Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.That is a great way to pick which QB you want.
Although, QB rating doesn't include mobility and scrambling, which I'd also give to Cutler.
Actually I pointed out all the stats...
Wins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.That is a great way to pick which QB you want.
Why, is there a stat you'd prefer to look at that is more a measure of the QBs actual abilities? Please share with the class.
WinsOrton- 2 Cutler- 3Orton- Seattle and at TennesseeCutler- Detroit, Green Bay, and at DallasPretty easy to see.....SparkyWins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.Although, QB rating doesn't include mobility and scrambling, which I'd also give to Cutler.Why, is there a stat you'd prefer to look at that is more a measure of the QBs actual abilities? Please share with the class.
Pretty small sample size you're using... Plus as we all know, GB self destructed, DET lost on stupidity, and Dallas didn't play that week.Let's see the WL records in a few weeks.ETA - I don't believe all wins are necessarily on the QB, nor all losses. On each team the QB's role varies, fromTom Brady's first season, Roethlisbergers first season, and Dilfers SB run where the QB has to do very little, to Tom Brady's 07 season and Peyton Manning every season or Dan Marino's years in Miami where the QB is expected to carry the team.WinsOrton- 2 Cutler- 3Orton- Seattle and at TennesseeCutler- Detroit, Green Bay, and at DallasPretty easy to see.....SparkyWins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.
It couldn't be anything with Cutler....Classic Switz.Pretty small sample size you're using... Plus as we all know, GB self destructed, DET lost on stupidity, and Dallas didn't play that week.Let's see the WL records in a few weeks.WinsOrton- 2 Cutler- 3Orton- Seattle and at TennesseeCutler- Detroit, Green Bay, and at DallasPretty easy to see.....SparkyWins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.
at all this talk this week, where was all this last week?
A lot of it was there last week 2 as he was not all that sharp against the Packers.I laugh at people acting as if this is all just over one week...just as much as I laugh at supporters continuing to try to base things over just 4 games this year and not carreer for both guys.Cutler has more talent IMO by a decent margin.Orton seems to be a better overall QB right now.He won't kill you, but he can make the throws to put his team over the top and lead them to a win too.at all this talk this week, where was all this last week?The guy is leading a 3-1 team, has the 7th best passer rating, 4th in AY/A, and had a pretty nice game against an above average Dallas defense. He got killed by the 2nd best pass defense in the NFL - although it might be premature to call them that as they've played Tennessee and Carolina, they did keep Peyton Manning to his lowest yardage of the year. All I'm saying is I'm making offers for him in every league I can.
You're eitherWins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.
or simply understand very little about football. Either way, I'm done here.Oh and Switz, please stop saying wins are all about the QB in this thread, and arguing that wins have little to with the QB in the "Brady's 100th win" thread. TIA.
So having a new head coach had no effect on a team as far as wins either right?And yes, an increase in defense most certainly helps.As does having a QB not turn the ball over putting the defense in a bad position at times which Cutler has done more often than Orton the past 3 seasons.Is there no end to what excuses Cutler supporters will make for his own play?
Taking your ball and going home?You're eitherWins and loses, sparky.Since QB rating includes INT's, TD's, completion %, etc. it is a little less biased than cherry-picking individual stats.or simply understand very little about football. Either way, I'm done here.Oh and Switz, please stop saying wins are all about the QB in this thread, and arguing that wins have little to with the QB in the "Brady's 100th win" thread. TIA.
A new head coach and a completely new offensive system for all the offensive players, and obviously a new system for the new quarterback. Royal for one has openly said how lost he was last year in the new system.Also Denver's defense was a Jekyll and Hyde last year. Early in the year they played lights out, surrendering 11 points a game over the first six games, when the team went 6-0. Over the last ten games they were very pedestrian, giving up 26 points a game, and the team went 2-8.
Those rankings were based on yards (points allowed rankings were basically the same as well), so it takes the turnovers out of it. And don't say that the turnovers led to more plays to rack up more yards, because the Denver defense was actually on the field for fewer plays in 2008 (probably because they gave up so many long scores). Denver defense 2008 gave up 6.05 yards per play. Denver defense 2009 gave up 5.0 yards per play. That's a huge difference.
How does that support the Orton side of the argument? If anything, that just proves the Cutler side even more.So Orton was basically spotted a 6 game headstart with a defense that Charlie Batch could have gone 6-0 with, and STILL couldn't finish with a better record. You lament that the Denver defense gave up 26 ppg down the stretch last year which led to Orton going 2-8, yet Cutler's defense in 2008 gave up MORE points per game than that and he was still .500 (compared to Orton's .200 when his defense played poorly).
Do you not know how to read? I didn't say wins are all about the QB in this thread, nor that they have little to do with the QB in the Brady thread. In both threads I have had the same position - the QBs influence on wins and losses vary by team and the role the QB is needed to play, and what position the QB puts the team in.Early in Brady's career, he was asked to do very little to help the team win. On the other hand in '07 he was asked to carry the team. Same player, different team makeup, different level of responsibility on the teams W-L record.In Denver Cutler was asked to lead the team to wins, just as Orton is now. Cutler frequently put the team behind by throwing picks, which Orton hasn't done with as much frequency. In Chicago, Cutler has a team that asks the defense to own a larger share of wins and losses, as they did as well when Orton was there. In both situations, Cutler hasn't won with the frequency Orton has.
Were you alive during 2008 and 2009? You don't need a single stat to know that the two defenses were in no way even remotely comparable. All you need is a set of eyes.Heck, you didn't even have to watch the games, you could just read these boards. Not being able to hold onto Nolan, who had turned the defense around, was one of the things McDaniels was chastized for this offseason on these boards. You joined in 2008, so you were here. You're aware that during the 2008 season Denver was one of the teams that you put lesser players in against because it was such a good matchup, and during the 2009 season they were not. Just think back.This has been happening a lot lately on these boards. People conveniently "forget" something that they considered common knowledge less than a year ago.
What was the difference in defensive ranking? Maybe the opponent's offense having fewer opportunities to score, since the QB didn't turn the ball over as much. General stats out of context don't prove anything.
I don't know that it helps Orton's case, but I think the defensive rankings you are basing so much of that post on are misleading, i.e. "22 spots in defense ranking should be worth 8 wins ALONE". The clear implication there is that with the #9 ranked defense, Orton should have been able to virtually coast and still win more games, but in reality when the team struggled last year, the defense was not playing anything like their defensive ranking would indicate. And I guess you're going to continue to dodge the point that Orton was a new QB in a new system with an all new coaching staff, whereas Cutler had three years in the same system, and maybe that might account for some of the statistical differences as much as their respective talents at QB?
When leading or tied, Orton threw an interception on a higher percentage of his passes than Cutler did (2.3% vs. 2.1%). Cutler just attempted a lot more passes. Cutler's INT numbers are inflated from games that the defense got blown out early and forced the offense to air it out early and often. Cutler's INT percentage when the game was actually close in Denver was actually better than average, and better than Orton's. This idea that Denver got behind as a result of Cutler's turnovers is a myth, at least as it pertains to his time in Denver.
I've already responded to this. Please read up above. Those rankings are already based on yards (points were also about the same). The yards per play numbers aren't even close, 2008 is 20% higher, per play.Btw, this massive difference in turnovers from the QB you're talking about is 5. How five turnovers can be turned into 140 points is beyond me, but maybe you know a way.What was the difference in defensive ranking? Maybe the opponent's offense having fewer opportunities to score, since the QB didn't turn the ball over as much. General stats out of context don't prove anything.
2.3 to 2.1 is not a huge difference.And lumping trailing by 3 with trailing by 20 into one category doesn't paint an adequate picture.In reality, in '08, Cutler threw 1 INT per 30.6 attempts while they were leading, only 1 per 50 attempts when they were losing but the game was within reach. Down by a larger score, he threw one per 23.4 attempts. His INTs were evenly distributed between halves, and he threw less INTs in the 4th quarter than he did in the third.There just isn't much substance to the idea that his INTs came because they were down, over them being down because of the INTs.Let's look at this a little more closely, shall we?2008 week 4, Denver crushed 33-19, must be all the D fault, right? Both of Cutler's INTs came when the game was within three points. While KC didn't score off either turnover, it killed DEN's scoring chance, and forced the Denver D to be on the field for two more drives it shouldn't have been.2008 week7, Cutler throws 2 INTs, the second was well after they were blown out, but the first was in the second half, only down 13, a game well within reach.2008 week 9 versus Miami, Cutler throws 3 TDs, the first one is on the very first drive of the game, Cutler throws a pick. After Miami gets a whopping 2 FG lead, still in the first quarter, and Cutler throws an INT that goes back for a TD. Then, early in the 4th quarter, Miami still only leading by 6, Cutler throws another pick, that ends up with Miami scoring a FG. All three were when the game was well within reach.You can argue all you want, but when you take into consideration the exact situations where the INTs were thrown, it's obvious Cutler's INTs were not due to the team being "blown out" and him trying to catch up. And frequently, the reason the D looked bad was because Cutler put them in bad situations.
They are on the field more frequently, so they are more tired.... just a possibility, not saying it's fact.
The fact that you had to go all the way to week 9 to find three examples of this, with one of them being a pretty big stretch with a 13 point differential in the 2nd half, pretty much proves my point. With that criteria, you can find similar examples for ANY qb.Heck, the first name I pulled up just for kicks was Peyton Manning. In weeks 1 and 2 last year he threw an interception during a tie game, and then in week 3 he threw an interception in a game that they trailed by 3. That's right, I didn't even have to go past week 3 to find three (better) examples from the best quarterback in the league. I'm sure you would find the same if you looked up Kyle Orton, as you would with any QB that throws more than ~5 interceptions (hint, that means almost all of them).Like I said, the difference in turnovers by the QB in 2008 vs. 2009 was 5. The difference in points allowed was 140. There's no way to score anywhere near 140 points from 5 turnovers.Unfortunately nfl.com is acting wonky and isn't showing INTs in situational stats right now, but I remember this coming up a few years ago and I believe the numbers were than 8 of Cutler's 18 INTs came when the team was already trailing by double digits.
Except that the defense was on the field for more plays in 2009. Whoops.
according to pfr, in 2009 the broncos ran 1032 offensive plays and 1007 defensive plays.in 2008, the broncos ran 1019 offensive plays and 990 defensive plays.
They keep interspersing him on and off. The other guys are doing so well that they don't really need him. Plus, he's made a few mistakes the past 2 games. I think they will use him sparingly until he figures out everything.If they play a team that is thin at the CB position or has really small CBs, he may get more looks or be on the field more often. Baltimore is one of those teams. Denver is not even going to try to run. They may on the first few plays of each drive in the first quarter to keep Baltimore honest, but they are going to air it out. With Gaffney, Lloyd and Royal doing so well, Thomas will get minimal looks. Although this is a week where we may see a lil more of him. The next game is the Jets and they like picking on Cromartie, so they may use him there opposite Revis (if he is playing). They probably won't run much the next few weeks.Then tehir schedule gets real soft, and they can throw him in more often and let him grow and develop.
I actually just looked at his first three multi-INT games in '08, there was no cherry picking. And the difference is that you claimed the reason he threw the INTs was because they were down, my point as backed up is that simply wasn't the reason. And 13 points is not a huge lead, getting "blown out" - we've seen plenty of QBs come back from that - that's what makes them good QBs. If you're implying that a 13 point deficit is simply too much to ask Cutler to overcome, then I guess you are acknowledging he's not a great QB. I dunno.As for the defense question, I didn't look it up, just merely stated a hypothetical reason that could be the case, so you can drop the sarcasm. Additionally, playing 15 plays - a 5 minutes break - 15 more plays, is quite different than 12 plays - a 1 minute break - and 12 more plays. That again is hypothetical, but in the second case, the defense would have fewer plays, but likely be more tired. And the numbers were that Cutler threw 7 INTS when down by 9-16 points, 5 when down by more than that. Again, 9-16 isn't a huge deficit depending on how much time is left in the game when you have a good QB.
That's about 1 defensive play per game different. Basically a wash as far as number of plays goes...
ya, i mean, that was my whole point. remember, you were the one that was arguing that cutlers turnovers put them on the field more. fortunately, this forum conveniently nests the quotes so that you can even revisit the origins of the discussion, if you are comprehension skills are capable.
