his ability to succeed in this offense.

jhns
11-18-2009, 04:41 PM
I agree with most of what you are saying outdoor_minor. I guess I didn't pay attention to that article because there is no way you could say it was a problem this past game. I don't have much else to add that hasn't already been said. I really do want to know what McDaniels thoughts are on the subject. This offseason will be very telling. I just hope he doesn't have the same complex as Shanny in thinking he can make any QB into a superstar (like Shanny did with RB's). That is my fear. He has only been here for one offseason though so it isn't like I have anything to validate that fear.

broncobum6162
11-18-2009, 05:33 PM
YEP! :~ohyah!:
I'm thinking AZBroncoFan should pay more attention to WHO posts a story/link before making an ASSumption!


Very good, constructive, non-biased read, with positives/negatives from both sides - pretty much what I would expect from a writer like Casserly!;)

Thanks big Guy!:thumbsup: When do you make another tailgate?

Circle Orange
11-18-2009, 07:01 PM
Do you think Casserly's toupee looks natural? :clown:

Circle Orange
11-18-2009, 07:03 PM
YEP! :~ohyah!:
I'm thinking AZBroncoFan should pay more attention to WHO posts a story/link before making an ASSumption!


Very good, constructive, non-biased read, with positives/negatives from both sides - pretty much what I would expect from a writer like Casserly!;)

The thing is, everyone's in a hurry these days. There's simply no time to get facts before forming opinions! :approve:

azbroncfan
11-18-2009, 07:19 PM
The thing is, everyone's in a hurry these days. There's simply no time to get facts before forming opinions! :approve:

I said that I hadn't read the article but since the thread title wasn't Casserly is a moron that he must have not said anything bad. I didn't say anything about the article other than since the original poster said he normally doesn't like Casserly that it must be positive. You guys find a way to put words in my mouth like I was bashing the article.

broncobum6162
11-18-2009, 07:27 PM
I said that I hadn't read the article but since the thread title wasn't Casserly is a moron that he must have not said anything bad. I didn't say anything about the article other than since the original poster said he normally doesn't like Casserly that it must be positive. You guys find a way to put words in my mouth like I was bashing the article.

The reason I don't normally like Casserly is that he comes off as a talking head most of the time and I was surprised after reading the article how unbiased he was on the situation that seems to pull everyone to one side or the other. I really thought he seemed intelligent and seemed to look at it from both sides. That's all. Even though I'm just getting used to all the changes both good and bad, I'm getting real sick of all the neg comments on a lot of the issues on this board. I thought it was refreshing to read an article like this. And no I don't think his toupee looks natural. LOL

watermock
11-18-2009, 07:31 PM
^this

Also, breakdown in coverage or not, Orton still had to make the throw. Those saying that he couldn't throw deep can't argue that anymore.

He can throw. Our receivers can catch. The myth about not being able to go deep is out the window, and teams will have to be mindful of it.

Regardless, he has to wind up on weak a back foot this week. And he has to wind up regardless.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-18-2009, 07:57 PM
I agree with most of what you are saying outdoor_minor. I guess I didn't pay attention to that article because there is no way you could say it was a problem this past game.
I said that I hadn't read the article but since the thread title wasn't Casserly is a moron that he must have not said anything bad.
If you can't find 3 minutes to read the article, don't be a post whore and don't comment on it. It's not that hard. :thumbsup:

Thanks big Guy!:thumbsup: When do you make another tailgate?
Hey brother!! Not sure about next year's Denver home games, but I'm thinking about either of the games @Tennessee or @Jacksonville.

jhns
11-18-2009, 08:04 PM
If you can't find 3 minutes to read the article, don't be a post whore and don't comment on it. It's not that hard. :thumbsup:


It seems to be that hard....

broncobum6162
11-18-2009, 08:15 PM
If you can't find 3 minutes to read the article, don't be a post whore and don't comment on it. It's not that hard. :thumbsup:


Hey brother!! Not sure about next year's Denver home games, but I'm thinking about either of the games @Tennessee or @Jacksonville.

Might have to make the Tennesee game. It's fairly close. Shrimp on the Barbie?

jhns
11-19-2009, 07:09 AM
If you can't find 3 minutes to read the article, don't be a post whore and don't comment on it. It's not that hard. :thumbsup:


I am going to adress your girly b****ing posts again on a new day. For one, if you aren't joking about me not being here, you are pretty dumb. Since you put the cute little faces in there, I am assuming you were joking. Go back and look it up. I have more posts as we were 5-0 and 6-0 than I did the last few weeks.

As for this post. I'm not sure what you are talking about. The majority of my posts in this thread aren't even talking to outdoor. None of the posts address that article outside of saying that they aren't wrong when they say we have a problem stretching the field. Did you read that article? The guy isn't even saying what outdoor is saying. He said we couldn't throw after those two TDs. Is that wrong? He says we haven't been able to score on offense. Is that wrong?

So now I will say, ALL of the writters talked about are %100 correct. So you want to cry about anything else?

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-19-2009, 08:42 AM
Might have to make the Tennesee game. It's fairly close. Shrimp on the Barbie?
AWESOME! The people next to Leo for MNF also had "shrimp on a barbee" with hot sausage, and they made mini Primanti Bros sandwiches, a nice mix! ;)



JHNS - it took you two days and two tries to call my posts "girly" ... grow up son. Your internet warrior panties are showing.

jhns
11-19-2009, 08:51 AM
JHNS - it took you two days and two tries to call my posts "girly" ... grow up son. Your internet warrior panties are showing.

No it took my morning mood to call out your stupidity. After I wake up I seem to not care about whiney posts that make no sense. I just laugh at them like I did. Also, you might want to learn what a day is.

outdoor_miner
11-19-2009, 09:42 AM
I am going to adress your girly b****ing posts again on a new day. For one, if you aren't joking about me not being here, you are pretty dumb. Since you put the cute little faces in there, I am assuming you were joking. Go back and look it up. I have more posts as we were 5-0 and 6-0 than I did the last few weeks.

As for this post. I'm not sure what you are talking about. The majority of my posts in this thread aren't even talking to outdoor. None of the posts address that article outside of saying that they aren't wrong when they say we have a problem stretching the field. Did you read that article? The guy isn't even saying what outdoor is saying. He said we couldn't throw after those two TDs. Is that wrong? He says we haven't been able to score on offense. Is that wrong?

So now I will say, ALL of the writters talked about are %100 correct. So you want to cry about anything else?

Ummm - what???

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=4657872

Mostly, however, Denver couldn't throw the ball upfield, and that lack of a vertical passing game was hurtful on Sunday, as it has been much of the season.

But outside of the two long completions to Marshall in the first quarter, Orton struggled, as well. Despite notching a 134.7 passer rating in two quarters, Orton wasn't very sharp, and didn't attempt to stretch the Washington coverage very frequently.

Orton was averaging just 6.83 yards per attempt entering the game. That isn't great, but when the Broncos were 6-0, it didn't matter as much. He actually bettered that considerably, at 10.7 yards per pass play, against the Redskins in his one half of work. But take away the two long scores to Marshall early on, and Orton averaged a measly 4.88 yards per pass.

Furthermore - the entire tone of that article is that the Broncos offense was struggling Sunday, which is bull****. The offense struggled once Simms came into the game. Orton threw the long-ball 4 times in the first half. 2 were completed. One should have been. How is that not "stretching the defense". What does he want, us to throw deep on every play? 4 deep passes in a half is a ton.

Anyway, just wanted to defend my name from your slander. ;)

jhns
11-19-2009, 10:41 AM
Anyway, just wanted to defend my name from your slander. ;)

Well if it makes you feel any better I was just trying to be slanderous toward downunder and I don't usually let facts get in the way of that. It is much more fun to just act like him when talking to him.

As for the article, he does attribute to much of the offenses failure to the deep passing game. This past game it was more of everything in the passing game that sucked. After those early deep scores, we got about another 100 yards through the air. Orton wasn't moving the offense before he went out. Simms wasn't able to throw deep but he also couldn't throw short. Even Royal is quoted saying we had problems. This guy just is trying to hard to tie the season problems into the last game. He is absolutly correct that it was a problem before and during that game though. He isn't correct that we didn't try this last game. Even Simms tried a long pass but it got picked off.

azbroncfan
11-19-2009, 11:42 AM
If you can't find 3 minutes to read the article, don't be a post whore and don't comment on it. It's not that hard. :thumbsup:


.

Really no point in reading it as what is he going to say that we haven't heard. It is just one guys opinion and this early to say one way or the other is like claiming to win your division in week 6.

BroncoBuff
11-19-2009, 12:01 PM
I figured you would be impressed with the numbered list.
Excellent! As anybody who reads my posts knows, I am a big fan of lists.

Here's four reasons why:



Lists collect your thoughts in an easy to read format
Lists break down the aspects and proofs for your points in a clear and concise manner
Lists make it difficult for your opponents to argue, because if they attack #1, they're passively conceding numbers 2 and 3
#3 is called, in Latin, expressio unius est exclusio alterus.


Thank you very much :thanku:

Traveler
11-19-2009, 12:14 PM
Excellent! As anybody who reads my posts knows, I am a big fan of lists.

Here's four reasons why:



Lists collect your thoughts in an easy to read format
Lists break down the aspects and proofs for your points in a clear and concise manner
Lists make it difficult for your opponents to argue, because if they attack #1, they're passively conceding numbers 2 and 3
#3 is called, in Latin, expressio unius est exclusio alterus[/img].


Thank you very much :thanku:


alterius. Fixed it.:thumbs:

jhns
11-19-2009, 12:44 PM
Really no point in reading it as what is he going to say that we haven't heard. It is just one guys opinion and this early to say one way or the other is like claiming to win your division in week 6.

There is no point trying to talk to downy boy. It is pretty easy to see he needs to take his own advise. Look through the thread. I never once mentioned that article, responded to a post about that article, or cared about that article. The only time it had anything to do with my posts was the post he responded to that said I hadn't read that article. That alone should tell you everything you need to know about downy.

Traveler
11-19-2009, 01:10 PM
Don't write off Cutler (not yet, at least)
By Pat Kirwan | NFL.com Senior Analyst

When the Jay Cutler trade was made this offseason, most football people were asking how a franchise quarterback in this era could possibly be acquired in a trade like this. Now the question being asked is: Was it really a good trade for the Bears?

I still think it's a win for both teams, even though Cutler is not playing like he did last year in Denver. So what is different with the 26-year-old in Chicago that wasn't part of his three years in Denver? I asked a few coaches and this is the general answer.

There is no Brandon Marshall on the Bears. That is a problem when it comes to setting up the coverage looks that Cutler faces. The same thing happened to Daunte Culpepper when Randy Moss left the Vikings.

However, the Bears have bigger problems than the lack of a No. 1 wide receiver, which put more pressure on Cutler. With Ryan Clady at left tackle, Cutler was sacked just once every 57 pass attempts last season. And because he was under less pressure, his interception ratio was one in 34 attempts. This Bears offensive line is not up to the standards of the 2008 Broncos line. Cutler is being sacked at an alarming rate of once every 18 attempts. That constant pressure has led Cutler to take more chances, resulting in an interception every 19 attempts.

As one NFL coach said, "Cutler is still young, and he has to learn how to reduce his sacks and, more importantly, his interceptions."

Quarterback maturity is when a guy throws the ball out of bounds instead of taking a sack, or takes a sack instead of making a reckless throw. Quarterbacks can't always control how often they get sacked, but a quarterback who "gets it" can cut down on his interceptions. I believe Cutler will eventually get it.

Right now, though, Cutler's issues resemble more of what rookies Mark Sanchez and Matt Stafford are going through, and he needs to stop playing like a rookie. Both Sanchez and Stafford get sacked once every 17 attempts and throw a pick once every 21 pass plays. They let the pressure affect their decision-making.

The only veteran that has numbers resembling those of Cutler is Jake Delhomme. The Panthers quarterback gets sacked once every 16 attempts and throws a pick every 19 passes. Delhomme is a true veteran, and he has fixed his problems in the last three weeks without throwing a single pick in that span.

Will Cutler continue to play like a rookie, or can he self-improve like Delhomme has done?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8144c2a4&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true


Still not sorry he's gone.

BroncoBuff
11-19-2009, 01:58 PM
alterius. Fixed it.:thumbs:

Mea culpa ... I'm hard at work now on a list of ways to thank you.

GoBroncos DownUnder
11-19-2009, 02:23 PM
No it took my morning mood to call out your stupidity. After I wake up I seem to not care about whiney posts that make no sense. I just laugh at them like I did. Also, you might want to learn what a day is.Well if it makes you feel any better I was just trying to be slanderous toward downunder and I don't usually let facts get in the way of that. It is much more fun to just act like him when talking to him.There is no point trying to talk to downy boy.
...
That alone should tell you everything you need to know about downy.
One post and I get THREE replies this time ...
Now DANCE, my little JHNS PUPPET, DANCE!!!!!!!:thanku:
http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/resources/images/1060185/?type=article1

TonyR
11-19-2009, 02:32 PM
Right now, though, Cutler's issues resemble more of what rookies Mark Sanchez and Matt Stafford are going through, and he needs to stop playing like a rookie.

Yes, I think it's more than fair to say that a guy in his 4th year, 3rd full year starting, should stop making rookie mistakes.

jhns
11-19-2009, 02:47 PM
One post and I get THREE replies this time ...
Now DANCE, my little JHNS PUPPET, DANCE!!!!!!!:thanku:
http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/resources/images/1060185/?type=article1

LOL

The downy with a big head. Just when you thought you had seen it all.

You do realize you just quoted two responses that were not to your post though, right? Just checking since you seem to not know what is going on.