Re: Blown out in Denver
Adam Smith
> Ok, it's pretty much over now. Orton cannot compete. Too bad for the Broncos.
>
> MickeyD really isn't the able to coach.
Come on, step back and think about it a little. 6-2, and the losses
were to the two AFC championship game teams from last January. I'm as
frustrated as anyone after the last two weeks, but what more can you
realistically ask from a rookie head coach?
I gotta say though, this is the first game where I've thought Cutler
could have made a real difference.
Adam Smith
> Adam Smith <adamcsm...@fastmail.us> wrote in news:ac7b0579-e5e5-4b6a-93e6-
> 7dabe74fa...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> with choosing Orton and his only salvation at this point is to put Simms in.
> As long as other teams know that all they have to do is defend the first 15
> yards, the offense is done.
>
> On the defensive side, I think the Broncos read their own headlines during
> the bye week. They better remember how to play or it'll be an 8 & 8 year.
I think the defense did pretty well considering they were basically
hung out to dry by the offense in the second half, and they were up
against one of the most well-rounded offenses in the league.
Regarding the offense, it's entirely possible that Orton might not be
the answer, but I don't think replacing him with a guy who's basically
been a career backup is going to help things. What Orton brings to
the table is a solid grasp of McDaniels' system, which is not a simple
thing. If you replace him with someone who doesn't understand the
system as well, it's going to be a net loss regardless of arm
strength.
Cleatarrior
> Ok, it's pretty much over now. Orton cannot compete. Too bad for the Broncos.
>
> MickeyD really isn't the able to coach.
>
Little early to say, he used a lot of different formations, what he
couldn't do was get the running game going, or explo9it the TE.
Part of that came as they were using Graham to bolster Polumbus.
Cleatarrior
And you'd be right on the money there.
Cleatarrior
> Adam Smith <adamc...@fastmail.us> wrote in news:ac7b0579-e5e5-4b6a-93e6-
> 7dabe7...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> with choosing Orton and his only salvation at this point is to put Simms in.
> As long as other teams know that all they have to do is defend the first 15
> yards, the offense is done.
On the money, I agree.
But it'll never happen.
Apparently Simms doesn't know pythagorean theory as well as Orton - like
THAT even mattered...
> On the defensive side, I think the Broncos read their own headlines during
> the bye week. They better remember how to play or it'll be an 8 & 8 year.
Word.
Cleatarrior
Do we even know that Simms isn't as well-versed or as good with it?
A couple more multi-pick games and McD will have something to ponder, if
the writers don't beat him to it.
Wait and see.
mcgozer
the line of scrimmage all night. Our running game was AWOL. However, it is
very apparent Orton hasn't got what it takes to play catch up football.
And, perhaps the reason the running game can't get on track is because the
other team doesn't fear the deep passing game.
"Adam Smith" <adamc...@fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:5bbf5e79-8dda-4160...@j24g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Mark Vincent
> Ok, it's pretty much over now. Orton cannot compete. Too bad for the Broncos.
>
> MickeyD really isn't the able to coach.
Wow.
A completely unexpected 6-0 start, and Orton and McDaniels can do no
wrong.
Two losses to the teams that played for the AFC title, and Orton is
done and McDaniels can't coach.
Wow. Just . . . wow.
--
Mark Vincent, Man-In-Black
"If you lose the game on the field you cannot win it back in the
clubhouse, and anyone who thinks you can is a loser."
--Bill James
Mark Vincent
> Mark Vincent <marksvinc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:43027217-8168-48a2-aff7-
> 23beda492...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:05 pm, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> Ok, it's pretty much over now. Orton cannot compete. Too bad for the Bron
> > cos.
>
> >> MickeyD really isn't the able to coach.
>
> > Wow.
>
> > A completely unexpected 6-0 start, and Orton and McDaniels can do no
> > wrong.
>
> > Two losses to the teams that played for the AFC title, and Orton is
> > done and McDaniels can't coach.
>
> > Wow. Just . . . wow.
>
> badly the Broncos were beaten and how lucky they've been in the six wins.
Well, try it this way, then: _wow_ with a head shake and a touch of
sadness. Wow, as in, "Wow---the Broncos won their first six games
when most people thought they'd win six games all season. They've
beaten the current leaders of the AFC North, AFC East, and NFC East,
plus the Chargers in San Diego. Only one of their wins could truly be
called lucky. Yet you'd rather see the season so far as a failure for
McDaniels because of Jay Cutler, whose only NFL accomplishment to date
is his early lead in the clubhouse in the race to be this decade's
Jeff George. Wow."
Does that work better for you?
Mark Vincent
> Mark Vincent <marksvinc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:21d780eb-c84c-44d1-
> 8d67-bbcd8e703...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> As for who they beat, by all means don't consider the Cowboys injury
> situation, the tipped pass, or the emotional motivation. By all means,
> don't consider them at all.
I'm sure I gave them at least as much consideration as you gave
injuries, bad bounces, and whatever you claim by "emotional
motivation" that affected Denver's two losses.
But it doesn't matter anyway, since your thesis has nothing to do with
the results of the games and everything to do with why you want
McDaniels to fail.
> The failure was in choosing ego over talent. MickeyD's ego demanded the
> talent of Cutler must go. A coach who wanted to win would have recognized
> the situation and fixed it.
If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
his quarterback for life.
Since McDaniels appears to be a coach who wants to win, maybe he did
recognize and fix the situation---by picking the quarterback who has
won more often in his career.
Yes, we were thrilled by Cutler's big arm, his scrambling ability, his
gun-slinger attitude. How often did he thrill us with a Broncos
victory the last three years? We can all speculate on how well the
Broncos *might be* doing with Cutler this year, too. But here are
facts, not speculations:
Jay Cutler has been on the winning side in 21 of the 45 NFL games he
has started.
Kyle Orton has been the winning quarterback in 27 of the 41 games he
has started.
One guy has won less than half the time; the other, about 66% of the
time.
Isn't it possible that McDaniels saw wins in Orton that he didn't see
in Cutler? Isn't having a team that wins games more important to
Broncos fans than who their quarterback is?
> MickeyD made it clear that talent wasn't important.
Nonsense. Of course talent is important, to McDaniels and to every
other NFL coach. Aren't Bailey, Marshall, Dawkins, Dumervil, etc.
talented players?
But less important than talent for talent's sake is talent that
*translates to wins on the field*. The Broncos have played better and
won more often with Orton than with Cutler.
Or, as Jack Hartman used to say, "Talent is being where you're
supposed to be and doing what you're supposed to do."
> Now he has a chance to learn otherwise. I doubt he learns the lesson.
He may not be alone.
---
Mark Vincent, Man-In-Black
"Talent is like electricity. We don't understand electricity. We use
it."
--Maya Angelou
KG
>
> > If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
> > his quarterback for life.
>
> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
> you deny simple facts? It's no shame to admit your limitations so go ahead
> and do so.
There's another explanation.
He wanted a system/game manager QB rather than a gambler/gunslinger.
Mark Vincent
> Mark Vincent <marksvinc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6e3256ef-ff50-412c-
> 8290-dd7a8670f...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> the ability to see things clearly.
Why? Because I see the games with Dallas, New England, Cincinnati,
and San Diego as games that Denver won? Am I supposed to see them as
games Denver lost, despite the final scores?
> > But it doesn't matter anyway, since your thesis has nothing to do with
> > the results of the games and everything to do with why you want
> > McDaniels to fail.
>
> I don't want MickeyD to fail. However, I do recognize failure when I see
> it. Maybe you should learn that skill.
>
> >> The failure was in choosing ego over talent. MickeyD's ego demanded the
> >> talent of Cutler must go. A coach who wanted to win would have
> recognized
> >> the situation and fixed it.
>
> > If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
> > his quarterback for life.
>
> Wrong. MickeyD chose his ego vice Cutler's talent. How could you confuse
> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
> you deny simple facts?
It's interesting that your *opinions* here have the force of "simple
facts," while the simple facts I quoted below are dismissed as "apples
and oranges."
Your belief is that McDaniels didn't want to butt heads with Cutler.
You're may be right. But the "simple fact" is that Denver has played
better football this year without Cutler than they did last year with
him. My point below is to suggest that maybe McDaniels had other
reasons beyond his ego for doing what he did. Maybe he saw things
that we could not. But, again, that would only be an *opinion*, since
we ultimately don't know why Cutler was traded.
> > Since McDaniels appears to be a coach who wants to win, maybe he did
> > recognize and fix the situation---by picking the quarterback who has
> > won more often in his career.
>
> All coaches want to win so that is a null claim.
It's your null claim, not mine. Here's what you said, again:
"The failure was in choosing ego over talent. MickeyD's ego demanded
the
talent of Cutler must go. A coach who wanted to win would have
recognized the situation and fixed it."
> > Yes, we were thrilled by Cutler's big arm, his scrambling ability, his
> > gun-slinger attitude. How often did he thrill us with a Broncos
> > victory the last three years? We can all speculate on how well the
> > Broncos *might be* doing with Cutler this year, too. But here are
> > facts, not speculations:
>
> > Jay Cutler has been on the winning side in 21 of the 45 NFL games he
> > has started.
> > Kyle Orton has been the winning quarterback in 27 of the 41 games he
> > has started.
> > One guy has won less than half the time; the other, about 66% of the
> > time.
>
> That's it, go for the apples and oranges comparisons. That makes everything
> better now doesn't it?
Well, they're facts that are in conflict with an emotional attachment
to Jay Cutler, so they probably don't make things better.
> When you want to get real, look at the whole picture. Chicago had a defense, Denver didn't.
And suddenly Denver has a defense, and Chicago doesn't? All of the
peripheral (to the quarterback) team-based attributes that contribute
to wins and losses should have switched places when Cutler and Orton
switched teams. That is, the Bears defense and special teams that
helped Orton overcome his chronic mediocrity and win games as a
starter in Chicago should now be showing up in Cutler's win column;
and the Broncos defense, special teams, etc. that cruelly kept Jay
Cutler from becoming the next John Elway should now be dragging down
Kyle Orton's record. But it hasn't happened. It's only been eight
games, but both QB's are winning with their new teams at rates similar
to their winning rates with their old teams.
Obviously it's not that simple. Brian Urlacher's injury killed a
Bears defense that was already starting to sag. Denver's defense was
a revelation in the first six games of the season, and still played
pretty well in the first halves of the Baltimore and Pittsburgh
games. But your original beef was about McDaniels's coaching
decisions. Why doesn't he (and Nolan) get credit for the improvement
to the defense? Or was trading Cutler such a disastrous move that all
other decisions were doomed---an assumption contradicted by the
Broncos's record to date?
Ego and talent, you said. What about Lovie Smith's ego? Despite a
significant talent upgrade at the QB position, the Bears are only
making three more pass attempts per game than last season. Why were
the Bears down 31-7 last Sunday before Cutler started winging the
football around? Shouldn't Lovie Smith be re-tooling the Bears from a
team that got to the Super Bowl three years ago on special teams and
defense (and with Rex Grossman at QB!) into a bombs-away juggernaut,
just to make Jay Cutler happy?
If one starts from the assumption that Jay Cutler should still be the
quarterback of the Broncos, everything that follows from there is
either an indictment of McDaniels (and Orton) or a deification of
Cutler as a Bear. And, unfortunately, those approaches deny the
reality of the first half of the season, where the Broncos were 6-2
and the Bears were 4-4.
> > Isn't it possible that McDaniels saw wins in Orton that he didn't see
> > in Cutler? Isn't having a team that wins games more important to
> > Broncos fans than who their quarterback is?
>
> Your analysis is incorrect. What MickeyD saw was that Orton could be bent
> to his will while Cutler was more of a challenge. Perhaps that challenge
> would be a good thing but Mickey threw it away now didn't he? MickeyD
> clearly ignored the tapes that showed Cutler learning to hit the safe
> receiver rather than taking a shot down field. MickeyD blew it.
That wasn't analysis, it was a question: "Isn't it possible that
McDaniels saw wins in Orton that he didn't see in Cutler?" The rest
was another question, not about McDaniels but about the Cult of
Cutler.
What you posted wasn't analysis either, but at least it helped answer
my second question.
> >> MickeyD made it clear that talent wasn't important.
>
> > Nonsense. Of course talent is important, to McDaniels and to every
> > other NFL coach. Aren't Bailey, Marshall, Dawkins, Dumervil, etc.
> > talented players?
>
> Well, gee, those players would still be there along with Cutler. That's not
> so hard to see now is it?
You: "MickeyD made it clear that talent wasn't important."
If that were true, since there was other talent on the team beyond
Cutler, McDaniels would have run them off as well. And the team
wouldn't have gone out and signed Dawkins and Hill, etc. since they've
still got talent.
I'll say it again: talent for talent's sake shouldn't be the
objective. Talent that helps you win the most games should be the
objective. Playoff berths, division and conference championships, and
Super Bowls aren't given to the most talented teams by fiat. They're
decided on the field. (Good thing, since determining "the most
talented team" is a subjective process anyway.) How do we measure the
success or failure of coaching decisions? Since the NFL recognizes
winning games as the only measure of success, why not use the same
standard for coaches, and blithely assume that their decisions are
driven by meeting that standard?
I don't know whether McDaniels thought he could win more games with
the team he has than with the team he started with. You don't know,
either. One thing we can both know, though: the Broncos have won six
games so far, with eight games still to play. It requires some
speculation, but I think we can both agree that they've won more games
than was expected of them. If that's not good coaching, what is it?
What is good coaching, if not winning more games than you're supposed
to win?
--
Mark Vincent, Man-In-Black
"Look, what is talent? Talent is being where you're supposed to be
and doing what you're supposed to do."
--former Kansas State basketball coach Jack Hartman
Adam Smith
> Simms is much more than a career backup. He was a young starting QB when he
> was injured. The follow-up treatment to the injury saved his life but left
> him with a long rehab road. This is basically the first year that he's had
> full abdominal range of motion since the injury. The Post had an article on
> it last spring.
>
> Now whether or not he has a good grasp of MickyD's system, the only way for
> us to know is to play him. Micky managed to name his starter based on OTAs
> so maybe he saw something in Orton or just wanted to quash speculation.
> Maybe he's seen a bit more now and can change things up but I doubt it.
>
> All I really know is that the Broncos offense has made it clear that the
> first 15 yards is critical. As long as a defense understands that then they
> have a good chance of stopping the Broncos.
Ah, I really didn't know Simms' background other than that he was a
college buddy of Kyle Shanahan. That definitely makes it more
interesting.
Regarding Cleat's question:
> Do we even know that Simms isn't as well-versed or as good with it?
I guess we don't. In fact, as far as I remember pre-season, Simms
actually seemed to show a faster learning curve than Orton. I can't
really come up with an argument against Simms that doesn't boil down
to "If he really would be an upgrade, McDaniels would have put him in
already." Which isn't bad logic, but it makes for boring NG
conversation.
Maybe there's concern about him getting re-injured?
Cleatarrior
And ended up with a rag arm who tosses worm-burners.
Hint - Simms "managed" Gruden's west coast offense, no small accomplishment.
Nancy Perry
Did you guys see Drew Litton's lastest cartoon? It's great (and sad but true):
http://www.drewlitton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ortonsweakarm.gif
Nancy
Cleatarrior
I doubt it, now Woody's off on it, as predicted:
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_13759252
When I suggested this move to a rather large cheese at The Post, he
said: "Simms hasn't played since early in the 2006 season."
Orton only played three games in 2006-07 after being benched, following
15 starts in 2005, before the Bears went on to the Super Bowl. Simms has
started 15 NFL games.
"Simms' spleen was ruptured. What if he gets hurt again?"
Simms can't hurt his spleen again. It was removed.
"The Bucs got rid of Simms."
The Bears got rid of Orton.
"What did Simms ever do when he was a starter?"
He started a postseason game, which is more than Orton has done.
"Yeah, but . . ."
Yeah, but Simms has a stronger arm. Orton's lack of arm strength was
revealed twice against Pittsburgh when he tried to make throws off his
back foot and couldn't get the ball to open receivers. And, Simms can
scramble better than Orton, who can't get outside the rush, can't run
the quarterback draw and can't throw back across his body.
"Simms is left-handed."
So were Steve Young, Ken Stabler and Boomer Esiason, who took their
teams to Super Bowls.
Cleatarrior
> Maybe, just maybe, Orton could have had a better game if they hadn't lost at
> the line of scrimmage all night. Our running game was AWOL. However, it is
> very apparent Orton hasn't got what it takes to play catch up football.
>
> And, perhaps the reason the running game can't get on track is because the
> other team doesn't fear the deep passing game.
Bingo!
Simms played west coast with Gruden and he's been in practice and
meetings all season, he should be quite competent.
Cleatarrior
Lol, good one.
Maybe we can trade with Houston for Grossman...
Fred Waiss, Sr.
"Clark" <c...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBFE586968...@94.75.244.46...
> Mark Vincent <marksv...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6e3256ef-ff50-412c-
> 8290-dd7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> the ability to see things clearly.
>>
>> the results of the games and everything to do with why you want
>> McDaniels to fail.
>
> it. Maybe you should learn that skill.
>
>>
>>> talent of Cutler must go. A coach who wanted to win would have
> recognized
>>> the situation and fixed it.
>>
>> If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
>> his quarterback for life.
>
> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
> you deny simple facts? It's no shame to admit your limitations so go ahead
> and do so.
>>
>> recognize and fix the situation---by picking the quarterback who has
>> won more often in his career.
>
> correct decisions to win, that is the question.
>>
>> Yes, we were thrilled by Cutler's big arm, his scrambling ability, his
>> gun-slinger attitude. How often did he thrill us with a Broncos
>> victory the last three years? We can all speculate on how well the
>> Broncos *might be* doing with Cutler this year, too. But here are
>> facts, not speculations:
>>
>> Jay Cutler has been on the winning side in 21 of the 45 NFL games he
>> has started.
>> Kyle Orton has been the winning quarterback in 27 of the 41 games he
>> has started.
>> One guy has won less than half the time; the other, about 66% of the
>> time.
>
> picture. Chicago had a defense, Denver didn't.
>
>>
>> in Cutler? Isn't having a team that wins games more important to
>> Broncos fans than who their quarterback is?
>
> to his will while Cutler was more of a challenge. Perhaps that challenge
> would be a good thing but Mickey threw it away now didn't he?
rookie HC add to the challenges he already has? What's wrong with wanting a QB
that can be "bent to his will?" The QB should be following the HCs
will--employee to boss.
MickeyD
> clearly ignored the tapes that showed Cutler learning to hit the safe
> receiver rather than taking a shot down field. MickeyD blew it.
>>
>>> MickeyD made it clear that talent wasn't important.
>>
>> Nonsense. Of course talent is important, to McDaniels and to every
>> other NFL coach. Aren't Bailey, Marshall, Dawkins, Dumervil, etc.
>> talented players?
>
> Well, gee, those players would still be there along with Cutler. That's not
> so hard to see now is it?
>>
>> But less important than talent for talent's sake is talent that
>> *translates to wins on the field*. The Broncos have played better and
>> won more often with Orton than with Cutler.
>>
>> Or, as Jack Hartman used to say, "Talent is being where you're
>> supposed to be and doing what you're supposed to do."
>>
>>> Now he has a chance to learn otherwise. I doubt he learns the lesson.
>>
>> He may not be alone.
>>
> Clearly he isn't. You have failed to learn too.
>
While I still think that McDanny could have coached Cutler into the QB
he wanted, and that Cutler would probably be 6-2 now with the improved D, it's
water over the damn bridge. We've got Orton and Simms. Cutler is out of the
equation. I'd like to see Simms, though. All the commentators keep saying that
the Broncos need to stretch the field, and attack down the field. I think we've
seen enough evidence that Orton isn't capable of doing that effectively. A
nother game or two with an impotent offense, and McDanny may decide a change is
necessary.
>
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I doubt it, now Woody's off on it, as predicted:
Woody doesn't try to be accurate, he tries to be entertaining.
I'll play the game though - why not Simms?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>No wow needed. I've been pounding on MickyD since he lost Cutler. Look at how
>badly the Broncos were beaten and how lucky they've been in the six wins.
>Nope, no wow needed at all.
I think they lost this game with poor guard play and poor running.
Maybe both games.
KG
Orton's QB rating is still higher than Cutler's and his TD to
interception ratio is better.
He's the right type of QB for a defensively oriented team although
it's a given that it'd be better
to have a QB that also had the option of going for it if the team gets
more than a TD behind.
Cleatarrior
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:34:51 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> I doubt it, now Woody's off on it, as predicted:
>
> Woody doesn't try to be accurate, he tries to be entertaining.
>
> I'll play the game though - why not Simms?
>
Of course now Orton is asking to be turned loose for the long ball,
curioser and curioser.
Cleatarrior
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:34:51 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
>> No wow needed. I've been pounding on MickyD since he lost Cutler. Look at how
>> badly the Broncos were beaten and how lucky they've been in the six wins.
>> Nope, no wow needed at all.
>
> I think they lost this game with poor guard play and poor running.
> Maybe both games.
>
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 11, 10:23 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>> KG wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 9:33 pm, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>>> If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
>>>>> his quarterback for life.
>>>> Wrong. MickeyD chose his ego vice Cutler's talent. How could you confuse
>>>> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
>>>> you deny simple facts? It's no shame to admit your limitations so go ahead
>>>> and do so.
>>> There's another explanation.
>>> He wanted a system/game manager QB rather than a gambler/gunslinger.
>> And ended up with a rag arm who tosses worm-burners.
>>
>> Hint - Simms "managed" Gruden's west coast offense, no small accomplishment.
>
>
>
> Orton's QB rating is still higher than Cutler's and his TD to
> interception ratio is better.
Who cares, they're in two totally different systems and on two totally
different teams.
> He's the right type of QB for a defensively oriented team although
> it's a given that it'd be better
> to have a QB that also had the option of going for it if the team gets
> more than a TD behind.
Well Orton agrees with you:
http://www.denverpost.com/sports
Krieger: Deep ball high on Orton's wish list
KG
> KG wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 10:23 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
> >> KG wrote:
> >>> On Nov 10, 9:33 pm, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>>>> If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
> >>>>> his quarterback for life.
> >>>> Wrong. MickeyD chose his ego vice Cutler's talent. How could you confuse
> >>>> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
> >>>> you deny simple facts? It's no shame to admit your limitations so go ahead
> >>>> and do so.
> >>> There's another explanation.
> >>> He wanted a system/game manager QB rather than a gambler/gunslinger.
> >> And ended up with a rag arm who tosses worm-burners.
>
> >> Hint - Simms "managed" Gruden's west coast offense, no small accomplishment.
>
> > Orton's QB rating is still higher than Cutler's and his TD to
> > interception ratio is better.
>
> Who cares, they're in two totally different systems and on two totally
> different teams.
I dunno. How can anyone blame 17 INTs in 9 games on the system?
IMO, it's bad decision making on the part of the QB. He's not
disciplined and too often he makes bad choices. It doesn't fit
McDaniels' system.
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 12, 9:34 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>> KG wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 10:23 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>>>> KG wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:33 pm, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> If McDaniels had chosen ego over talent, Jay Cutler would have been
>>>>>>> his quarterback for life.
>>>>>> Wrong. MickeyD chose his ego vice Cutler's talent. How could you confuse
>>>>>> such a simple thing? Are you <ahem> less than intelligent? How on Earth can
>>>>>> you deny simple facts? It's no shame to admit your limitations so go ahead
>>>>>> and do so.
>>>>> There's another explanation.
>>>>> He wanted a system/game manager QB rather than a gambler/gunslinger.
>>>> And ended up with a rag arm who tosses worm-burners.
>>>> Hint - Simms "managed" Gruden's west coast offense, no small accomplishment.
>>> Orton's QB rating is still higher than Cutler's and his TD to
>>> interception ratio is better.
>> Who cares, they're in two totally different systems and on two totally
>> different teams.
>
>
>
> I dunno. How can anyone blame 17 INTs in 9 games on the system?
Pretty easily really, it sucks.
Did you see Hester fall down?
> IMO, it's bad decision making on the part of the QB. He's not
> disciplined and too often he makes bad choices. It doesn't fit
> McDaniels' system.
It doesn't matter Grungy, he's _gone_ now.
Get over it, child.
So if you grew up in Laramie why can't you answer what was your favorite
Pokes football team?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>IMO, it's bad decision making on the part of the QB. He's not
>disciplined and too often he makes bad choices. It doesn't fit
>McDaniels' system.
If the quarterback doesn't adjust - then the coach needs to take a
large percentage of the blame.
KG
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:13:13 -0800 (PST), KG <kgringi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >IMO, it's bad decision making on the part of the QB. He's not
> >disciplined and too often he makes bad choices. It doesn't fit
> >McDaniels' system.
>
> If the quarterback doesn't adjust - then the coach needs to take a
> large percentage of the blame.
The whole thing about the Bellichick system (of which McDaniel's
system is a decendent) is they get players who fit their system. Some
players don't fit.
Mark Vincent
> We can agree to disagree or you can continue ranting.
Fine with me. Thanks for the discussion.
--
Mark Vincent
"Guys, Interrupted"---2001 CU Trivia Bowl Champions
Cleatarrior
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:13:13 -0800 (PST), KG <kgrin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> IMO, it's bad decision making on the part of the QB. He's not
>> disciplined and too often he makes bad choices. It doesn't fit
>> McDaniels' system.
>
> If the quarterback doesn't adjust - then the coach needs to take a
> large percentage of the blame.
>