All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Broncos - Ware's the defense?
9/13/2011 11:28 AM
1. No, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Dalton was the better option of what they had, though Gradkowski bailed the Bengals out on Sunday. Dalton also wasn't a first round pick.

2. Yes. Rivera said he was going to have to compete with Claussen for the job. Newton was eventually named starter. I'm sure even you are smart enough to connect the dots.

3. I'm pretty sure Orton is better than Gradkowski and Claussen. And Tebow is no Cam Newton.
9/13/2011 11:33 AM
1.  I'd rather you not go out on a limb.   Get back to me with some facts.

2.  I'm not sure I'd believe Rivera just because he said so.   Coaches say what they need to say all the time.

3.  Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.   Denver might win 4 games.   Orton is something like 4-16 in his last 20 starts.   He's not exactly lighting the world on fire under center. 
9/13/2011 11:43 AM
1. Why not? It's exactly what you're doing. I'd say there's more evidence to support Dalton and Newton being named starters because they were the best options, as opposed their teams saying "what the heck, they're rookies...let's start 'em!"  The very fact that if Palmer came back tomorrow, Dalton would be riding the pine kills your argument right there.

2. That's fine, don't believe Rivera. But you asked for facts and what Rivera said is factual; all you have is speculation, so nice to meet you pot - I'm kettle.

3. What's your point? There's an entire roster of guys the coach is accountable to. They believe Orton gives them a far better chance to win each week.  And PS: Not even Manning would be above .500 with a 32-ranked defense.
9/13/2011 11:55 AM
1.  And you know Palmer would start next week how?

2.  Was Rivera supposed to say "Well, Claussen outplayed him by a little bit but the fans had to endure a 1 win season last year and they want Cam so we decided to go with Newton"?

3.  When the coach is accountable to the players, you already have problems.  Could explain a lot about Denver and Fox.
9/13/2011 12:03 PM
You're right...coach's don't want chemistry and contentment in the locker room. They just throw their favourite pet out there at QB, even if it's going to draw the ire and resentment of 50+ other guys. Any GOOD coach is not going to say "Good news guys! We're gonna mail it in already and start our third stringer, even though our top guy is a better and far more accomplished NFL QB.  Nevermind that Tebow shouldn't even have been a first-rounder.  Instead of respecting you guys here in the locker room and giving you the best chance to get a win each week, I'm going to pander to the fans. TEBOW MANIA!!!"

You're just being contrarian now, as usual, so I'm done.  You've already changed your argument as it is.

First it was that teams should start first rounders over better, more proven QBs if the team is going to suck; that  teams should start first rounders above better veterans if they're going nowhere.  Then you threw out Andy Dalton who wasn't even a first-rounder.  And when I stated a PROVEN fact that the only reason Dalton is starting is because Palmer decided to sit out this season, you then threw up the smokescreen "but did he really earn the job over Gradkowski???"

This is what you do. When you're proven wrong, you change the argument and say you've been given no proof. So you have fun. I'll rest easy knowing you lost this argument.
9/13/2011 1:05 PM
How am I wrong?  I just said "Denver should start Tebow since they're not doing anything with Orton.  Find out if he can play and, in turn, find out if he has value to either you or someone else."     You're the one who started with coaches being accountable to players and other rookie QBs "earning" the starting job. 
9/13/2011 1:05 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 7:59:00 AM (view original):

In all honesty, Denver should play Tebow.    They're going nowhere this season.   They used a first-rounder on him.   If he can't play, they need to know.  If he can play and they don't like his style, he has trade value.   WTF are they gonna do with Orton at the helm?

Here you go.
9/13/2011 1:09 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 7:59:00 AM (view original):

In all honesty, Denver should play Tebow.    They're going nowhere this season.   They used a first-rounder on him.   If he can't play, they need to know.  If he can play and they don't like his style, he has trade value.   WTF are they gonna do with Orton at the helm?

Here you go.
Couldn't agree more.
9/13/2011 1:14 PM
Nomar...two-three months ago, I was in agreement with you.  I'm an Orton fan, but would have had no problem with that trade to Miami.  But Tebow then stunk it up for three weeks in the pre-season, not even solidfying his status as the backup.  It's not as if Tebow is just an unseasoned kid...there's a lot of concern as to whether or not he'll ever be good enough.  With a guys like Newton, Bradford, Stafford, etc., it's only been a question of when, not if.

Fox is trying to not only turn the team around but create a new atmosphere and attitude in Denver. You don't create a positive and renewed atmosphere in your clubhouse by benching your team's best chance to win and throwing out a guy who's looked terrible lately. That sends the message to your players that, as a coach, you're not doing all you can to win each week, which is a bad message to send. You field the team that gives you the best chance to win each week, period.
9/13/2011 1:19 PM

For three whole weeks?    I bet, if I checked, I could find three consecutive bad weeks for just about any QB not named Manning or Brady. 

Again, if he can't play, they need to know.  If he can play and they don't like his style, he has trade value.  If he doesn't play, you don't know if he can and he has no trade value.   Did anyone expect Newton to play well after pre-season ended?  Some guys have "it", some guys don't.  But you'll never know if he's just running the passing tree in practice and holding a clipboard during the game.

9/13/2011 3:20 PM
Tell it to Matt Leinart and the Cardinals.  I'm pretty sure he lost his job rather quickly to an "aging" vet who then took the team to the Superbowl a year later.

And part of your initial argument was that the Broncos traded up to grab Tebow in the first round, so they should play him.  But Tebow is not a first round talent. So why should Elway and Fox live with a mistake that they didn't make?
9/13/2011 3:29 PM
Isn't paying him to sit on the bench "living" with him?   I repeat:  If he can't play, they need to know.  If he can play and they don't like his style, he has trade value.  If he doesn't play, you don't know if he can and he has no trade value.  
9/13/2011 3:44 PM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 3:29:00 PM (view original):
Isn't paying him to sit on the bench "living" with him?   I repeat:  If he can't play, they need to know.  If he can play and they don't like his style, he has trade value.  If he doesn't play, you don't know if he can and he has no trade value.  
I'm sure they have a desire to win.  Like you said, if the Raiders are 4-7, play Pryor.  The Broncos could be thinking the same thing.  Start Orton for 8 games and see where the team is at.  If they're 4-4 or 5-3 and within striking distance of the AFC West, keep riding Orton.  If not, see what you have in Tebow.  And that wouldn't bother me a bit.

But I think they feel (and I totally agree) that starting Tebow from the get-go sends the message to the rest of the roster that you're mailing it in from the start. Tebow, even if he has future value, is not a playoff QB right now. So you wait until you know for sure that you truly have a crappy team, and then you put him in there.

There is also the possibility that the Broncos are showcasing Orton, hoping he has some really good games to start the season, then trading him for some draft picks before the deadline to a desperate team with an injured or struggling QB.  Which, if it pans out, would be another very good and smart reason to start the season with Orton.

9/13/2011 4:02 PM
You lost to the Raiders at home.   That should tell you about the status of your team.   In today's NFL, you're not "out of contention" until week 12-13.   Especially in the AFC West. 
9/13/2011 4:08 PM
Did you watch the game? I realize a W is a W, but that wasn't a game for the Raiders to write home about.  The Broncos shot themselves in the foot...they could easily have won that game, so I hardly take that as evidence that they can't compete in the AFC West, especially with the Chiefs looking so lost.

And as I recall, the Cutler-led Broncos lost to the Raiders at home too. I can't stand Cutler, but if he was here right now, I would not want him on the bench in favour of Tebow.
of 191
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Broncos - Ware's the defense?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.