What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Coach Skeletor's hilarious reaction to if Cutler gets the start (1 Viewer)

Don't forget we have a lurker named Schefter......He is pretty good too.
Really? Is this confirmed?
! confirmed he has a board membership a long time ago.How much time he spends here is unknown.
I would bet a pretty good amount. I can't think of a major story that has not hit this board within 15-20 minutes (sometimes quicker) of it happening. Also, there is plenty of gossip and rumors for him to verify or not.
Not sure I get your reasoning. He has league sources and actual NFL players to track down to confirm rumors. Plus he is kept plenty busy during the season by thye NFL-N. Unless you are being sarcastic.I'd think he's way too busy to spend more than a few minutes a few times a week here. That said, I'd be surprised if he spent NO time here - he and Cecil have a good relationship and they support each other.Regardless, I doubt he'd do more than lurk - if his board name got out, it'd be bad joo-joo for him - folks would be calling him out for Bronco inside info all the time. And we can't be havin' that.
 
I said the same thing back in August that SSOG said...feel free to do a search with my user name and Cutler as a key word. Bump up one of my posts and call me out directly, if you like. But, in doing so, you will only demonstrate yourself to be a vindictive tool. If you didn't have anything to say on the topic back then, then you are a tool of the highest order.

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

One other thing to bring up: a search of key word = "cutler", user = "Moleculo", searching posts 60 days and older yields 10 threads. user = "SSOG" yields 34 threads. user = "Big Score" yields on thread, and in that one thread Big Score was talking about Aaron Rogers.
They drafted a highly sought after QB. Their current QB was surprised by the move. That is a pretty big indicator of what they thought of Jake Plummer.
 
I said the same thing back in August that SSOG said...feel free to do a search with my user name and Cutler as a key word. Bump up one of my posts and call me out directly, if you like. But, in doing so, you will only demonstrate yourself to be a vindictive tool. If you didn't have anything to say on the topic back then, then you are a tool of the highest order.

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

One other thing to bring up: a search of key word = "cutler", user = "Moleculo", searching posts 60 days and older yields 10 threads. user = "SSOG" yields 34 threads. user = "Big Score" yields on thread, and in that one thread Big Score was talking about Aaron Rogers.
I like the "100% correct opinion" part best. Last I checked, your "evidence" might not have accounted for all relevant factors (e.g., Jake Plummer sucks), whereas those of us who thought Cutler would get some PT this year were clearly looking at a different set of evidence. And, now it appears that your opinion was 0% correct, and ours was 100% correct.This is getting funny now.
evidence <> opinion. I'm looking for direct quotes from people on staff at Denver. "Plummer sucks" is an opinion. Tell me what this opinion is based on, and restrict your arguement to Jakes stats with the Broncos, pre-season performance, direct quotes from Broncos and/or coaching staff, and first hand reports from writers at training camp.Maybe you are ok with pure guessing for your pre-season predicitons and holding onto your pre-concieved biases, I'm not.
Wrong. Jake Plummer sucks is a well established fact that corroborated by volumes of statistics that you apparently ignore because nobody in the Bronco's camp (or SSOG, for that matter) told you to think this way. No way anybody could have predicted this? You're not paying attention if you really think this.
I'm clearly arguing a losing point here becasue in 2006, Plummer has sucked. I will not dispute that one bit. I will argue that this season has been out of character from what we have seen of Plummer as a Bronco, and his fall could not have been predicted by looking at the evidence.For the record, here's volumes of statistics of Jakes play with the Broncos up to this year - show me the part that sucks.

Code:
| 2003 den |  11 |   189   302  62.6  2182   7.2  15   7 |	37   205   3 || 2004 den |  16 |   303   521  58.2  4089   7.8  27  20 |	62   202   1 || 2005 den |  16 |   277   456  60.7  3366   7.4  18   7 |	46   151   2 |
 
Wrong. Jake Plummer sucks is a well established fact that corroborated by volumes of statistics that you apparently ignore because nobody in the Bronco's camp (or SSOG, for that matter) told you to think this way. No way anybody could have predicted this? You're not paying attention if you really think this.
I'm clearly arguing a losing point here becasue in 2006, Plummer has sucked. I will not dispute that one bit. I will argue that this season has been out of character from what we have seen of Plummer as a Bronco, and his fall could not have been predicted by looking at the evidence.For the record, here's volumes of statistics of Jakes play with the Broncos up to this year - show me the part that sucks.

| 2003 den | 11 | 189 302 62.6 2182 7.2 15 7 | 37 205 3 || 2004 den | 16 | 303 521 58.2 4089 7.8 27 20 | 62 202 1 || 2005 den | 16 | 277 456 60.7 3366 7.4 18 7 | 46 151 2 |
Exactly - anyone who said Plummer sucked had NO stats from the last three years to back up that assertion. As Collinsworth said multiple times Thursday, he has the Broncos' highest career passer rating, and he won 74% of his starts.Whether he should be replaced now is not the issue - before the season started, there was every reason to heap praise on Plummer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget we have a lurker named Schefter......He is pretty good too.
Really? Is this confirmed?
! confirmed he has a board membership a long time ago.How much time he spends here is unknown.
I would bet a pretty good amount. I can't think of a major story that has not hit this board within 15-20 minutes (sometimes quicker) of it happening. Also, there is plenty of gossip and rumors for him to verify or not.
Not sure I get your reasoning. He has league sources and actual NFL players to track down to confirm rumors. Plus he is kept plenty busy during the season by thye NFL-N. Unless you are being sarcastic.I'd think he's way too busy to spend more than a few minutes a few times a week here. That said, I'd be surprised if he spent NO time here - he and Cecil have a good relationship and they support each other.Regardless, I doubt he'd do more than lurk - if his board name got out, it'd be bad joo-joo for him - folks would be calling him out for Bronco inside info all the time. And we can't be havin' that.
Sure, but he like any of the other guys in the rumor business, can't get to everything and especially everything FIRST. Why wouldn't he or somebody he pays monitor various message boards for something he has not gotten a hold through another source. My thought is that lurking on message boards is a part of doing his bit. A major part, probably not, but a stone to overturn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget we have a lurker named Schefter......He is pretty good too.
Really? Is this confirmed?
! confirmed he has a board membership a long time ago.How much time he spends here is unknown.
I would bet a pretty good amount. I can't think of a major story that has not hit this board within 15-20 minutes (sometimes quicker) of it happening. Also, there is plenty of gossip and rumors for him to verify or not.
I'd think he's way too busy to spend more than a few minutes a few times a week here. That said, I'd be surprised if he spent NO time here - he and Cecil have a good relationship and they support each other.
I know from talking to him that he checks FBG's daily. He loves the News Blogger, the SP - and the offseason daily emails. The reasoning? He can see EVERYTHING in one spot. I know he has taken stories that he heard about here and put them in his "Around the League" segment. (Noel Devine story from Fathers Day was one of them) :thumbup: to Adam
 
The only way Cutler even gets a SNIFF of the starting lineup this year is if Plummer is injured. Take it to the bank.
:popcorn:
SSOG also thought Ron Dayne was good and ignored the fact that you have to be able to play at at least a mediocre level to hold down the starting job anywhere. No matter what we Giant fans told him he knew better :o At least he is making predictions BEFORE outcomes. That I have respect for, even if his predictions are not good.
 
I know from talking to him that he checks FBG's daily. He loves the News Blogger, the SP - and the offseason daily emails. The reasoning? He can see EVERYTHING in one spot. I know he has taken stories that he heard about here and put them in his "Around the League" segment. (Noel Devine story from Fathers Day was one of them) :thumbup: to Adam
There ya go coolnerd - you were correct.
 
Don't forget we have a lurker named Schefter......He is pretty good too.
Really? Is this confirmed?
! confirmed he has a board membership a long time ago.How much time he spends here is unknown.
I would bet a pretty good amount. I can't think of a major story that has not hit this board within 15-20 minutes (sometimes quicker) of it happening. Also, there is plenty of gossip and rumors for him to verify or not.
I'd think he's way too busy to spend more than a few minutes a few times a week here. That said, I'd be surprised if he spent NO time here - he and Cecil have a good relationship and they support each other.
I know from talking to him that he checks FBG's daily. He loves the News Blogger, the SP - and the offseason daily emails. The reasoning? He can see EVERYTHING in one spot. I know he has taken stories that he heard about here and put them in his "Around the League" segment. (Noel Devine story from Fathers Day was one of them) :thumbup: to Adam
So does he have a username in here or does he just prefer to be a lurker?
 
The only way Cutler even gets a SNIFF of the starting lineup this year is if Plummer is injured. Take it to the bank.
:popcorn:
SSOG also thought Ron Dayne was good and ignored the fact that you have to be able to play at at least a mediocre level to hold down the starting job anywhere. No matter what we Giant fans told him he knew better :o At least he is making predictions BEFORE outcomes. That I have respect for, even if his predictions are not good.
Since the consensus is that bashing SSOG's statement about Cutler (which was made in a thread unrelated to this one) is OK, I have to agree with someone else's statement about SSOG's predictive talents. He has a storehouse of Broncos knowledge, his analytical ability on the Broncos is spot-on, he tends to know who is playing well and who is not playing well, and he generally knows how the team will play in upcoming games, but his ability to predict who will be starting for the team is extremely suspect.Take any of SSOG's predictions about starters at open positions with a huge grain of salt.Take his historical knowledge and statistical analaysis at face value - he's generally very very good at those two things.In short, as much as I hate that his statement regarding Cultler was broght into this thread, I completely disagree with his no wiggle room prediciton. I'm not willing to bank an SSOG check on who will be starting for the Broncos, and I think he's about to become bankrupt on yet another prediction - IMO, based on everything the fans and local sports personalities are whoofing, and based on Schefter's report, Cutler will be the Broncos' starter against Seattle.
 
I said the same thing back in August that SSOG said...feel free to do a search with my user name and Cutler as a key word. Bump up one of my posts and call me out directly, if you like. But, in doing so, you will only demonstrate yourself to be a vindictive tool. If you didn't have anything to say on the topic back then, then you are a tool of the highest order.SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.One other thing to bring up: a search of key word = "cutler", user = "Moleculo", searching posts 60 days and older yields 10 threads. user = "SSOG" yields 34 threads. user = "Big Score" yields on thread, and in that one thread Big Score was talking about Aaron Rogers.
Why are folks getting so bent out of shape about this? If you are ####y enough to end an opinion with "Take it to the bank", you should be big enough to take it when someone "calls you out" on it. Not sure why this is even being discussed? Ignore it and let SSOG stand up fo himself IMHO... :shrug:
pet peeve of mine. The only reason I take offense is that SSOG and I were in complete agreement at the time.
Well there were others who agreed with SSOG about Ron Dayne as well and to say that based on the information your opinion was 100% correct is Horse Manure. The entire point of discussing the future is looking for posters who do look into the future and make predictions that aren't the easy ones to see. For example, saying at the start of the year that Larry Johnson would be great doesn't tell us anything, but seeing he would be great before he showed what he could do is useful. Therefore someone "knowing" Cutler and expecting Plummer to drop off from 05 would have been a reasonable prediction. Honestly, predicting Plummer to be better in 06 than 05 was not 100% accurate, it was actually going against the odds. 2005 was one of Plummers best years (fantasy wise). So don't play this "at the time" it made sense nonsense; that doesn't fly with any one of us who have a pulse. If people want to make absolute statements to prove their point than they should get called out. I would expect people to do the same with me. I posted over the last few days that I think Aaron Brooks is the most underrated starter in the league and Dodds shouldn't have placed him at 32 this week. If I am wrong this week, I expect people to call me out and clip my post. The only thing I would always ask is that people look at the intent of the threads and posts. I expect Brooks to be a decent option over many other QB's in leagues that start 2 QB's or you need a backup and possible start for one week.The only thing I don't like is when people call others out when they didn't actually contradict at the time. Conversely, people should not be complimented on throwing out 50 contrary thoughts and hitting only one of them (such as saying that Randy Moss would be useless this year and getting this one right but missing on Larry Johnson, LT2 and Manning would be useless as well).Back to your normally scheduled program
 
So does he have a username in here or does he just prefer to be a lurker?
If we knew we wouldn't tell you. I believe he has the ability to post if he wants to, but like I said:
I doubt he'd do more than lurk - if his board name got out, it'd be bad joo-joo for him - folks would be calling him out for Bronco inside info all the time. And we can't be havin' that.
And Cecil is not likely to reveal the board name since bad things would inevitably result.
 
I know from talking to him that he checks FBG's daily. He loves the News Blogger, the SP - and the offseason daily emails. The reasoning? He can see EVERYTHING in one spot. I know he has taken stories that he heard about here and put them in his "Around the League" segment. (Noel Devine story from Fathers Day was one of them) :thumbup: to Adam
There ya go coolnerd - you were correct.
If I could convince my wife and boss more often life would be grand. I probably need to :pics: for my sake.
 
My 2 cents. (not that anyone cares)

Plummer does not suck. He is having an off year !

Sooner or later Cutler will be the guy in Denver. That's what they drafted him #1 for.

San Diego let Drew Brees go and is playing Phillip Rivers for the same reasons.

However, the timing of all this seems pretty unusual. I am not sure that Dallas's situation can be drawn as a parrallel to what is happening here. Mainly as to where we are in season and the importance of every game at this time.

Also, Shanny appears to be playing psychology games which, I think, he has been known to do.

Now, again all of this is just an opinion

Flame away !

 
The only way Cutler even gets a SNIFF of the starting lineup this year is if Plummer is injured. Take it to the bank.
:popcorn:
PLEASE do not quote posts from other threads this way.If SSOG posts in here, fine. Otherwise, bringing him into this thread like that is, in essence, "calling him out."

BTW, SSOG knows a lot about the Broncos - probably more than anyone else oin the board - but he will be the first to tell you he has no "sources" in the organization.
Sorry Marc, et al.When quoting SSOG, it was not my intention to be "calling him out.", as you put it. I personally don't know a ton about the Broncos, except what I see hyped by ESPN & the NFL network etc. Right now, as far as I can tell, the call for a change from Plummer to Cutler, is being heavily pushed on us by the media.

SSOG, on the other hand, does seem to have a clearer picture of the Broncos. I even said as much several posts back;

Probably because the ONE person on this board who has their finger on the pulse of the Broncos better than anyone else here (except maybe Cecil) is SSOG. :shrug:
The idea behind quoting SSOG, was to show a different opinion from somebody who, to me anyway, is a knowledgeable poster on the Broncos & because I don't feel that I am. If I quote a piece from the Blogger, that has a differing perspective of a situation being discussed here on the board, am I "calling out" that publication & reporter? In fact, if you go back through various threads where others have been taking pot shots at SSOG, you'll see that I have been one of the people defending him. I thought my explanation to moleculo way back at post #5, would clear up any misinterpretation of my quote & it's use, but I guess not. Sorry about that, as this thread has gone way off on a different tangent, because of it.I also see some are bringing up SSOG's Denver RB predictions. I personally can't find fault with SSOG's early take on the Denver RB situation. SSOG told us all, over & over again, that he did not think Tatum Bell would be able to carry a heavy workload and I know he pointed to past injuries as one of the concerns.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but it seems to me that was a pretty darn accurate call by SSOG.

Where he missed was on his Ron Dayne call, but injuries that occurred to Dayne in TC's & then preseason threw that prediction off kilter. Can anybody here safely say, with 100% confidence, that if Dayne had not had the injury & had been able to perform in TC's & preseason, we would not be seeing a Denver backfield rotation similar to what SSOG predicted?

Again, I apologize for this thread being thrown off track by my quote of SSOG & the consequent misinterpretation of it's intent.
Nice of you to back off, but I don't even think SSOG would have an issue with what you say. SSOG is very opinionated, but he is not sensitive to opinion/criticism (don't really know him other than a few debates we have had on the side). I think I am the same way, the only difference is that my predictions are a lot more accurate :D As for Dayne, I was strongly opinionated that he just simply is not talented enough to play in the NFL. 100%, well nothing is 100% as some guys get some new diet or training regiment that works great for them and become a better player. I am a Giant fan and never would have thought Tiki would be able to break as many tackles as he has been able to do and hold onto the football as well as he has over th past 3 years (at his age). But Coughlin taught him how to hold onto the ball and Tiki started a workout program that would rival anyone's. In doing so he took it to the next level. So it is never 100% bet that a guy who was not NFL capable could get to the next level and be NFL mediocre and contribute somewhat.

 
Wrong. Jake Plummer sucks is a well established fact that corroborated by volumes of statistics that you apparently ignore because nobody in the Bronco's camp (or SSOG, for that matter) told you to think this way. No way anybody could have predicted this? You're not paying attention if you really think this.
I'm clearly arguing a losing point here becasue in 2006, Plummer has sucked. I will not dispute that one bit. I will argue that this season has been out of character from what we have seen of Plummer as a Bronco, and his fall could not have been predicted by looking at the evidence.For the record, here's volumes of statistics of Jakes play with the Broncos up to this year - show me the part that sucks.

| 2003 den | 11 | 189 302 62.6 2182 7.2 15 7 | 37 205 3 || 2004 den | 16 | 303 521 58.2 4089 7.8 27 20 | 62 202 1 || 2005 den | 16 | 277 456 60.7 3366 7.4 18 7 | 46 151 2 |
Exactly - anyone who said Plummer sucked had NO stats from the last three years to back up that assertion. As Collinsworth said multiple times Thursday, he has the Broncos' highest career passer rating, and he won 74% of his starts.Whether he should be replaced now is not the issue - before the season started, there was every reason to heap praise on Plummer.
Saying Plummer sucked is stupid. However, saying that another QB blessed with a very good OL and a solid running attack could have done better is not a stretch. Denver traded up to get Cutler because they understand that Plummer is serviceable and you can win with him, but he has limitations. He really struggles when he has to bring you back without the threat of play action.
 
Wrong. Jake Plummer sucks is a well established fact that corroborated by volumes of statistics that you apparently ignore because nobody in the Bronco's camp (or SSOG, for that matter) told you to think this way. No way anybody could have predicted this? You're not paying attention if you really think this.
I'm clearly arguing a losing point here becasue in 2006, Plummer has sucked. I will not dispute that one bit. I will argue that this season has been out of character from what we have seen of Plummer as a Bronco, and his fall could not have been predicted by looking at the evidence.For the record, here's volumes of statistics of Jakes play with the Broncos up to this year - show me the part that sucks.

| 2003 den | 11 | 189 302 62.6 2182 7.2 15 7 | 37 205 3 || 2004 den | 16 | 303 521 58.2 4089 7.8 27 20 | 62 202 1 || 2005 den | 16 | 277 456 60.7 3366 7.4 18 7 | 46 151 2 |
Exactly - anyone who said Plummer sucked had NO stats from the last three years to back up that assertion. As Collinsworth said multiple times Thursday, he has the Broncos' highest career passer rating, and he won 74% of his starts.Whether he should be replaced now is not the issue - before the season started, there was every reason to heap praise on Plummer.
Borrowing a bit from Vin Scully: Stats are to football what a lamppost is to a drunk--it may provide support, but it doesn't illuminate everything.On balance, Aaron Brooks numbers over the last 3 years are better than Plummer's, but I think (I hope) everyone is in agreement that he pretty much sucks as a QB. Must incorporate all forms of data and search around the numbers a bit for a complete evaluation of talent, job security, etc.

Plummer has a track record--throughout his career AND with his short stay with the Broncos--for inconsistent, and often terrible, play at his position. He's ranged from adequate to pathetic in his playoff stints with the Broncs. It's clear that Shanahan has no compunction about benching his "regulars" in favor of infusing a little change in the dynamic should things not be working out on offense. Oh, and they picked a QB in the first round, indicating that they didn't view Plummer as a long-term answer (he's only 31, still young by QB standards).

There's much evidence here to support the position that Plummer's job was not safe for the entire year. You guys grasping at how "there was no possible way to predict this" are seriously married to the wrong data/information in this argument. I applaud that Plummer righted the ship for a bit over the last few years. Indeed, he's been better than what we saw in Arizona. But, in no way did his body of work over the last 3 years in Denver warrant the kind of rock-solid, sure-thing, absolutely-a-starter-no-matter-what status you guys are suggesting was the only option here. Many of us looked into and beyond these last three years when we suggested that Plummer could play his way to the bench this season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My 2 cents. (not that anyone cares)Plummer does not suck. He is having an off year !Sooner or later Cutler will be the guy in Denver. That's what they drafted him #1 for.San Diego let Drew Brees go and is playing Phillip Rivers for the same reasons.However, the timing of all this seems pretty unusual. I am not sure that Dallas's situation can be drawn as a parrallel to what is happening here. Mainly as to where we are in season and the importance of every game at this time. Also, Shanny appears to be playing psychology games which, I think, he has been known to do.Now, again all of this is just an opinionFlame away !
No flaming. I agree Dallas is not paraller, but it is because Romo has been with teh Cowboys for, what, 4 years? Cutler is still a rookie and it is tough on rookies to come in and take a team to teh promised land. It is much easier if you have a very good running game, solid special teams and a great defense; Denver might or might not have that. Shanny see's what Cutler is doing in practice and will make the decision he feels is best for the team.
 
Wrong. Jake Plummer sucks is a well established fact that corroborated by volumes of statistics that you apparently ignore because nobody in the Bronco's camp (or SSOG, for that matter) told you to think this way. No way anybody could have predicted this? You're not paying attention if you really think this.
I'm clearly arguing a losing point here becasue in 2006, Plummer has sucked. I will not dispute that one bit. I will argue that this season has been out of character from what we have seen of Plummer as a Bronco, and his fall could not have been predicted by looking at the evidence.For the record, here's volumes of statistics of Jakes play with the Broncos up to this year - show me the part that sucks.

| 2003 den | 11 | 189 302 62.6 2182 7.2 15 7 | 37 205 3 || 2004 den | 16 | 303 521 58.2 4089 7.8 27 20 | 62 202 1 || 2005 den | 16 | 277 456 60.7 3366 7.4 18 7 | 46 151 2 |
Exactly - anyone who said Plummer sucked had NO stats from the last three years to back up that assertion. As Collinsworth said multiple times Thursday, he has the Broncos' highest career passer rating, and he won 74% of his starts.Whether he should be replaced now is not the issue - before the season started, there was every reason to heap praise on Plummer.
Borrowing a bit from Vin Scully: Stats are to football what a lamppost is to a drunk--it may provide support, but it doesn't illuminate everything.
:unsure:
I applaud that Plummer righted the ship for a bit over the last few years. Indeed, he's been better than what we saw in Arizona. But, in no way did his body of work over the last 3 years in Denver warrant the kind of rock-solid, sure-thing, absolutely-a-starter-no-matter-what status you guys are suggesting was the only option here.
Well, that was not my contention, but (at least back in August) I believed that the only way the Broncos would be able to compete for the Super Bowl was with Plummer and not with a talented, but clearly in need of experience, rookie QB.I think the Broncos make the move next week - I think it also means they are no longer in contention to return to the AFC Champ game. Not that having Plummer would mean they were in contention to reach the Bowl (his playoff Hindendburgs are well documentd), but a move to Cutler, IMO seals the deal that they will not contend for a title until next year.

 
One thing I thought was interesting that was mentioned during the game on Thursday was that it sounds like Cutler is playing better than Jake in practice and players are talking about it.

In addition, I find it interesting that with all the rumors and questions we haven't heard more (any?) Denver players defending Plummer.

Also noted on Thursday (although it may just have been because NFL network was heavily focused on the situation) were the obvious disagreements/tension between Plummer and Shanahan on the sidelines.

Someone earlier in the thread suggested Plumer is playing as poorly as he did in Arizona. I disagree. For one he was average/better than average in Arizona, not poor. But right now he's playing worse than he did in Arizona. While he's always had questionable decision making skills, at least there he was confident, free wheeling and tried to make some things happen, he had an energy to him that paid off just about as much as it didn't. I don't see any of that this season. Whether it's him or the coaches he's become a no-dimensional pocket passer who can't make decisions and doesn't seem to be able to make the plays anymore. His confidence is gone and he may have lost the team into the bargain.

Maybe Shanahan, more than even the realization that Plummer isn't at his best this year, has come to believe that Cutler is just better right now period and he's ready to go with the best player?

The thing is, in my opinion, if you make this switch now it's a permanent thing until Cutler's had enough time to prove/disprove himself. If you flip flop from the point you make this change you're a bad coach - those kinds of situations never work out and usually end up damaging both players and poisoning the environment to an extent that it takes some major time/effort to rectify.

Just some thoughts I had on this one. Jake's meltdown this season has been very surprising to me, I wonder if there isn't more to it than what we know.

 
I said the same thing back in August that SSOG said...feel free to do a search with my user name and Cutler as a key word. Bump up one of my posts and call me out directly, if you like. But, in doing so, you will only demonstrate yourself to be a vindictive tool. If you didn't have anything to say on the topic back then, then you are a tool of the highest order.

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

One other thing to bring up: a search of key word = "cutler", user = "Moleculo", searching posts 60 days and older yields 10 threads. user = "SSOG" yields 34 threads. user = "Big Score" yields on thread, and in that one thread Big Score was talking about Aaron Rogers.
I don't need to call anyone out, but it was ridiculous to think that there was no chance for Cutler to take over this year. Plummer has always made too many mistakes and teams don't spend a 1st round pick on QB to let him sit behind a QB who is costing them games,
 
whatever time Mr. Shefter spends here is bound to be reduced if he gets bogged down reading what this thread has become....enough of the destroying SSOG, you two should go home, wash your va-hi-na's, and take your spat elsewhere.

 
Jake's meltdown this season has been very surprising to me, I wonder if there isn't more to it than what we know.
I've been surprised as well but I heard Phil Simms a few weeks ago mention Plummers performance. Basically, he said that they moved up to draft a QB and then seeing this guy play everyday in practice that Plummer realized that this kid was the real deal and lost confidence.
 
I said the same thing back in August that SSOG said...feel free to do a search with my user name and Cutler as a key word. Bump up one of my posts and call me out directly, if you like. But, in doing so, you will only demonstrate yourself to be a vindictive tool. If you didn't have anything to say on the topic back then, then you are a tool of the highest order.

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

One other thing to bring up: a search of key word = "cutler", user = "Moleculo", searching posts 60 days and older yields 10 threads. user = "SSOG" yields 34 threads. user = "Big Score" yields on thread, and in that one thread Big Score was talking about Aaron Rogers.
How can an opinion be 100% correct? Opinions are subjective.
 
To help moleculo out, I think he's saying it was 100% correct to have the opinion, not that the opinion = fact.

Not sure what that means, either, but i think there was little known pre-season (except that Cutler was a 1st round pick) to think plummer would be replaced.

 
Borrowing a bit from Vin Scully: Stats are to football what a lamppost is to a drunk--it may provide support, but it doesn't illuminate everything.

On balance, Aaron Brooks numbers over the last 3 years are better than Plummer's, but I think (I hope) everyone is in agreement that he pretty much sucks as a QB. Must incorporate all forms of data and search around the numbers a bit for a complete evaluation of talent, job security, etc.

Plummer has a track record--throughout his career AND with his short stay with the Broncos--for inconsistent, and often terrible, play at his position. He's ranged from adequate to pathetic in his playoff stints with the Broncs. It's clear that Shanahan has no compunction about benching his "regulars" in favor of infusing a little change in the dynamic should things not be working out on offense. Oh, and they picked a QB in the first round, indicating that they didn't view Plummer as a long-term answer (he's only 31, still young by QB standards).

There's much evidence here to support the position that Plummer's job was not safe for the entire year. You guys grasping at how "there was no possible way to predict this" are seriously married to the wrong data/information in this argument. I applaud that Plummer righted the ship for a bit over the last few years. Indeed, he's been better than what we saw in Arizona. But, in no way did his body of work over the last 3 years in Denver warrant the kind of rock-solid, sure-thing, absolutely-a-starter-no-matter-what status you guys are suggesting was the only option here. Many of us looked into and beyond these last three years when we suggested that Plummer could play his way to the bench this season.
I hear what you are saying, and I agree with it. I based my conclusion that Plummer absolutely would not get benched on the following:1. Jakes performance with the Broncos.

2. Shanahans unwavering support.

3. the players unwavering support.

4. Shanahan not benching QB's for poor play - ever. Not even the great Brian Griese got benched for poor play.

5. Broncos ability to win despite great QB play in the past - banking on Denver being able to win via the running game and defense.

6. method of developing other sucessful high draft pick QB's - specificaly, Carson Palmer and Phillip Rivers.

7. addition of Javon Walker + various draft picks indicated a shift in strategy to emphasize the passing game.

The down-sides to Plummer, which apparently you viewed as significant and I did not are:

1. Jakes performance on poor Arizona teams

2. the random bone-headed plays that Jake continued to make even when he was doing well

3. drafting of Cutler

My conclusion, based strictly at looking at trends, empirical evidence and quotes from those with first hand knowlege, was that there is no way Plummer would perform as poorly as he has. My belief at the time (and still today) is that any conconclusion drawn beyond looking at the stats, performances, and quotes from coaches and players is nothing more than a guess. You may have guessed right, but to me that's along the same lines as guessing that Mike Vick will get hurt at some point this season. Yes, Vick has a history of injuries, but there is no reason to believe that he will get hurt again.

After thinking about things for a bit today, I think that what happened is that Jake NEEDS a consistant running game to be sucessful. This is what he did not have in AZ, what he does not have today in Denver, and what he did have the past 3 seasons in Denver. I believe that if the running game were as sucessful as it had been over the past, say, decade, Jake wouldn't be in trouble. Of course, that gets us into a chicken/egg debate.

How can an opinion be 100% correct? Opinions are subjective.
:goodposting: point taken.
 
To help moleculo out, I think he's saying it was 100% correct to have the opinion, not that the opinion = fact.

Not sure what that means, either, but i think there was little known pre-season (except that Cutler was a 1st round pick) to think plummer would be replaced.
Thanks - that's pretty much what I am trying to say. Sorry for the rant and all; I get grumpy when the Broncos get dismantled the way they did.

edit to add: I do think that there is some value with where this is going - learning from our mistakes and trying to understand where we went wrong is the only way to improve our pre-season rankings year to year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
edit to add: I do think that there is some value with where this is going - learning from our mistakes and trying to understand where we went wrong is the only way to improve our pre-season rankings year to year.
I agree. I for one was someone who thought Jake was underrated going into the season, and given just about everything we knew at the time I don't think there's really any way we could have seen this type of total collapse coming. If in truth the explanation is that Jake has wilted under the competition from Cutler it's something we could not have anticipated since he's never been in that position before. The only thing to question is the hubris involved (and I was guilty of it myself for a bit) in saying there was NO WAY Culter could take Jakes job. In truth the answer was, if Jake plays extremely poorly, Cutler could take is job - the problem being many of us did not give much credence to the idea that Jake would play extremely poorly.That's the lesson I'm taking away from this one anyway (I only released Plummer as my backup QB this Tuesday). :bag:
 
I hear what you are saying, and I agree with it. I based my conclusion that Plummer absolutely would not get benched on the following:1. Jakes performance with the Broncos. 2. Shanahans unwavering support. 3. the players unwavering support. 4. Shanahan not benching QB's for poor play - ever. Not even the great Brian Griese got benched for poor play. 5. Broncos ability to win despite great QB play in the past - banking on Denver being able to win via the running game and defense. 6. method of developing other sucessful high draft pick QB's - specificaly, Carson Palmer and Phillip Rivers.7. addition of Javon Walker + various draft picks indicated a shift in strategy to emphasize the passing game.The down-sides to Plummer, which apparently you viewed as significant and I did not are:1. Jakes performance on poor Arizona teams2. the random bone-headed plays that Jake continued to make even when he was doing well3. drafting of CutlerMy conclusion, based strictly at looking at trends, empirical evidence and quotes from those with first hand knowlege, was that there is no way Plummer would perform as poorly as he has.
:goodposting:Anyone who thinks there was a decent sized chance of Cutler taking over for Plummer this year is utilizing 20-20 hindsight.The bulk (not all, but certainly a very large percentage) of the empirical evidence pointed to Plummer playing out this season and Cutler taking over next year - Shannie said as much all the way through Cutler's phenomenal preseason, attributing his success to vanilla defenses and emphasizing - even though the first horrendous weeks of QB play during the season - that Cutler was not ready to start.
 
Anyone who thinks there was a decent sized chance of Cutler taking over for Plummer this year is utilizing 20-20 hindsight. reasonable foresight based on everything they know about Plummer, Coach Skeletor, and the regard the team had--and the expense they paid--for Jay Cutler.
Fixed.
 
I think Moleculo listed all those points - and they simply did NOT stack up to the other empirical evidence.

Also, if you thought Shanhan would make a switch away from Plummer had Plummer played the way he played the previous three years in Denver, you don't know *anything* about how Shanahan handles QB.

 
[ After thinking about things for a bit today, I think that what happened is that Jake NEEDS a consistant running game to be sucessful. This is what he did not have in AZ, what he does not have today in Denver, and what he did have the past 3 seasons in Denver. I believe that if the running game were as sucessful as it had been over the past, say, decade, Jake wouldn't be in trouble. Of course, that gets us into a chicken/egg debate.

How can an opinion be 100% correct? Opinions are subjective.
:goodposting: point taken.
Most QB's can deliver a ball without pressure to a wide open guy. What separates the QB's is throwing when you have been popped a few times, when you are under pressure and when the receiver has Little separation. Most QB's can be effective if they have a strong running attack to open up the passing game so maybe Jake just isn't very good? Maybe he is average? Maybe above or below average? Point is that saying if he had a good running attack he would be better is true for almost any QB. Give Cutler a good running attack and I bet he will be better than Plummer has been this year. The real question is given the Denver running attack, can Cutler be effective?

 
I haven't really read many opinions on Cutler one way or the other. Most of the Bronc's fans seem to be posting about Plummer and not so much about Cutler. I've heard good reviews of Cutler but never seen him play. It's a real tough spot to come into. I wouldn't be surprised if he performs like Leinart did to start.

 
I haven't really read many opinions on Cutler one way or the other. Most of the Bronc's fans seem to be posting about Plummer and not so much about Cutler. I've heard good reviews of Cutler but never seen him play. It's a real tough spot to come into. I wouldn't be surprised if he performs like Leinart did to start.
Go check the Blogger - there's an unbelievable amount of praise, even into the season, of Cutlker's play in practice and in the preseason games.I have not heard much recently about his play in practice, but there is an article on the Blogger from merely a month ago on how good Cutler's been playing in practice.
 
SSOG may know a ton about the Broncos, just like LHUCKS knows a ton about Fantasy Football.

However the reality is that both of these message board "icons" have been more wrong than right this year.

Many of FBG "paid members" spend much more time mining info on the message boards than reading any of the "paid for, member only" content, at least once the season starts because in this age of instant info things are known in the Shark Pool before anywhere else.

I am a long time happy FBG member. It is important for other FBG members to be aware that if certain "icons" are flipping the coin and calling "heads" and its landing "tails". Prediciting the NFL can be a crap shoot. Many folks on the message board talk in very definitive terms. If some posters want to portray themselves as more expert than others, that is fine, but it also fine for others to trumpet as to when they are wrong.

In 2006, SSOG has been more wrong than right on prooffering Bronco fantasy advise:

- Ron Dayne

- It is a good investment to "buy" the Denver running game, worth the "hassles"

- Mike Bell will not be inactive

- Jake Plummer will be the QB for 2007

- Rod Smith is "undervalued" WR.

Perhaps he'll be spot on in 2007, but know many know that his opinion ain't know better or worse than the guy at the local sports bar and that is worthwhile to know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG may know a ton about the Broncos, just like LHUCKS knows a ton about Fantasy Football.However the reality is that both of these message board "icons" have been more wrong than right this year.Many of FBG "paid members" spend much more time mining info on the message boards than reading any of the "paid for, member only" content, at least once the season starts because in this age of instant info things are known in the Shark Pool before anywhere else.I am a long time happy FBG member. It is important for other FBG members to be aware that if certain "icons" are flipping the coin and calling "heads" and its landing "tails". Prediciting the NFL can be a crap shoot. Many folks on the message board talk in very definitive terms. If some posters want to portray themselves as more expert than others, that is fine, but it also fine for others to trumpet as to when they are wrong.In 2006, SSOG has been more wrong than right on prooffering Bronco fantasy advise:- Ron Dayne- It is a good investment to "buy" the Denver running game, worth the "hassles"- Mike Bell will not be inactive- Jake Plummer will be the QB for 2007- Rod Smith is "undervalued" WR.Perhaps he'll be spot on in 2007, but know many know that his opinion ain't know better or worse than the guy at the local sports bar and that is worthwhile to know.
You should always do your own homework first, regardless. That is the real difference between the Sharks in this pool and the Guppies. And that is also why, right or wrong, SSOG and LHUCKS remain Sharks in this pool. They talk big and carry alot of evidence and research to back up their opinions.But, as always, its up to YOU to make the decisions that are going to win you or lose you a championship.Personally, I stayed away from the Denver RB situation (just as I have for years). Its not that I didn't trust the talent, but MY RESEARCH suggested that the risk factor brought the value of the RBs down to below where these backs were actually being drafted. Had I found one at value though, I would have taken him.Its always easier to blame someone else then take personal responsibility for your own decisions.No one here has a crystal ball.EDIT: Except Joe, of course. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.....

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

....
I think this may be it:
Code:
CMP  ATT   YDS  CMP%   YPA   LNG  TD  INT 	SACK 	RAT 	ATT 	YDS 	AVG 	LNG 	TDNo Motion   121  224  1424  54.0   6.36   83   6   12 	14.0 	60.2 	28 	 83 	3.0 	 19 	 0Motion 	 53   88	563  60.2   6.40   54   5   0 	  3.0 	97.9 	6 	 27 	 4.5 	 12 	 1
I believe this is a breakdown of him in and out of the pocket, but I haven't found a decent breakdown of what these two categories mean yet.
 
.....

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

....
I think this may be it:
CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TDNo Motion 121 224 1424 54.0 6.36 83 6 12 14.0 60.2 28 83 3.0 19 0Motion 53 88 563 60.2 6.40 54 5 0 3.0 97.9 6 27 4.5 12 1I believe this is a breakdown of him in and out of the pocket, but I haven't found a decent breakdown of what these two categories mean yet.
Putting WRs in motion helps a QB to determine whether it is man coverage or zone. I think that might be a breakdown of his reads with/without motion.

Obviously, he is better when he can put a man in motion, but it looks like he doesn't get to do that in Shannenstiens offense most of the time.

 
.....

SSOG and I maintained at that time that Cutler would not play in 2006. That was the 100% correct opinion based on all evidence at that time. Anyone who said otherwise was purely guessing. This is by far Jake's worse year as a Bronco QB - there is no way anyone could have predicted that - all indications pointed to Jake having a better season in 2006 than in 2005. Was I wrong? Definately, and I don't know why - I don't think there was anything that we missed in pre-season which could have led one to the conclusion that his play would deteriorate as much as it has. If you can find me the scrap of evidence pointing to this collapse, I'll be happy to salute you.

....
I think this may be it:
CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TDNo Motion 121 224 1424 54.0 6.36 83 6 12 14.0 60.2 28 83 3.0 19 0Motion 53 88 563 60.2 6.40 54 5 0 3.0 97.9 6 27 4.5 12 1I believe this is a breakdown of him in and out of the pocket, but I haven't found a decent breakdown of what these two categories mean yet.
this is very telling, if it means in vs out of the pocket. The big difference is the interception #'s - huge difference. These are 2006 #'s though - are similar 2005 #'s available?I suppose what we should have noted is that Jake is MUCH better out of the pocket than in the pocket, and we should have realized that Bronco opponents would therefore work to prevent the rollout/bootleg, which I believe is what is happening. Of course, that should open running lanes and the running backs should be more sucessful...

 
SSOG may know a ton about the Broncos, just like LHUCKS knows a ton about Fantasy Football.However the reality is that both of these message board "icons" have been more wrong than right this year.Many of FBG "paid members" spend much more time mining info on the message boards than reading any of the "paid for, member only" content, at least once the season starts because in this age of instant info things are known in the Shark Pool before anywhere else.I am a long time happy FBG member. It is important for other FBG members to be aware that if certain "icons" are flipping the coin and calling "heads" and its landing "tails". Prediciting the NFL can be a crap shoot. Many folks on the message board talk in very definitive terms. If some posters want to portray themselves as more expert than others, that is fine, but it also fine for others to trumpet as to when they are wrong.In 2006, SSOG has been more wrong than right on prooffering Bronco fantasy advise:- Ron Dayne- It is a good investment to "buy" the Denver running game, worth the "hassles"- Mike Bell will not be inactive- Jake Plummer will be the QB for 2007- Rod Smith is "undervalued" WR.Perhaps he'll be spot on in 2007, but know many know that his opinion ain't know better or worse than the guy at the local sports bar and that is worthwhile to know.
You should always do your own homework first, regardless. That is the real difference between the Sharks in this pool and the Guppies. And that is also why, right or wrong, SSOG and LHUCKS remain Sharks in this pool. They talk big and carry alot of evidence and research to back up their opinions.But, as always, its up to YOU to make the decisions that are going to win you or lose you a championship.Personally, I stayed away from the Denver RB situation (just as I have for years). Its not that I didn't trust the talent, but MY RESEARCH suggested that the risk factor brought the value of the RBs down to below where these backs were actually being drafted. Had I found one at value though, I would have taken him.Its always easier to blame someone else then take personal responsibility for your own decisions.No one here has a crystal ball.EDIT: Except Joe, of course. :)
This is true. I love reading SSOG's posts because they contain great information, particularly statical support.and helps me make my own predictions. But once he starts telling what is going to happen (Last year it was "There will be no RBBC in Denver, they never have used it and never will) thats when I get leery.I love his passion and the effort, but he can be very flippant in disagreeing with opposing opinions so he has to expect to get called to the carpet sometimes.
 
SSOG may know a ton about the Broncos, just like LHUCKS knows a ton about Fantasy Football.However the reality is that both of these message board "icons" have been more wrong than right this year.Many of FBG "paid members" spend much more time mining info on the message boards than reading any of the "paid for, member only" content, at least once the season starts because in this age of instant info things are known in the Shark Pool before anywhere else.I am a long time happy FBG member. It is important for other FBG members to be aware that if certain "icons" are flipping the coin and calling "heads" and its landing "tails". Prediciting the NFL can be a crap shoot. Many folks on the message board talk in very definitive terms. If some posters want to portray themselves as more expert than others, that is fine, but it also fine for others to trumpet as to when they are wrong.In 2006, SSOG has been more wrong than right on prooffering Bronco fantasy advise:- Ron Dayne- It is a good investment to "buy" the Denver running game, worth the "hassles"- Mike Bell will not be inactive- Jake Plummer will be the QB for 2007- Rod Smith is "undervalued" WR.Perhaps he'll be spot on in 2007, but know many know that his opinion ain't know better or worse than the guy at the local sports bar and that is worthwhile to know.
People need to look at people's track record and make their own decisions. I have a handful of people who's opinion I respect for the way the person's thought process is. I hope that some respect mine as well, based on my track record.
 
Broncos | Shanahan would like Plummer to stay

Published Wed Nov 29 1:27:00 a.m. ET 2006

(KFFL) Lee Rasizer, of the Rocky Mountain News, reports Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan would like QB Jake Plummer to remain with the team as a No. 2 quarterback, although with Plummer's cap number that might not be a possibility. It also could depend on whether Plummer will accept a role as the team's backup. "I think that all depends on him. Would I like him here long term? As long as he'd like to be here. . . . I'd love him in that role - if he wants to be in that role. Time will tell," said Shanahan. Plummer is set to make $8 million in each of the next three years, and that might not be feasible under the salary cap.

 
Broncos | Shanahan would like Plummer to stay

Published Wed Nov 29 1:27:00 a.m. ET 2006

(KFFL) Lee Rasizer, of the Rocky Mountain News, reports Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan would like QB Jake Plummer to remain with the team as a No. 2 quarterback, although with Plummer's cap number that might not be a possibility. It also could depend on whether Plummer will accept a role as the team's backup. "I think that all depends on him. Would I like him here long term? As long as he'd like to be here. . . . I'd love him in that role - if he wants to be in that role. Time will tell," said Shanahan. Plummer is set to make $8 million in each of the next three years, and that might not be feasible under the salary cap.
Here is the original link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/...5174648,00.htmlKeys handed to Cutler

It's rookie's turn to steer offense as Shanahan makes switch official

By Lee Rasizer, Rocky Mountain News

November 28, 2006

ENGLEWOOD - It's something of a mad experiment, promoting Jay Cutler to starting quarterback.

The Denver Broncos remain in the playoff race, have cited widespread problems offensively and are in the midst of a two-game losing streak. And to change their fortunes, they're benching the veteran behind center for a rookie with zero NFL snaps. Sure, that makes sense . . .

"I don't know," Cutler said when asked how inserting him into the equation improves the situation, which involves the demotion of incumbent Jake Plummer. "It might make things worse. We'll find out."

The answers will come beginning Sunday, when the Broncos (7-4) meet the defending NFC champion Seattle Seahawks in a nationally televised prime-time matchup (6:15 p.m., KUSA-Channel 9).

At least Cutler knows how to make an entrance.

"Hopefully, I can give us a little bit of a spark," Cutler said. "We're going to get things turned around. We've got too much talent and character on this team not to."

Cutler, the team's top draft pick, was officially let in Monday morning on the worst-kept secret since the TomKat wedding.

Coach Mike Shanahan delivered the news in his office after rumors about the switch swirled for days.

But when the conversation began first with some small talk, Cutler, who had been getting calls from friends and family all weekend seeking confirmation of his altered playing status, began to question just what was going on.

"I was like, 'What am I doing in here?' " he recalled.

Chances are, Cutler won't be repeating similar lines once he takes the huddle.

Those who have watched him the past several months have described him as self-assured, someone not easily intimidated.

If he was bullied in big situations he'd likely struggle with the weight of the scenario in which he now finds himself rather than embracing it. Then again, this is a player who, while at Vanderbilt University, went into a 100,000-seat stadium in Knoxville, Tenn., and led his team to an improbable win over Tennessee.

"There's pressure," Shanahan admitted about Cutler attempting to lift to greater heights an offense that the coach himself called "average" this season. " . . . I think this kid can handle it."

The move, Shanahan said, is about the present as much as the future.

"He gives us the best chance to win now," Shanahan said.

And, unlike Vince Young and Matt Leinart, the two quarterbacks taken before Cutler in last April's draft, there's little room for the anticipated growing pains Cutler will inevitably have. At minimum, Denver probably needs three wins in its final five games to make the playoffs.

"Well, obviously, with the losing streak we've been on, it doesn't hurt to try," wide receiver Javon Walker said of the timing of the move and the chance Cutler will move the team forward. "If he does, then we'll ride it all the way out. If not, obviously, he's the quarterback of the future."

Teammates have raved about Cutler's arm strength. Walker even compared that particular trait to that of former teammate Brett Favre.

More of a concern is Cutler's decision-making and not trusting that cannon too much in tight quarters.

He knows Seattle will do everything it can to confuse him. The 23-year-old quarterback plans extra hours of study to try to limit the initial confusion.

"I'm going to take chances and try to put some balls in some spots," Cutler admitted. "But for the most part, I've just got to manage the game and help our defense out."

That had been the plan this season with Plummer. But a low completion rate (55.6 percent), poor touchdown-to-interception ratio (11-to-12) and the inability to move the Broncos in the clutch led to his demotion.

Plummer's future up in air

Plummer now moves into a backup role for the first time in his 10-year NFL career, and his status beyond the next five games is in doubt. Plummer has three option years remaining on his contract, with salary-cap figures in excess of $8 million in each.

And even if Denver declines that option, various prorated bonuses on the deal still would count on the payroll and add up to more than $12 million.

Asked whether he envisioned Plummer as a long-term possibility as No. 2, Shanahan said, "I think that all depends on him. Would I like him here long term? As long as he'd like to be here. . . . I'd love him in that role - if he wants to be in that role. Time will tell."

Time also played a factor in the timing of Cutler entering the lineup.

Unlike the preparation for the previous game, a 19-10 defeat in Kansas City on Thursday, Denver has a full week to get ready for Seattle. But the switch was more about shaking things up in a moment when Cutler could best handle the change and Plummer's game was deemed firmly on the downside.

'Complete knowlege'

Shanahan insisted no concessions will be made in the playbook because of the switch.

It actually might put Denver in even more of an attack mode to take advantage of Cutler's down-field strengths.

"For us to make the decision we've made, we feel very comfortable he's got complete knowledge of the offense," Shanahan said, adding the rookie will benefit from all the repetitions he got in offseason training and in summer sessions. "He's got a good feel for the system, which is one of the reasons we made the change."

Cutler completed 40 of 62 passes for 565 yards with four touchdowns and one interception in four preseason games, thrilling the team with his consistency and cool demeanor. But as Cutler stated plainly, "It's a different animal completely."

Since that time, he has worked after practice on going through his progressions and studied Plummer's practice snaps to try to stay sharp mentally. But physically, he has been running the scout team more than the Broncos' game plan each week. So he'll need the time behind center this week to get his timing down.

"It's a greater stage than he's probably ever known," fullback Kyle Johnson said. "And it's not the same as the other (first-round) quarterbacks because they were playing for teams that weren't winning as many games and . . . hadn't been in the playoffs in awhile. We've been in the playoffs the last couple years, so there's an increased amount of pressure on the quarterback. I think he can handle it - in all honesty, I think he'll feel it, too - but I think he can handle it."

rasizerl@RockyMountainNews.com

 
"Coach Mike Shanahan left the podium after Thursday's game when asked if he'll replace Jake Plummer with Jay Cutler at practice Monday.The Denver Post describes Shanahan's flight from the stage as "One, Mississippi. Two, Miss ... and Shanahan was gone." Cutler looks to be the pick next Sunday night versus Seattle."
I don't get what was so hilarious.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top