BusMan
Footballguy
Marshall hugging McDaniels at the post-game press conference brought the faintest beginning of a tear to my eye.
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!
Josh McDaniels - Lets give him a hand (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Clifton
- Start date
KoolKat
Footballguy
Buffaloes
Footballguy
That was awesome. Where are those guys who were blaming McDaniels for supposedly alienating the star WR? Anyway, it looks like the team has bought into McDaniels' plan and they are on the right track.
puckalicious
Footballguy
Example #340423989045 of how winning cures everything. Would not be happening at 0-4.
They hugged after the TD pass as well. I noticed it and mentioned at the time to my wife "A month ago,nobody would ever have thought that would be happening"Now that Marshall appears to be buying into the system, I think now would be a good time for a good will gesture and get him signed to an extension. As a Bronco fan I would like to have this guy locked into the team for a few years. I could see waiting until the bye week, but it's time to "get 'er done!"
moleculo
Footballguy
Marshall looked like he was going to cry after that TD...frankly I was on the verge of tears myself. That TD was vindication, rebirth, reward, pure awesomeness, and game clinching all rolled into one.From the Denver Post:
Welcome to life as a fan of the new version of the 05/06 Bears. Or the 01 Bears. Despite playing good ball defensively and exceeding expectations it was all about how they were a lucky team that was winning off of flukes and couldn't possibly win anything with Orton/Grossman/Jim Miller/Shane Matthews at the helm. Looks like that's what the Broncos fans are going to get to deal with. It's going to be hard for your team to get any national respect no matter what they accomplish with Kyle Orton as your QB.KoolKat said:
It appears a lot of people here are taking exception to that lack of respect despite the team's 4-0 record. Just saying, get used to it. You can beat up on as many mediocre teams as you want, the second that your team loses to Pittsburgh or New England everyone will be there to say they told you so. Just saying, get used to it. This is what life with a noodle armed QB brings.
Fair enough!
The best part about Denver's defense so far is that its best players are actually playing like its best players again. Last year, Champ Bailey, Elvis Dumervil, and D.J. Williams were CLEARLY the only three worthwhile players on the defense... but none of them were doing anything. So far this year, those three have shined like the stars they are.
But the point was that people are saying Orton is better for this team because he's LESS mistake-prone than Cutler, and all you're doing is illustrating that he's really only equally mistake prone as Cutler (so Cutler's massive advantage in every other area carries the day). Cutler had a 2.9% INT percentage last year with one of the worst defenses in NFL history. Kyle Orton had a 2.6% INT percentage last year with a top-10 defense. Coming into this season, Cutler had a career int% of 3.03, while Orton had a career int% of 2.96.Also, INTs aren't the only mistakes a QB can make. Coming into Denver, Orton had 20 fumbles on 966 career pass/rush attempts (2.07%). Cutler had 24 fumbles on 1333 pass/rush attempts (1.80%). Orton had 59 sacks on 913 attempts in Chicago (6.46%), compared to Cutler's 51 sacks on 1220 attempts (4.18%). Think twice before you blame that last one on the relative disparity between the offensive lines, too- Cutler's line was bad in '06 and '07. In 2008, Cutler was sacked 11 times on 616 dropbacks (1.79%). So far in 2009, behind the same offensive line, Orton has been sacked 6 times on 117 dropbacks (5.13%), a pace that would project out to 32 sacks on 616 attempts.
Of all the reasons to justify trading Cutler for Orton, clearly "Cutler was more mistake prone than Orton" wasn't one of them. Personally, I believe in a different reason- because they'd forced themselves into a position where they HAD to trade Cutler, and Orton was the best they could do.
Please don't presume to speak for all Bronco fans ever again. TIA.
RUSF18
Footballguy
I responded and signed off, and the thread went very far since then so let me take a step back for a minute.Yes, I'm not impressed yet. I live in a place where everyone was so impressed by a young coach from the Belichick tree due to his early success that he earned a cameo in the most popular cable show of all time and Tony Soprano actually called him The Manginius. Now he's close to getting fired in another city.It's not taking anything away from him, but I require more than 4 weeks against a soft schedule.
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
Denver has never had national respect. In '97, Denver was 10 point underdogs in the Superbowl. In '98, the media focus was on the record setting, 15-1 Vikings. In 2005, there was no conceivable way that Tom Brady would lose a playoff game to Jake Plummer and the Broncos. In 2007, Denver was "glass tigers" at 2-0. Last year, early success was tainted by Ed Hoculi. I don't think that Denver has ever had national respect.
loompa17
Footballguy
Reading your first sentence, I figured the best piece of evidence is one you didn't even present. Look for Broncos in the Hall of Fame.
moleculo
Footballguy
That's not the argument I was making, and it's not something I believe anyways. However, if I were to make an argument along those lines, it would be something to the effect of "all turnovers are not equal", and I'd point to red zone ints and late season performances, especially at home.
switz
Footballguy
So in your world 4 = 0? Uh... OK
Neverminding that Orton has rarely had decent WRs like Cutler has his entire career... but2.9% = 2.6%? 3.03% = 2.96%? Especially when we are talking large numbers?
Well at least you found one area where Cutler has been less turnover prone than Orton. Or wait... Cutler has fumbled 5 times this season compared to Orton's 1.
So you'd prefer your QB to throw and INT than take a sack? OK. BTW, Cutler has been sacked 8 times this year, to Orton's 6.So pretty much in every "mistake" category you've thrown out, Orton has been LESS mistake prone than Cutler this year.
And if I were to counter this hypothetical argument that you were hypothetically making for the sake of continuing our hypothetical discussion (hypothetically speaking, of course
), this is where I'd drop a "splits happen". 
Part of the reason Orton makes fewer mistakes is because teams don't actually ask him to run a full offense. It's apparant to anyone that coaches him that he can't actually do much of anything, so they don't ask him to. If Cutler were only running half a playbook and was asked to throw the ball away unless there's a guy wide open within his 15 foot range, he'd probably throw less interceptions too.
No, in my world a sample size of 4 is too laughably small to justify any conclusions that fly in the face of what has been demonstrated over a far greater body of evidence.
Since when does having good WRs prevent interceptions? And yes, over the sample sizes we're talking about, there is minimal difference between 2.6 and 2.9 (with just two more dropped INTs last year, Cutler would have had a 2.6% int rate. If opposing defenders had caught 1-2 more Kyle Orton balls instead of dropping them, Orton would have a 2.9% int rate. These are both events entirely out of the QB's control that could easily bump them from 2.6 to 2.9 or vice versa). Over the sample sizes we're talking about, there is *NO* difference between 3.03% and 2.96% (the difference between Cutler having an int% of 3.03% in Denver and an int% of 2.96% in Denver is one interception over the course of 3 years. If just one pick gets dropped, if just one time a WR knocked a potential INT away from the defender, if just one pass doesn't get tipped at the line of scrimmage or tipped by the intended receiver, Cutler's int% in Denver is identical to Orton's in Chicago). That difference of 1 Int is more than offset by Orton's significantly higher fumble% and sack%.
Cutler's playing behind the worse offensive line now, and with worse receivers, so his sack rate in Chicago is not comparable to Orton's in Denver. last year, however, Cutler had the same line and same receivers as Orton has now, so those two sack rates are comparable (and Orton's been sacked three times as frequently as Cutler so far).Also, the results *THIS YEAR* aren't really relevant. The speculation was that McDaniels traded for Orton because he was less mistake prone than Cutler, which wasn't at all true- up to that point, both players had made mistakes at REMARKABLY similar rates (except for the sacks).One could also suggest that perhaps Orton is radically underperforming his turnover rate because he's working with a coaching staff placing a premium on not forcing throws, because his team is calling dramatically more runs than passes, and because his defense is allowing less than 7 points per game. Who's to say that, given the same circumstances, Cutler wouldn't be doing the exact same thing?Well at least you found one area where Cutler has been less turnover prone than Orton. Or wait... Cutler has fumbled 5 times this season compared to Orton's 1.So you'd prefer your QB to throw and INT than take a sack? OK. BTW, Cutler has been sacked 8 times this year, to Orton's 6.So pretty much in every "mistake" category you've thrown out, Orton has been LESS mistake prone than Cutler this year.
KoolKat
Footballguy
Weren't the poor WRs the excuse given for all Cutler's ints in the Packer game? :X
KoolKat
Footballguy
Mistakes by the WRs was the reason given. Good WRs can make mistakes, too. Good WRs can also grant a false sense of confidence, leading to more INTs. I haven't ever seen anything that shows a correlation between the quality of a player's WRs and the number of INTs he throws. Not saying that such a correlation doesn't exist, but I'd like to see any evidence before touting it as if it were some self-evident fact. I could see several factors at play that might result in either a positive *OR* a negative correlation between WR quality and INTs, and I have no idea which factors might outweigh the others.Weren't the poor WRs the excuse given for all Cutler's ints in the Packer game?
The 00 Bears were 5-11 and no one expected them to do anything in 01. It was the year they had the comback wins against the 49ers and Browns and everyone discredited everything they did all year long as a fluke. The 04 Bears were also 5-11 and had guys like Jonathan Quinn, Craig Krenzel, and Chad Hutchinson playing at QB after Rex went down. When Grossman went down again in the preseason with the ankle injury everyone wrote off the entire 05 season, including most Bears fans. Even after the Bears piled up wins and the D was playing incredible people were saying it was a shame that such a great defense was wasted due to having Orton at QB. Having a noodle armed QB that can't run an entire playbook and winning the way Denver has in some of these games is always going to have people across the country questioning how legitimate things are. That doesn't take anything away from what McDaniels has done - it appears that he could be a legit coach despite a rocky start. No doubt I'd be happy at this point as a Broncos fan, the team is much better than anyone predicted and I'd say they have a very good chance of winning that bad division. But winning games the way they are, against the teams they are just doesn't get a lot of respect nationally. And at the end of the season if the team plays like it has defensively and ultimately falls short because of offensive play there is always going to be the big what if hanging over McDaniels and the team.
The Gray Hood
Footballguy
the biggest thing the defense has going for it is no more baby jay-sus coughing the ball up on his own 20.
point -- orton.
point -- orton.
You sound like a fourth grader with your namecalling. Are you really that upset that Cutler left? It's like a woman-scorned.
KoolKat
Footballguy
I see your point, my point is that nobody is taking the defense seriously. People took the Chicago defense seriously. Nobody would have seriously predicted one of those Chicago teams would go winless, because of the respect people had for that defense. That respect is not given to the Broncos. My original argument has little if anything to do with Orton being the QB, which is why I question the comparison.
The Gray Hood
Footballguy
what??why would I give a crap that cutler left denver?
Once Grossman went down, a lot of people were predicting the Bears to win just a couple of games and everyone in the city wanted Angelo's head for not going after a veteran backup for the 2nd season in a row. And no one really took the Bears all that seriously and figured the D could carry the team to wins by themself until probably about week 10 when they beat Carolina. Before that while the D was playing stellar they hadn't beaten a team with a winning record. When the D manhandled Carolina, a team that had won like 7 straight heading into the game, they finally started getting some respect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Buffaloes
Footballguy
Maybe he's just been looking for a prime opportunity to use the term "woman-scorned."
switz
Footballguy
Except as you illustrated with your numbers, this small sample is absolutely in line with the larger body of evidence. Cutler does throw more interceptions than Orton, no matter how you slice it.
Lot of "if"s in there.... but the fact is, none of those things happened. What if instead of defenders caught more of Cutler's errant throws, and dropped more of Orton's throws... see where we're going? Especially considering your argument that Orton is a far worse passer, and Cutler far better... you can't put all the onus on - in one instance - it's the defenders fault for dropping passes, - and in the other - the WRs fault for not knocking down passes - ESPECIALLY considering that Cutler has had far better WRs (Marshall, Royal, Sheffler, Stokely vs. a converted DB, a rookie TE & RB, and Marty Booker) AND faced weaker defenses (KC <-suck, OAK <-suck, SD <-good) than Orton has (GB <-very good, MIN <-great, DET <-suck).And we'll address your sack and fumble statement below...
Actually, this year Orton is NOT playing behind the exact same line that Cutler played behind, because even if the players are the same, the pass blocking scheme is different with McDaniels installing a new offense. And the Bears improved their OL this offseason IIRC. And this year, Cutler is taking more sacks behind the Bears line than Orton is behind Denver's line. I love you you basically say on one side that Cutler is better because he takes less sacks, but then when it's shown that Orton is taking less sacks you say it's because Orton's line is better. Could it not be that Cutler took less sacks because he was behind a better line? You need to pick one and stick with it.Orton has taken 65 sacks in his career. 30 came as a rookie. Only 6 so far this year. Cutler has taken 59, 13 as a rookie, 8 this year. BTW, Orton took only 27 last year behind the horrible Bears OL, Cutler is on pace for 32 behind an improved Bears OL.
And that's where you are still wrong. Orton has NOT been a high turnover QB in his career, he's been better than Cutler in every category statistically since their rookie seasons.There's no arguing that Cutler is a far greater passing threat, he will throw more TDs than Orton, without a doubt. But equally there's no real basis to argue that Cutler is less prone to turnovers, or even equally prone to turnovers, as Orton.
Ignoring their rookie seasons, when all players (esp QBs) are prone to mistakes as they catch up to the pace of the game:
Cutler: 37 INTs, 46 SCKs, 21 FUMs (7 lost) in 36 games played
Orton: 14 INTs, 35 SCKs, 9 FUMS (5 lost) in 22 games played
That works out to, per game:
Cutler: 1.02 INT, 1.28 SCK, 0.58 FUM
Orton: 0.64 INT, 1.59 SCK, 0.41 FUM
The only area where Orton is worse is sacks, and the difference is negligible. Sacks are not always a QB mistake either. On the other hand, pretty much every 2 games, Cutler will throw one more INT than Orton, and INTs always cost the team, sacks don't.
You usually are a very good poster SSOG, but in this area, I think you are letting your emotions influence your point of view. Orton, is far less turnover prone than Cutler. He definitely has his negatives, but this isn't one of them.
But you're comparing apples to oranges because Orton isn't asked to run entire NFL playbooks. And including this season he's almost never been asked to throw the ball in obvious passing situations.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know you are fishing here, but you do realize that what you are saying is that Cutler throws more interceptions because he runs an entire playbook. The only thing it proves, if that is true, is that Cutler should not be running those plays. Or if he is, he needs to run them better. Bad coaching/play calling/execution imo.It says nothing about how effective Orton would be running those plays.
He's thrown the ball on just about every obvious passing down that I can recall this year. I'm not really sure the playbook in Denver has been scaled back for Orton either.
moleculo
Footballguy
PatytonsGhost
Footballguy
Stokely and Marshall are singlehandedly the reason the Broncos won those two games. If it wasn't for two fluke plays we are looking at an average team with a good defense with a record of 2-2.
The Orton-Cutler debate continues on and on, and will never cease because everyone here is almost either in Ortons corner or Cutlers.
I like both of them for what they give to the team, personally I think its a matter of what the coaching scheme asks the QB to do that really decides how valuable a QB is for them, regardless of posters statistical analysis, which eventually leads to paralysis.
The Orton-Cutler debate continues on and on, and will never cease because everyone here is almost either in Ortons corner or Cutlers.
I like both of them for what they give to the team, personally I think its a matter of what the coaching scheme asks the QB to do that really decides how valuable a QB is for them, regardless of posters statistical analysis, which eventually leads to paralysis.
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
Uhhh football is a pretty fluky sport.
TitusIII
Footballguy
I know it will never happen, but I hope both QB's play well enough to put the debate to rest. Then again, if they both play like pro-bowlers, it may never end!
I love when teams take a chance on a younger guy who lacks head coach experience. Certain coaches deserve a second chance at head job due to circumstances/lack of experience, but there are always a few diamonds in the rough if one looks hard enough...and the Broncos may have found one, time will tell...
I love when teams take a chance on a younger guy who lacks head coach experience. Certain coaches deserve a second chance at head job due to circumstances/lack of experience, but there are always a few diamonds in the rough if one looks hard enough...and the Broncos may have found one, time will tell...
switz
Footballguy
I do... he's pulling that out from where the sun don't shine. Pretty obviously.
Cutler will always have a fairly high interception-to-touchdown ratio. It's just how he plays the game. He will cost his team games because of it, but he will also win his team games because of it. Brett Favre is a consensus top-five all-time quarterrback and he always had high interception totals.
I'm certainly not putting Cutler in Favre-company, but he plays the game with a similar mindset.
I'm certainly not putting Cutler in Favre-company, but he plays the game with a similar mindset.
and I'll add one thing, and I've said this before, maybe even in this thread.You have to put yourself in a position for these flukey plays to pay off for you. Denver's defense kept them in every game so far. If not for being within 7 points, neither of the fluke plays would have made a difference. The defense is the MVP by far for the Broncos this season, and they are the sole reason Denver is 4-0, not Stokely and not Marshall.Now, I can address the Marshall play. you call it a fluke, and I called it a fluke in the above paragraph just for arguments sake. I don't believe that was a fluke play at all. That was just a good athlete making a great play, albeit with a little help from horrible tackling by the Dallas defense. Even if Marshall would have been tackled or if the pass would have been incomplete, the Broncos were moving the ball pretty well in the second half against Dallas, and I think the odds were better than 50/50 that Denver would have moved into field goal range and won the game anyway. So don't call that a fluke play. If you want to play the fluke card and say they shouldn't be 4-0, then fine, but say they should be 3-1 instead of 2-2. I'm not buying that Denver only beat Dallas because of 1 play.Marshall's play was not 'flukey'. It was a great football play executed by a very talented and determined athlete.The Stokely play was 100% luck.
PatytonsGhost
Footballguy
So we agree on Stokley, With the Marshall play, I agree it was a great football play, but don't expect that play to be the norm as opposed to once in a while. There was no reason that 5 Cowboys defenders could not have tackle him. That was my point of the Marshall play. Nonetheless, I still like the direction the Broncos are going in.Marshall's play was not 'flukey'. It was a great football play executed by a very talented and determined athlete.The Stokely play was 100% luck.
The numbers were that Cutler threw negligibly more interceptions to a statistically insignificant degree. The numbers were also that Cutler lost fewer fumbles. When last I checked, both counted as turnovers, and Cutler's edge in fumbles was greater than his deficit in interceptions.switz said:
My point wasn't to play the "what if" game and say that Orton benefitted from a higher percentage of dropped INTs or to say that Cutler was victimized by more tipped passes that wound up getting picked off. My point was to demonstrate that the difference in their respective rates was so negligible that we could not say with *ANY* statistical authority that one was "more prone" to interceptions than the other. It's like if you had two pennies and you flipped them 1000 times. If one came up heads 554 times and the other came up heads 446 times, the results are so close that there's no way that you could say "well, clearly the first coin is weighted more towards heads and the second is weighted more towards tails!", because the expected margin due simply to random chance (rather than any "skill" the coin might have at landing on any particular side) far exceeds the difference in the results. Likewise, the margin due to random chance far exceeds the "1 INT in 1200+ attempts" difference between Cutler and Orton. Statistically speaking, 3.03% and 2.96%, over sample sizes that large, are functionally identical.
Wait, so you're saying that Cutler threw more INTs in 1200 attempts than Orton did in 900, so he's more INT prone? I suppose if a QB threw 60 passes and 2 of them were intercepted, then he must be more turnover prone than a QB who threw 2 passes and had 1 picked off, too- after all, the first guy is averaging twice as many INTs per game!No offense, Switz, but comparing Cutler and Orton on a per-game basis is, quite frankly, idiotic. Kyle Orton was a guy who attempted as few passes as his team could possibly get away with calling. He was a guy who the offensive coordinator did his best to hide. Jay Cutler was the centerpiece of the offense. Not only did he throw more passes, but defenses were *EXPECTING THE PASS* on every play (as opposed to with Orton, where they were mildly surprised every time he put the ball in the air). Per attempt numbers are the *ONLY* logical comparison, and even that suffers from defensive biases (i.e. defenses were scheming to stop Cutler, whereas no one has ever scheme to shut down Kyle Orton). Also, none of this "throw out the rookie season" crap. You say that players are more turnover prone as rookies. I respond by saying players are more turnover prone during their first sixteen STARTS, and throwing out Orton's rookie season eliminates 15 of his 16 "turnover prone" starts, while throwing Cutler's rookie season out leaves 11 of his 16 "turnover prone" starts still in the data, which just biases the data against Cutler by gerrymandering the cutoffs. If you want to argue that removing the rookie seasons improves the data, you'll need to provide me evidence demonstrating this is the case.
On a per-attempt basis, through the end of last season (because, once again, the trade was made before McDaniels had this season's data), here are the respective rates of each player.
Cutler- 29.11 INTs per 1000 pass attempts (including sacks as an attempted pass)
Orton- 27.78 INTs per 1000 pass attempts
Cutler- 17.34 fumbles per 1000 pass+rush attempts (including sacks as an attempted pass)
Orton- 32.30 fumbles per 1000 pass+rush attempts
Cutler- 40.13 sacks per 1000 pass attempts (counting sacks as an attempted pass)
Orton- 60.70 sacks per 1000 pass attempts
If we assume that the offense recovers 60% of the fumbles, then Cutler has averaged 36.05 turnovers per 1000 drop backs... and Orton has averaged 40.70 turnovers per 1000 drop backs.
And once again, this is ignoring the fact that teams were more likely to play pass against Cutler than they were against Orton, and ignoring the fact that Cutler found himself in significantly more "turnover-rich situations" than Orton did (i.e. behind and playing with a terrible defense).
Oh, now we're talking about TD:INT *RATIO*? In that case, there's nothing wrong with Jay Cutler. His TD:INT ratio coming into this season was 1.46:1. Orton's was 1.11:1. For the record, Manning's was 1.38:1 through 5 seasons, so there's plenty of reason to think Jay *WON'T* "always have a fairly high interception-to-touchdown ratio". And even if it stays constant, 1.46 is still pretty decent. Dan Marino for his entire career only had a 1.67:1 ratio.JuniorNB said:
If it wasn't for the Stokley play, Denver still would have had a SHOT at the game. They had about a minute left and needed to get about 50 yards to get into field goal range. Certainly a big long-shot, but still conceivable. If the pass had been completed to Marshall instead of tipped to Stokley they would have only been about 15 yards outside of Prater's range, iirc.If it wasn't for the Marshall play, then Denver still had a better than 50% chance of winning the game. Assume both teams have a 50/50 shot in overtime (which ignores the fact that Denver had been playing like the better team in the second half). Even if Denver couldn't move the ball at all, they've still got a 50% chance. If the pass had merely been completed with no run-after-catch, then Denver was probably already at the edge of Prater's range, and would have had 2 minutes to try and make the game-winning field goal a shorter kick. I'd say Denver had a 75+% chance of winning that game even without the run after catch.PatytonsGhost said:
Agreed, but as I said, you have to create your own luck sometimes. If Denver hadn't have played superb defense that game, then the lucky play wouldn't have won it for them. The defense gets credit for the win in Cincinnati, not 1 lucky Stokely play.JuniorNB said:Marshall's play was not 'flukey'. It was a great football play executed by a very talented and determined athlete.The Stokely play was 100% luck.shredhead said:IDrinkyourMilkshake said:and I'll add one thing, and I've said this before, maybe even in this thread.You have to put yourself in a position for these flukey plays to pay off for you. Denver's defense kept them in every game so far. If not for being within 7 points, neither of the fluke plays would have made a difference. The defense is the MVP by far for the Broncos this season, and they are the sole reason Denver is 4-0, not Stokely and not Marshall.
Now, I can address the Marshall play. you call it a fluke, and I called it a fluke in the above paragraph just for arguments sake. I don't believe that was a fluke play at all. That was just a good athlete making a great play, albeit with a little help from horrible tackling by the Dallas defense. Even if Marshall would have been tackled or if the pass would have been incomplete, the Broncos were moving the ball pretty well in the second half against Dallas, and I think the odds were better than 50/50 that Denver would have moved into field goal range and won the game anyway. So don't call that a fluke play. If you want to play the fluke card and say they shouldn't be 4-0, then fine, but say they should be 3-1 instead of 2-2. I'm not buying that Denver only beat Dallas because of 1 play.
switz
Footballguy
I think it's pretty common sense that during their rookie season, most players are learning the game still, and that's regardless of how many games they play. If it was the first 16 games played, you'd have expected Aaron Rodgers to really struggle last year, but he didn't. Thing is, first offseason, everything is new. Second offseason, whether you've played any games or not the prior year, you've got a pretty good grasp on the speed of the game, etc. Heck, many teams let their QB sit their first season for exactly that reason. And those QBs tend not to make too many "rookie" mistakes when they begin playing... even QBs who come in late during their rookie season make fewer mistakes than those who start early in the season.I think you know all of this already and are just arguing to argue.
There's a lot of "common sense" that is flat out wrong. The whole "establish the run to win the game" bit of common sense? Absolutely a myth. The whole "teams that win in the postseason are those that run and stop the run" gem? Massive myth. So yes, I'll need to see some sort of evidence beyond "hey man, it's common sense" before I accept something as fact. You mention Aaron Rodgers. If we're going the "anecdotal evidence" route, then I'll fire back with Carson Palmer- 4.2% INT% his first season as a starter (second season in the league), 2.4% INT% in his second season as a starter (3rd season in the league). How about Tony Romo? His INT% has gone from 3.9% to 3.7% to 3.1%, despite the fact that he sat out for two seasons. Sure, Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers weren't very mistake-prone as first year starters... but neither were Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco.If you want to throw out FORTY PERCENT of Orton's career data, you're going to need to give a much better reason than "it's common sense" and a single anecdotal example.
Last edited by a moderator:
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Or the 2-2 Steelers that didn't beat those horrible Bengals?
When was that?
SoCalBroncoFan
Footballguy
Bronco fan posting for the first time in this thread after reading it all season.
When the Shanahan firing came down I thought the Broncos had made a huge mistake. When they hired a young kid to coach the team, I really started to hate the decision. Whent he young kid and the QB started fighting and our QB was traded out of town I started wondering if this was an episode of the Twilight Zone. I really had very little confidence that the team was going to be decent, let alone good, anytime soon. However, I have to say that I am very happy with the direction the team is going right now. As a Bronco fan I have spent most of my life rooting for a team that was built around its offense and tried to be servicable on defense. Now that the team is focusing on defense and running the ball my outlook for the future is alot brighter.
I think alot fo us Bronco fans have forgotten that Pat Bowlen doesnt own the team to make money. His priority is winning, and always has been. We are very lucky to have an owner with his philosophy. He has always attempted to put people and players in his organization the give it the best chance to win. I forgot that this off-season, but I will not do it again.
Oh, and I think we all can agree that Jay Cutler is way more talented than Kyle Orton is. Jeff George was more talented than Trent Dilfer, but only one of them ever won anything.
When the Shanahan firing came down I thought the Broncos had made a huge mistake. When they hired a young kid to coach the team, I really started to hate the decision. Whent he young kid and the QB started fighting and our QB was traded out of town I started wondering if this was an episode of the Twilight Zone. I really had very little confidence that the team was going to be decent, let alone good, anytime soon. However, I have to say that I am very happy with the direction the team is going right now. As a Bronco fan I have spent most of my life rooting for a team that was built around its offense and tried to be servicable on defense. Now that the team is focusing on defense and running the ball my outlook for the future is alot brighter.
I think alot fo us Bronco fans have forgotten that Pat Bowlen doesnt own the team to make money. His priority is winning, and always has been. We are very lucky to have an owner with his philosophy. He has always attempted to put people and players in his organization the give it the best chance to win. I forgot that this off-season, but I will not do it again.
Oh, and I think we all can agree that Jay Cutler is way more talented than Kyle Orton is. Jeff George was more talented than Trent Dilfer, but only one of them ever won anything.
