Tebow to Jacksonville?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Where was all this help at 1-4?

Somewhere around "Below average"

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Where was all this help at 1-4?

Just to bust balls: how exactly was Tebow the catalyst for ALL of our success last year if we had a win before he even took the field?

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

Just to bust balls: how exactly was Tebow the catalyst for ALL of our success last year if we had a win before he even took the field?

What's amazing (and pathetic) is that that's the most salient point made against my argument thus far.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

I don't think you understand the idea of "catalyst".

I understand the term catalyst. I also understand the phrase "all success". You think barber ran out of bounds and fumbled on purpose cause he liked tebow? You think rivers was amped on a pregame speech before that raider game? Those 2 things helped in the broncos making the playoffs(success). NONE of that tebow had control of.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

I don't think you understand the idea of "catalyst".

So was the catalyst of our 1-4 start Kyle Orton?

And if so, then couldn't one also argue Tebow was the catalyst of our 0-3 finish that almost cost us the playoffs?

One could also argue the catalyst of our 7-1 streak was the return to health of DJ and Doom which also coincided with the team winning 7 of their first 8 with Tebow at QB

One could also argue the catalyst was McCoy and Fox completely revamping the offense to fit Tebow's strength of running the ball because after they did, we won 6 straight....

See you can't have it both ways....if Tebow was the reason for our success in 2011, then he also was the reason for our lack of it down the stretch. correct?

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Why would you ever care more about regular season stats than playoff stats? There's no objective scenario where that makes any sense.

And sorry, but there's no better example of your double standard than the 2-8 (KC game) vs 6-8 (this season) comparisons. You've personally used the former as evidence of something, yet laugh at others for talking about the latter.

You literally play the very same selective sampling games you criticize others for. Let's just cut the crap and boil this down to what it is. Teebsuxfrospyros.

Bull****. 2-8 during a game flat out sucks. Means there is absolutely zero passing threat in a game. It also magnifies how much he tried to run first instead of going through his progressions Hyping 6-8 over the course of a year? Come on. I can pick the other games on his completion attempts ratio too.

Or I can just use his entire 2011 stat. 126-271

[BroncoBeavis]

Let's try to come together here.

Think back to KO's season opener V the Raiders last year. 10 points were scored by KO's offense. 10 points were scored off of KO's turnovers.

The biggest single difference when it comes to W/L's, if we're being honest, wasn't Tebow on the field so much as Kyle off of it.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Let's try to come together here.

Think back to KO's season opener V the Raiders last year. 10 points were scored by KO's offense. 10 points were scored off of KO's turnovers.

The biggest single difference when it comes to W/L's, if we're being honest, wasn't Tebow on the field so much as Kyle off of it.

Ill give you that. Ortons kneecap being off the field prevented fumble opportunities.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by errand

See you can't have it both ways....if Tebow was the reason for our success in 2011, then he also was the reason for our lack of it down the stretch. correct?

Correct. I'm not asking to have it both ways. See how easy that is?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Where was all this help at 1-4?

...I dunno, guess the same place it was when we started 2-3 this season.

As I stated earlier...Doom and DJ weren't 100% healthy in the first 5 games...after the bye week, they were. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by errand

...I dunno, guess the same place it was when we started 2-3 this season.

As I stated earlier...Doom and DJ weren't 100% healthy in the first 5 games...after the bye week, they were. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

Only in a brain like yours does Peyton's rust strengthen your case for not giving Tebow Credit.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Bull****. 2-8 during a game flat out sucks. Means there is absolutely zero passing threat in a game. Hyping 6-8 over the course of a year? Come on. I can pick the other games on his completion attempts ratio too.

Yes, 2-8 during a game does suck. But it's far too small a sample to cast judgment on the quality of a QB. Say the word. I bet I can find similar streaks from virtually any blue chip QB in the league.

Not even mentioning that just from memory...at least one of those, possibly more, was a blatant drop. If two of those 8 were drops, does your case fall apart? In any case, 8 passes is a ridiculous window from which to draw any conclusion.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yes, 2-8 during a game does suck. But it's far too small a sample to cast judgment on the quality of a QB. Say the word. I bet I can find similar streaks from virtually any blue chip QB in the league.

Not even mentioning that just from memory...at least one of those, possibly more, was a blatant drop. If two of those 8 were drops, does your case fall apart? In any case, 8 passes is a ridiculous window from which to draw any conclusion.

Maybe if we look back and see how many passing plays resulted in him running. I know there were more passing plays called in that game besides 10. See this is what gets lost. Dropping back for a pass yet looking to run instead of actually passing or looking to pass.

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Where was all this help at 1-4?

I've maintained that the first 5 games last season are not quite what they seem. It east to say, you are what your record is, but that isn't always the case (see our 2-3 record this year after 5 games). The biggest Catalyst last season was going ultra conservative and an improved defense.

The offense was actually better in the first 5 games of 2011 than in the final 11. 21 points per game v. 18.5 points per game. The defense on the other hand allowed 28 points per game v. 22.7 for the rest of the season. 2 of those games were lost by field goals.

Orton wasn't going to make some of the more miraculous plays I don't think, but I do think that the early struggles were more about the team gelling than just one player, and that the team would have improved even without the QB switch.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Maybe if we look back and see how many passing plays resulted in him running. I know there were more passing plays called in that game besides 10. See this is what gets lost. Dropping back for a pass yet looking to run instead of actually passing or looking to pass.

That might matter some. Then again, it's not like everything that happened when Tebow scrambled was universally bad.

It's easy to overlook in Tebow's impact that he became the 2nd leading rusher, and took a bottom-10 rushing game and made it #1.

There's no stretch of the imagination that allows anyone to think this was a wash when it came to winning games (when compared to Kyle)

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by 2KBack

The biggest Catalyst last season was going ultra conservative and an improved defense.

What was the reason for the switch in offense. What was the catalyst for the suddenly improved defense?

[Tombstone RJ]

TT was such a breath of fresh air compared to the stank of KO. Gotta love the teebs for that!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by 2KBack

I've maintained that the first 5 games last season are not quite what they seem. It east to say, you are what your record is, but that isn't always the case (see our 2-3 record this year after 5 games). The biggest Catalyst last season was going ultra conservative and an improved defense.

The offense was actually better in the first 5 games of 2011 than in the final 11. 21 points per game v. 18.5 points per game. The defense on the other hand allowed 28 points per game v. 22.7 for the rest of the season. 2 of those games were lost by field goals.

Orton wasn't going to make some of the more miraculous plays I don't think, but I do think that the early struggles were more about the team gelling than just one player, and that the team would have improved even without the QB switch.

Turnovers were key. Kyle had 9 in 4.5 games. Tim had 12 in 11.5 games. And 6 of those came during the last two fugly regular season games. The defense would've look a lot better those first 5 games without our QB leading the league in turnovers.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Only in a brain like yours does Peyton's rust strengthen your case for not giving Tebow Credit.

It's not a case about "not giving Tebow credit"... I've said numerous times he was part of our making the playoffs....meaning he was a reason, not the only reason like you and your cronies think. I never said he wasn't a part of the reason.

It's a case for the 2011 defense stepping up and playing well for the better part of the season (Doom and DJ finally getting healthy, timely turnovers, etc) that was the catalyst for our season turnaround.....Tebow and the offense put them in many a bad situation not being able to convert nary a 3rd down...turning the ball over 3-4 times vs. Patriots and Bills, and twice vs. Chiefs when the D held them to 7 measly points......

you for some reason think the defense keeping the game close while Tebow fumbled, bumbled and stumbled about for 55 minutes of it had nothing to do with it.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

What was the reason for the switch in offense. What was the catalyst for the suddenly improved defense?

[] The switch in the offense was a necessity as the new starting QB wasn't as good a passer as the former.


[] Dumerville and DJ Williams were injured most of the first 5 games...they came back healthier and stronger, and the defense during that 7-1 run was allowing almost 11 points per game less than they were prior as they doubled the sacks per game total from 1.7 to 3.4....

[] they also generated more timely turnovers during it, like goodman's INT that set up Prater's game winner to beat Minnesota...coupled with the offense not turning it over (which I gave Tebow props for BTW) we were winning the turnover battle. they also were making big plays and stops when we needed them to...look at the Jet's game, between our d and ST's, Tebow and the O was spending alot of time at or near midfield.

[] Colquitt was punting at a pro bowl level as well during the 7-1 run....he constantly was pinning opposing offenses deep inside their territory.

[] Prater was clutch as well, making several big time kicks that tied or won 4 of them.

[] Decker helped us out by catching 4 TD's during the streak, and when he tailed off towards the end, Thomas started stepping up his game.

[] the coaching staff saw their young raw QB struggling with the passing game, and changed the O to protect him by running the ball more than normal, and while they weren't without fault, they also called enough good plays to help us win 7 of Tebow's 11 starts in regular season.

so again, while Tebow was A REASON...he was not THE REASON the Broncos went 7-1 in his first 8 starts this season

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Turnovers were key. Kyle had 9 in 4.5 games. Tim had 12 in 11.5 games. And 6 of those came during the last two fugly regular season games. The defense would've look a lot better those first 5 games without our QB leading the league in turnovers.

Turnovers were certainly a factor, but reduction is partially attributed to the change on the offense though. As the team got on the same page int's likely would have gone down....and had Tebow passed more than 10 times a game his int's probably would have increased.

I'm not sure what they were thinking at the switch, but it seemed like they pushed the panic button. The offense wasn't coming along fast enough for them to feel they would be competitive, so it was time to see what Tim could offer. Neither fit what they wanted, and both were let go.

I honestly don't think they expected to be as competitive as it turned out. They weren't trying to lose by playing Tebow, but I don't think it was as much seeing him as the best chance to win, but seeing if he should stick around.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Turnovers were key. Kyle had 9 in 4.5 games. Tim had 12 in 11.5 games. And 6 of those came during the last two fugly regular season games. The defense would've look a lot better those first 5 games without our QB leading the league in turnovers.

Ya but how many of his fumbles were recovered by the broncos? The guy had 13 fumbles in 11 games for Christ sake

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Ya but how many of his fumbles were recovered by the broncos? The guy had 13 fumbles in 11 games for Christ sake

That'd be like arguing that Kyle should've had more picks because more than a couple were dropped.

If's and but's.

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

That'd be like arguing that Kyle should've had more picks because more than a couple were dropped.

If's and but's.

Not really...if a player puts the ball on the ground 10+ times a year, it's called having a fumbling problem, no matter who recovers them. Different animals.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

That'd be like arguing that Kyle should've had more picks because more than a couple were dropped.

If's and but's.

Are you really comparing a dropped int with a fumble? There's NO excuse for 13 fumbles