There's No "Jay" in T.E.A.M: Denver's New-Look Offense will Flourish

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

our offense is better than last season. Our young line has a full year of experience under their belts and are better because of that, we have depth along the line as well. we drafted a good backup to Graham (and in goal line or short yardage situations another big body to move the pile with Quinn) we brought in depth at the receiver position, and because of that will not be doomed if Marshall or Royal suffer injury. we addressed the running game big time, and because of that Orton will not be called on to carry the team, but to lead it and make smart decisions, which he does a lot better than Jay does.

the defense upgraded the secondary in a big way. we brought in strong vocal veteran leaders as well as drafted young guys to learn from those veteran leaders in the secondary. Smith was the best corner in this draft and if he were 3 inches taller would have been a top 15 pick. Ayers is going to be good for us in the SOLB position and as an end in the 4-3 allignments we will also use. Peterson, THomas, Powell, and others will be better used and play better under coaches who will give them good teaching and put them in the best position to succeed.

we are better than last season in every aspect. and yes that includes coaching and QB play, because outside of Mike, Turner and Dennison, our coaches weren't that good last season and have been upgraded this offseason. and although Orton isn't as athletically gifted as Jay was, he is a better cerebral QB that Jay, and has proven he is capable of winning on a team with no offensive line and no receiving weapons.

One of the biggest homer posts I've seen yet, and utterly devoid of real factual analysis.

[BroncoMan4ever]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Nonsense.

Check Orton's stats and here's what you find:

The 2005 season when he was a rookie and went 11-5 he played with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL. Three years later, after watching Griese and Grossman start ahead of him because Bears coaches didn't see him as the answer, he played with a defense ranked 16th instead. In virtually every categoy he improved from his rookie season, which one would expect, but the Bears finished with a 9-7 record. His completion percentage jumped by 7%, yardage increased by over 1100 yards, TD passes doubled, he threw the ball over 100 times more but had 1 fewer INT and 3 fewer sacks, yards per attempt jumped from 5.1 to 6.4 and he threw for more than 70 yards per game more...and his QB rating went from 59.7 to 79.6...a whopping 20 point gain. And in all this improvement, the Bears offense even improving from 26th in scoring to 14th...as a starter Orton won 2 fewer games. As for him having to run for his life...last year he was sacked 29 times, 20th overall...and the Steelers and Patriots gave up 49 and 48 respectively...this while playing in a short yardage passing game designed to let him dump the ball off and avoid taking sacks.

The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him.

so your worried about a QB who was capable of making that kind of leap in production as a player even though he was overlooked by a team for basically 3 seasons, and played with almost no offensive weapons or line to protect him. i have to ask what the hell is wrong with you. he went from average to really good with almost no offensive help.

and with your argument about the Steelers and Pats allowing 49 and 48 sacks respectively. you are forgetting that Big Ben holds onto the ball for far to long, and that has always been a knock against him. and with the Pats, it was the same thing. Cassel was a 1st time starter and the team rathered him take a sack as opposed to force a pass, or make ill-advised throws. it had nothing to do with the teams around them sucking like it did for Orton in Chicago

[BroncoMan4ever]

Originally Posted by Williams

Our D sucked, and you can blame it on them till you're blue in the face , but the truth of the matter is 2 TDs to 4 picks in those 3 games is not gonna help matters. Your boy tanked in the clutch.

Also, some food for thought... Brian Griese managed to lead our beloved Broncos to a 11-5 record and playoff berth in 2000 with the 24th ranked D in football. Just sayin'.

as much as i agree that Cutler choked down the stretch. comparing him to the season Griese had in 2000 is a big difference. Griese missed something like 6 games with injury. Mike Anderson had a rookie of the year campaign and rushed for over 1500 yards. and McCaffrey and Smith were having one of the best ever seasons for a duo of starting receivers and the offense was truly dominant. and not just in yardage but also in scoring.

[Williams]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

as much as i agree that Cutler choked down the stretch. comparing him to the season Griese had in 2000 is a big difference. Griese missed something like 6 games with injury. Mike Anderson had a rookie of the year campaign and rushed for over 1500 yards. and McCaffrey and Smith were having one of the best ever seasons for a duo of starting receivers and the offense was truly dominant. and not just in yardage but also in scoring.

Right, every situation is gonna be different, but Griese played his ass off. 19 TDs to 4 picks when he played.

My point is we'll be fine without emo boy, but I know you agree. Some are not as confident and will have to just wait and see.

[BroncoMan4ever]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

One of the biggest homer posts I've seen yet, and utterly devoid of real factual analysis.

how is that a homer post?

that was truly thought out. players get better with experience, and our young OL and starting receivers have a year of experience to build upon. we brought in a lot of secondary help including one of the best Safeties of the last decade who is also one of the best vocal and emotional leaders in the game. Orton doesn't have Jay's physical talents, but has a better football mind than Jay, so even without the physical tools Jay gave us, we now have a QB capable of being a more intellectual QB. our running game has been addressed a lot with the drafting of Moreno, and signings of Arrington, Jordan and Buckhalter. we brought in depth at the receiver spot with Gaffney and draft picks(UDFA also) we didn't address the DL during the draft, but signed a group of good players to build with after the draft, who were rated as mid round talents. we paid attention to the ST in the draft by drafting the guy commonly referred to as the best ST player in the draft.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

so your worried about a QB who was capable of making that kind of leap in production as a player even though he was overlooked by a team for basically 3 seasons, and played with almost no offensive weapons or line to protect him. i have to ask what the hell is wrong with you. he went from average to really good with almost no offensive help.

First of all, he didn't go from "average to really good". He went from total crap (31st ranked) to mediocre, and almost ANY NFL quarterback is going to improve over 4 training camps even if he doesn't start so why are you so impressed by that? Second...he wasn't "overlooked" as you spun it. He was benched because he sucked and they were so desperate they tried Griese and Grossman in his place, two guys who define the word mediocrity. Third, this idea that he had "no offensive help" is pure fantasy. Forte had over 1700 yards total offense, Hester and Davis combined for 86 catches and over 1100 yards, and the TE duo of Olsen/Clark had 96 catches/941 yards and 6 TD's.

and with your argument about the Steelers and Pats allowing 49 and 48 sacks respectively. you are forgetting that Big Ben holds onto the ball for far to long, and that has always been a knock against him. and with the Pats, it was the same thing. Cassel was a 1st time starter and the team rathered him take a sack as opposed to force a pass, or make ill-advised throws. it had nothing to do with the teams around them sucking like it did for Orton in Chicago

And conversly our O-line's sack numbers were decreased by the fact that Cutler's an excellent scrambler...so what? Only 12 teams gave up fewer sacks than Chicago in 2008. Do your homework.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

how is that a homer post?

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

fficeffice" />
that was truly thought out. players get better with experience, and our young OL and starting receivers have a year of experience to build upon. we brought in a lot of secondary help including one of the best Safeties of the last decade who is also one of the best vocal and emotional leaders in the game. Orton doesn't have Jay's physical talents, but has a better football mind than Jay, so even without the physical tools Jay gave us, we now have a QB capable of being a more intellectual QB.

There is zero evidence that Orton is "more intellectual" than Cutler. Dawkins gives us about the same thing Lynch did before he slid off the edge of the table last year. Nobody knows if these rookie DB's are worth anything yet, and stating that Smith was the best CB in the draft is silly since the other NFL teams didn't think so...almost as absurd as, "he'd have been a top 15 pick if he were 3" taller"...so what? He's not. To many other ridiculous comments to list.

our running game has been addressed a lot with the drafting of Moreno, and signings of Arrington, Jordan and Buckhalter.

Moreno will probably be very good...he better be, because these other guys are nothing to write home about. Jordan and Buckhalter are 30 and haven't done anything in several years...Jordan's had 1 good season out of 8 and Buckhalter and JJ Arington are career scrubs. Arrington's started 8 games in 4 years...I'm hoping the Arizona kid beats him out.

we brought in depth at the receiver spot with Gaffney and draft picks(UDFA also) we didn't address the DL during the draft, but signed a group of good players to build with after the draft, who were rated as mid round talents. we paid attention to the ST in the draft by drafting the guy commonly referred to as the best ST player in the draft.

"Mid round talents" are usually cut from the D-line in the NFL. This of course was in a weak draft...hardly the stuff to base a prediction of us being improved upon.

The facts are much different than you present them, so yes...that was definitely a huge homer take based on no real evidence, just hopeful propaganda.

[Hulamau]

Originally Posted by watermock

Any one else notice there was not ONE WORD about the defense, but alot of talk of "inheriting' players.

Take my name. 6-10 and we give Seattle the 9th pick.

Be careful of looking too far in the rear view mirror on the D Mock.

Though we didn't land any big marquee names for the first three spots on the line, we got rid of a lot of dead wood that, in combination with the ****** up schizoid scheme(s) last year, was at the root of most all of our problems. Being decimated at LB and losing Champ for much of the year didn't help either.

We've got solid D coaches from top to bottom now with a consistent message and an attacking style transition to a 3/4.

Vince Wilfork would have looked lost much of the time in that miss-mash of a D scheme last year, much less BJ Raji and Tyson Jackson!

Between a beefed up Thomas (who played last year between 315 and 320 and is going to be much improved in this scheme, and in his third year and first with some decent consistent coaching), Ron Fields who though not a Wilfork, is no slouch either and has experience at NT in Nolan's 3/4, and promising Chris Baker, we will have a serviceable anchor at the NT.

Kenny Peterson and Thomas were two of the steadier more productive guys on an otherwise porous line, and yet no one could look good in that farce of a scheme. And they are both back.

Carlton Powell we haven't had a chance to see in action yet, but he has all the cred and tools to be a successful DE in this system and was a high motor highly productive run stuffer in college.

Competing with these three most likely to start at DE, we have Darrell Reid who can definitely play, Ryan McBean who should be ready to contribute and UDFAs Rulon Davis and Everett P. plus Nic Clemons and Mathias Askew. I particularly like Davis and Everett P ( not even trying his last name) to push McBean and Reid as rotation for the two DE spots.

From this group, at least two to three guys will emerge as viable decent rotation guys at least.

Oh and don't forget Robert Ayers when lining up in the three point stance, as well!

This isn't nearly so hopeless as a few of you guys seem to assume. Granted we're not going to have the top D-line in the league and maybe just average, but with the rest of the changes on D, that might be more than good enough to make us competitive again on D and get the ball back to our offense a few more times and win more games.

The back 4 of the front seven is definitely ahead of last years group ,even just having Woodyard and Larsen as second year guys. Sure Woodyard is undersized, but he plays like he's 245. ( Yanking Larsen and Woodyard last year in those last three games and putting back in a still injured DJ and Webster probably cost us at least one win of the last three games ... and the playoffs)

Plus with Andra Davis joining DJ, plus Ayers, Doom and Reid at OLB we'll be decent there.

The secondary I'm not even going talk about , its a done deal.

Below is a little excerpt from a talk by Pete Carroll from USC on the value of having and sticking to a philosophy on D. The lack of THIS was easily as much the reason we stunk the past two years on D, as it was on lack of talent on the field, and we got rid of the worst of that talent already.

"I was asked to speak about defense today. I’ll try to give you some general thoughts that might help you on this topic. I’m not trying to get you to change your defense, but I’ll show you what we are doing.

In order to be successful on defense you need to develop a philosophy. You have to know what you want to do, how you want it to look, and how you want it to feel. A philosophy is like a railroad track. You have a clear cut direction in which you are going. If you start to get off track it becomes real obvious to you. If you don’t know what you want and what you are about you won’t know when you are off course. If you do realize you are off course you won’t know how to fix the problems you are having without a philosophy.

If you can’t write down your philosophy then you still have some work to do. If you don’t have a clear view of your philosophy you will be floundering all over the place. It you win, it will be pure luck. One year you will win, it will be pure luck. One year you will run a 3-4 defense and the next year you will run a 4-3 based defense. You will never get zeroed in on what is important. "

Pete Carroll

[footstepsfrom#27]

Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.

Guess which will be true more often this year?

Are we done here?

Anybody who thinks we can make any kind of case for our team being improved despite the loss of a stud QB better because we 1) had a draft, 2) signed a bunch of UDFA guys, 3) added two over 30 guys to the defense, and 4) have a better scheme...is looking at this through orange colored glasses. In the NFL you win with defense, and you almost never do so with rookies, certainly not by depending on a lot of them. We have the same problems we had last year with the lone exception that we appear to have a solid starting RB now. Other than that, whlie we might be better here and there, expecting that to over come the large gaping hole left by Cutler is wishful thinking. I wish it were true...but wishing is all it is at this point.

[summerdenver]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

btw, the one loss is the MNF OT game against GB where we did not get the ball in over time.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by TDmvp

You're already here Popps ...

Haha, rep.

Actually that was a damn good article. The only whiff was saying Quinn is "no slouch as a reciever." I wonder which of the 12 balls he caught in his college career the writer in to that?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.

Powerful indicators ... although it's definitely true the "other 10" on offense here are vastly superior to the "other 10" for the Bears.

My only question is, why are you so concerned with our backup quarterback?

[Hogan11]

The difference between Cutler and Orton? Orton won't fall completely apart if he turns the ball over. That's good enough in these parts...bring on the neck beard!

[RubberDuckie24]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Here are the only two really relative stats that mean much in this discussion:

1) In 37 starts made by Cutler, the defense surrendered FEWER than 21 points only 13 times. In those games Cutler was 12-1...a .923 winning percentage

2) In 34 starts made by Orton, the Bears defense surrendered MORE than 21 points only 14 times. In those games Orton was 4-10...a .285 winning percentage.

Guess which will be true more often this year?

Are we done here?

Anybody who thinks we can make any kind of case for our team being improved despite the loss of a stud QB better because we 1) had a draft, 2) signed a bunch of UDFA guys, 3) added two over 30 guys to the defense, and 4) have a better scheme...is looking at this through orange colored glasses. In the NFL you win with defense, and you almost never do so with rookies, certainly not by depending on a lot of them. We have the same problems we had last year with the lone exception that we appear to have a solid starting RB now. Other than that, whlie we might be better here and there, expecting that to over come the large gaping hole left by Cutler is wishful thinking. I wish it were true...but wishing is all it is at this point.

What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well.

[GreatBronco16]

Originally Posted by RubberDuckie24

What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well.

We have already been through this. The W/L on the majority of the QBs in the NFL when their defense gives up over 21 points a game is pretty crappy. Just the same as it is when their defense gives up less than 21 points a game, the W/L record looks a lot better.

Anyone can makes stats go in their favor for anything.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by RubberDuckie24

What are you talking about? You're comparing apples to oranges with those statistics. How about you compare the statistics of the quarterbacks when their defenses both allow for over 22 points, or both allow under 22 points. Then you'll get a better understanding of who's better when their defense does and doesn't do well.

You entirely missed the point, that being that defense is critical to winning for any quarterback, something repeatedly ignored on this board in a constant attempt to blame Cutler for us not getting into the playoffs. I've countered this foolishness with two arguments, first by demonstrating that even Peyton Manning couldn't win with a defense like the one Jay had, and second, taking it closer to home, I just showed you that 1) Cutler came through when the defense did, and 2) that Orton had to have his defense perform well in order for the Bears to win while he was behind center.

Game over.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

The difference between Cutler and Orton? Orton won't fall completely apart if he turns the ball over. That's good enough in these parts...bring on the neck beard!

Watch the highlights of CHI/TB game last season, Orton fell apart completely under pressure.

[RubberDuckie24]

Originally Posted by GreatBronco16

We have already been through this. The W/L on the majority of the QBs in the NFL when their defense gives up over 21 points a game is pretty crappy. Just the same as it is when their defense gives up less than 21 points a game, the W/L record looks a lot better.

Anyone can makes stats go in their favor for anything.

Ya, I already knew that, but what he's saying is that based off those stats, for some reason Orton is going to be posting a rather crappy W/L season. It doesn't take into consideration that Chicago's defense wasn't all too great last year at 16th in the league - which is considerably better than Denver's, but that also brings up the point... how are the defenses going to perform THIS year? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Denver's defense is only going to get better while Chicago's defense has only gotten older (that is to say, I can't see any significant changes in the defense to show evidence that positive change will take place). Also that doesn't include the "weaponry" so to speak that each quarterback had to play with in his offense. Orton is picking up Jay's upgraded O-line, wide receivers, and very possibly a better running game - something that will obviously affect how effective a quarterback performs.

All I'm saying is that those stats and the conclusion implied from comparing them only take in a very narrow part of the complete scheme of things taking place in the Orton-Cutler flip-flop.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

Jay is more athletically gifted, Orton is better at the mental aspects of the game, and even though he doesn't have the howitzer for an arm that Jay did, he has a good arm, throws a catchable ball, and wins. he has won for teams with no offensive line to protect him and no receivers to catch for him. now he has a line that will keep him upright, and he has the receiving talent to take his game to a new level, as well as legit rushing threats to take pressure off him. i don't forsee any real dropoff that will occur from what Jay did for us, to what Orton will do for us.

In fact with Orton not having the ego of having the supposed best arm on the planet that Jay thought he did, we can kiss goodbye those few passes a game Jay used to throw that either did or nearly did end up in INTs that hurt the team, and because of that the QB play will be better. Less flashy but solid.

and with McDaniels, he has taken firm control of this team. he brought in a lot of good guys to lead on the field and from the sidelines, and showed with the Ayers pick that he will listen to and take advice from his coaching staff, which shows he knows he is in charge but doesn't know everything, which means he has a good grasp on what it is going to take to be a good coach for us.

OK there is no proof for that statement at all. In fact the media reported multiply times that reason that Cutler was good fit for Shanahan was that had the football intelligence to understand very complex playbook and was able to master offense game plan that was the hardest in the NFL,week in and week in the NFL.

And your Ayers statement is BS. Ever Coach/GM listen to his staff when comes to draft choices, even Mike Brown doesn't do it alone.

[RubberDuckie24]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

I just showed you that 1) Cutler came through when the defense did, and 2) that Orton had to have his defense perform well in order for the Bears to win while he was behind center.

Game over.

Wow, you really think you just proved a point? Sorry bud, you basically just told me that Cutler won when his defense did well (So did Orton) and that Orton did poorly when his defense did poorly (So did Cutler).

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by RubberDuckie24

I'm pretty sure I didn't leave out anything in that quote.

Then you need to read post #46.

[RubberDuckie24]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Then you need to read post #46.

Lol, here we go:

Post #46 - "The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him."

Last time I checked, most poeople don't refer to defenses ranked 16th in the league as a "great defense."

Maybe i'm just twisted, but I'd consider that defense perfectly... mediocre.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by RubberDuckie24

Wow, you really think you just proved a point? Sorry bud, you basically just told me that Cutler won when his defense did well (So did Orton) and that Orton did poorly when his defense did poorly (So did Cutler).

I was countering the ridiculous argument that began a few posts ago that suggested that Cutler was at fault for us missing the playoffs even though his defense stunk. Manning was used as an example of a QB who took a team to the playoffs with a defense as bad as our...which I showed to be untrue. Second...the continuous reference to Orton being a winner ignores than he DIDN'T WIN whenever he was asked to generate more than 21 points.

The point is this...the team didn't make the playoffs, not Cutler. The team was primarily failing due to the defense, despite what the spin doctors want us to believe about this offense being a red zone failure...a fact anyone who watche the games knows had to do mostly with our inconsistent running game and 7 backs starting last year.

I'm merely pointing out that the obvious is being ignored in an attempt to support the ridiculous.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by RubberDuckie24

Lol, here we go:

Post #46 - "The record is clear...Orton's success in Chicago was primarily the result of a great defense and an offense designed to minimize his participation as much as possible, which is why the Bears traded him."

Last time I checked, most poeople don't refer to defenses ranked 16th in the league as a "great defense."

Maybe i'm just twisted, but I'd consider that defense perfectly... mediocre.

Do I really have to spell this out for you? You suggested I referenced the Bears #1 ranked defense with the 2008 version...I clearly indicated it was Orton's 2005 season when they ranked #1 in scoring...and 2nd in yards BTW...when he went 10-5 as a starter. Translation...Orton's won/lost record with Chicago was built on the back of a superior defense, one vastly superior to the one Cutler worked with. Even the 16th ranked version was so far ahead of us it's absurd not to factor this in as the overwhelming variable in support of Orton winning games.

[RubberDuckie24]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

I was countering the ridiculous argument that began a few posts ago that suggested that Cutler was at fault for us missing the playoffs even though his defense stunk. Manning was used as an example of a QB who took a team to the playoffs with a defense as bad as our...which I showed to be untrue. Second...the continuous reference to Orton being a winner ignores than he DIDN'T WIN whenever he was asked to generate more than 21 points.

The point is this...the team didn't make the playoffs, not Cutler. The team was primarily failing due to the defense, despite what the spin doctors want us to believe about this offense being a red zone failure...a fact anyone who watche the games knows had to do mostly with our inconsistent running game and 7 backs starting last year.

I'm merely pointing out that the obvious is being ignored in an attempt to support the ridiculous.

I agree 100%, but you're also arguing that Orton simply isn't going to do well in Denver because he had "a great D and was never more than a game manager." And what I'm basically saying is that your wrong to discredit him based only on how well the defense has done and how Cutler and Orton will fare with those defenses.They arn't going to be the same defenses as last year, and the quarterbacks are going to be switching the talent on their offensive team.