Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Quarterback Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Luckyshot
    replied
    Of course this thread went the way it did, but one thing I really want to point out.

    Luck is projected to be the number 1 pick, if not this year, I am pretty sure that rookie wage scale will be next year.

    The only way the Broncos could get that pick is to tank the entire season, and this team is not that bad. I do not think fans would want to see the season tanked for a QB.

    Only reason why Broncos keep Orton is they feel they can get to the playoffs this year, otherwise its not worth the 8.8 mill contract in rebuilding mode.

    Leave a comment:


  • neckbeard
    replied
    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    Okay, Neckbeard, I'll give you 8-7, I'll give you 9-7, I'll be happy to give you that Orton is very, very mediocre when he plays his best. If this is what you want, then you're a cheap date and it doesn't take much apparently. Personally, I want to win the big one. Officially though I'll concede that Orton has eeked out mediocre year after mediocre year (when he's not injured that is).
    Considering the lackluster Offenses and bad Defenses he's been saddled with for most of his career, can you really expect more than consistent winning?
    I liked that last exchange so much, I made it part of my sig. Check it out to refresh your memory. Then, read the rest of this.
    Very cool. Glad you're enjoying yourself.

    You still haven't answered my challenge above. Are you willing to admit that in Tebow's rookie season there is nothing to say he can't (eventually) play the NFL game at a high level? Nothing to say we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt?
    He's earned the right to stay on the roster. He's earned the right to get some playing in during garbage time.

    But giving Tebow the keys to the team? Nope, not yet. He'll have to honestly beat out Orton and prove that he's the best QB on the team first. He's earned the right to COMPETE, that's it.

    Nice debating with you though, sorry about your upcoming loss of your favorite player BTW.
    I would offer to do a dumb sig bet about which QB is the starter at the start of the season and then at the end. But like I just said, sig bets are dumb....

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoManiac_69
    replied
    :brick::brick::brick::brick::brick:

    Leave a comment:


  • Humberg
    replied
    Okay, Neckbeard, I'll give you 8-7, I'll give you 9-7, I'll be happy to give you that Orton is very, very mediocre when he plays his best. If this is what you want, then you're a cheap date and it doesn't take much apparently. Personally, I want to win the big one. Officially though I'll concede that Orton has eeked out mediocre year after mediocre year (when he's not injured that is).

    I liked that last exchange so much, I made it part of my sig. Check it out to refresh your memory. Then, read the rest of this.

    You still haven't answered my challenge above. Are you willing to admit that in Tebow's rookie season there is nothing to say he can't (eventually) play the NFL game at a high level? Nothing to say we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt?

    Nice debating with you though, sorry about your upcoming loss of your favorite player BTW.

    Leave a comment:


  • neckbeard
    replied
    OK, the post is getting unmanageably long, so I'll just snip out this bit.

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    Better check your facts:

    2005 = Orton did help the team to a 11-5 record, but was paired with one of the best defenses in the league
    Still counts. Orton was responsible for 10-5 of that record.

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    2006 = DID NOT PLAY (hmmmmm)
    Yeah. As a QB coming out of a college spread system, he needed to take time off to work on his personal game. Something Tebow should actually try.

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    2007 = A 7-9 season.
    But Orton was 2-1 that year on a dumpster fire of a Bears team that went 5-8 without him.

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    2008: 9-7 record
    Actually 9-6 as a starter. With the 21st ranked D in the League.

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    2009: 8-8 record (by the way, this is not a winning record in case you were wondering). Orton led them to a 6-0 start before totally falling apart and dropping 8 of the next 10 games
    8-7 as the starter. That IS a winning record - .533. Simms lost the Washington by throwing for negative yardage after Orton left with an injury or else it would have been 9-6 (.600).

    Originally posted by Humberg View Post
    2010: 4-12. And one of those wins belonged to Tebow. Ouch.
    And TWO of those LOSSES belonged to Tebow as well. Ouch.

    It took the TOTAL COLLAPSE of the entire Broncos team under the poor management of an inexperienced, inflexible, egotistical Head Coach (McD) for Orton to be unable to post a winning record.

    Orton threatened for most of the season to break Dan Marino's all-time single season passing record on one of the worst teams the NFL has seen. That alone should tell you the blame for the fiasco of the 2010 season did not rest at the QB position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Humberg
    replied
    Originally posted by ZeusOnEarth View Post
    Whether posters debate on their qualities or not isn't under my jurisdiction so why complain..

    I never assumed they would all work out, but we should have 3 or 4 1st to 3rd round picks next year that could once again, possible make us a better team.

    Also, to compare Orton and Tebow on a paralleled basis is ridiculous. Orton is a multi-year veteran who's started most of his career. Tebow is a one year veteran with 3 games under his belt.
    I'm sorry to hijack your thread dude. It's just so fun to talk Tebow that I can't resist acting like a shark when the fish (the Ortonites) are in the water.

    Don't think that I don't realize we are comparing apples (Tebow) to prunes (Orton). That's what makes this so hilarious. Tebow is a rookie who has started all of three games. Orton has been in the league since 2005. There should be, hands down, no comparison. And yet, there is, because Orton is mediocre at his very best and Tebow looked pretty darned good (for a rookie) those 3 games last season.

    Truth be told, I also wanted to bump this thread to the top to give my adversary here one more shot. I think it's daunting and difficult for people with weak positions to continue the debate once we start talking about the actual stats. Still, I would have expected more from him. I don't think he has an answer to my challenge. If not, I want to officially declare victory in this debate. It would be even sweeter if he would officially concede. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZeusOnEarth
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoFanNC View Post
    And this thread hasn't already deterorated to the same people having debates over qualitys of each QB on the roster?

    You also are assuming every one of our draft picks works out perfectly this year when you say we filled many holes. Lots of promising players yes, but nothing is guaranteed. Even if every one of those players becomes a starter, we still have depth issues at many positions, which are just as key as having quality starters.

    Our offense needs work. Even with Tebow as QB our first half scoring was DISMAL.

    Just like the KC game where our defense was doing everything it could, the offense just wouldn't put points on the board.

    Both SD games, Orton or Tebow, 1st half scoring was abysmal.

    Yet we are supposedly keeping a similar, if not the same, offense in place. Is our 2 late round TE's and a rookie tackle going to make an impact enough to get into the endzone in the first half? Or does oust scheme need adjusting?
    Whether posters debate on their qualities or not isn't under my jurisdiction so why complain..

    I never assumed they would all work out, but we should have 3 or 4 1st to 3rd round picks next year that could once again, possible make us a better team.

    Also, to compare Orton and Tebow on a paralleled basis is ridiculous. Orton is a multi-year veteran who's started most of his career. Tebow is a one year veteran with 3 games under his belt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Humberg
    replied
    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Rah-rah cheerleading works with a team of college kids. Professional veteran players could tend to find it insultingly condescending. That's the type of "leadership" Tebow brings.
    A couple of former NFL players, Collinsworth and Sapp disagree with you that this stuff doesn't work in the pros. Please, really, you should just drop the leadership angle, it's hurting your game.

    Orton mounted a 20 point scoring frenzy in the 4th Qtr of the Rams game. Yet he's scorned by Tebow fans as a "choker" for failing to score a FOURTH TOUCHDOWN after the first three he threw in the last 15 minutes of the game.

    You have to apply the same standard to Tebow or else it doesn't apply to Orton.
    When you have opportunity and choke, then you are a choker, yes. Thanks for pointing this out. Sure you could say this about Tebow and the SD game, but Tebow is in his THIRD START, in his SECOND START he engineered a come from behind win after a 17 point deficit. It's not a different standard, it's a different framework than you are choosing to use.

    Just how many game-winning comeback drives can you expect from a QB on crappy Offenses?
    Just how many crappy offenses does he have to lead before you conclude that he's probably just a crappy QB?

    Yes, I've watched the videos.

    Tebow had a bad throwing motion in college. After an atrocious showing in the Senior Bowl, Tebow worked out with a private coach and "fixed" his throws. Before the draft, in shorts and a t-shirt, Timmy showed a textbook throwing motion. But when he got into real games he went right back to his old style from college. He didn't improve at all.
    If motion is all you are interested in, I suggest you stop watching football and just follow the combine, and perhaps a few QB challenges, I don't know, maybe invite Mel Kiper over and you two can have a special day together. I don't mean to suggest this is all you ARE really interested in, just to point out that concerns over his throwing mechanics are greatly exaggerated. He got in there, and there was no problem with zip, no problem with getting the ball out in time, none of the worries that the throwing mechanics "analysts" thought there would be. So what's the big deal? Elway double tapped his throws and side armed it, big deal.

    Those are QBs who could run. They're passers first and foremost. Tebow is a runner who can KIND OF (49.4% completion rate as a starter) throw. He's not a good QB by any stretch.
    Really glad that you brought this up. Here's where you shouldn't have gone. Let me throw some numbers at you and see how you do.

    Michael Vick Rookie Year (GS = 2):
    Passing Yards = 785, Comp % = 44.2, Rushing Yards = 289, TD = 3
    Passer rating = 62.7

    Steve Young Rookie Year (GS = 5):
    Passing Yards = 935, Comp % = 52.2, Rushing Yards = 233, TD = 4
    Passer rating = 56.9

    John Elway Rookie Year (GS = 11):
    Passing Yards = 1663, Comp % = 47.5, Rushing Yards = 146, TD = 8
    Passer rating = 54.9

    Kyle Orton Rookie Year (GS = 15):
    Passing Yards = 1869, Comp % = 51.6, Rushing Yards = 44, TD = 9
    Passer rating = 59.7

    Tim Tebow Rookie Year (GS = 3):
    Passing Yards = 654, Comp % = 50.0, Rushing Yards = 227, TD = 11
    Passer rating = 82.1


    So statistically, Tebow had a better passer rating than Vick, Orton, Young or Elway, had about the same completion %, if you average out the number of yards per game, threw for more yards than Elway, Young or Orton and was more accurate than Vick. See, I really don't buy that he is such a different beast than these QB's and you're gonna have to somehow sell me on some facts. See below.

    So Tebow's allowed injuries because he's "tough?" But Orton is "injury-prone" and hurts the team by being a gutsy enough competitor to play thru his injuries?
    Nope, just saying anyone can get injured on any given day (even Elway and Favre, who were some of the most durable). And yes, given the number of injuries in Orton's career and games missed due to injury, I would pit Tebow against him any day in this category.

    2010 was the ONLY season that Orton failed to post a winning record. And that took the total collapse of the entire team under an inexperienced, overtasked, egotistical, arrogant and inflexible head coach.
    Better check your facts:

    2005 = Orton did help the team to a 11-5 record, but was paired with one of the best defenses in the league

    2006 = DID NOT PLAY (hmmmmm)

    2007 = A 7-9 season. Whoops. Admittedly, it's hard to blame this on the third stringer. This from Chicago's Roy Taylor:

    Not many NFL teams are forced to start three quarterbacks in a season, but the 2007 Bears did so for the fifth time in seven years, an amazing statistic, when third-stringer Kyle Orton was named the starter for the season's final three games...
    ...and at the conclusion of the year...

    At quarterback, none of the quarterbacks on the roster appear able to lead the team to another Super Bowl unless they're playing with one of the best defenses in the league
    2008: 9-7 record, again from Roy Taylor:

    Passing: Kyle Orton- By Chicago Bears quarterback standards, Orton's season was great, but Bears' QB standards aren't high as we know. Orton threw for 2972 yards, 18 td's with 12 int's, and had a QB rating of 79.6, not great but not terrible.
    2009: 8-8 record (by the way, this is not a winning record in case you were wondering). Orton led them to a 6-0 start before totally falling apart and dropping 8 of the next 10 games

    2010: 4-12. And one of those wins belonged to Tebow. Ouch.

    As for his "improvement," in his last season with the Bears (2008) and last season, Orton was consistently posting passer ratings in the 90s until he was injured. On both teams he was virtually the only good thing on the Offense. It's been KO's bad luck to wind up starting on 2 different teams that had absolutely horrible pass protection. This year with John Fox running things, Orton will have respectable protection and get thru the year healthy and posting passer ratings in the high 90s, maybe even over 100. Denver will be hard-put to screw things up badly enough to lose a lot of games with their starting QB performing at that level...
    I don't know where you get this. Orton has never had a season with passer rating "in the 90s". Don't exaggerate the facts to support your point. To believe that he could get into the 90s or 100s, since he's never done this before, requires Tim Tebow kind of faith.

    Look, in all seriousness (stepping back from the ribbing I'm giving you) my point here is that if you are happy with breaking even at 8-8 or skimping by at 9-7 then Orton may well be your guy, if you want to be better than that, he's not. Personally I'm not happy with 8-8 or 9-7 and Tebow just may be the guy to make us better. Why not give him the chance?

    Here's my challenge to you. If you post and tell me a throw that Tebow can't make that proves he's not an NFL QB, or if you somehow show me that he is different than some of the other great running QB's, backed up with facts/stats, then I'll be happy to entertain your argument. If you just throw back rhetoric, then it's not worth my time.

    Shall we say checkmate, or are you still trying to find a way to save face (or neck as the case may be)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mount-n-Groan
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueOrange7 View Post
    Are you a statistician?
    Only in my free time; and even then only when there's nothing better to do.

    Simple answer: No. But, I do love messing with numbers/stats and seeing if there's something useful to glean from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueOrange7
    replied
    Originally posted by Mount-n-Groan View Post
    I did some calculations a while back that touch on this. Never shared it until now, and it doesn't really relate to anything here, but it is interesting.

    Generally speaking, every year (over the last few years anyway) there are usually about 10 teams that average 24 or more points per game and about 10 teams that average less than 20 points per game. The other 12 teams are somewhere in between.

    Statistically, from 1970 through 2006, a team that scores 21 or more points wins 76% of the time. A team that scores 24 or more points wins 81% of the time.

    Also, did you know that teams that score exactly 16, 18, 19 or 20 points in a game have a higher winning percentage than teams that score exactly 21 points in a game? Weird, but true.

    Again, not really on-topic, but your comment made me think of it and dig up my research.

    Now, carry on, everyone... (nicely)

    Are you a statistician?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mount-n-Groan
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueOrange7 View Post
    BTW, how many teams have consistently put up 24 or more pts per game in that same time span (not too many I would guess).
    I did some calculations a while back that touch on this. Never shared it until now, and it doesn't really relate to anything here, but it is interesting.

    Generally speaking, every year (over the last few years anyway) there are usually about 10 teams that average 24 or more points per game and about 10 teams that average less than 20 points per game. The other 12 teams are somewhere in between.

    Statistically, from 1970 through 2006, a team that scores 21 or more points wins 76% of the time. A team that scores 24 or more points wins 81% of the time.

    Also, did you know that teams that score exactly 16, 18, 19 or 20 points in a game have a higher winning percentage than teams that score exactly 21 points in a game? Weird, but true.

    Again, not really on-topic, but your comment made me think of it and dig up my research.

    Now, carry on, everyone... (nicely)

    Leave a comment:


  • neckbeard
    replied
    Originally posted by Apoc13 View Post
    puhleeze.....to assume, because a coach has a season where he turns around a team in epic fashion, that will be the norm is setting up mr fox for certain failure...he was hired because he's a good coach not because anybody feels or expects the broncos to be in the superbowl next season
    No, not in the Super Bowl. But I think Elway was looking for a coach who could give Denver it's first winning season since 2006 - THIS YEAR. Not a couple of seasons down the road because we're "rebuilding"...

    Leave a comment:


  • samparnell
    replied
    Field Position Offense

    Originally posted by BroncoFanNC View Post
    Yet we are supposedly keeping a similar, if not the same, offense in place. Are our 2 late round TE's and a rookie tackle going to make an impact enough to get into the endzone in the first half? Or does our scheme need adjusting?
    The closer an offense gets to the EZ, its formations and playcalling will change due to the D having less field to cover.

    The Spread Option formation scenario I suggested in post #23 won't work well inside the +20 because both pass and run need to be viable threats. Inside the +10 both Safeties will be in the box anyway.

    Inside the +20 the formations will have fewer WRs and will have a TE. The standard X, Y, Z formation in I or split backs with the QB under center is more applicable in this area. Some think Tight Power I is necessary, but really tight formations like that with narrow line splits often just result in a pileup because the D is packed in, too.

    QB being under is better inside the +20 for deception (turning his back to the D) and quickness in handoffs, playaction and rollouts with a running threat. Someone can say how many of Tebows GL TDs were in gun or under. Were most of them were under center or in gun?

    Orlando Franklin, Virgil Green and Julius Thomas could indeed help scoring inside the +20 due to improving the run game as well as having a TE who is an accomplished receiver.

    As far as scheme, I would be inclined to use spread formations running or passing, depending on what the D allows, to get down the field and then get under C in an X, Y, Z in I or split backs formation to maintain the run/pass option.

    The Steelers scored a TD and a two-point XPA in SB XLV from spread formations, so it can be done. The two-pointer was spread/gun fake to the RB, pitch to the motion man.
    Last edited by samparnell; 05-12-2011, 10:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmcgough25
    replied
    One part from the OP I wanted to comment on

    If this was originally intended to be a QB discussion, the part I wanted to comment on is starting at the beginning or at least half of year two.

    There are different camps in this theory:

    1. Start the QB right away to get the experience and for development. There's a list of QB's that have succeeded and another list that failed miserably.

    2. Same with letting a QB sit for two years or longer.

    I do not know that either theory is exact, but I do believe that a QB can perform well after backing up for two years (Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers as recent examples).

    I wouldn't worry about that part too much or read too far into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Humberg
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoFanNC View Post
    And this thread hasn't already deterorated to the same people having debates over qualitys of each QB on the roster?

    You also are assuming every one of our draft picks works out perfectly this year when you say we filled many holes. Lots of promising players yes, but nothing is guaranteed. Even if every one of those players becomes a starter, we still have depth issues at many positions, which are just as key as having quality starters.

    Our offense needs work. Even with Tebow as QB our first half scoring was DISMAL.

    Just like the KC game where our defense was doing everything it could, the offense just wouldn't put points on the board.

    Both SD games, Orton or Tebow, 1st half scoring was abysmal.

    Yet we are supposedly keeping a similar, if not the same, offense in place. Is our 2 late round TE's and a rookie tackle going to make an impact enough to get into the endzone in the first half? Or does oust scheme need adjusting?
    Before I answer the other post above, I wanted to comment on this. It's so fun to have this deteriorate into Orton vs Tebow, especially when I get to take the Tebow side because there is so much material to work with. The root of this, and the thing that makes it hilarious is that people still contend Orton is a starting QB!

    Yes our offense needs work. And yes, the scheme needs to change partially. Have you any idea what solidifying the offensive line and (if it works) running a successful zone blocking scheme will do for this running game and this offense? Last year we had an injured Clady, 2 rookies at LG and Center (a rookie at center!!!), Kuper and an ineffective Ryan Harris. This year we have a healthy Clady, both Beadles and Walton have a year under their belts, Kuper is returning and we got a solid rook replacing Harris. Yes, I expect this to be a big change for our offense (especially if we can pull the trigger, when allowed, and get a good RB pickup from FA).

    The other thing I will point out is that scheme is only one of the 4 important things. Good coaching, good players and luck are the other three. We potentially have good coaching now, and (to your above point about a rookie OT and some TE's taking us over the top) it will realistically take us several years to build the talent pool of good players. Last year we weren't lucky, in injury or otherwise. Every year it's a crap shoot, the teams that make it to the SB are both good and lucky.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X