December 6, 2006 12:01 AM
On the offensive about the offense
Tony Ellsworth in Papillion, Neb., tops off what was another triple-digit flurry of action this week on the Broncos offense . . .
Q: Let's take a quick inventory of the Broncos assets: four talented wide receivers (also good receiving tight ends), a rookie quarterback with mobility and a rocket arm, a running back with exceptional speed. I know this is contrary to a normal conservative game plan with a rookie quarterback, but what about spreading it out with four wide receivers and running draws and screens to Tatum Bell as a changeup? The Broncos have to use Brandon Marshall, Javon Walker and Jay Cutler to have a chance. Thoughts?
A: The biggest reason some teams don't open up the formation on offense more these days is protection. Folks have wondered about this before, and I've always said what many defensive coordinators have told me over the years: An empty backfield or a formation with four wide receivers in it is often a signal for an automatic blitz.
The thinking is the offense will have five blocking on five or six rushers so a lot of guys calling the defensive signals like those odds. A quarterback gets punished plenty in a spread look, and that's why you see a bigger percentage of offenses in the spread in high school and college than would consider it in the NFL.
There is just too much speed on the edge, as well as at linebacker and at safety across the board in the NFL to consistently put a quarterback in the spread and expect him to survive too many seasons without a major injury.
Kurt Warner took plenty of punishment in the Rams' high-flying days, and it eventually affected his play over the long term. An underrated aspect of Warren Moon's play in the Oilers' run-and-shoot days was the number of hits he took, yet he still stayed in the lineup.
Implementing pass protections is also usually one of the bigger jumps a coach can make from designing a playbook in college and making one in the NFL.
With the salary cap, the quarterback is often both the most valuable player, as well as the one carrying the biggest contract, so to consistently put that player in harm's way is both a financial and personnel risk for a franchise.
A guy with $100 million contract in some cases being served up to blitz after blitz is just not something a team wants to live with.
However, offensive coaches will also tell you now that, with the rulebook and the officials strictly enforcing downfield contact rules, it is worth a long look in some situations to pump up the number of receivers on the field because there are certainly plays to be made.
Inside the 20s, however, it does get tougher for a spread offense to score against a quality defense because there is less room to get all of the receivers passing lanes to work in. It's easier in the short area for the defense to play the angles, which is why an offense is looking for a receiver to win one-on-one matchups in those situations.
As far as the Broncos, Marshall certainly showed the dimension he could bring -- with the tackle-breaking touchdown play in the fourth quarter Sunday night -- if he can consistently get himself in the right spots in his routes.
This season the Broncos have run three- and four-wide receiver looks quite a bit. They had 23 four wide-receiver snaps against the Chiefs on Thanksgiving, 25 three-wide receiver snaps the week before against the Chargers, 15 three-wide receiver snaps against the Raiders the week before that.
This week the Chargers rush the passer well so if the Broncos want to spread it out a little bit, they would likely have to shorten the dropbacks as well -- some three- or five-step things -- because out of the 3-4, San Diego can bring pressure from off angles and they have two finishers in Shawne Merriman and Shaun Phillips on the outside.
Paul Guthner also stayed on the offensive side of the ball . . .
Q: My question is with respect to Rod Smith. Has age finally caught up to him? Is there something about him that isn't being reported? Is the offense so completely centered around Javon Walker that Smith is just lost in the mix? . . . I find it of some coincidence that the Broncos offense is having its worst year ever under Shanahan is the same year that Rod Smith is having his worst year since he was a rookie.
A: Smith is the second-oldest receiver in the NFL -- behind San Diego's Keenan McCardell -- and he is on pace for his lowest output in both catches and yards receiving since 1996. That was his third year with the team, his second year on the active roster after spending 1994 on the practice squad.
Javon Walker is the first option in the passing game; it's why the Broncos surrendered a second-round pick and already signed him to a long-term deal that kicks in during the offseason should they pick up an option bonus as expected.
Smith does have some aches and pains -- only natural for a player who has played so many games and rarely takes even a practice off -- and some opposing secondary coaches believe he doesn't have the explosion out of his cuts he had earlier in his career, which is where Smith always got his separation despite not having the speed of some other receivers.
Again that's a natural progression. Nobody in the league is as physically gifted in his 10th season as he was in his second, the game is simply too demanding. He's also had a smattering of drops, but he like a lot of Broncos, may be pressing a bit given that a season that began with so many expectations because they made it to the AFC Championship Game last year has been a bit of a struggle.
But Smith is one of the most savvy, technically sound players in the league, he's one of the hardest workers, and he knows how to use body position as well as work a route to the maximum. His role may no longer be to finish with 1,200 yards receiving, but it still could be bigger if the Broncos were more efficient passing the ball overall.
Smith and Walker are the only two players on the Broncos roster with more than 20 receptions this season; they are the only two wide receivers with more than seven receptions, and the season is 12 games old. That means the output is down across the board, now just in Smith's direction.
With everything said, Smith is still going to be a 50-catch player at his current pace, there is always a place for that.
Justin Blackburn in Phoenix cast a raised eyebrow at the Broncos quarterback switch . . .
Q: In terms of quarterbacks in Denver, the bar that Cutler has to (meet) should not be Hall of Famer John Elway, but rather the two guys who started in Denver since Elway or the two quarterbacks drafted this year before him. Brian Griese’s second season as a starter, he led the league in passing efficiency with a rating of 102, won 11 games, and led the team to the playoffs. In three seasons in Denver, Jake Plummer has led the team to three playoff appearances and an AFC Championship Game and had seasons of 10-6, 10-6, and 13-3. Griese won a national title, and Plummer led Arizona State to within two minutes of a national title. Vince Young and Matt Leinart contended for or won the Heisman, won national championships, and are both struggling this year. Consider that in four years in college, Cutler never led his team to a single winning season and he played at a very mediocre program where there were no expectations. Vandy does not prepare a quarterback for expectations in the NFL, especially Denver.
What is it that makes Jay Cutler a better quarterback than either of the last two in Denver (Griese, Plummer) or the two drafted in front of him this year (Young, Leinart) -- all four of whom have played in Rose Bowls, finished top three in the Heisman voting, and either won or came within a play of winning a national title? Is Cutler’s talent so great that he overcomes the lack of expectations and big-game experience in college and outperforms these players who came from winning programs where they stood out?
A: Interesting thought on it all. In terms of Cutler as a prospect, having lived in Nashville for two of his seasons as a Vanderbilt starter and having seen most of his games either in person or on video, I think what he did at Vandy was something that weighed in his favor when compared to the others on the board.
He consistently performed, with few, if any some years, pro prospects around him in the Commodores offense, and he did it in what most scouts believe is the elite conference in the nation, especially when you're talking about pass rushers across the board year after year.
One general manager told me before the draft, "The question is not how Cutler would do at USC, the question is how Matt Leinart would do at Vandy?'' Cutler was the Southeastern Conference's consensus Offensive Player of the Year at Vanderbilt, it simply is one of the most difficult things anyone has done in college football in recent years.
Leinart was surrounded by NFL draft picks, including another Heisman winner and a second-round pick in the backfield alone. The tight end was a draft pick, several linemen were draft picks over his career.
Scouts weigh all of those things, too. Cutler also never missed a game despite the punishment he took throwing the ball. He even ran the option the first two years and in his final two years was blitzed plenty because the Commodores didn't often slow down opposing pass rushers with a consistent running game.
So certainly he got credit for all of that. That said, plenty of scouts also questioned the fact he didn't have a winning record, though I don't know how he could have. Elway didn't win as many games at Stanford as other guys won other places, but he's still in the Hall of Fame.
As far as comparing a rookie to a Hall of Famer, I'm certainly not in favor of it.
One of the more fascinating things about the NFL is that folks often think Hall of Fame passers come in bunches and are somehow a given.
They don't, and they aren't. In fact the stark reality is a fan may get to see one on his favorite team once every football generation and maybe not even then. People in Detroit, Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Minnesota and on and on have waited for decades to see the next one.
Broncos fans had Elway, that just may be the allotment for some time. People in Dallas want to see someone be the next Roger Staubach, the next Troy Aikman, but that was two Hall of Famers in a short period of time. That's already beating the odds; to ask for a third is probably an unreasonable expectation that will continually lead to frustration with the guy who is playing.
In San Francisco people had the ultimate -- back-to-back Hall of Famers behind center in Joe Montana and Steve Young in the last 20 years -- and they still want another. It's not going to happen.
If you needed a Hall of Fame quarterback to win the Super Bowl, then there would be years when the trophy wasn't awarded. Quarterbacks should be graded on the here and now, including those just starting out like Cutler.
Did they run their teams efficiently? Was there enough talent around them to win? Did they do their part? Did they do the work to get better? Were they coached well? How did the guy carry himself in both good and bad times?
Those are the benchmarks, not if any of them can go to Canton.
Don Lyon in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, wonders what happened . . .
Q: I haven't seen much written about the fake field goal that resulted in the injury to (Jason) Elam. What happened? Shanahan looked like he was lost on the sidelines. What possible reason could there have been for trying it when, once they were finished fooling around, there would only have been time to kick a field goal anyway -- unless they thought Elam would run for a touchdown. And why risk your kicker when Plummer had the ball in his hands to start the play? Was this just a brain cramp?
A: The short answer is the Broncos believed the way the Seahawks overloaded the formation and rushed field goals in most cases this season when in a similar spot on the field, that they would score a touchdown on the play.
In hindsight getting Elam hurt -- a strained left hamstring -- and then having to simply kick on the next play after a two-year gain, it looks like a bad decision. After looking at the play Monday, the Broncos were of the opinion that two things contributed to the play's failure.
One was an ankle injury to Stephen Alexander put linebacker Patrick Chukwurah in the lineup up front and that Chukwurah, simply wanting to fulfill his blocking assignment, was a little too aggressive blocking down to the inside so the Seahawks saw that as something different -- much like a defensive lineman, who it let go on a screen pass suddenly figures out he was let go for a reason and backtracks.
Also, former Broncos cornerback Kelly Herndon was on the field for Seattle. And Shanahan said Herndon acted, from the start of the play, "like he knew something was up.''
It's the old adage, trick plays are great when they work. When they don't, they're bad.
Simple rule, but most coaches accept it as part of the job.
John Coates wondered . . .
Q: Seems like all everyone wants to talk and/or write about are issues regarding Jay Cutler. His rookie learning curve is going to be there and all reasonable Bronco fans should know that. But what I was hoping for was that the rest of team would step up and finally become the team that most of us thought they would be this year. In doing so, I hoped they would cover his mistakes with their good play … I am now convinced that they just are not that good a team overall. What I saw Sunday night was a running game that was only good for one-half of a game (the wrong half at that); a pass rush that was totally ineffective when it really needed to be most effective (during Seattle's last drive); continued poor special teams play; a defensive coordinator whose play-calling against the pass has become predictable by the other teams' offensive coordinators; a head coach who is trying to exert too much control over the offense with the most conservative "West Coast" style of play I have ever seen. I see the Broncos' loss being the result of all these deficiencies, not the expected mistakes of a rookie put into a pressure cooker that would have toasted any young quarterback . . . Whatever the causes, the Broncos are not the team we hoped they were at the beginning of the season. The talent seems to be there, which leads me to think there are root problems with the coaching staff . . . So what do you think about this and the possibility we could see some coaching changes for next year?
Joel Stevens also took a swing at the Broncos special teams . . .
A: Shanahan doesn't change assistant coaches all that often for reasons other than a guy getting another job somewhere else. He has fired an assistant -- secondary coach David Gibbs in 2004 -- during a season only once.
But certainly as one who preaches accountability to the players so often, Shanahan always looks at the staff at the end of each season. Special teams play, especially in the return game, has been a trouble spot all year, so that will certainly get a review.
Shanahan runs the team's offense, including making many of the play calls on gameday, so any changes on the staff on offense would usually be a result of someone being unable to work in that environment where the head coach has such a big imprint on one side of the ball.
Defensively, many of the troubles look to be a by-product of a pass rush that doesn't consistently put heat on opposing passers, especially in terms of somebody beating a double team late in the game to get the sack that ends the drive. The Broncos were aggressive in free agency trying to pursue defensive ends last March, but it was an expensive club and those players (John Abraham and Andre Carter) got offered more elsewhere. I would expect them to be aggressive again in the upcoming free agency season at that position again.
The Broncos are also often one of the most veteran rosters in the league -- usually one of the higher average age -- and while that usually translates into a team that doesn't make many silly mistakes, isn't penalized much and executes diverse gameplans each week, it also takes only a few injuries to derail their plans.
It's no accident Shanahan's four best seasons were also the four seasons of his tenure when he lost the fewest starters to injury.
And finally Steven Brian was the first of many to again ask about Terrell Davis' Hall of Fame chances, so it was a chance to revisit . . .
A: Davis is in his first year of eligibility and made the first cutdown from the original list of 111 players to the 25 semifinalists the Board of Selectors is currently considering. The list of 17 finalists, which includes 15 players that are voted upon as well as two candidates already chosen by the seniors committee earlier in the year, is made -- the 15 by vote -- in December, then usually released by the Hall of Fame in January.
As far as Davis, the fact he made it to the list of 25 semifinalists in his first year of eligibility shows he has some support. But the length of his career will be the chief obstacle for his induction.
Voters want to see prolonged excellence, and there have to be some compelling reasons to look away from the longer careers.
That said, having discussed his candidacy with the voters, it's clear Davis' postseason performance should carry plenty of weight as well, as will his three-season period when he fueled a two-time Super Bowl champion as well as another 13-3 team in 1996 -- three 1,500-yard seasons, two 1,700-yard seasons and the 2,008-yard season in those three years.
Steven also asked if Davis' three-year run was the best ever. By my records it is with Davis' 5,296 yards rushing over those three years just ahead of Eric Dickerson's 5,147 yards over the first three years of his career.
That three-year total for Davis also happens to be just under 70 percent of his career rushing yardage with the Broncos. Some voters are going to have a problem with that as well.
He had seven postseason 100-yard rushing games, and the fact the Broncos won all seven of those games are huge pluses. Also, he is a rare player to have won the league's MVP and a Super Bowl MVP in his career.
Put that with his historical 2,008-yard season, and there is plenty to work with. Still, some voters are going to say he simply didn't play long enough.
And while some have argued Gale Sayers didn't play very long either because -- like Davis -- of injury, Sayers was a transcendent running back in his time as well as also being the dominant kick returner of his era.
As I've said before, it may take some time, but my hope is Davis will be a finalist at some point so he gets heavy consideration at the final meeting where the votes are taken. The committee debates the finalists face to face the day before the Super Bowl.
That’s it, and thanks.
December 6, 2006
2:10 PM
Justin B writes:
Let’s replace Jay Cutler and Vandy with Tim Couch and Kentucky. Both played in the SEC on mediocre teams with little talent around them. Both have great physical tools. Couch was a much better college QB in the SEC than Cutler, yet was a total flop in the NFL. Tim Couch is out of the league despite being drafted number one overall. Had an NFL career passer rating of 75.
That is the problem with “Quarterbacks of the Future�. There are plenty of them like Couch or Ryan Leif or Akili Smith or Joey Harrington that come and go. There are other guys like Vinny Testaverde, Jake Plummer, Brad Johnson, Ty Detmer, Gary Kubiak, Jon Kitna, Kurt Warner, Charlie Batch, Jim McMahon, and Trent Dilfer that have had long NFL careers but are consistently traded or benched to make way for Quarterbacks of the Future. Leinart has had 6 years of coaching by top tier coaches in a pro system. The talent around him has prepared him to play at NFL speed and I don't think you will see him trying to avoid sacks by throwing the ball up for grabs. These are things coaching corrects. He is a much rawer project than these others, whether more talented or not. He is certainly not as historically well coached.
Cutler is the QB of the future, but why not wait another 5 games to decide if Jake is the QB of the Past or not and let the season play out? Ideally, Jake’s performance over the next 5 games would determine whether he remains in Denver or gets cut and help make the decision of who starts or if there is even a competition next year. It seems to me that Plummer is already out the door and while that is not the worst thing for him, Cutler, or the Broncos, it leaves the team with Cutler and Brad Van Pelt and no proven backup to turn to next season should Cutler struggle. Find me another proven veteran backup that has won 33 games the last three years and been to the playoffs all three. At very least it makes sense to find out what you are going to do with the backup position next year.
This decision to start Cutler now means that there is no training camp competition next year. That decision has been made for next year too and that will make it difficult to attract a proven veteran backup. Does it make sense to make this kind of a commitment to a rookie and to put so much risk on the franchise? If Denver fans want to run Jake out of town after going 10-6, 10-6, and 13-3, how will they handle a sub-.500 season?
December 7, 2006
9:34 AM
Chris L writes:
First of all, Plummer has been brutal, and saying do you like 10-6,10-6, 13-3 only makes sense if Plummer was playing on the same level that he was in 2002-2005. He was not. Cutler played just as well as Plummer has been playing in his first ever game. He's going to improve.
Secondly, Van Pelt is on the Houston Texans.
December 7, 2006
9:35 AM
Anonymous writes:
First of all, Plummer has been brutal, and saying do you like 10-6,10-6, 13-3 only makes sense if Plummer was playing on the same level that he was in 2002-2005. He was not. Cutler played just as well as Plummer has been playing in his first ever game. He's going to improve.
Secondly, Van Pelt is on the Houston Texans.
December 7, 2006
3:11 PM
Justin B writes:
Who isn't on the Texans right now? I must have missed that one.
December 7, 2006
3:19 PM
Justin B writes:
The team is only carrying two QB's which makes things worse. I have seen Preston Parsons play in training camp with the Arizona Cardinals in Flag a couple of years ago. I can't imagine that the Broncos want to head into next year with Parsons as the backup. I was still operating under the assumption that Van Pelt made the last cut since I watched him play in the final preseason game in Phoenix in the 4th Qtr.
You only further made my point. The Broncos resolved who their starting QB was for next year in April when they drafted Cutler. Now, who is the backup next year? Is it Jake? Is it Parsons?
My point was you have about a $12M cap hit if you cut Plummer or you have to pay his salary of approx $8M if you keep him, assuming he doesn't renegotiate. What do you do with a guy that has won 33 games for you and taken you to the NFC Championship? Probably the same thing you did to Mike Anderson, Jeb, Ron Dayne,...You failed to address the question which is do you really want the entire future of the franchise in the hands of a rookie from Vandy and have no other viable options in case he struggles next year? Jake has some value and he had earned the next five games based on his play for the last three years. He earned the right to determine whether the team kept him, cut him, or renegotiated with him based on his play the last five games of the season.
December 7, 2006
9:13 PM
chris writes:
No one seems to want to discuss what really should of mattered about the game played against seattle. Who was the quarterback that gave us the best chance to win against seattle..According to Shanny he only plays his best players for the next game..I believe if jake plays against seattle we win and are 8-4 going into san diego and if we lose 8-5 sounds better than 7-6. It is amazing that the cutler advocates will not even acknowledge the fact that it was the wrong decision for the seattle game. The arguement that we were not going to win the superbowl and prolly be one and out in the playoffs is just so wrong if you do not know why you prolly never played sports. Unbelievable to start playing for the future in the middle of the playoff hunt...
December 8, 2006
12:37 AM
Justin B writes:
Where does the offensive leadership and swagger of an AFC Champion calibre team from last year come from now? Tatum Bell who is injury prone. Javon Walker who is brand new. Maybe Mike Bell or Cutler or Brandon Marshall or Scheffler, who were all playing in college last year. Look down the offensive roster and aside from the O-line and Rod Smith, where is the leadership of this team?
December 8, 2006
7:59 AM
hckydood writes:
Realistically Plummer was hated here from day one. He wasn't a pretty boy like Brady, he actually shows his emotions, and came from a losing franchise. Dave Krieger has been trying to run him out of town as soon as his plane landed. As far as Cutler being our best chance of winning, thats hog-wash. Shanny finally got sick of getting ridiculed by Krieger, Linicome, and Penny Parker (of all people). Seriously, Plummer's stats aren't the best, all he did was win games. For Shanahan to even expect anyone to believe that playing a rookie Q.B. over a guy that has a .6875 winning percentage is freaking ludacris. To me it's a bald lie, Shanny really thinks he is a "mastermind" like the writers say. He also thinks all of us sheep believe EVERYTHING he says. Whats next? With his confidence and ability to pull the wool over our eyes, my guess would be running for public office. The sick and wrong part is, if we actually fall into a win in the last 4 games Shanny will be heralded as the all-knowing-god of football. I think Plummer will probably go down to the Texans next year, Kubiac will coach him and he'll do great after taking over for a very average David Carr. And I know that everyone will bash me for all this, but seriously, all Plummer did was win games. Everyone says "Plummer isn't a pocket-passer." I didn't really see him get a pocket to pass out of very often this year, every time he went back to pass the d-line was waiting for him. Every team stacked the box knowing if they could contain turf-toe-Tatum, or the other under-achieving R.B.'s we have, we had to pass, they made us one-dimensional then gave Jake almost a full second to find the open receiver. Thats the same thing that happens every year to the Colts in the playoffs, they have no running game and the d-line gets pressure on Manning and he falls to crap, not a real hard game plan to figure out.
December 8, 2006
12:40 PM
Dezmond writes:
I agree with what has been said. Plummer hasn't been getting protection from the o-line when he is in the pocket and Mike Bell's blocking when he is in there is atrocious. Tatum Bell's absence in the SD and KC game was very noticable regardless of who was playing QB. In the Seattle game I thought he could help relieve some pressure off of Jay as he got well over 100 yards in the 1st half alone. But then they hardly use him at all in the 2nd half. The calls of a Mastermind huh. How about 3rd and 1 in the 1st quarter and he calls a pass from a rookie QB. Result: incompletion and punt. Then a 3rd and 6 in the 4th quarter. Shanny calls a run for 3 yards and they have to punt again. That doesn't even include the farce play calling that happened on the fake FG at the end of the 1st half. His play selection didn't help out his rookie QB at all.
There are bigger problems here then just the offense. As mentioned, the d-line has had no pressure on the QB in the second half of games and as a result QB's have time to always throw to the CB opposite of Champ. In addition the special teams are performing a lot worse then last year and starting field position has been terrible. The common denominator there is using Ernster instead of Sauerbaun for kickoffs and punting. But it did save them cap room didn't it? Yeah, at the expense of wins.
December 9, 2006
3:35 AM
Broncosfan writes:
The program at Kentucky and the program at Vanderbilt can't be realistically compared. It would be kind of like comparing The University of Northern Colorado team to CSU or CU. Anyone following college football and recruitment classes knows that Vanderbilt never gets commitments from Division I talent. What they do get are commitments from fringe kids that want a world class education and a chance to line up against the best football programs in the country and have their day. They get it, and they get pounded for it. Vanderbilt in the SEC makes about as much sense as CU in the Big 12. CU will eventually find itself in the PAC-10 with other schools with the same academic and research standards. The Nebraskas of the world can deal with CSU and some Colorado kids that entered with low SAT scores but can flat out play ball. About the only thing that Cutler can be compared to is John Elway at Stanford. Cutler single handedly beat great SEC teams, or kept Vandy in games with absolutely nothing to show for D-1 talent. Don't forget that Cutler threw the pass to keep Denver in the game. Cutler wasn't on the field when the defense crumbled. Probably felt a lot like playing at Vandy. He got it done, in his very first game. Get your heads out of your number #16 jersey and realize the incredible young talent that we have. Unless you were one of those Bronco fans that stopped being interested around '94 thinking we needed to trade Elway because "he couldn't win." Man, I hate Denver fans. Everyone in Denver says Broncofans are such good fans. I live in Wisconsin, I've lived in Boston, Minnesota, California, and Michigan. Flat out, Broncos fans are the most ignorant fickle fans I've ever seen. Next time you're at a Bronco game pay attention to when the crowd get loud. Right before the opposing defense snaps the ball. In a real NFL town, like KC, the crowd makes it hard for the offense to call a play in the freakin' huddle. I love my Broncos, and I always will. I'll have my DirecTV on pointing out an open window in Wisconsin zero degree weather, because I'm not a fickle fan, unlike the rest of you fools. Jake wasn't effective. For a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that Jake can't make progressions. He plays from the "gut". That can only take you so far. We've been there and done that. Jake ain't it, the wins are a function of Shanahan, not Jake. Unless you believe that Griese leading the NFL in passer rating was because he was a great passer.
December 9, 2006
12:43 PM
Anonymous writes:
It's not gonna happern. It's not gonna happen.
What's not gonna happen? That the rest of the Broncos are going to raise their level of play beyond their best efforts so far just because Cutler is now the QB. Why do you ignorant Bronco fans (versus those Bronco fans who know football-that's the rest of us and we are in the minority here) think the rest of the team hasn't been playing hard and at their best so far into the season? What an insult to their integrity and efforts to win! I guess all those Bronco players who have been hurt and out for the season were just there cruising along. Geeze, this is not high school or college. If you don't play well and hard, there is always someone there looking over your shoulder waiting to replace you! There are no Randy Mosses on this team. Besides, if your convoluted, dream world conceptions were true, then Bowlen should fire Shanahan for just playing guys who haven't been playing their best and just waiting for Cutler to be put in there before starting to do so.
As for those fairy tale believers who thing the Steelers dream season of last year can be repeated by the Broncos, think again! The Steelers did not have any major injuries before they got hot. They did not have a patchwork offensive line nor a defense that struggles to sack a quarterback. So, what do you not understand about missing the playoffs this year? The die is cast and even the Cardinals will not be any easy mark on the schedule. The Broncos will be lucky to go 2-2 for the rest of the season.
And yes, there are major and serious reasons why Cutler was passed over in favor of Vince Young and Matt Leinart, even as his supporters keep trying to "put lipstick on the pig" stories on why he is so wonderful. Just let him prove it on the field in the NFL against all teams on the schedule for the next year or two and let the performances of these 3 QBs tell the truth of who is the better QB. Just remember, Vince Young already has 2 victories over the Manning Brothers this season, something that the Broncos can't claim.
December 10, 2006
10:03 AM
Justin B writes:
Last year, he beat Arkansas that went 4-7, Ole Miss that went 3-8, and Tennessee that went 5-6. Plus Richmond and Wake Forest to finish 5-6 and 3-5 in the SEC. In 2004, Vandy went 2-9 and beat powerhouses Mississipi State that finished 3-8 and beat Eastern Kentucky. In 2003, Vandy beat Chatanooga and Kentucky that went 4-8 and 1-7 in conference, so Vandy finished a whopping 2-10. So Vandy caught Tennessee in a bad year (and we all knew that), Arkansas in a bad year, and Ole Miss that hasn't had a good year since Manning left.
Let's be realistic--Vandy sucked. No doubt. Cutler is used to Losing, so the Seattle loss should not be unusual. So what Shanny thinks gives him the best chance to win is a rookie who in college his last three years went 9-25 and whose only wins were against SEC programs having very bad years or teams like Richmond, Wake Forest, Chatanooga, and Eastern Kentucky. These four teams account for 4 of his 9 Wins. The rest were against bottom feeders in the SEC or teams in the SEC having awful years.
So hand the kid a playoff team that went to the AFC Championship the year before and expect him to do what? Win the Superbowl? Make the Playoffs? Go 1-4? What? What is it that Denver fans expect the kid to do? Get a clue. So why did an NFL calibre player go to Vandy in the first place instead of a college that develops QB's? Oh, for the academic education, not the football education. Well, he got his schooling alright. So Shanny expects him to learn how to play football on the job.
December 11, 2006
3:09 AM
Dane Meghin writes:
Cutler is probably the best young quarterback to come out since either Manning. Cutler faced about the most ferocious pass rush the NFL has to offer against San Diego in only his SECOND NFL GAME, and you know what...he won the matchup. Two TDs, no interceptions, and only one lost fumble. John Madden once commented that fooball was the ultimate team sport and that no one player could win games. He made that comment in qualifying that John Elway was the closest thing to "one man band" that the NFL has ever seen. John took teams that were mediocre at best to three Super Bowl's. That is what Cutler brings. Elway's winning record at Stanford had no bearing on his talent and potentional. Its the same situation with Cutler at Vandy. Stanford and Vanderbilt are elite academic private schools that less than 1% of all Division I football players could even get accpepted into. Nerds blocking All-SEC defensive ends doesn't exactly give you a fighting chance. Elway did it with the offensive "line of doom" early in his career. Cutler made magic in the second half against a Chargers team that is truly special. I'm sorry if you have Plummer on your fantasy team but he's an average NFL quarterback at best. Win-Loss records aren't the guage of talent. They are the guage of the school or franchise. The fact that Cutler was great at a horrible football program is what draws the comparisons to Elway. The scramble against San Diego to his right to throw a rocket across his body downfield for TD eluding the pass rush is what cements the comparisons.
December 11, 2006
5:26 AM
Darren writes:
"It's not gonna happen" you talk tough - to weak to put your name to it! Broncosfan - you condesending twit, close your window because your brain is freezing! Justin B - you need to get off the drugs or get better ones!
December 11, 2006
10:43 AM
dave writes:
Hey Darren , its ok to jump on the fact i forgot to type my name in, but that doesn't change the fact that ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
Next loss....Arizona Caridnals, who beat the Seahawks, who beat the Broncos who have no pass rush and a QB that only played well after San Diego relaxed with a big lead, but then turned it on again and stomped on the Broncos, including emaculating Cutler when they wanted to do so.
Shanahan should have been honest with all of us and admitted that he gave up on Plummer, the rest of the team, this season, and decided to rebuild for the future. That means we've seen the last of Rod Smith as a starter, Javon Walker needs to get separation for that "Rocket Arm" to throw it in there next year, and Marshall to mature enough to be an every down #2 receiver. The offensive line will have to be rebuilt as the defensive line for pass rushing.
There just isn't going to be any playoffs this year since Shanahan gave up. Looks like a 10-6 will get you in as a wild card; based on their recent play, the Broncos are not going to do it.
Darren, ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
December 11, 2006
9:48 PM
Justin B writes:
I just wonder which Jay Cutler is going to show up? The first half Jay Cutler that was 4-11, had two fumbles, and passed for 36 yards? Or the second half Jay Cutler.
The game was over by the time the second half started. It was nice that he made a couple of throws after the game was decided and Marty was playing Martyball with his conservative D.
Was his first half play enough to get the Broncos to the post-season and then once they are there win a game? Come on people. This season is over. It was over when Shanny made the switch. Now the question remains, how much rebuilding is necessary and how bad does it get before it gets better. 7-6 is not getting it done and isn't going to catch the Jags and Cincy and even if it does, Denver has to worry about KC that as of right now has Oakland left and if they win that game, has tiebreakers in the Division that effectively ends the Broncos' chances.
December 12, 2006
3:45 AM
Darren writes:
Thanks Dave, I agree with your points. I am not living in a fantasy thinking the Broncos will make a run like the Steelers did last year, I do believe that Jake was a big part of the problem though - when opposing defenses do not have respect for your passing game, it puts pressure on all other areas of the team, the O-line, the running game, the wide reciever and tight end production, ect. Then the defense is put in constant win the game situations.
The league had figured Jake out - he can't pass from the pocket, has a weak and erratic arm, and won't lead.
So, Shannahan is answering multiple needs with one move. The rookie will make rookie mistakes, whether it be this year when he does or next year.
No team in the NFL is without its weak points, however chemistry brings it together and Jake was not that ingrediant.
December 12, 2006
2:00 PM
Justin B writes:
when opposing defenses do not have respect for your passing game, it puts pressure on all other areas of the team, the O-line, the running game, the wide reciever and tight end production, ect. Then the defense is put in constant win the game situations.
Chicken and egg my friend. How about this--when you lose your #1 tight end and replace him with a rookie, lose 2/3rd of your running backs and replace Mike and Ron Dayne with an undrafted rookie, lose Lelie and Watts plus Rod Smith to age and replace them with rookies (although Walker is awesome), and your offensive line is injured or underperforming--DOES THAT NOT PUT PRESSURE ON THE QB?
Get a clue. Shanny was intrumental in the departures of all those players. He made the decision. And everyone that is on the Jake Hater bandwagon is giving the Mastermind a free pass for his bad offseason decisions that have resulted in a lack of depth at RB, WR, and TE. In rookies starting games at key positions.
Ratface hung Plummer out to dry as the offenses problem when in fact, the Front Office and the Playcalling as well as the Coach that allowed the offense to become the weak point of the team. Cutler is not the cure for the problem. But he does allow Plummer to be the scapegoat and it deflects the criticism off of the real sources of the problem. Blame the QB, and then the coach comes out and says it is the QB's fault so he is making a switch to a rookie and the coach can blame the problems on growing pains and preach patience with the rookie. Nice strategy, but recognize that the strategy effectively threw away the season.
December 13, 2006
4:21 PM
Richard writes:
Offense; what offense?
No Kubiak = no offense.
end of story.
December 14, 2006
3:04 AM
Darren writes:
Let's see... Ron Dayne is tearing the league up in Houston, Lelie had 3 catches for 49 yards - blowing up in Atlanta, and Anderson gets an occasional carry?
Yet Sheffler has more touchdowns in one game then all the tight ends had for the season, now how's that - could it be the guy that threw them or the guy that did'nt!
There's always change in the league sometimes by the team, sometimes by the player. Some work, some don't.
Shannahan never blamed Plummer, he said the team needed a spark, which is true.
So if the changes to the personnel in preseason are why Plummer couldn't find the passing lanes, then how come a rookie with two games experience can - seems like a spark to me!
December 16, 2006
3:07 PM
Justin B writes:
Cutler went 4-11 for 34 yards in the first half against SD and the Broncos were down 28-3 at half. That is one heck of a spark.
I am not saying that those players are going to be huge somewhere else, only that consistency is important and Shanny made an almost complete overhaul of the offensive personnel in the offseason, then expected fans not to notice the rebuilding. It is what it is, and it is a rebuilding year. Normally, rebuilding projects don't take just a year. It took almost a decade for the Broncos to reach an AFC Championship game without Elway.
December 18, 2006
6:05 AM
Darren writes:
So, does that seem like a spark! The reference to almost 10 years to get to the AFC championship game without Elway goes two ways, it mean 14 other teams are "rebuilding" every year, and Plummer couldn't lead the team and that's why the change...
December 3, 2009
7:35 AM
John writes:
Thank you for your help!
May 17, 2010
8:26 AM
Bill Fritz writes:
You are right in what you say but there are other ways to lose weight and keep it off.
June 13, 2010
6:27 PM
Louie writes:
If Texas decides to preserve the Big 12 (10) who will they invite to replace the defectors?
October 7, 2010
10:25 AM
hockey jerseys writes:
iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.
April 12, 2011
7:07 AM
Louis Vuitton Handbags writes:
As with most luxury goods is so easy at the end of your local department found high, but when it comes to discount stores is hard to find.
April 13, 2011
12:30 AM
Louis Vuitton Handbags writes:
If this is the case, and they are able to pay for expensive handbags then by all means let the pockets of many not be reproduced.
April 22, 2011
6:48 PM
Andrew Pelt writes:
Nice blog.keep up the good work.
April 23, 2011
5:44 PM
cellular phone writes:
I discovered this article very up-to-date and informative because it supplies glorious tips to obtain the absolute best Life insurance coverage rates and quotes. With this useful data, you'll be able to make your decisions extra wisely and acquire the perfect Life insurance plan for yourself. Plus, there are usually a variety of assets that can assist you higher understand your policy.
May 7, 2011
11:41 AM
Raden writes:
A common misconception is that crafting and hobby blogs and websites don't make money, they're just all about the love of the craft.
May 25, 2011
3:39 PM
senior services writes:
A really intriguing discussion on the effects which our getting older human population may have and the problems we may end up being dealing with.
June 7, 2011
2:03 PM
http://www.bulktableware.com writes:
You have a lot of useful suggestions on this web site.
October 26, 2011
8:42 PM
tarot en catala writes:
I'll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)
October 26, 2011
11:08 PM
tarot 806 writes:
Zune and iPod: Most people compare the Zune to the Touch, but after seeing how slim and surprisingly small and light it is, I consider it to be a rather unique hybrid that combines qualities of both the Touch and the Nano. It's very colorful and lovely OLED screen is slightly smaller than the touch screen, but the player itself feels quite a bit smaller and lighter. It weighs about 2/3 as much, and is noticeably smaller in width and height, while being just a hair thicker.
October 27, 2011
7:27 PM
videncia writes:
The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe in the future it'll do even better in those areas, but for now it's a fantastic way to organize and listen to your music and videos, and is without peer in that regard. The iPod's strengths are its web browsing and apps. If those sound more compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.
October 28, 2011
4:13 AM
tarot visa writes:
Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally on your iPod, and has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it will somewhat negate this advantage for the Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass' favor.
October 29, 2011
3:20 AM
tarot en catala writes:
If you're still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you'll know which is right for you.
October 30, 2011
2:02 PM
tarot por visa writes:
Hands down, Apple's app store wins by a mile. It's a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I'm not sure I'd want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.
November 1, 2011
8:25 AM
Retta Kaschak writes:
Thank you for the work you have put into this post, it helps clear up some questions I had.
November 7, 2011
1:49 AM
tarot en català writes:
The new Zune browser is surprisingly good, but not as good as the iPod's. It works well, but isn't as fast as Safari, and has a clunkier interface. If you occasionally plan on using the web browser that's not an issue, but if you're planning to browse the web alot from your PMP then the iPod's larger screen and better browser may be important.
November 9, 2011
12:41 AM
Dedra Adomaitis writes:
not realy news...
November 10, 2011
2:24 AM
schnell abnehmen writes:
It was a well done post , almost brilliance ... some much more of it in the following future!
November 11, 2011
2:10 AM
Maxie Shiyou writes:
These tips tips are great. I always enjoy brainstorming about catchy subject lines. Sometimes it can be tough, but we have to do what we have to do - please our readers!
December 1, 2011
2:19 PM
Jimmy Hansis writes:
What you do is great - but more frequent updates, please?
December 2, 2011
6:58 PM
Staci Hameister writes:
What you do is great - but more frequent updates, please?
December 4, 2011
2:22 AM
Jason Cartelli writes:
Yes, i am sure many people will have the same comment.
December 11, 2011
3:40 AM
Pia Pizzolato writes:
Well..yes because it shares something that is happening now.
December 27, 2011
6:33 AM
Sherri Bellar writes:
Yes, i am sure many people will have the same comment.
February 23, 2012
9:58 PM
Issac Maez | Como aparecer primero en Google writes:
Thanks for sharing.
February 26, 2012
10:42 AM
pampers diaper coupon writes:
There is definately a lot to know about this subject. I like all the points you've made.
March 2, 2012
3:34 AM
free diaper samples writes:
hi nice post
March 27, 2012
4:16 AM
forex robot writes:
The other reason why moving house in Germany could be much will that obtaining free cardboard boxes is virtually impossible. One cannot go to a local supermarket or newsagent to inquire about discarded boxes. Everything in Germany is being recycled - a cardboard box that once held cans of pet food or washing powder is invariably coming with a recycling plant before one has a chance to ask. Most German removal firms offer therefore green, recyclable boxes either for sale or for hire - at a high price.
March 31, 2012
12:12 PM
Cheap NHL Jerseys writes:
Your website is beautiful, which is popular among customers. I'll come to visit again. Thank you very much!
April 5, 2012
11:31 AM
Jordan Shoes writes:
Your website is beautiful, which is popular among customers. I'll come to visit again. Thank you very much!
April 11, 2012
2:17 AM
credit cards for bad credit or no credit writes:
In my opinion you commit an error. Let's discuss.
April 22, 2012
7:55 PM
Cheap Coach Handbags writes:
Your website is beautiful, which is popular among customers. I'll come to visit again. Thank you very much!
May 5, 2012
11:12 AM
Mazout writes:
Hola! I've been reading your site for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the great job!
August 31, 2012
3:07 AM
cheap hats caps writes:
It is really a nice and useful piece of info. I am satisfied that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
September 8, 2012
4:10 PM
Backlink Services writes:
I cant believe you've got explained this kind of clear specifics, positive things right here, many thanks for offering this.
September 13, 2012
2:25 PM
Hong Buchko writes:
Link Building is a good strategy to make your Search engine optimization composition.
October 11, 2012
1:39 AM
Cheap Plimsolls writes:
warrior canvas shoes;
May 9, 2013
2:34 PM
Suzann Degreenia writes:
I just want to tell you that I am new to blogging and site-building and definitely savored your website. Almost certainly I’m likely to bookmark your blog . You actually come with terrific stories. Bless you for sharing your web page.
May 10, 2013
12:33 AM
Robbie Sproul writes:
I just want to say I'm new to blogs and definitely enjoyed your page. Most likely I’m planning to bookmark your site . You absolutely have wonderful stories. Thanks for revealing your blog.