There are those among the Broncos faithful whom, I believe, are convinced that I have taken one too many trips to the Kool Aid well this year, and therefore must be blind to reality.  I must admit that I have been a vocal advocate of 13-3, Josh McDaniels, Kyle Orton, and all of the rest of the Broncos' players and coaches.  But I'd like to take a moment and let everyone know, that this is the way that I approach every season, irregardless of which people are currently occupying those spots.  Every year I believe that we are going to the playoffs, and even the Super Bowl, right up to the point that it becomes mathematically impossible for us to do so.  At that point, I go "Well dang [actually the words are usually a bit more . . . colorful . . . than that].  I guess we'll have to look to next year.  I've stayed up late at night celebrating Super Bowl wins, and called in sick to work following Super Bowl losses. 

    Over the years I have rooted for Miller, Reeves, Phillips, Shanahan and now McDaniels as coaches.  Morton, DeBerg, Elway, Griese, Plummer, Cutler and now Orton have received my support as our quarterback.  The same goes for each of the other positions.  Does this mean that I have cheered them on without reservations?  Absolutely not.  When I was a teen and young adult, I would settle for being angry, disappointed and frustrated when things went wrong.  I would hold high hopes for this player or that player, based on nothing more than a "gut" feeling about them.  Since becoming a teacher 21 years ago, my perspective has changed somewhat.  After the jump, I'll share with those of you who choose to wade through this post, how this has all changed.

    Twenty-one years ago, I became a teacher.  Not just any old teacher, but a special education teacher.  One major concept was drummed into to me through all of my training and early years.  In order to evaluate a student's potential, I was required to document measurable performance.  It wasn't enough to just say "I have this gut feeling that a kid can do such and so."  It was equally unacceptable to say "This kid will never be able to do this and that," unless I had evidence to back it up.  That evidence took the form of charting and documenting objective, measurable behaviors -- such as the level of text the student could read, the types of math problems he could solve, the number of times he cussed out a staff member or a peer.  Well, you get the idea.  My training is in looking at objective behaviors.

    I have carried this training in my approach to being a football fan.  When I want to decide what I see as a player's potential or effectiveness, I go and look up his statistics -- passes attempted, passes completed, yards, touchdowns, rushing attempts, yards gained, tackles made, interceptions, etc etc.  Again, you most likely get the idea.  So, when I began seeing, way back in the spring, comments about how our season was doomed because of the trading away of Jay Cutler and the signing of Kyle Orton, I began researching their statistics.  Those are a quantified, measurable representation of past performance.  

    Now, one quick aside.  Does past performance guarantee current or future performance?  Absolutely not.  Past performance, when measured over a long period of time, can only give us a hint of what the person might do in the present situation.  It can help us hypothesize to what extent a person will most likely improve.  It is a way of building a perspective on a person -- a perspective that requires frequent and continual updating.  When this process is used effectively, it helps us build a framework for understanding a person's potential to learn and succeed.

    Second quick question.  Is that assessed view of potential, etched in stone?  Absolutely not.  At best it can give us a view of the person in the current moment.  However, a pattern of improvement or decline over a period of time that has remained consistent, can help us temper our view of a person, so as to not over- or underestimate them.

    This training is why I become rather vocal (okay, maybe even a tad argumentative) when I hear an MSM writer, or even worse a Broncos' fan making broad, sweeping statements about how a player is not good without any reference to the pattern of that player's development during their NFL career.  Because often times, thos statements are based more on the speaker's perspective about what it means to be successful in the NFL, than in any objective measurement of success.  

    This is why I find myself becoming a staunch Kyle Orton advocate -- even though I think there is a great deal of his game that needs to improve -- when people start throwing out comments about how we gave up a quarterback with "true potential" for one who will "never be more than a backup."

     Btw, this is not a shot at any single individual, I have seen that kind of statement from a number of different sources on a number of different sites.

    When it comes to that nebulous thing called "potential,"  what I personally look for is whether or not the player is improving in the things he's expected to do in his position.  I also look at the rate of improvement.  If the player is improving I believe I can say that he has potential.  If he's improving rapidly, I take the view that he has a great deal of potential.  If his statics remain static, or worse yet decline, I take the view that that player is playing at his potential is not likely to improve very much.  Is this something that can be taken as definitive and absolute?  Not really -- human beings and group endeavors are too fluid and subject to too many variables to make that claim.  Yet, at the same time, it can let us know whether or not we're in the stadium with our understanding.  I'd like to illustrate this by looking at two quarterbacks -- since they are the ones most often found at the heart of this "potential vs no potential" debate: Jay Cutler and Kyle Orton.

    I will be looking measurable performance indicators: completion percentage, yards/yards per attempt, touchdowns, touchdown percentage, interceptions, interception percentage, and passer rating.

Jay Cutler
Completion percentage (2006-2009): 59.1, 63.6, 62.3, 63.6.
This statistic has remained relatively consistent and static.  The low first year is a result of playing just 5 games as a rookie.

Yards (2006-2009): 1001, 2497, 4526, 2046
Yards Per Attempt (2006-2009): 7.3, 7.5, 7.3, 7.2
These two stats provide an interesting insight.  Cutler's yardage increased every year for his first three years while he is on a pace to fall of just a bit this year.  Yet, his yards per attempt have remained virtually unchanged from year to year.  This tells me that he's gaining lots of yards, but having to throw more passes to maintain the ypa.

Touchdowns (2006-2009): 9, 20, 25, 14
Touchdown Percentage (2006-2009): 6.6, 4.3, 4.1, 4.9
This is a significant set of statistics.  It shows that while the number of his touchdowns has increased each year, fewer of his pass attempts have resulted in touchdowns.

Interceptions (2006-2009): 5, 14, 18, 12
Interception Percentage (2006-2009): 3.6, 3.0, 2.9, 4.2
This is an intriguing stat to me.  While it is true that the number of interceptions has increased each year, and he is on a pace to increase it again this year, the number of his attempts that have been intercepted each year has declined -- though it has jumped way up this year.

Passer Rating (2006-2009): 88.5, 88.1, 86.0, 83.8
While I realize that many folks do not like this statistic, and see it as having little or no validity, it is an attempt to combine and quantify all of the passer statistics into a single score.  What's worrisome to me is that Jay's rating has declined every single year.

    When I look at these statistics -- completion % remaining static, YPA static, TD% in decline, and passer rating in decline -- I am led to believe that we are looking at a quarterback who came into the league and played up to his potential from the beginning.  In his favor, his interception percentage has gotten better.  But overall, his statistics have failed to show improvement.  His yards, touchdowns and interceptions have gone up because he's throwing more and more passes each year -- though, in fairness, this year he's on a pace to throw fewer passes than the previous two years.  Does this mean that Cutler has reached his full potential?  Not at all.  It could be that he will begin to surge and improve.  It could be that the decline will continue.  The only assertion that can be made with any certainty is that his statics have remained relatively constant from year to year.  This is why I'm inclined to believe that he may well be performing at his potential.

Kyle Orton
Note: Orton did not play in any games in 2006 and only 3 games in 2007.
Completion percentage (2005-2009): 51.6, 53.8, 58.5, 63.2.
This statistic has improved every single year.

Yards (2005-2009): 1869, 478, 2972, 1838
Yards Per Attempt (2005-2009): 5.1, 6.0, 6.4, 6.8
As with his completion percentage, Orton's yards and ypa have increased every year.  He's on a pace to have the best yardage and ypa year of his career.

Touchdowns (2005-2009): 9, 3, 18, 9
Touchdown Percentage (2005-2009): 2.4, 3.8, 3.9, 3.3
This is perhaps, the greatest area of concern for Orton.  Remember that he only played three games in 2007.  His touchdown numbers were on the rise, until this year where he's on a pace to remain static in relation to the previous year.  His touchdown percentage shows the same pattern.

Interceptions (2005-2009): 13, 2, 12, 4
Interception Percentage (2005-2009): 3.5, 2.5, 2.6, 1.5
This is an area in which we see strong improvement for Orton.  Each year, he's done a better job of taking care of the football.

Passer Rating (2005-2009): 59.7, 73.9, 79.6, 88.2
Again, I realize some people discount this statistic. Yet, IMHO, it's a reasonable, thumbnail sketch of how a quarterback has performed. As with all of Orton's statistics -- with the exception of touchdowns -- we see steady improvement from year to year.

    When I look at these statistic, I see a quarterback who has improved overall, each and every year that he has been in the league.  This leads me to the conclusion that we have quarterback who has yet to play at his full potential.  Do we know what that potential might be?  Not at all.  It could be that this year will prove to be his peak year.  It could prove to be that he will tank and go into decline.  The only assertion that can be made with any certainty is that his statistics have improved from year to year.  This is why I'm inclined to believe that he has yet to show us his full potential. 

     It is also, IMHO, quite likely that Josh McDaniels saw these same trends when he was preparing to interview for the Denver position, and may well have played a part in his being willing to see Bowlen pull the trigger on the trade when Orton was included with the draft picks.

>>>>>>>

    Endzone pointed out very politely, and very rightly, that my choice to use Orton and Cutler as illustrations may have been construed by some as an attempt to pick on Jay.  That was not the intent.  I merely picked them because their names are the ones that come up most often in this discussion -- the potential (or not) of Orton versus the potential (or not) of Cutler.  To try and alleviate that concern, I went back and researched three more quarterbacks:  Brian Griese and Jake Plummer -- as the other two Broncos QBs of the post-Elway period, and Peyton Manning -- who is widely viewed as one of the best, if not arguably the best QBs currently in the league.

Brian Griese
Note: Griese played in just 1 game in 1998, and in less than 10 in each of the years 2005-2008.
Completion percentage (1998-2008): 33.3, 57.7, 64.3, 61.0, 66.7, 56.9, 69.3, 64.4, 56.6, 61.5, 59.8
Griese was a roller coaster quarterback.  His percentage would go up one year, then drop the next.  It remained fairly consistently within the 56.3 to 69.3 range.  Showing that he peaked in about the middle of his career then slowly declined.

Yards (1998-2008): 2, 3032, 2688, 2827, 3214, 813, 2632, 1136, 220, 1803, 1073.
Yards Per Attempt (1998-2008): 0.7, 6.7, 8.0, 6.3, 7.4, 6.3, 7.8, 6.5, 6,9, 6.9, 5.8
Another roller coaster ride.  Griese was maddeningly inconsistent, and did not appear to grow into a potential.

Touchdowns (1998-2008): 0, 14, 19, 23, 15, 5, 20, 7, 1, 10, 5
Touchdown Percentage (1998-2008): 0.0, 3.1, 5.7, 5.1, 3.4, 3.8, 6.0, 4.0, 3.1, 3.8, 2.7
This was an area of great concern.  His TD percentage was never particularly strong, nor consistent.

Interceptions (1998-2008): 1, 14, 4, 19, 15, 6, 12, 7, 2, 12, 7
Interception Percentage (1998-2008): 33.3, 3.1, 1.2, 4.2, 3.4, 4.6, 3.6, 4.0, 6.3, 4.6, 3.8
Again, an inconsistency to drive even his most staunch supports crazy. 

Passer Rating (1998-2008): 2.8, 75.6, 102.9, 78.5, 85.6, 69.2, 97.5, 79.6, 62.0, 75.6, 69.4
This thumbnail sketch of Griese's performance would have driven coaches crazy, IMHO.  What it suggests to me is that here is a quarterback who showed flashes of potential, but never fully realized it, whatever level it was.  My inclination is to see Griese as having a limited potential as a quarterback, but  who was able, on occasion, to overachieve, lending the impression that he had a greater potential than he actually did.


Jake Plummer
Completion percentage (1997-2006): 53.0, 59.2, 52.8, 56.8, 57.9, 53.6, 62.6, 58.2, 60.7, 55.2.
This statistic showed an early rise, then tended to fluctuate around the 60% mark.  This would suggest a QB with potential who rose to it quickly then struggled to maintain it.

Yards (1997-2006): 2203, 3737, 2111, 2946, 3653, 2972, 2182, 4089, 3366, 1994
Yards Per Attempt (1997-2006): 7.4, 6.8, 5.5, 6.2, 7.0, 5.6, 7.2, 7.8, 7.4, 6.3
Again, we see an inconsistent quarterback who surged early in his career then began to tail.

Touchdowns (1997-2006): 15, 17, 9, 13, 18, 18, 15, 27, 18, 11
Touchdown Percentage (1997-2006): 5.1, 3.1, 2.4, 2.7, 3.4, 3.4, 5.0, 5.2, 3.9, 3.5
This statistic is one that I believe gives us one of the best pictures of Plummer.  He struggled to reach his potential during his early years in Arizona, surged quickly to his best in Denver, but tailed off almost as rapidly after that AFC Championship loss to the Steelers.

Interceptions (1997-2006): 15, 20, 24, 21, 14, 20, 7, 20, 7, 13
Interception Percentage (1997-2006): 5.1, 3.7, 6.3, 4.4, 2.7, 3.8, 2.3, 3.8, 1.5, 4.1
This is a very telling statistic.  If you look closely, nearly every year, Plummer threw close to one interception for each touchdown.

Passer Rating (1997-2006): 73.1, 75.0, 50.8, 66.0, 79.6, 65.7, 91.2, 84.5, 90.2, 68.8
In this pattern, as with his other statistics, I see a QB who struggled early, then began to improve, albeit inconsistently, before tailing off drastically in his final year.  I see in Plummer a QB who had an above average potential but who was inclined to commit as many mistakes as successes.


Peyton Manning
Completion percentage (1998-2009): 56.7, 62.1, 62.5, 62.7, 66.3, 67.0, 67.0, 67.6, 67.3, 65.0, 65.4, 66.8, 70.6
This is a QB who improves, then plateaus for a bit, then improves some more.  He had one year where he declined, which was followed by 3 years of steady improvement that surpassed his previous high point.

Yards (1998-2009): 3739, 4135, 4413, 4131, 4200, 4267, 4557, 3747, 4397, 4040, 4002, 2545
Yards Per Attempt (1998-2009): 6.5, 7.8, 7.7, 7.6, 7.1, 7.5, 9.2, 8.3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.2, 8.1
As with his completion percentage, we see some dips in production, which are followed by steady increases.  This suggests a QB who reached a high level fairly quickly, and when an off-year occurred worked to improve.

Touchdowns (1998-2009): 26, 26, 33, 26, 27, 29, 49, 28, 31, 31, 27, 16
Touchdown Percentage (1998-2009): 4.5, 4.9, 5.8. 4.8, 4.6, 5.1, 9.9, 6.2, 5.6, 6.0, 4.9, 5.1
These statistics are relatively high on a consistent basis.  A few dips along the way, but overall a very strong showing.

Interceptions (1998-2009): 28, 15, 15, 23, 19, 10, 10, 10, 9, 14, 12, 5
Interception Percentage (1998-2009): 4.9, 2.8, 2.6, 4.2, 3.2, 1.8. 2.0, 2.2, 1.6, 2.7, 2.2, 1.6
These stats when taken together offer a picture of a QB who, each time his numbers worsened worked to improve them.

Passer Rating (1998-2009): 71.2, 90.7, 94.7, 84.1, 88.8, 99.0 121.1, 104.1, 101.0, 98.0, 95.0, 105.2
This statistic intrigued me.  We see a pattern of surging forward, followed by a drop off, followed by a higher surge forward, followed by a drop, and now he seems to be head upwards again.  The picture I get of Manning from all of this is a QB who came into the league and performed at a high level, which makes it hard to judge potential, but who improved his stats after periods of decline, to move even higher.    It suggests a player who may be playing near his potential every year, and that that potential is relatively high -- higher than any of the other QBs reviewed in this post.