John Clayton watch -- version 4.01

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 5, 2009 10:40 AM MDT

Team Preview -- September 9, 2009: Predicted division finish: 4th, Predicted record: 3-13.

Face it, the Broncos are a mess. They could be a three- or a four-win team if Kyle Orton struggles, the running game gets off to a slow start and Brandon Marshall continues to pout and be immature. To add to things, the defense that gave up 28 points a game is trying a completely new scheme. Ouch.

Wow. Maybe I should stop this series right now, after one installment (note: version 4.01 means Week 4 results, first post). Or maybe I should wait and see what he says after one loss, or two or three. We'll see. Right now, major props to my favorite punching bag, because he ponies up the credit where it is due. I still want to see him acknowledge the existence of his prior predictions, and work them into some form of the sentence "I was wrong about the 2009 Broncos". Until then, I'll stick around. But for now, way to go Mr. Clayton!

Last Call -- October 4, 2009: "The Broncos are no fluke"

Clayton says the Broncos are "for real". He acknowledges this was the start of "an impossible stretch of games" that scared him in the offseason.
He notes the "turbulent" offseason, but give credit to McDaniels for making the regular season "smooth". Clayton calls the Broncos "big players in the AFC playoff race"
"Beating the Cowboys," he says, "was huge"
Credit is given to the defense for stopping the last-minute drive, and to Nolan for "totally taking away" the Cowboys running attack
He's right here, but it still feels like talking out of both sides of his mouth when he credits the Broncos defense in one breath and then turns around and criticizes Romo's decision-making in the next. I'm not going to count this against him, but I don't count it for him either.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The problem isn't that he predicted

The problem with Clayton’s statement is that there’s four qualifiers in one sentence, leaving completely meaningless let’s take a look at it (I added the capitalization for emphasis):

“They COULD be a three- OR a four-win team IF Kyle Orton struggles, the running game gets off to a slow start AND Brandon Marshall continues to pout and be immature. To add to things, the defense that gave up 28 points a game is trying a completely new scheme. Ouch.”

So he never actually predicted a 3 win season, he predicted that they could (not would) win only three or games IF a confluence of problems occurs – Orton playing poorly, a lack of running game, and Marshall’s distractions continuing. Of course, that’s completely obvious. if you’ve got no running game, poor QB play and your star WR causes problems, a 3-4 win season isn’t much of stretch.

The problem, IMO, is not so much that he predicted a 3-win season, but rather that he didn’t predict anything at all! It’s just a circular argument posing as a prediction.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Oct 5, 2009 12:26 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

I concur...

That’s the issue with his statement. No balls to state what he did.

It would have been just as meaningless if he said:

“The Broncos could be a 12 or 13 win team if Orton plays mistake-free, Moreno and Co run well, BMarsh stops pouting and plays like he can. To add to things, the defense that gave up 28 points a game last year are switching from a failing D scheme to something different. Sweet!”

It’s a win-win for him either way. If the Broncos fail like he stated and they finish with 3 or 4 wins, then he’s right. If they play well and finish with more than 3 or 4 wins, then he’s just “not wrong”.

by SinDonor on Oct 5, 2009 12:47 PM MDT up reply actions

This wasn't the definitive example

of his 3-13 prediction. I’m not up for searching for it this second; but in some preview article he writes the actual win/loss referenced above.

But totally agree on the balless prediction.

"3rd and 6, Elway shotgun... Elway, scrambling, looking, running-- DIVING!!!-- inside the 5 yard line for a first down! Is he only 37?! How important is this football game? How bad does John Elway want to win this football game? Where you see the quarterbacks go down: Not Elway!"

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 6, 2009 8:41 PM MDT up reply actions

You guys are forgetting about this:

In this link, there’s nothing implicit. It’s cut and dry. He predicted 3 wins. Total.

He’s now looking for his failboat to set out to sea.

by dr.mort on Oct 5, 2009 1:05 PM MDT reply actions

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview09/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4446985

link adder not working…

by dr.mort on Oct 5, 2009 1:06 PM MDT up reply actions

Every issue he cites

is now making McDaniels look like ten times the coach anyone expected. He gives so many reasons that we wouldn’t be successful this year. Even coming from an outside observer, some of the concerns were reasonable and quite valid. But the fact that we’ve overcome nearly all of them really should put McDaniels in prime contention for COTY, and if we can win 3 of our next five, Clayton should lead the charge. (Not that he would, just that he should.)

Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.

by broncosmontana on Oct 5, 2009 3:59 PM MDT up reply actions

perfect analysis here.

You got it exactly right, montana.

by idahobronc on Oct 6, 2009 4:24 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks!

Not sure how I missed that one…

Stuff like that and what I put in the initial installment is why I want more than “The Broncos are for real” in only one week’s worth. I want him to do more than bandwagon hop (good or bad for us), and I want him to acknowledge his incredibly arrogant and smug predictions, rather than hope we’ll just ignore them and forget along with him.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 6, 2009 8:49 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks for the link

I didn’t bother reading through the whole thing, but one highlight jumps out:

“It would be stunning if the Giants, Redskins, Eagles and Cowboys don’t go 11-1 or 12-0 against Denver, Oakland and Kansas City.”

well, 12-0 is already out of the picture and I see no reason for the broncost to lose to the eagles or redskins either (NYG is going to be tougher though) This was an incredibly moronic statement. why would you predict that, given any 12 games in the NFL, a specific group will win 11 or 12 of them? the NFL is just too unpredictable to make a statement like that.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Oct 8, 2009 7:38 AM MDT up reply actions

CLAYTON IS A TOOL

And like a lot of those windbags, just can’t admit that he may have been wrong. For me, it isn’t the prediction that gets me, it is the arrogance of it and the fact that it was made after a wholly superficial analysis.

But that’s ok. I have never cared for Clayton and this just gives me an excuse to amuse myself at his expense.

Don't argue with fools. It's how they reproduce.

by TheMastermind on Oct 6, 2009 11:26 AM MDT reply actions