Dan

Actually, I wouldn't call Romo an anomally at all. He's been with Dallas, on the bench, developing for several years. Traditionally speaking, that's what most coaches I think would want. I didn't think Shannahan would pull Plummer either. But thene he did. I also agree that they may not win the Superbowl with Plummer, but I still say he gives them the best shot until Cutler develops. Another year on the bench and he'd probably start just like Romo has. But now, I see him looking like all rookie QBs look; and of course, it won't be long before everyone starts wondering out loud if he's a bust. When that happens it becomes a crap shoot.

I'd agree; it's probably not too meaningful given the number of attempts. I'd equate it to the Tackle that has 2 receptions both for touchdowns. Is he a great receiver in the endzone? No one would say that. However, it is definitely good to see some positive numbers and further points to the potential that JP has.

Excellent post. You, my good sir, are absolutely 100% correct. This should be pinned for all to see and referred to often.

I'd suggest that has more to do with the play calling and coaching philosophy than it does JP's play.

I would argue that what we saw there were the flashes of good QB play that we all wanted to see. It doesn't mean that JP is destined to be great, but it does show that he has potential. I would argue that what we saw there were the bad plays of young QB, that we can expect from time to time. I;d even argue that even the most gifted and seasoned QB's sometime have bad quarters or even whole games. It doens't mean they suck, it just means that had a bad day. It happens to every QB that has ever played. Like before, I don't think it means JP is gonna suck; it just shows that he's going to have ups and downs like every other QB. I would also argue that it looked to me that the cold weather was affecting JP. We all wanted cold and snow to make it harder on SD. What we may have seen was, in part, due to a former CA boy playing a little rough in one some of his first cold weather action. In the end, I think we have to look at JPs play as a whole and ask ourselves (actually, I assume the coaches will do this): Are JP's good plays/days outweighing his bad plays/days? Has he shown progression over the course of the season? And ultimately, has he shown enough ability to be considered the starter next season? In my opinion, he has and should be the starter. However, I suspect many here (and perhaps for the coaches as well) the jury is still out and they'll wait until the season is over to answer those questions. And that's ok, too; I can live with it (as long as the ultimate decision of the coaches agrees with my personal assesment).

I believe Jake was about 39(W) and 15(L) before being benched and had the Broncos in the playoffs the last 2 (or 3) years. Yeah, he sucks! I'd hate for JP to have numbers like that. The problem is people always want the next best thing and often overlook what they have, and eventually Shanahan got sucked into it. Cutler may be good one day; but to think the Broncos will be in the playoffs this year or even next is overly optimistic.

I gotta say I like these guys announcing. They're not flashy; they're just talking about the game and the players in it. That's all I want. It seems like there's a trend to make the announcer's bigger than the game and have them constantly ramble on about any useless crap they can spill out, complete with stupid jokes and celebrity appearances. I actually appreciate 2 guys just talking about the game that's being played. They aren't the center of the broadcast and shouldn't be.

One of the things that bothers me about FF is the attention it draws to the individual player and away from the team. When people are happy because a receiver or runiing back had a good/great statistical day but his team loses, that seems backwards to me. And then that mentalitly trickles into all the highlight/pregame/postgame shows. I guess I just never really got into it nor really understand it, because I could never see myself cheering for a Patriots QB or a Steeler back because he's on my Fantasy team. Maybe I'm just oo much of a Bills homer. Because although I watch all the football and enjoy the games, I only cheer for the Bills and Bills players to win.

This place is so much more entertaining when DeLuca posts. It always makes me feel so much smarter.

For some reason, I've never gotten into it.

That blows!

To even suggest that the only difference between Coy Wire and TKO is about 5 pounds is impossible to fathom. If Wire makes this team over TKO, I would definitely question my very existence, because that would surely mark the beginning to the end of the world as we know it.

I never said conspiracy. I just implied that the current system is so poorly designed that it seems as though it was designed to fail. Is that such a stretch of the imagination? The league was on record as being very much against replay review. Not to mention, that in this modern age, you're telling me that they can't review more plays, more easily, and more efficiently? Of course they can. So that begs the question, why don't they?

I see your point and what you're saying. Me, not being a math wiz, I have to think a little and see how it settles in my simplistic brain. On the surface, I want to agree with your math. However, there's something that's telling me we're missing something.

It doesn't work, becacuse the NFL never wanted it. Therefore, they designed a system that was so flawed they figured it'd be voted out in no time. Just a few design flaws for starters: it's too restrictive. Only certain plays in certain circumstances can be reviewed. The coach (who is on the sidelines often half a field from the play) decides which plays to review and has to sacrifice time outs to do so. They only get a limited number of chances to review plays. The whole notion of make a call first, then decide if there's overwhelming evidence to overturn your own call. Therefore, they all too often rely on their initial on the field call rather than believing what the camera clearly shows. Relying on TV cameras for the replay footage; cameras that are often out of place or not providing footage to coaches quick enough to make a proper decision. Completely stopping everything on the field for entirely too long so the ref can go to special display to do the review. Why not just have a ref in the booth, upstairs do the review?

I'm not sure I can agree with you. In the above example, you determine that Defense C is the best choice because of the percentage that run it and won the Superbowl. However, it seems like the margin of error would be greater. Essentially, I'd see that as a hit or miss system. I'd think that Defence A or B would be better because 9 of the last 10 SB winners ran either of those systems. So, do you run one of the systems that won 90% of the Superbowls or the one that was successful 10% of the time? To look at it another way, if multiple teams have used system B and won the Superbowl, perhaps that's an easier system to run. Therefore, it leads to more successful teams. System C seems like you have to have just the right combination of people in place to get it to work, because only 1 team has made it work. Therefore, wouldn't you want a system that's easier to implement and more likely to show positive results? I'd also add, though, that I think you have to look at a few other variables. How long have the teams been in the system? Were there extenuating circumstances like injured players? Things such as that, but I think that's a little much to consider for this discussion. Regarding the 3 teams that run it now, I think we have to consider the Colts and Bears as being unsuccessful. Although they're winning a ton of games and do well each year, the primary goal (in this scenario) is to get in the Superbowl. So, perhaps the Cover 2 is a great system. But, there a basic design flaw that can be exploited by good teams, when it matters the most; hence, they never make the Superbowl. It's kinda like Shotty in SD. He's a great coach, always has a good competitive team. But, how many Superbowls has he gotten to, let alone win? Based on that, I'm not sure I'd want him coaching the Bills because the goal is not to just be a good team - its to be a good Superbowl team (something Marty has never produced).

I think I asked this the other day, as part of another thread; and can't for the life of me remember the thread. So rather than check every post, I thought I'd re-ask with a little more behind it... It seems like if I were a newly hired GM, one of the first things I'd think about is; How do we get to and win a Superbowl. It then follows, logically, that I would pull some statistics and determine what offensive and defensive systems were run by all Superbowl attendees (winners and losers) and then try to implement the most common style. Of course, I'd also look at other key elements, such as type of QB, Coach, draft histories, etc. And, again, try to mimic that most successful approach(es). So, the other day, I asked... other than TB, has any other team got to the Superbowl running the Cover2? Now I'm no GM, of course (and I'm not in any way second guessing Marv). So, rather than do all the tedious research and analysis, I'm taking the lazy route and asking TSW Braintrust. With all that in mind, I ask: What has been the most successful offensive and defensive systems? In other words, what's the most common road to the Superbowl? And ultimately, are we on the right track.? (To add my own opinion: I'm not yet sold on the Cover 2, never have been; and really have no idea what style of offense we're running or trying to run. However, for the first time in years, I do feel optimistic about our future.)

You're tellin me that you don't think the Smoking Man can't put a mild halucinagen in the Refs pregame meal and use suggesttive phrases to make them think they see tipped passes? Come on, this is ancient Cold War technology. It's been done before on numerous occasions.

Agreed. I'd keep Willis (he's easily the best back on our current roster), but I'd draft or sign a young guy to push him (as the number 2) and possibly take over if he continues to underwhelm at crucial times in the game.

Has anyone made it to the the Super Bowl and/or won the Super Bowl playing cover 2? Other than Tampa, of course. Just curious?

I feel the pains of this post. It does get old and tiresome (and some people wonder how we could have trouble selling out a game). Here's how I see it: This is a young team. Young in every way. And maybe they're all just learning how to play together. They do seem to be progressing each week. I have hope from what I've seen. JP appears to be turning into a real NFL QB right before our eyes. He's been good 3 weeks in a row in the 4th quarter 2 minute offense. Now, maybe after losing like we did Jauron will see the need to try and put points on the board before the half when we have the ball with 2+ minutes on the clock. We have alot of good players with alot of upside. They're not great now, but many of the younger guys definitely look like they could become great. I must say, though, about McGehee; I'm starting to wonder. He's just not getting it done when the team needs it most. That screen pass on 3rd down that he couldn't convery, just kills. In no way do I suggest we bench him this year, but I'd suggest something like with JP. He's got a few weeks left to show something; to give us some reason why we shouldn't draft a replacment RB. He's good and I think could be great. But, maybe not here, I just don't know. Of our skill players, I'd put the biggest question mark on him. But, I think we can all agree on a few things. The O line is improving. JP looks like a real QB. Evans is a good receiver. Our DE's are pretty good. The 2 rookie safeties have had a serious trial by fire and should only get better. Clements can play, if he wants to and we pay him. The coaches have given stability and a cohesion to the team (now they just need to get their head out of their conservative asses at times). The refs still hate us.

I disagree with number 1. I think it's easier to get a field goal with 20-30 seconds on the clock - see the Jags game for evidence. To get a TD with with a minute left, pretty much means you're gonna have to throw it big distances, i.e. no underneath passes. When you're down by 10, many teams will give you the underneath stuff (like SD did yesterday) and then you can easily get close enough to shoot for the endzone. If all you need is the one score, the defense plays the whole field tight and its harder to so that. To get to field goal range after an onside kick, all you really need is 1 big pass. I agree with number 2. I've often thought, just let them score already. I was saying that yesterday at about the 4 minute mark when it was obvious we couldn't stop an old lady with a walker in the snow. To heck with how the Defense feels. If they could stop someone on 3rd down, you wouldn't have to give up the cheap score. I understand the concept of never giving up points, but at some point you just need to get the ball back. I know you could get a turnover, but its much less likely when they're just running the ball hoping to put the game away.

No, you're pretty much dead on. He was about at the 35 when he juked and made it to about the 32. But, there was about 3 seconds on the clock when he was at the 35. So, unless he goes down right there, I'd guess we don't get the timeout. By the time he got to the 32 there was like 1 second - no where near enough time to go down and get the refs to stop the clock, imo.

The Seahawks are literally trying to lose this game! They're actually following Deluca logic to get to the playoffs.

1 play does not make a game. He's looked pretty bad and the Broncos are lucky as hell to be in this game.