McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Bub - start with any one of these -
    http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11915700
    http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11810112
    http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11822670
    http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/diner-morning-news-the-cutler-saga.html
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3990823

    Do you know what was eerily left out of McDaniels statement that he only listened to offers?  He didn't tell the public that he turned down the offers.  To your point about robbing a bank, McDaniels could have told the public that he told his solicitors to f*ck off, but he was curiously silent on that.  

    If McDaniels was really trying to mend this fence, by telling the public that he only listened, then he surely knew that he would have helped his cause by telling the world that he turned down the offers.  But then again, maybe mcdaniels doesn't like to lie.  Or maybe Mcdaniels really never wanted cutler after all.  

    Root - Because Jason Campbell has yet to demonstrate that he is half the QB Jay Cutler is.  If he was, then either the skins would not always be looking for a QB or some other team would have taken the skins up on it.  Jason Campbell doesn't cry because he knows his leverage by doing so is non-existent.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]Bub - start with any one of these - http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11915700 http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11810112 http://www.denverpost.com/jaycutler/ci_11822670 http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/diner-morning-news-the-cutler-saga.html http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3990823 Do you know what was eerily left out of McDaniels statement that he only listened to offers?  He didn't tell the public that he turned down the offers.  To your point about robbing a bank, McDaniels could have told the public that he told his solicitors to f*ck off, but he was curiously silent on that.   If McDaniels was really trying to mend this fence, by telling the public that he only listened, then he surely knew that he would have helped his cause by telling the world that he turned down the offers.  But then again, maybe mcdaniels doesn't like to lie.  Or maybe Mcdaniels really never wanted cutler after all.   Root - Because Jason Campbell has yet to demonstrate that he is half the QB Jay Cutler is.  If he was, then either the skins would not always be looking for a QB or some other team would have taken the skins up on it.  Jason Campbell doesn't cry because he knows his leverage by doing so is non-existent.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    While you do have a point in regards to their talent level, the reason Jason Campbell doesn't cry about it is because he isn't a whiny pvssy. There is no reason that I can think of for a man to whine like Cutler did.

    Mind you, I am not saying McDaniels and the Denver org did everything right. I am saying that Cutler's response demonstrated a complete lack of maturity and a sad sense of entitlement.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Oh, wait, that is right. Campbell seems to understand that there might always be a better option than you and that the NFL is in the business of winning.

    That is the very logical response for UD, an exact parallel. Unfortunately, UD doesn't respond well to logic. The Campbell situation will not occur to him, as the Redskins have no former Patriots coaches for him to criticize!

    Do you know what was eerily left out of McDaniels statement that he only listened to offers?  He didn't tell the public that he turned down the offers.  To your point about robbing a bank, McDaniels could have told the public that he told his solicitors to f*ck off, but he was curiously silent on that. 

    Now you are really stretching it! First off, all those articles you linked confirmed my point. Other teams were calling Josh, not the other way around. And if he didn't turn down the offers, why wasn't Jay traded to one of the teams in the mix then? The fact that no trade went down is proof positive that Josh did not accept any of the offers. Even Stevie Wonder could "see" that!!!

    If McDaniels was really trying to mend this fence, by telling the public that he only listened, then he surely knew that he would have helped his cause by telling the world that he turned down the offers.

    Why should McDaniels have to tell the media anything? He tried to have a sit down with Cutler. Most likely all would have been hashed out at said meeting. Josh may have wanted to spell it all out in person rather than using ESPN and the Denver Post as a proxy. But Cutler was not mature enough (or he was afraid of hearing something he wouldn't like) to meet the man (his boss, BTW) face to face! That suggests to me Cutler is a chickensh*t. Whether or not Josh wanted Jay as his QB is moot, because the way it looks Cutler didn't want to play for the guy anyway! I know if I wanted to discuss a business matter with a subordinate I would call him into my office, not post a memo on the bulletin board for the whole company to see.

    Because Jason Campbell has yet to demonstrate that he is half the QB Jay Cutler is.

    In the two seasons both have been the starters for their respective teams, Washington is 17-15, and Denver is 15-17. The Skins made the playoffs in 07, the Broncos have yet to make it. Even their passer ratings are close with Cutler at 87.1 and Campbell at 80.4 (and Campbell doesn't have near the talent at WR that Cutler did). Truth be told, neither one has truly shown themselves to be anything more than average at the position. You can throw all Cutler's yardage out there, but if it doesn't translate into wins it means nothing. Same with pro bowls. You don't play the game to rack up yardage and pro bowl appearances. You play to win Lombardis!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Root - I don't disagree with what you say except to say that in this day and age, gentlemen rarely get their way and nice guys frequently finish last.  In Cutler's effort to get out of Denver, he held no leverage except his loud mouth so he used it. 

    Admittedly, it wasn't a pretty display.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]why is dungy's coaching style puss puss?  Is dungy's way the p*ssy way because he didn't cheat?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]
    No, because he's a pussey.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    I like the way alfie gets right to the crux of the biscuit without mincing a lot of words.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    well alfie he is a pussey you got him there lol
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]Oh, wait, that is right. Campbell seems to understand that there might always be a better option than you and that the NFL is in the business of winning. That is the very logical response for UD, an exact parallel. Unfortunately, UD doesn't respond well to logic. The Campbell situation will not occur to him, as the Redskins have no former Patriots coaches for him to criticize! Do you know what was eerily left out of McDaniels statement that he only listened to offers?  He didn't tell the public that he turned down the offers.  To your point about robbing a bank, McDaniels could have told the public that he told his solicitors to f*ck off, but he was curiously silent on that.   Now you are really stretching it! First off, all those articles you linked confirmed my point. Other teams were calling Josh, not the other way around. And if he didn't turn down the offers, why wasn't Jay traded to one of the teams in the mix then? The fact that no trade went down is proof positive that Josh did not accept any of the offers. Even Stevie Wonder could " see " that!!! If McDaniels was really trying to mend this fence, by telling the public that he only listened, then he surely knew that he would have helped his cause by telling the world that he turned down the offers. Why should McDaniels have to tell the media anything? He tried to have a sit down with Cutler. Most likely all would have been hashed out at said meeting. Josh may have wanted to spell it all out in person rather than using ESPN and the Denver Post as a proxy. But Cutler was not mature enough (or he was afraid of hearing something he wouldn't like) to meet the man (his boss , BTW) face to face! That suggests to me Cutler is a chickensh*t. Whether or not Josh wanted Jay as his QB is moot, because the way it looks Cutler didn't want to play for the guy anyway! I know if I wanted to discuss a business matter with a subordinate I would call him into my office, not post a memo on the bulletin board for the whole company to see. Because Jason Campbell has yet to demonstrate that he is half the QB Jay Cutler is. In the two seasons both have been the starters for their respective teams, Washington is 17-15, and Denver is 15-17. The Skins made the playoffs in 07, the Broncos have yet to make it. Even their passer ratings are close with Cutler at 87.1 and Campbell at 80.4 (and Campbell doesn't have near the talent at WR that Cutler did). Truth be told, neither one has truly shown themselves to be anything more than average at the position. You can throw all Cutler's yardage out there, but if it doesn't translate into wins it means nothing . Same with pro bowls. You don't play the game to rack up yardage and pro bowl appearances. You play to win Lombardis!
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the stats, bub. I actually perceive Cutler as being better than Campbell as QB, but your stats show me I should think more about it.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]Root - I don't disagree with what you say except to say that in this day and age, gentlemen rarely get their way and nice guys frequently finish last.  In Cutler's effort to get out of Denver, he held no leverage except his loud mouth so he used it.  Admittedly, it wasn't a pretty display.  
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Cutler not only whined, he either had a totally different perception of how he was acting or he was an oblivious dope. At one point, after the trade had been made, he said something to the affect of "I didn't want it to come to this." I remember reading that wondering what he expected when he demanded to be traded two weeks prior.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    A very clear indication that something is exactly what it looks like is when you hear someone say "This isn't what it looks like."

    A close second: "I never meant for this to happen."
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Thanks for the stats, bub. I actually perceive Cutler as being better than Campbell as QB, but your stats show me I should think more about it.  
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    If professional football were a one man game then the stats would have more relevance.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    How about - this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : If professional football were a one man game then the stats would have more relevance.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    The fact is that the Broncos did nothing with Cutler at the helm. The Skins have actually done just a little bit more with Campbell. 

    My point was that I was willing to believe that Cutler was a lot better than Campbell, but based on what bub displayed, I don't think that is true anymore. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    If professional football were a one man game then the stats would have more relevance.

    Very astute observation. But yet again, you contradict your own reasoning. Since (as you've just stated above) individual stats are a small part of success, how do you justify Cutler being twice the QB as Campbell? Jason has won more games as a starter, and at least led his team to the playoffs. And off-subject, why do you keep using personal stats and pro bowl appearances to glorify Peyton Manning? If championships are what we're using to measure greatness, then Brady is three times as good as Manning (either one)!

    Even you agree Cutler's actions were childish. So why do you put all the blame on McDaniels? He simply did his job. He would be negligent not to listen to offers. What if someone made a Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams type offer for Cutler? How could you pass something like that up? As for Jay, he needs to face reality. NFL also stands for "Not For Long". Nobody is immune from being dealt to another team. Even guys like John Unitas and Joe Montana were traded away from their original team. And Cutler can only dream of holding either of those guys' jocks! Tell the truth. If McDaniels had not worked under BB you would have no problem with how he handled the situation. You probably would have been right beside the rest of us calling Cutler a crybaby!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : The fact is that the Broncos did nothing with Cutler at the helm. The Skins have actually done just a little bit more with Campbell.  My point was that I was willing to believe that Cutler was a lot better than Campbell, but based on what bub displayed, I don't think that is true anymore. 
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
    Root - I am ok with the perspective.  The stat gives it validity.  The question is, how much?  If you lay the team's entire success and failure on the QB then you'd give it a lot of validity, but as I see it there are 44 other dressing (and likely playing) teammates who have roles on that team and also affect the wins and losses.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]If professional football were a one man game then the stats would have more relevance. Very astute observation. But yet again, you contradict your own reasoning. Since (as you've just stated above) individual stats are a small part of success, how do you justify Cutler being twice the QB as Campbell? Jason has won more games as a starter, and at least led his team to the playoffs. And off-subject, why do you keep using personal stats and pro bowl appearances to glorify Peyton Manning? If championships are what we're using to measure greatness, then Brady is three times as good as Manning (either one)! Even you agree Cutler's actions were childish. So why do you put all the blame on McDaniels? He simply did his job. He would be negligent not to listen to offers. What if someone made a Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams type offer for Cutler? How could you pass something like that up? As for Jay, he needs to face reality. NFL also stands for " Not For Long ". Nobody is immune from being dealt to another team. Even guys like John Unitas and Joe Montana were traded away from their original team. And Cutler can only dream of holding either of those guys' jocks! Tell the truth. If McDaniels had not worked under BB you would have no problem with how he handled the situation. You probably would have been right beside the rest of us calling Cutler a crybaby!
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]

    Bub, if we are going to start using metaphor's literally then the discussion becomes petty and goes nowhere.  And I would not characterize wins and losses as individual stats.  I would characterize them as team stats, if that is what you meant.  Maybe you only meant a single stat. 

    As for the brady manning debate - different subject, but again a superbowl victory is a team win and the QB represents one player on the active roster.  the most important one, but only one.  If Peyton Manning was on Brady's team, he'd have 5 superbowls and brady would have none if on the colts.  And finally on this subject, why do you get to determine the stat that matters?  Here is one.  Nearly everyone here said the colts would be nothing without manning, yet the pats have proven to be very effective without Brady. 

    Back to cutler - Not For Long is very apt.  It helps me understand exactly why cutler did what he did.  Why languish for a lying coach if he can get himself out of dodge and on a team that prefers his talent.

    What I see as funny is that you see no issue with McDaniels actions at all.  He is also a part of the team and a coach can eff up a team as bad as anyone - ala Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban.  Just because they are coach doesn't mean they deserve immunity from scrutiny.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Bub, if we are going to start using metaphor's literally then the discussion becomes petty and goes nowhere.  And I would not characterize wins and losses as individual stats.  I would characterize them as team stats, if that is what you meant.  Maybe you only meant a single stat.  As for the brady manning debate - different subject, but again a superbowl victory is a team win and the QB represents one player on the active roster.  the most important one, but only one.  If Peyton Manning was on Brady's team, he'd have 5 superbowls and brady would have none if on the colts.  And finally on this subject, why do you get to determine the stat that matters?  Here is one.  Nearly everyone here said the colts would be nothing without manning, yet the pats have proven to be very effective without Brady.  Back to cutler - Not For Long is very apt.  It helps me understand exactly why cutler did what he did.  Why languish for a lying coach if he can get himself out of dodge and on a team that prefers his talent. What I see as funny is that you see no issue with McDaniels actions at all.  He is also a part of the team and a coach can eff up a team as bad as anyone - ala Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban.  Just because they are coach doesn't mean they deserve immunity from scrutiny.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    u.d.:

    Various themes:
    Theme 1: The Eternal Brady-Manning Debate
    As talented as Manning is, if you look at every team he has ever been with (i.e. high school, college, NFL) you would see that he has been surrounded by above- average to highest ability teammates at the skill positions (i.e. receiver, rb's) - which, of course, would lead to superlative statistics. But, except for his one SB win - he has not won a major title in his years in football. Which leads me to the point that I always make during this eternal debate: the QB (whether we like it or not) is the focal point of the team in general and the offense in particular; and therefore is expected to lead/inspire his team to victory. This is where Brady is considered superior to Manning, and the proof in the pudding is the fact that the Pats' won those 3 SB's with 3 completely different sets of players (with average skills at best) at the skill positions. To say that Manning would have won 5 SB's with the Pats, while forgivably hyperbolic on your part as a Indy fan, is highly speculative at best due to the fact that since PM has never faced the challenge to win with less than superior talent at the aforementioned positions. Will this be the season when PM will have to prove that he can win with lesser talent?

    Theme 2 - McDaniels As The Tethered Goat to BB's Tiger
    Now u.d., let's get serious! Your criticisms of JMac and his questionable decisions and tactics in Denver are the stuff of inexperienced coaches in their first stint as HC and we both know this. Your real target, mon ami, is our local tiger - BB, the bane of all right thinking Non-Pats fans everywhere. By using JMac as the little goat tied to the tree (figuratively, of course - no animals where harmed in the writing of this missive) you want to source his bratty child impulses to his time with BB in NE - rather than to his own individual short-comings as a person. I don't think that this "goat" is the right "lure/linkage" in your "quest" to bag our "tiger."
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Root - I am ok with the perspective.  The stat gives it validity.  The question is, how much?  If you lay the team's entire success and failure on the QB then you'd give it a lot of validity, but as I see it there are 44 other dressing (and likely playing) teammates who have roles on that team and also affect the wins and losses.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say that the entire success or failure was entirely dependent on the QB. I just said that I originally agreed with you that Cutler was a better QB but on further inspection, I find that it isn't necessarily the case. Part of Campbell's stats is that he is with a run first offense with OK wide receivers. In comparison, Cutler had better WRs in an offense geared to set up the passing game. As those explain the differential in passing stats, the rest is pretty much equal and the Skins have been 1 playoff loss more successful than Cutler in Denver. We could start to look at intangibles such as leadership and I would say that both are not the greatest. Cutler seems petulant while, having watched Campbell for the past few years, he seems to rise then fold in end of game situations. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    B -

    I can't argue your logic.  In fact, if there is a way to trace back my posts, you would find that I have stated that I was a Ryan Leaf guy out of college for a number of reasons but most specifically because of the "Manning can't beat Florida" assumption.  This tagline applies to any team (NE included) that Manning has had difficulty beating.  

    And admittedly, I felt this way earlier in Manning's career when the pats were rolling the colts.  But Brady actually provided the role model for learning to appreciate Manning.  Its too easy (and flawed) to say one person is responsible for the success and failure of a football team.  Examples - Rex Grossman; Trent Dilfer; Brad Johnson, etc.  What successful teams almost always have are good to great defenses. 

    In Brady's case, he always had this.  In Manning's case (especially early in his career) he never had this.  This isn't Manning's fault.  Polian focused early on drafting for offense.  This, I believe has much to do with the market.  Look at Polian's history - Buffalo, Carolina, Indy.  All small markets that have to find a way to generate revenue (butts in seats).  Winning is the number one ingredient, but offensive explosiveness helps.  Look at what Brett Favre has done for ticket sales in MN.  Larger markets don't have this problem.  Not complaining.  Just a reality. 

    What I have found over time is that Manning has had the responsibility of winning games for the colts rather than simply doing his part well.  Sometimes he has crashed and burned from this, but frequently he has succeeded.  If he has a flaw, it may be that this "early career" requirement to win the games has become ingrained and he finds it difficult to back off. 

    I take absolutely nothing away from Brady.  He is spectacular and as good as Manning.  But he hasn't been as good as manning for as long and to his benefit he has not been in a position to have to win most of the games for his team.  His defense has frequently ranked in the top 10 in the league (much credit here does go to belichick and on a different note lets not forget the film crew).  A qb with the luxury of managing the offensive game is in a better position than one who has to win the games. 

    That said, its clear that the pats have been the better organization - evidence is the 4 superbowl appearances.

    As for JMac - I have a great deal of respect for the pats org and players (well there are couple I don't care for) and belichick is a brilliant, tragic coach.  He is Nixon and Knight (whom I used to love), and I refuse to throw out the bad just so the good can shine.  I didn't get to with Knight (who I loved growing up) and as I have aged and matured, I better understand why. 

    So yes, I do take some pleasue in seeing his lieutenents fail.  Actually, their failure says more about the brilliance of Belichick than anything.  What a shame that Belichick seems to possess the same paranoia as Nixon.  But beyond that I am a Culter guy for a number of reasons, and I do not blindly accept the authority of a superior simply because they have it.  This is not the military. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : I didn't say that the entire success or failure was entirely dependent on the QB. I just said that I originally agreed with you that Cutler was a better QB but on further inspection, I find that it isn't necessarily the case. Part of Campbell's stats is that he is with a run first offense with OK wide receivers. In comparison, Cutler had better WRs in an offense geared to set up the passing game. As those explain the differential in passing stats, the rest is pretty much equal and the Skins have been 1 playoff loss more successful than Cutler in Denver. We could start to look at intangibles such as leadership and I would say that both are not the greatest. Cutler seems petulant while, having watched Campbell for the past few years, he seems to rise then fold in end of game situations. 
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    And yet Cutler had nothing to do with Denver's 29th ranked d in yds given up.  27th in rush yds; 26th in pass yds; and 30th in points. 

    This not just you, but pats fans in general never look at the other side of the ball.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    u.d.

    First, you are correct that BB does cut quite a Nixonian figure in NFL terms and will probably have the spygate issue shouted at him for years to come. While I obviously don't want the newly promoted coaches' success to be at the expense of the Pats - for me, there is no pleasure in seeing anyone who works hard at a honest job fail.

    Second, I don't fault Culter for reacting to the situation - just in the tactics used in looking out for himself (as well he should) that has made him out to be a crybaby. JMac, for his part, could have taken more care in his announcements to the media (which ignited this soap opera in the first place) while still doing his job of looking to stock his team with the best players available by every legal means possible.

    Third, I do look at the other side of the ball. In all four SB appearances, the defense has not been able to stop its opponent from scoring on a long drive towards the end of the game - and in all but the last SB appearance, the offense was able to regain the lead and win the game (against the Giants it may have been a case of going to the same well too many times aka law of averages). Yes, defense does matter - just not always in the way one would like it to.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : And yet Cutler had nothing to do with Denver's 29th ranked d in yds given up.  27th in rush yds; 26th in pass yds; and 30th in points.  This not just you, but pats fans in general never look at the other side of the ball.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    We are comparing Cutler and Campbell - not the entire teams. We already agreed that they both aren't entirely responsible for their teams' success or failure. But one other manner in which they have had different NFL lives is that Cutler was brought into an offensive system that had been run in Denver for 15 years and was fortunate enough to have to only learn one system. The Skins have not had nearly the same stability in offensive schemes and Campbell has had to learn a new offense each year. 

    I am not quite sure I understand why you are now attacking all Pats fans as overlooking the defense as part of team success when it was already implicitly dismissed or why you are saying it is a trait of all Pats fans when it is actually something everyone would exclude for the very same reason that it was already stipulated that the QBs aren't 100% responsible for a team's success. Kind of like a double cheap shot. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Underdogg, you should be a politician (maybe you are). You can twist and turn and slither like a snake for every occasion. I pointed out that if you compare Cutler to Campbell in individual stats that Cutler was not "twice the QB" as Campbell. Then you come back saying stats had little meaning as football is a team sport. So take a stand! What is it (in your opinion) that makes a QB "great"? Is it the stats, regardless of the players around him? In such a case you can call Cutler, and also guys like Brees, Rivers, Palmer, McNabb, and even Romo "great" QBs (though they only have one SB appearance and no rings amongst them). Or is it a combination of individual stats along with the leadership and intangibles to take a team to the promised land? Being that hoisting the Lombardi is the ultimate goal of the game, and the QB's job is to lead his team, doesn't that factor into being "great"? In either scenario, the difference between the two QBs we were discussing isn't all that much. And to be fair, Campbell has had less of a supporting cast and a harder system to excel in than Cutler. If, as you say, you are a big Cutler fan, that's alright. But that clouds your insight into the situation with McDaniels. Josh did exactly what any coach or GM would do in that situation. He may turn out to be a lousy head coach, but not because of listening to offers. I have still yet to see where he had "lied", as you keep claiming. Just because Cutler was "the guy" one day doesn't mean things cannot change the next. Any player with half a brain should know that well. Those who throw hissy fits when a better option is found are simply immature. It's his perrogative to "cry his way out of town", but after refusing to sit face to face with Josh he has no grounds to call him a liar or anything else.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Bub, if we are going to start using metaphor's literally then the discussion becomes petty and goes nowhere.  And I would not characterize wins and losses as individual stats.  I would characterize them as team stats, if that is what you meant.  Maybe you only meant a single stat.  As for the brady manning debate - different subject, but again a superbowl victory is a team win and the QB represents one player on the active roster.  the most important one, but only one.  If Peyton Manning was on Brady's team, he'd have 5 superbowls and brady would have none if on the colts.  And finally on this subject, why do you get to determine the stat that matters?  Here is one.  Nearly everyone here said the colts would be nothing without manning, yet the pats have proven to be very effective without Brady.  Back to cutler - Not For Long is very apt.  It helps me understand exactly why cutler did what he did.  Why languish for a lying coach if he can get himself out of dodge and on a team that prefers his talent. What I see as funny is that you see no issue with McDaniels actions at all.  He is also a part of the team and a coach can eff up a team as bad as anyone - ala Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban.  Just because they are coach doesn't mean they deserve immunity from scrutiny.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Peyton Manning in all his years has only gotten to the big game once. ONCE and that was spawned by some miraculous happenings in the afc championship game. Although it is quite likely that there is no point in entering a discussion with a person who makes an obvious unintelligent and unsubstantiated claim that Manning would have 5 superbowls if he played on the Pats but I will try. The team that Tom Brady inherited from bledsoe was more or less the same team that was 5-11 the year before. I think that speaks volumes for what Brady has meant to the winning of 3 superbowls. The comparison that should be made is imagine if Brady had more talented receivers on his teams for the last 9 years and I think the outcome is quite clear based on the 2007 season, which is the first year he had High Caliber wrs. The more intelligent statement would be to say that if Brady didnt have #1 wrs like Reche caldwell or Branch then he most likely would have 5 superbowls at this point.

    Underdope Which QB would you "honestly as a man" say would do better. Peyton manning with Reche Caldwell and 37 year old Troy Brown with Watson as TE or Tom Brady with Marvin Harrison Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark?  If you can answer that question with an ounce of integrity maybe people will start respecting your opinions a little more instead of just writing you off as just another troll with nothing better to do but waste good peoples precious time.


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Peyton Manning in all his years has only gotten to the big game once. ONCE and that was spawned by some miraculous happenings in the afc championship game.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Or in short, Brady is good in the clutch having one of the highest third down completion percentages the league has ever seen, having closed out two Super Bowls and numerous AFC championships with game winning drives in the final minutes, whereas Manning needed to be bailed out by injuries on the opposing teams, timely flags by the refs and the NFL's unwavering desire to finally get him ONE championship so Bill Polian and the competition committee would finally get off their proverbial backs.

    When people think of clutch they think of Brady, when people think of whine they think of Manning. 
     

Share