Announcement

**tag** · 03-04-2006, 11:33 AM

...continued:

Gladwell: You're probably right. But imagine Plummer was drafted by Shanahan and came to maturity in the NFL entirely within a conservative, run-first offense. Imagine, as well, that the Broncos were every bit as successful in those years as they were in the pre-Plummer era. What would we think of Plummer? We'd say that he was an efficient, intelligent quarterback. We'd call him an adept game-manager. We'd marvel at his discipline. John Madden would go on and on about how the value of a quarterback who doesn't make mistakes has been vastly underestimated, and if Plummer occasionally imploded while playing catch-up in a big game we'd say that the one problem with a Shanahan offense is that it can't score in a hurry. We'd blame Shanahan, in other words, not Plummer. Plummer would still be Plummer. But inside of a very structured system -- one that played to his strengths -- he would seem to us like a totally different quarterback. And after five or six years or so with Shanahan, he really would be different: all vestiges of the old swashbuckling Jake the Snake would largely be obliterated.

My point is its almost impossible to know where the person ends and their environment begins, and the longer someone is in a particular environment the blurrier that line gets. More specifically, you can't make definitive judgments about the personal characteristics of people who come from structured environments. What does it mean to say that a Marine is brave? It might mean that a Marine is an inherently brave person. It may also be that the culture of the Marine Corps is so powerful, and the training so intensive, and the supporting pressure of other Marines so empowering, that even a coward would behave bravely in that context. That's what I mean when I say I'm Plummer: I'm working in a such a supportive and structured environment that I no longer know where my own abilities end and where the beneficial effects of the environment begin. Just think if you were a New Yorker writer, Bill. Suddenly your editors would be asking you to make your stories longer. You spend the summers at a writer's colony in New England, working on a historical novel based loosely on Freud's famous falling-out with Adler. And girls would hit on you in bars because they would think of you as cute in that nerdy, bookish way. But you'd still be Simmons, wouldn't you?

**broncos_mtnman** · 03-04-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by tag

The following exchange below is between author Malcolm Gladwell & Bill Simmons of Page 2 on ESPN.com. To put it in context, Simmons was asking Gladwell if wiritng came easy to him or he hard to work on it - the conversation turned to our QB, JP. I thought it was an interesting discussion.

GLADWELL: So do I work hard on my writing? Well, yes. But not that hard. I'm a five- or six-draft kind of person, not a 10- or 12-draft kind of person. Plus, I write for the New Yorker, so I have an entire army of high-IQ fact checkers, and editors and copy editors working with me. To stretch the quarterback analogy here, I'm Jake Plummer: I work in an offensive system designed to make me look way better than I actually am. Speaking of which, how fascinating was the Plummer meltdown in the Pittsburgh game? People have been beating up on Plummer, saying that his true colors emerged in that game. I prefer to look at it the other way. Shanahan managed to put in place an offensive system so brilliant and so precisely tailored to his quarterback that he could make Plummer -- Plummer! -- look like a great quarterback for 17 consecutive games. That's pretty remarkable. The Plummer story is not about the frailty of individuals. It's about the redemptive power of environments. As I said, I think I'm Plummer.

Simmons: Wait, I know Jake Plummer, I watched Jake Plummer, I wagered on Jake Plummer ... you, sir, are no Jake Plummer. Shanahan's system was predicated on the Broncos' jumping out to leads, then protecting those leads in the second half with their running game and Jake's occasional play-action passes (which were always wide open because their running game was so good). The catch was that they could never fall behind in any important game; there was no way Jake could be effective under those circumstances, and only because Shanahan inadvertently undermined his confidence (by creating the "Now don't screw this up, Jake!" offense), so Plummer's meltdown against the Steelers became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If the Patriots had gone to halftime with a 6-0 lead, it would have happened a week earlier. But it was going to happen. You can't make it through a 20-week season without your QB carrying the team at some point. It's impossible.

I sincerely doubt that the New Yorker carries you like the Broncos carried Plummer all those weeks. Besides, you could never grow one of those lead-singer-of-the-Black-Crowes-level beards like the one Jake has been working on.

...continued

Very funny.

And as I have highlighted, unfortunately full of truth.

You won't win any points for this one, but good find, none-the-less.

**topscribe** · 03-04-2006, 11:49 AM

Well . . .

A couple guys who should stick to talking about writing and leave football alone. Simmons said he knows Jake, then goes on about how the Broncos are SOL if they get behind, implying Jake can't do it. If he knew Jake like I know Jake, he would be aware that Jake has 21 fourth-quarter, come-from-behind wins, and some of them have been jaw-dropping performances.

I wrote a post in another thread about stigma. Here is a prime example of a couple ignorant people buying into a stigma. There is little truth in either person's remarks, at least as it pertains to Jake.

-----

**tag** · 03-04-2006, 11:57 AM

I think there are kernels of truth in both writers' statements. I found particularly interesting Gladwell's statement about how Jake would be viewed entirely differently if he had started with Denver and had early success in the current scheme.

I think everyone would be viewing him as more of a (wincing while I type this) Tom Brady type. Someone who "knew how to win"...

No matter what you currently think of him, the baggage that Jake carries with him from the Arizona years will always haunt him. This is clear from the multitude of threads on this board. Even if we won three Super Bowls in a row with JP as our QB, there would be the lingering comments about how it happened in spite of him.

Nonetheless, I found the discussion very entertaining...

**mrbell26** · 03-04-2006, 12:03 PM

i thought the snake had more like 24 comebacks

**topscribe** · 03-04-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by tag

I think there are kernels of truth in both writers' statements. I found particularly interesting Gladwell's statement about how Jake would be viewed entirely differently if he had started with Denver and had early success in the current scheme.

I think everyone would be viewing him as more of a (wincing while I type this) Tom Brady type. Someone who "knew how to win"...

No matter what you currently think of him, the baggage that Jake carries with him from the Arizona years will always haunt him. This is clear from the multitude of threads on this board. Even if we won three Super Bowls in a row with JP as our QB, there would be the lingering comments about how it happened in spite of him.

Nonetheless, I found the discussion very entertaining...

I understand what you are saying, but I still don't like anything about what he is saying. His comments just ooze implications of incompetence regarding Jake. For instance, " if Plummer occasionally imploded while playing catch-up in a big game we'd say that the one problem with a Shanahan offense is that it can't score in a hurry." What? Jake has demonstrated time and again he can score "in a hurry."

Nope. Sorry. I'm sure they are very intelligent people, but intelligence does not necessarily connote knowledge, as they so adeptly demonstrated.

-----

**tag** · 03-04-2006, 12:25 PM

Top, I absolutely respect your opinion and, frankly, agree with it most, though certainly not all, of the time.

I posted this because it really seemed to capture some of the essence of the perception that many have of JP and how it will always be a challenge to get over this bias. I enjoyed it for what it is, fact or fiction... I personally believed there was a bit of both in the discussion...

Many of us recognize Jake is capable of carrying us for stretches with great play, but there is no denying he has his moments that cause us to scream at the TV or the field wondering what he was thinking... That's what makes this a gray issue for me, certainly not a black and white (or Saint vs. Sinner, for this board) argument...

**topscribe** · 03-04-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by tag

Top, I absolutely respect your opinion and, frankly, agree with it most, though certainly not all, of the time.

I posted this because it really seemed to capture some of the essence of the perception that many have of JP and how it will always be a challenge to get over this bias. I enjoyed it for what it is, fact or fiction... I personally believed there was a bit of both in the discussion...

Many of us recognize Jake is capable of carrying us for stretches with great play, but there is no denying he has his moments that cause us to scream at the TV or the field wondering what he was thinking... That's what makes this a gray issue for me, certainly not a black and white (or Saint vs. Sinner, for this board) argument...

I appreciate that. Perhaps it is because I am presently posting on a football board that my cognitive processes did not expand sufficiently to understand your point.

Thank you for the "intelligence" break.

Oh yes, points to you.

EDIT: Oops. That is, when I get a fresh supply . . .

-----

**Bigplayshay84** · 03-04-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by tag

The following exchange below is between author Malcolm Gladwell & Bill Simmons of Page 2 on ESPN.com. To put it in context, Simmons was asking Gladwell if wiritng came easy to him or he hard to work on it - the conversation turned to our QB, JP. I thought it was an interesting discussion.

GLADWELL: So do I work hard on my writing? Well, yes. But not that hard. I'm a five- or six-draft kind of person, not a 10- or 12-draft kind of person. Plus, I write for the New Yorker, so I have an entire army of high-IQ fact checkers, and editors and copy editors working with me. To stretch the quarterback analogy here, I'm Jake Plummer: I work in an offensive system designed to make me look way better than I actually am. Speaking of which, how fascinating was the Plummer meltdown in the Pittsburgh game? People have been beating up on Plummer, saying that his true colors emerged in that game. I prefer to look at it the other way. Shanahan managed to put in place an offensive system so brilliant and so precisely tailored to his quarterback that he could make Plummer -- Plummer! -- look like a great quarterback for 17 consecutive games. That's pretty remarkable. The Plummer story is not about the frailty of individuals. It's about the redemptive power of environments. As I said, I think I'm Plummer.

Simmons: Wait, I know Jake Plummer, I watched Jake Plummer, I wagered on Jake Plummer ... you, sir, are no Jake Plummer. Shanahan's system was predicated on the Broncos' jumping out to leads, then protecting those leads in the second half with their running game and Jake's occasional play-action passes (which were always wide open because their running game was so good). The catch was that they could never fall behind in any important game; there was no way Jake could be effective under those circumstances, and only because Shanahan inadvertently undermined his confidence (by creating the "Now don't screw this up, Jake!" offense), so Plummer's meltdown against the Steelers became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If the Patriots had gone to halftime with a 6-0 lead, it would have happened a week earlier. But it was going to happen. You can't make it through a 20-week season without your QB carrying the team at some point. It's impossible.

I sincerely doubt that the New Yorker carries you like the Broncos carried Plummer all those weeks. Besides, you could never grow one of those lead-singer-of-the-Black-Crowes-level beards like the one Jake has been working on.

...continued

I'm pretty sure Jake consistantly carried us through games agains a dominant 3-4 defense.....

**Bigplayshay84** · 03-04-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by tag

Top, I absolutely respect your opinion and, frankly, agree with it most, though certainly not all, of the time.