PDA

View Full Version : Woody's Mailbag: addresses the McNabb & the sale of the Broncos


Bronco Rob
02-25-2010, 03:30 AM
Woody's Mailbag: Broncos rumors abound, but don't believe the hype


Derron from Canada asks Woody about Donovan McNabb
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post

Posted: 02/25/2010 01:00:00 AM MST


Rumors that the Broncos are interested in Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb are flying around. Do you think he would be a good fit for the Broncos, or a bad thing?

-- Derron, Campbell River, BC, Canada


Derron: Go, Canada. I've heard those rumors about Donovan McNabb. It's typical blog-brain stuff. Don't believe it. It will never happen.

Maybe we can shut it down right here.

1.) McNabb does not fit in the Josh McDaniels' offensive juggernaut. Or jugger-not. He likes to freelance too much. He's not a dinker. He is not a system quarterback. He's too old for what McDaniels is trying to do with the Broncos.

2. McNabb would never join the Broncos. He still seeks a Super Bowl victory, or, at least, a return to the Super Bowl. And that's not going to happen here any time soon. He wouldn't want to play in McDaniels' scheme. He doesn't want to leave Philly. He wouldn't have the receivers here, with Marshall gone, to help him enough.

3.) His contract is too hefty, and his health is always too iffy.

4.) The Broncos already have Kyle Orton, and they're not going to sit him or move him for at least another year. Other than all that ...



Woody: Have you heard from your sources whether there is any truth to the rumor Pat Bowlen is looking to sell the Broncos? I know you can't believe everything you read on the Internet it's how World War I was started. Still, if the rumor is true, doesn't Edgar Kaiser still have first right of refusal on the sale? Is there any remote possibility the Broncos could leave Denver? Please say it ain't so!

-- Wood, Denver



Wood: Nice name. Yes, I've heard all about the rumors that Pat Bowlen is selling the team. Don't believe it. Won't ever happen. Stop me if you've heard those words recently.

Bowlen's entire life is the Broncos. He won't sell. He'll die as the Broncos owner. He wants, like McNabb, to get back to the Super Bowl. Once you've had the ring, you want another and another. That's the main reason he agreed to fire Mike Shanahan. He didn't think they would be a Super Bowl team again without the change.

But Bowlen got more than he bargained for. He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels.

Let me tell you the real deal on Bowlen. As he told me in a front-page interview last summer, he is suffering from short-term memory loss. It does affect him and how he does business, and he has turned over a lot of authority to Joe Ellis.

Bowlen has said to me: "I stopped doing the stuff I don't want to do." Now in his late 60s, he is trying to slow down some, but he doesn't want out of the Broncos.

I asked him if any of his kids were interested in taking over ownership of the franchise one day, and he said: "They haven't indicated that to me." But there is some interest with a son and a daughter, and I'm certain this team will be passed down to the next generation.

Think Steinbrenner, the Spanos son in San Diego, what's happened in Indianapolis and Pittsburgh. Franchises tend to stay in the family these days, not only because it's somewhat difficult to find someone to shell out $800 million for a sports franchise, and the value of the Broncos does continue to rise, and the revenues continue to rise.
Bowlen is not the richest man in the NFL (because all of his income comes from the Broncos, and he must share the profits with other family members), and he has struggled at times after the new stadium was built (he had to pay for about a quarter of it).

The economy affected club level and luxury box sales and the wild spending, honestly, by Mike Shanahan on free agents did not help, either. But Bowlen does OK.

He told me: "I make enough to take care of my family."

Some radio stations said he was tired of owning the team and wanted to sell, and that got people talking. No substance whatsoever to that rumor.

I fully expect the Bowlen family to own the franchise for a long, long time. And I know Bowlen is not selling. He has no interest in sitting at his beach house in Hawaii and watching the sun set. He'd rather be at Dove Valley every day. And, even though it's never mentioned, Bowlen has a chance at going into the Pro Football Hall of Fame someday if the team were to win another Super Bowl or two, and because he's very been influential in the area of TV contracts that have skyrocketed while he has been a member of and chairman of the TV committee.

The team is not moving. Stan Kroenke (who now has invested so much money in Arsenal, the English Premier League franchise) isn't going to buy in (and still has a minority ownership in the Rams); there's nobody especially Edgar Kaiser Jr., or Phil Anschutz wanting to buy the franchise, and Pat wants so badly to return to the Super Bowl.

And he has been, most of the time, a great owner for the Broncos and for Denver. So, let's shut down that rumor, too.



Woody: It's not going to do the Broncos any good to trade for a top quarterback if he's got no one to throw to. Jabar Gaffney and Brandon Stokley are good, but we need to replace Brandon Marshall with another top receiver of Marshall's talent. Who do you like out there in free agency?

-- Jim Gray, Tulsa


Jim: I checked the complete free agency list the other day, and it is one of the saddest of all times.

Specifically, among unrestricted wide receivers, you can get Terrell Owens. Uh. There's a reason Marshall was called "Baby T.O."

Is Terrell worth it? He didn't have much of a season in Buffalo. Could you put up with him for a year? Maybe Josh would think he could rehabilitate T.O. Probably not.

I like Antonio Bryant from Tampa Bay, who's still young enough and talented enough, but is somewhat of an enigma, and Kevin Walter, came on in Houston after returning from injury.

But the receiver that I like best of all is a guy named Domenik Hixon. The Broncos never should have let him go. He can play. He was hurt at the beginning of last season and lost his job.

But he still came up with some big catches for the Giants, and he's a return man, and the Broncos should bring him home.

My mind also wraps around Isaac Bruce. Sure, he's lost so much, but he was one of the best, and the price might be right, and I think he has another year left.

Call me crazy, call me stupid, but don't call me late for dinner.






http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14465887

_Oro_
02-25-2010, 06:53 AM
I have read Woody in a while. I didn't realize that he's become a troll. He's worse than BF7 and friends.

He still seeks a Super Bowl victory, or, at least, a return to the Super Bowl. And that's not going to happen here any time soon.

McNabb does not fit in the Josh McDaniels' offensive juggernaut. Or jugger-not.

He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels.


Is it possible to put him on ignore?

Broncomutt
02-25-2010, 07:27 AM
I have read Woody in a while. I didn't realize that he's become a troll. He's worse than BF7 and friends.

Is it possible to put him on ignore?

Psst. This is much more effective than ignore.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 07:30 AM
Psst. This is much more effective than ignore.

And what's effective about this?

http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling.jpg

oubronco
02-25-2010, 07:33 AM
Depends on if your a tall rooster

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 07:35 AM
Or a big cock?

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 07:57 AM
First thing woody says is wrong. McNabb can and does dink and dunk and he is not a freelancer.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 07:58 AM
"But Bowlen got more than he bargained for. He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels. "

Bowlen dealth Jay Cutler and it was a smart move.

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:01 AM
"But Bowlen got more than he bargained for. He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels. "

Bowlen dealth Jay Cutler and it was a smart move.

Bowlen before McDaniels showed up: "Cutler is the man around here now."

I'm sure it was all him that traded Jay. You really think Jay is gone if any other coach had been hired?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 08:05 AM
Bowlen before McDaniels showed up: "Cutler is the man around here now."

I'm sure it was all him that traded Jay. You really think Jay is gone if any other coach had been hired?

Does it really matter?

If Cutler refuses to call Bowlen back, regardless of the coach change that was made (which is possible, given Cutler's pouty attitude once Shanahan was dismissed), then yes, I think Jay is gone.

And look! He is! Holy ****!

Glad we're going to rehash this again though.

Kaylore
02-25-2010, 08:06 AM
I'm sure it was all him that traded Jay. You really think Jay is gone if any other coach had been hired?
We can hope so.

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:11 AM
Does it really matter?

If Cutler refuses to call Bowlen back, regardless of the coach change that was made (which is possible, given Cutler's pouty attitude once Shanahan was dismissed), then yes, I think Jay is gone.

And look! He is! Holy ****!

Glad we're going to rehash this again though.

There is 0 chance Cutler is gone without McDaniels showing up. No other coach or GM that was on our radar is that bad at dealing with players. Any smart GM would have made Cutler retire if he didn't want to play.

We can drop the act that it was Bowlen though. Bowlen didn't suddenly change the way he does things after all these years. He is not giving away the starting QB without the head coach wanting it to happen.

Anyways, I can see how it was for the better. We got 6 less turnovers. That makes up for far fewer points and yards. That makes up for the huge decline in 3rd down and red zone production. Having that good personality at QB is all that matters now!

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:17 AM
We can hope so.

You mean you could hope so. Some of us watch for football and don't care about the personalities of the big guys being paid to run full speed into each other.

Broncomutt
02-25-2010, 08:23 AM
and what's effective about this?

http://disney-clipart.com/chicken-little/disney-chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

6-0 ↑

2-8 ↓

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:33 AM
Bowlen before McDaniels showed up: "Cutler is the man around here now."

I'm sure it was all him that traded Jay. You really think Jay is gone if any other coach had been hired?

I do because Jay Cutler is fools gold. He won't listen and he won't develop better mechanics. He's a type 1 diabetic, that alone was good enough reason to get rid of him. The fact that he's basically Jeff George is a another good reason.

TonyR
02-25-2010, 08:34 AM
McNabb can and does dink and dunk and he is not a freelancer.

I was thinking the same thing. I mostly agree with Woody on the McNabb topic but he is certainly not a "freelancer".

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:34 AM
You mean you could hope so. Some of us watch for football and don't care about the personalities of the big guys being paid to run full speed into each other.

Cutler won't be in the league in 4 years. Especailly if there is a lockout.

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:36 AM
Jay Cutler hurt my feelings. I will cry now.

Don't worry, it will be ok.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:36 AM
I was thinking the same thing. I mostly agree with Woody on the McNabb topic but he is certainly not a "freelancer".

The eagles throw more than they run and they aren't all deep passes and Reid runs a west coast style offense which replaces the running game with short passes. Woody What's-his-nuts has never known **** about football. It's a amazing people consult him on these matters.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:38 AM
Don't worry, it will be ok.

LOL. Well you've got two choices. Sack up and deal with, or root for Chicago.

SoDak Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:38 AM
You mean you could hope so. Some of us watch for football and don't care about the personalities of the big guys being paid to run full speed into each other.

Did you not watch Cutler continually make the same mistakes over and over the past few years? The guy is regressing, not progressing.

TonyR
02-25-2010, 08:43 AM
We can drop the act that it was Bowlen though. Bowlen didn't suddenly change the way he does things after all these years. He is not giving away the starting QB without the head coach wanting it to happen.

Believe what you want, but here is Bowlen's exact statement before the trade:

"Numerous attempts to contact Jay Cutler in the last 10 days, both by head coach Josh McDaniels and myself, have been unsuccessful.
A conversation with his agent earlier today clearly communicated and confirmed to us that Jay no longer has any desire to play for the Denver Broncos.
We will begin discussions with other teams in an effort to accommodate his request to be traded."

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:44 AM
Did you not watch Cutler continually make the same mistakes over and over the past few years? The guy is regressing, not progressing.

This offense and every young player on it, other than Marshall, regressed when Cutler left. This offense was getting much better each year as the all of these young guys grew together. What Cutler did this past year has nothing to do with this. Coaching is huge and he didn't have an offensive coach. He may not be Elway 2 but he is ten times better than Orton. At least he makes the players around him better.

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:47 AM
LOL. Well you've got two choices. Sack up and deal with, or root for Chicago.

I like option C better. Cry about it for a couple more years until they get a good QB again or fire McDaniels.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:48 AM
This offense and every young player on it, other than Marshall, regressed when Cutler left. This offense was getting much better each year as the all of these young guys grew together. What Cutler did this past year has nothing to do with this. Coaching is huge and he didn't have an offensive coach. He may not be Elway 2 but he is ten times better than Orton. At least he makes the players around him better.

It didn't get better. It stayed the same.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:49 AM
I like option C better. Cry about it for a couple more years until they get a good QB again or fire McDaniels.

Don't worry, it will be ok.

jhns
02-25-2010, 08:51 AM
Believe what you want, but here is Bowlen's exact statement before the trade:

"Numerous attempts to contact Jay Cutler in the last 10 days, both by head coach Josh McDaniels and myself, have been unsuccessful.
A conversation with his agent earlier today clearly communicated and confirmed to us that Jay no longer has any desire to play for the Denver Broncos.
We will begin discussions with other teams in an effort to accommodate his request to be traded."

I know this is crazy talk but Bowlen does try protecting his investments. You, Bowlen, and the rest of the world knows that he couldn't have put it all on McDaniels even if it was %100 McDaniels choice. That would be horrible for business. It is kind of like how he used to try deflecting some blame from Shanahan by saying all decisions have always gone through him. Those comments always came when people questioned dumb moves made by Shanahan. We all knew those were Shanahan moves.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 08:55 AM
This offense and every young player on it, other than Marshall, regressed when Cutler left.

Schef's numbers were very similar to last year.

Royal's numbers went down due to his getting hurt and missing time, and the signing of Gaffney. Those factors played a bigger role than simply attributing it to Cutler leaving.

Clady had arguably the best rookie season of any left tackle in history. He had nowhere to go but down, even if Cutler stayed.

Kuper dealt with injuries all season long that hampered his play. The QB was not a factor there either.

TonyR
02-25-2010, 08:58 AM
You, Bowlen, and the rest of the world knows that he couldn't have put it all on McDaniels even if it was %100 McDaniels choice. That would be horrible for business.

The statement I posted is from before the trade and it clearly indicates that Bowlen was at the very least on board with/signed off on the trade and potentially that he himself made the decision. What would be "bad business" would be to allow your new coach to make a major decision you didn't agree with. Clearly Bowlen agreed. Why are you over complicating this? Bowlen wanted Cutler gone and he's gone. We don't know for sure what McD wanted. In other words, there's less certainty on McD's opinion than Bowlen's.

TonyR
02-25-2010, 09:00 AM
Kuper dealt with injuries all season long that hampered his play.

And you can add the fact that Ryan Harris missed most of the season.

Dagmar
02-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Schef's numbers were very similar to last year.

Royal's numbers went down due to his getting hurt and missing time, and the signing of Gaffney. Those factors played a bigger role than simply attributing it to Cutler leaving.

Clady had arguably the best rookie season of any left tackle in history. He had nowhere to go but down, even if Cutler stayed.

Kuper dealt with injuries all season long that hampered his play. The QB was not a factor there either.

Jhns response....

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/25304DG~Don-t-Know-Don-t-Care-Posters.jpg

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:03 AM
Schef's numbers were very similar to last year.

Royal's numbers went down due to his getting hurt and missing time, and the signing of Gaffney. Those factors played a bigger role than simply attributing it to Cutler leaving.

Clady had arguably the best rookie season of any left tackle in history. He had nowhere to go but down, even if Cutler stayed.

Kuper dealt with injuries all season long that hampered his play. The QB was not a factor there either.

LOL

"I have excuses for all of them!"

You might want to work on your excuses. Every o-linemen regressed from the very start of the year. They all looked worse before any injuries. Just look at when NE switched from Brady to Cassel and then back to Brady. The o-line went from great to 50 sacks given up. You guys just need to figure out that the QB is a huge factor in o-line play. Orton simply can't manipulate a pocket.

As for Royal, he still played 2. His production plummeted. It was due to not having as accurate of a QB this past year. You need accuracy to throw to receivers that can't go up for the ball like Marshall. Royal isn't a guy you can just throw it up and let him go get it. Orton doesn't have the accuracy to work with this kind of receiver.

Dagmar
02-25-2010, 09:05 AM
Told ya.

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:08 AM
Time to troll because someone questioned McDaniels and Orton again! How can they do that, they know it makes me cry.

Don't worry, it will be ok.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 09:08 AM
Just look at when NE switched from Brady to Cassel and then back to Brady. The o-line went from great to 50 sacks given up. You guys just need to figure out that the QB is a huge factor in o-line play.

You just stepped into my wheelhouse there. These situations couldn't be more different. NE's sack numbers went WAY up under Cassel because he holds the ball forever, just like Big Ben, except he can't keep his feet with guys draped all over him. EVERYONE here in NE, and everyone who has actually watched Cassel, knows this. He holds the ball forever.

As for Royal, he still played 2. His production plummeted. It was due to not having as accurate of a QB this past year. You need accuracy to throw to receivers that can't go up for the ball like Marshall. Royal isn't a guy you can just throw it up and let him go get it. Orton doesn't have the accuracy to work with this kind of receiver.

Sorry, Gaffney had no problem catching his passes either. Neither did anyone else Orton was throwing the ball to, hence his good completion percentage. Now who's the one making excuses for guys?

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:15 AM
You just stepped into my wheelhouse there. These situations couldn't be more different. NE's sack numbers went WAY up under Cassel because he holds the ball forever, just like Big Ben, except he can't keep his feet with guys draped all over him. EVERYONE here in NE, and everyone who has actually watched Cassel, knows this. He holds the ball forever.



Sorry, Gaffney had no problem catching his passes either. Neither did anyone else Orton was throwing the ball to, hence his good completion percentage. Now who's the one making excuses for guys?

Gaffney also could go get the ball. He actually surprised me with how good he is at it. As for the completion percent... Really? I would say it is more than he threw a few hundred screens and slants. Go look at his accuracy with the 10-20 yard throws. As for why Royal didn't get more of the screens and such, well again, McDaniels.....

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 09:16 AM
Gaffney also could go get the ball. He actually surprised me with how good he is at it. As for the completion percent... Really? I would say it is more than he threw a few hundred screens and slants. Go look at his accuracy with the 10-20 yard throws. As for why Royal didn't get more of the screens and such, well again, McDaniels.....

Gaffney has always been a good receiver.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 09:17 AM
Gaffney also could go get the ball. He actually surprised me with how good he is at it. As for the completion percent... Really? I would say it is more than he threw a few hundred screens and slants. Go look at his accuracy with the 10-20 yard throws. As for why Royal didn't get more of the screens and such, well again, McDaniels.....

Sorry, but if a screen/slant is going to pick up serious yards, the receiver needs to be able to break a tackle or two and get extra yardage. Out of the three that we're discussing, Royal is the least capable of this.

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:18 AM
Also, I don't get your argument about Cassel. You try forming your statement as you are disagreeing with me but then say a QB change made their o-line look a lot worse. I'm pretty sure that is what I just said.

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:24 AM
Sorry, but if a screen/slant is going to pick up serious yards, the receiver needs to be able to break a tackle or two and get extra yardage. Out of the three that we're discussing, Royal is the least capable of this.

And it is harder for him to continually catch 5 yard routes when guys start hanging on his back because they know what is coming. He isn't the kind of receiver that will fight that off and make the catch a lot. So again, look at Ortons accuracy on throws over 10 yards and you will see why Royal fell off so much. People jumped short routed and made Royal a lot less affective.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 09:27 AM
And it is harder for him to continually catch 5 yard routes when guys start hanging on his back because they know what is coming. He isn't the kind of receiver that will fight that off and make the catch a lot. So again, look at Ortons accuracy on throws over 10 yards and you will see why Royal fell off so much. People jumped short routed and made Royal a lot less affective.

That's total bull**** and you know it. How many dropped passes were over 10 yards? I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head.

Further, Royal needs to make himself known to coach, Orton, McCoy, etc. He's too passive, and if he spoke up, maybe it wouldn't be an issue.

He has some responsibility here too, you know.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 09:28 AM
Also, I don't get your argument about Cassel. You try forming your statement as you are disagreeing with me but then say a QB change made their o-line look a lot worse. I'm pretty sure that is what I just said.

What I was trying to say was this: I agree with the overall concept of a QB affecting OLine play. What I am disagreeing with is the comparison you made between Cassel to Orton. Sure, Orton isn't as mobile as Cutler....so that would naturally make the OLine look worse if Orton had a tendency to hold the ball as long as a guy like Cassel. But in this case he doesn't. All season long, Orton was consistent in his ability to get rid of the ball very quickly. He, as you yourself acknowledged threw a ton of screens and short, quick passes, and never held the ball like a guy like Cassel or Big Ben. Given that fact, the OLine should've actually looked better than they did because they really weren't being asked to hold blocks very long at all.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 09:29 AM
So again, look at Ortons accuracy on throws over 10 yards and you will see why Royal fell off so much.

90% of Gaffney's receptions travelled over 10 yards past the LOS.

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:32 AM
That's total bull**** and you know it. How many dropped passes were over 10 yards? I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head.

Further, Royal needs to make himself known to coach, Orton, McCoy, etc. He's too passive, and if he spoke up, maybe it wouldn't be an issue.

He has some responsibility here too, you know.

He doesn't have responsibility here unless you think his dropoff was from him not working hard. That isn't the Royal I read about. His dropoff is ONLY from the QB switch. I have no doubt that he would have played much better with Cutler. You guys can't admit that just because Cutler hurt your feelings.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 09:33 AM
He doesn't have responsibility here unless you think his dropoff was from him not working hard. That isn't the Royal I read about. His dropoff is ONLY from the QB switch. I have no doubt that he would have played much better with Cutler. You guys can't admit that just because Cutler hurt your feelings.

I can't (or rather, won't) admit it because I don't believe it to be true.

Wasn't it you in this very thread who said that Royal "doesn't go up and get it"? Is that not something he could work on?

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:34 AM
90% of Gaffney's receptions travelled over 10 yards past the LOS.

LOL

You are done in this argument.

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:36 AM
I can't (or rather, won't) admit it because I don't believe it to be true.

Wasn't it you in this very thread who said that Royal "doesn't go up and get it"? Is that not something he could work on?

What does that have to do with anything? Did you think I meant he did that for Cutler and stopped when we got Orton? Real great argument.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-25-2010, 09:36 AM
LOL

You are done in this argument.

Good take. Strong.

:roll:

jhns
02-25-2010, 09:40 AM
Good take. Strong.

:roll:

Well it is kind of hard to argue against that kind of stupidity. Do you really want to get into the argument that %90 of Gaffneys receptions were balls thrown more than 10 yards? Really?

HAT
02-25-2010, 12:58 PM
He may not be Elway 2 but he is ten times better than Orton.




Jay Cutler 2008 with the Broncos:

QBR: 86.8
Y/C: 11.8
Y/A: 7.3
%: 62,3
TD: 25
INT: 18
Team record: 8-8

Kyle Orton 2009 with the Broncos:

QBR: 86.0
Y/C: 11.3
Y/A: 7.0
%: 62.1
TD: 21
INT: 12
Team record: 8-8

Let's look at that in reverse also....

'08 Orton with the Bears:

QBR: 79.6
Y/C: 10.9
Y/A: 6.4
%: 58.5
TD: 18
INT: 12
Team record: 9-7

'09 Cutler with the Bears:
QBR: 76.8
Y/C: 10.9
Y/A: 6.6
%: 60.5
TD: 27
INT: 26
Team record: 7-9



:wave:

Pony Boy
02-25-2010, 01:13 PM
If Stan Kroenke won't spend money on a decent toupe why would he spend money on the Broncos?

jhns
02-25-2010, 01:16 PM
:wave:

That is a good cherry picking of stats. They still show Cutler was better here. How about this stat. Jay Cutler led Broncos offense = 2nd in the league. Kyle Orton led Broncos offense = complete crap.

Irish Stout
02-25-2010, 01:28 PM
That is a good cherry picking of stats. They still show Cutler was better here. How about this stat. Jay Cutler led Broncos offense = 2nd in the league. Kyle Orton led Broncos offense = complete crap.

2nd in the league in what? Throwing redzone Ints? BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE #1 at that!!!!

Dude, not many here are arguing that Orton > J.C., but we are saying J.C. < Brian Griese. Thats right. Brian Griese is better than Cutler.


GRIESE!

jhns
02-25-2010, 01:33 PM
2nd in the league in what? Throwing redzone Ints? BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE #1 at that!!!!

Dude, not many here are arguing that Orton > J.C., but we are saying J.C. < Brian Griese. Thats right. Brian Griese is better than Cutler.


GRIESE!

Just think, all of those red zone turnovers and we were still way better in the red zone with Cutler than we were with Orton.

Maybe we should have traded for Griese instead.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2010, 01:39 PM
Just think, all of those red zone turnovers and we were still way better in the red zone with Cutler than we were with Orton.

Maybe we should have traded for Griese instead.

No....the results were the same.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 01:44 PM
Well it is kind of hard to argue against that kind of stupidity. Do you really want to get into the argument that %90 of Gaffneys receptions were balls thrown more than 10 yards? Really?

I have video evidence of a good sampling of his receptions this season and the routes he ran. Not to mention, a quick visit to nfl.com can show you where he caught the ball and how many yards he got after the catch.

What do you have?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

jhns
02-25-2010, 01:47 PM
No....the results were the same.

No, the record was the same. The red zone offensive production was not the same. I know, I know, the offense is the entire team in the NFL and the QB wins or loses on his own. Who cares about that whole top 10 defense vs franchises worst ever defense even though they saw the second fewest drives in the league, thing....

Just think, Cutler also was working with an all around younger offense as well. I don't think that point is brought up enough. Imagine what that offense of rookie-third year players could have developed into if we had kept them together.

jhns
02-25-2010, 01:51 PM
I have video evidence of a good sampling of his receptions this season and the routes he ran. Not to mention, a quick visit to nfl.com can show you where he caught the ball and how many yards he got after the catch.

What do you have?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Wait, you have a highlight video and think that is evidence that %90 of his catches were from throws over 10 yards? Is that serious?

What does NFL.com say? I won't argue against them. I can't go to it right now. What did he have, 40 catches? So it shows 36 of them were passes that traveled further than 10 yards in the air?

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 01:59 PM
Wait, you have a highlight video and think that is evidence that %90 of his catches were from throws over 10 yards? Is that serious?

The reel + nfl.com....yes.

The video shows about 15 receptions. Two traveled less than 10 yards in the air, and they were both TDs.

What does NFL.com say? I won't argue against them. I can't go to it right now. What did he have, 40 catches? So it shows 36 of them were passes that traveled further than 10 yards in the air?

yes

broncosteven
02-25-2010, 02:00 PM
...
Let me tell you the real deal on Bowlen. As he told me in a front-page interview last summer, he is suffering from short-term memory loss. It does affect him and how he does business, and he has turned over a lot of authority to Joe Ellis.

Bowlen has said to me: "I stopped doing the stuff I don't want to do." Now in his late 60s, he is trying to slow down some, but he doesn't want out of the Broncos.


I thought that was a rumor, didn't know it was true.

Irish Stout
02-25-2010, 02:10 PM
No, the record was the same. The red zone offensive production was not the same.

Correct, cause we got way more field goals this year from inside the 20, whereas last year we had way more turn overs from inside the twenty.

jhns
02-25-2010, 02:14 PM
The reel + nfl.com....yes.

The video shows about 15 receptions. Two traveled less than 10 yards in the air, and they were both TDs.


yes

Oh my, a highlight video shows 13 of 54 receptions went more than 10 yards in the air. Boy we are close to the %90.

As for what NFL.com shows.... That is my point. You have to lie to even try staying in arguments when you try defensing Orton. I would love a link to this stat showing %90 of his catches being passes that traveled more than 10 yards. I just looked and didn't see it.

Then again, you are the guy who thinks this defense is more talented than some of the most talented defenses in the NFL. I'm not sure why I was expecting a good argument from you. At least I use real numbers for my arguments.

jhns
02-25-2010, 02:17 PM
Correct, cause we got way more field goals this year from inside the 20, whereas last year we had way more turn overs from inside the twenty.

Ummm, field goals are part of the red zone production I am talking about. Try again.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2010, 02:17 PM
Oh my, a highlight video shows 13 of 54 receptions went more than 10 yards in the air. Boy we are close to the %90.

Reading comp. For the 3rd time....video PLUS nfl.com

As for what NFL.com shows.... That is my point. You have to lie to even try staying in arguments when you try defensing Orton. I would love a link to this stat showing %90 of his catches being passes that traveled more than 10 yards. I just looked and didn't see it.


I have not lied about anything. Please prove I have.

It's not my fault you can't surf a simple website like nfl.com. It's all right there in black and white.

jhns
02-25-2010, 02:24 PM
Reading comp. For the 3rd time....video PLUS nfl.com



I have not lied about anything. Please prove I have.

It's not my fault you can't surf a simple website like nfl.com. It's all right there in black and white.

Where is the link then? You made the claim, you back it up. Why should I have to prove your random claims wrong? That isn't how it works.

Anyways, why are you even here arguing. You went on the other day about how yards are everything. Do I need to link you to that argument? How can you claim Orton is better for this team than Cutler if yards are everything? That doesn't make sense.

Irish Stout
02-25-2010, 03:02 PM
Ummm, field goals are part of the red zone production I am talking about. Try again.

You are wrong and you have to prove it.

HAT
02-25-2010, 09:33 PM
That is a good cherry picking of stats. They still show Cutler was better here. How about this stat. Jay Cutler led Broncos offense = 2nd in the league. Kyle Orton led Broncos offense = complete crap.

Show me where I Cherry Picked?

I not only compared Cutler & Orton as Broncos...I threw in the comparison as Bears for good measure. AND...I included virtually every single statistic that modern day QB's are measured by.

You made a 'rediculous' claim that Cutler is TEN TIMES the QB that Orton is. But when I posted CHFF....You make an even more ridiculous claim that I cherry picked?

Ok, jhns......The floor is yours. Please enlighten us as to how Jay Cutler is 10 times the QB Orton is.

Step up....Or backtrack. The choice is yours.

HAT
02-25-2010, 09:35 PM
You made the claim, you back it up.

EXACTLY. C'mon son.....Buck up!

Dagmar
02-25-2010, 09:47 PM
You will never convince certain posters on this site that 2nd in yards doesn't = 2nd best offense. All it means is **** D = offense has the ball alot. Yet all of that time they had it they ended up at 16th in the league for points scored.

It's a pointless argument.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 12:35 PM
"But Bowlen got more than he bargained for. He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels. "

Bowlen dealth Jay Cutler and it was a smart move.

Bowlen sat back and let the situation btwn Cutler and McD fester for 30 days before he decided to get involve. Why he did so....who knows.

Its way too early to say Bowlen was smart to get rid of Cutler. It all depends if Cutler goes on to have a Farve type Career, while McD continues to search for Cutler's replacement while trotting out bust or backup Qb's during his tenure as the Broncos HC. Like I said, should Cutler return to his Pro Bowl status and McD continues to struggle and develop QB's, then Bowlen will have proven to have been wrong for trading Cutler.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 12:40 PM
Cutler won't be in the league in 4 years. Especailly if there is a lockout.

Yeah Okay Mr. Fortune Teller....don't quit your day job! :wave:

jhns
02-26-2010, 12:41 PM
Show me where I Cherry Picked?

I not only compared Cutler & Orton as Broncos...I threw in the comparison as Bears for good measure. AND...I included virtually every single statistic that modern day QB's are measured by.

You made a 'rediculous' claim that Cutler is TEN TIMES the QB that Orton is. But when I posted CHFF....You make an even more ridiculous claim that I cherry picked?

Ok, jhns......The floor is yours. Please enlighten us as to how Jay Cutler is 10 times the QB Orton is.

Step up....Or backtrack. The choice is yours.

Well, without even looking at stats, I can show you that you cherry picked. Where are the yards? That isn't something QBs are judged by? Where is the 3rd down efficiency and red zone efficiency? These aren't important?

As for Cutler being way better than Orton, that is easy. Cutler had the 2nd ranked offense when here. With the exact same players other than a first round RB, Orton led the 14th ranked offense one year later. I get you have all kinds of excuses for this but I just posted a fact. Your excuses are nothing more than just that, excuses.

jhns
02-26-2010, 12:44 PM
You will never convince certain posters on this site that 2nd in yards doesn't = 2nd best offense. All it means is **** D = offense has the ball alot. Yet all of that time they had it they ended up at 16th in the league for points scored.

It's a pointless argument.

And when your only argument against the offense is a team stat, not an offensive one, it shows which side is using their brains.

Rabb
02-26-2010, 12:51 PM
You will never convince certain posters on this site that 2nd in yards doesn't = 2nd best offense. All it means is **** D = offense has the ball alot. Yet all of that time they had it they ended up at 16th in the league for points scored.

It's a pointless argument.

nope you won't...it's funny to watch though

broncocalijohn
02-26-2010, 12:54 PM
"But Bowlen got more than he bargained for. He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels. "

Bowlen dealth Jay Cutler and it was a smart move.

Didnt know it was McDaniels who pulled the trade off. Who knew?

colonelbeef
02-26-2010, 01:01 PM
I have read Woody in a while. I didn't realize that he's become a troll. He's worse than BF7 and friends.

I have read Woody in a while. I didn't realize that he's become a troll. He's worse than BF7 and friends.

Quote:
He still seeks a Super Bowl victory, or, at least, a return to the Super Bowl. And that's not going to happen here any time soon.
Quote:
McNabb does not fit in the Josh McDaniels' offensive juggernaut. Or jugger-not.
Quote:
He never thought Josh McDaniels would come in and deal Jay Cutler. But Bowlen has had to stand up, sometimes reluctantly, for McDaniels.
Is it possible to put him on ignore?





Is it possible to put him on ignore?

The truth hurts sometimes. You can either a) be a big boy and acknowledge the facts or b) hide and whine about people who 'talk bad about your broncos'

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:06 PM
Well, without even looking at stats, I can show you that you cherry picked. Where are the yards? That isn't something QBs are judged by? Where is the 3rd down efficiency and red zone efficiency? These aren't important?

As for Cutler being way better than Orton, that is easy. Cutler had the 2nd ranked offense when here. With the exact same players other than a first round RB, Orton led the 14th ranked offense one year later. I get you have all kinds of excuses for this but I just posted a fact. Your excuses are nothing more than just that, excuses.

You're the cherry picker and you don't back your cherrys up with any lemonade aka facts.

We were not the 2nd ranked offense overall. We were the second ranked offense for yards per game. We were the 16th ranked scoring Offense.

2008 Cutler was ranked the 16th best QB, 2009 Orton was ranked 14th (Cutler 21st).

Orton to Cutler comparisons are not getting anybody anywhere. Cutler has an arm and has consistently shown he makes bad decisions. Orton doesn't have the same arm and has consistently shown he makes mediocre decisions.

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:08 PM
I want Griese!

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:10 PM
You're the cherry picker and you don't back your cherrys up with any lemonade aka facts.

We were not the 2nd ranked offense overall. We were the second ranked offense for yards per game. We were the 16th ranked scoring Offense.

2008 Cutler was ranked the 16th best QB, 2009 Orton was ranked 14th (Cutler 21st).

Orton to Cutler comparisons are not getting anybody anywhere. Cutler has an arm and has consistently shown he makes bad decisions. Orton doesn't have the same arm and has consistently shown he makes mediocre decisions.

You are wrong. You haven't even looked into what you are saying. There is a reason the NFL ranks offenses by yards. The 16th rank is not an offensive stat.

"We weren't a good offense. I know I don't have any offensive stats to show we weren't, but I do have this team stat!"

I especially like when you rank our offense in 08 with a team scoring stat and then rank Ortons 09 offense with yards. That again, like not having offensive stats to refute what the offense did, shows which side of the argument is being fair and using their brains.

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:18 PM
You are wrong. You haven't even looked into what you are saying. There is a reason the NFL ranks offenses by yards. The 16th rank is not an offensive stat.

"We weren't a good offense. I know I don't have any offensive stats to show we weren't, but I do have this team stat!"

I especially like when you rank our offense in 08 with a team scoring stat and then rank Ortons 09 offense with yards. That again, like not having offensive stats to refute what the offense did, shows which side of the argument is being fair and using their brains.

I didn't rank Orton's 09 offense dude.

And the NFL does rank offenses by their scoring as well as by pass yards, rush yards, turn overs, field goals, and I believe offensive line.

Quit being plain wrong and extra wrong with cheese man.

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:22 PM
I didn't rank Orton's 09 offense dude.

Yeah, my bad. I didn't read that correctly. You said their QB ranking. For that I say, it is a QB efficiency ranking. It is pretty easy to be efficient throwing 2 yard passes and playing ball control offense. Cutler was expected to go out, carry the offense, and win games. Orton was out there trying not to lose them. That makes for a big difference in efficiency. Just look at the play calling this year.

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:23 PM
By the way, we were the 30th ranked SCORING DEFENSE in 2008. 12th in 2009.

See the NFL keeps track of that too.

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:24 PM
And the NFL does rank offenses by their scoring as well as by pass yards, rush yards, turn overs, field goals, and I believe offensive line.


There is no such thing as an offensive scoring stat. Sorry to break this to you but that makes it impossible for them to rank offenses that way. The NFL ranks offenses based on yards.

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:32 PM
Yeah, my bad. I didn't read that correctly. You said their QB ranking. For that I say, it is a QB efficiency ranking. It is pretty easy to be efficient throwing 2 yard passes and playing ball control offense. Cutler was expected to go out, carry the offense, and win games. Orton was out there trying not to lose them. That makes for a big difference in efficiency. Just look at the play calling this year.

You're funny. You now want to rely on an argument style that you've previously shot down.

You got strong street cred son.

I don't even know what you want anymore. Nobody denies that Cutler has more talent and potential skill than Orton. Some people believe Orton and his style are better suited to win games and Cutler's are better suited to risk games. If you coming down to needing one major play to win a game, I think 90% of this board would agree they'd rather have Cutler under center for one long play than Orton. But for the offensive half of a football game, some people think that Orton's management outweighs Cutlers flash. It was QB management and control after all that got us to our last AFC Championship game.

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 01:38 PM
There is no such thing as an offensive scoring stat. Sorry to break this to you but that makes it impossible for them to rank offenses that way. The NFL ranks offenses based on yards.

WOW! I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm starting to wonder what kinda cheese you got molding in that head of yours.

When you get home and you can get on NFL.com, and check out the stats section. Play around with it a bit. You'll see even the NFL ranks for scoring OFFENSE as well as Defense or team.

Simple math allows anyone to do it. Even the NFL. Perhaps they subtract the three Defensive tds and the 0 special teams tds of 2008 from our total score to get the right number. I don't know, but they did it and they ranked against every other team in the league.

Its pretty simple to rank offenses based on almost any offensive stat. In 2008 we were the best 60 yard team in the business. But look how far that got us. So when you look at the stat for scoring on O, its pretty darn clear.

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:41 PM
I don't even know what you want anymore.

I don't know what that means. What do you want when arguing this? I don't expect to change opinions when this has been rehashed 9000 times already and no one else should expect that either. I just like to argue and this is a fun topic to argue about. Especially when half of your arguments are "I can't speak the truth because Cutler hurt my feelings and I don't want to admit it was a mistake to let him go." This thinking shows when you all know you don't have an argument against the Cutler led offense. Using a non-offensive stat as the only rebuttal, shows that even you guys know your full of crap.

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:51 PM
WOW! I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm starting to wonder what kinda cheese you got molding in that head of yours.

When you get home and you can get on NFL.com, and check out the stats section. Play around with it a bit. You'll see even the NFL ranks for scoring OFFENSE as well as Defense or team.

Simple math allows anyone to do it. Even the NFL. Perhaps they subtract the three Defensive tds and the 0 special teams tds of 2008 from our total score to get the right number. I don't know, but they did it and they ranked against every other team in the league.

Its pretty simple to rank offenses based on almost any offensive stat. In 2008 we were the best 60 yard team in the business. But look how far that got us. So when you look at the stat for scoring on O, its pretty darn clear.

Wrong. Go to ESPN. Go to the Broncos stat page. There will be a section called "scoring". Now look at the "offensive scoring" stat you are talking about. The two scoring totals are the same. Now look at who scored those points. They didn't take out defensive and special teams scoring. Your rankings are a team stat.

There is no way to break down offensive scoring and that is why they don't. Even if you take out defensive and special teams scores, what do you do about field goals? What do you do about missed field goals? After all, the offense put them in position and in 2008 we had a very inaccurate kicker. Is it the offenses fault that their team didn't get a good kicker?

We are 11th if you take out defensive and special teams TDs for every team. We are 9th if you add a single field goal to our total, which was affected by a bad kicker that was far better this year. That is also where we are in TDs scored.

You see, I look into what I am arguing about. This is all just stuff off the top of my head. I will post some nice charts from other websites when I get home. They will show what the two offenses did much better than I can. That probably won't be until tomorrow but I have some stuff I have to do tonight.

Hamrob
02-26-2010, 01:52 PM
I would have never let Cutler go...but they did. It's over

Orton did a good job...but he's not the answer. Fact

We need to continue looking until we find the answer.

Until then, we'll have to root for Orton or whomever else is brought in.

As for whether getting rid of Cutler was a good or bad decision...give it time. In 5yrs or so, we'll all know whether it was a good or bad decision.

As for whether Cutler or Orton is the better QB...do you think teams would ever give up a frist rounder for Orton? How about 2 first rounders and a 3rd...and a QB (named Orton)?

Dukes
02-26-2010, 01:52 PM
Wow, still arguing about Cutler. What a sad, pethetic waste of time.

jhns
02-26-2010, 01:59 PM
Wow, still arguing about Cutler. What a sad, pethetic waste of time.

What, like there is something better we could be doing?

oubronco
02-26-2010, 02:00 PM
I would have never let Cutler go...but they did. It's over

Orton did a good job...but he's not the answer. Fact

We need to continue looking until we find the answer.

Until then, we'll have to root for Orton or whomever else is brought in.

As for whether getting rid of Cutler was a good or bad decision...give it time. In 5yrs or so, we'll all know whether it was a good or bad decision.

As for whether Cutler or Orton is the better QB...do you think teams would ever give up a frist rounder for Orton? How about 2 first rounders and a 3rd...and a QB (named Orton)?

A post I can agree on

Cutler is gone DEAL WITH IT AND MOVE ON!!!

Irish Stout
02-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Wow, still arguing about Cutler. What a sad, pethetic waste of time.

I agree. I am ashamed of myself.

Though admittedly I am only advocating for the return of Griese.

jhns
02-26-2010, 02:11 PM
Though admittedly I am only advocating for the return of Griese.

Could you imagine this board if that happened? I think even I would have to stay away.

KipCorrington25
02-26-2010, 06:25 PM
I think the team that scores the most points wins right?

So follow my logic here, I'd rather score more points than gain more yards regardless of what official stats the league keeps...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-26-2010, 07:59 PM
Could you imagine this board if that happened? I think even I would have to stay away.

Can we make this happen?

steeledude
02-26-2010, 10:30 PM
We can hope so.

Remember when you used to jizz in Cutler's discarded jock during your training camp reports? That was awesome.

Dagmar
02-26-2010, 10:34 PM
Could you imagine this board if that happened? I think even I would have to stay away.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/fletchismint/10cq4v6.gif

Let it be so!

Dagmar
02-26-2010, 10:35 PM
Remember when you used to jizz in Cutler's discarded jock during your training camp reports? That was awesome.

Really? Calling out Kaylore who has done more for the Orangemane than some cumstain like you? Cutler could do spectacular things? Ask the Bears fans. He did it in the last game when it meant **** all.

Rip people a new one but Khan? **** off.