What we should do that we won't do.

by Vortex7 on Nov 16, 2009 11:43 AM MST Comment 29 comments

Kyle Orton will be fine Sunday. The guy played with a plastic guard on his finger for the first 4 games of the year, I can't see him missing a game of this magnitude - especially when he seemed as though he wanted to go in late yesterday. We'll go 11-5, win the division, and maybe even surprise a team or two in the playoffs. Orton lovers and haters alike (to which I can be categorized as both at time) will rejoice that if nothing else, we have a smart, tough quarterback leading our team - citing the game he beat San Diego just a week after hurting his ankle in Washington.

But what if he doesn't? Something to consider is that the Broncos have 2 games in 5 days. Orton won't be able to rest between starts the way he may need to and there's no reason to toss him into the fray if he isn't ready. It may be prudent to sit Orton against San Diego and/or the Giants. Then what?

The smart thing to do, would be to start Chris Simms. He's a veteran, he's technically been in this offense longer than any of our 3 QB's, and he's taken the second most reps. Chris Simms was a steady quarterback and one I'd be ok with starting if need be - 3 years ago.

I'm not a smart guy - as I'm sure will be pointed out in many of the comments this post will get. But for me, I'm putting in Brandstater. Why? Does he give us as good a chance to win as Simms does? Maybe not. But I don't think the difference is that big. Meanwhile, I think it's worthwhile to see what Brandstater has. Simms will NEVER be our franchise quarterback. Orton will likely be the guy going forward, and if we're planning on investing 40, 50, 60 million dollars in a guy (sidenote: I doubt Orton will get that much due to the unlikelihood he'd play as well in another offense as he does in McDaniel's) why not see what the guy who could be our starter, and will certainly be our back-up for the foreseeable future, has? Is it just me? I know he's young, but if we run the ball effectively he could be servicable. This is a bad situation no matter how you slice it, but if we're going to be in this situation, why not at least peak into what we have in the future?

Hopefully this will all be unnecessary and Orton will be fine for the rest of the season, but if not - I say we give Brandstater a try.

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

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

“The smart thing to do, would be to start Chris Simms”

I agree with this one statement and hope Denver does the “smart” thing.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 16, 2009 11:48 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

As they will, I'm sure.

No sense in throwing a rookie in there when we still have a shot at the playoffs. Sound like 2006 a bit much?

yeah, that didn’t work out either. I’m sure they’ll put Simms in.

John Clayton is the head Dean at Fail University (known as F.U. in short)

Formerly known as Calijoefornia

by Joe Medina on Nov 16, 2009 11:55 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Different set of facts, though

Plummer was the starter in 2006 when Shanahan lost his nerve and yanked him for Cutler. The equivalent move this year would have been to yank Orton for Brandstater after the Pittsburgh game.

Simms has already demonstrated that he is not the starter and continuing to perform like Sunday would demonstrate that he is not the #2, either. Then McDaniels really would have no choice but to put Brandstater in the game, just to see if he can be the #2. And he would likely have to go dumpster diving for another QB to replace Simms – who was NE’s backup before Cassel?

But the best outcome would be for Orton to play. But the OL will have to be on – he isn’t likely to be a speed demon on Sunday if he plays.

by ClarkFan on Nov 16, 2009 3:32 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with this

Plummer was the starter in 2006 when Shanahan lost his nerve and yanked him for Cutler.

Plummer was a maverick of sorts. He didn’t want to play Shanny’s game or attend all the OTA’s, which consequently gave Mike a convenient excuse to let his new expensive toy (Cutler) out of the box prematurely. That among other shoddy personnel decisions are what led to Shanahan’s dismissal.

I do agree that you only bring in Brandstater if you believe the season is a wash. I doubt very much that Josh McDaniels will ever concede a football season.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Nov 16, 2009 4:53 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs

I would have a somewhat shorter fuse for Brandstater in place of Simms

You bring him if Simms is doing another 3-13-1 job. At that point, the game will likely be lost with Sims, so Brandstater is a “nothing to lose” proposal. Also, if that happens Simms should be a Monday cut – why keep him? That is when you go dumpster diving for a QB – you will still need a 3rd one on the roster even when Orton is ready.

If you can play Orton, no go on Brandstater. Orton has shown he can win games. Simms doesn’t have that in his resume.

by ClarkFan on Nov 17, 2009 10:11 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Best Chance To Win

I am not invested in promoting any QB. Just put in the one that gives the team the best chance to win. Orton is the best QB on the team. If he is hurt and cannot play, then either Simms or Brandstater. I was disturbed at how bad Simms looked. So with great reluctance I would not be surprised to see Brandstater play.

by Endzone on Nov 16, 2009 12:15 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, like that

Including the “great reluctance” part. Sometimes the rookie shines in that role just due to the surprise factor, but those stories more often end in tears.

But if Simms plays like Sunday, the Broncos can’t beat anybody in the NFL (and no other team could, either).

by ClarkFan on Nov 16, 2009 3:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to see Brandstater play if Orton is unable. Because, why the heck not? I like Simms, but I feel like Brandstater could step in and play better right now. I just have a really good feeling about TB.

by aLuffabo on Nov 16, 2009 12:18 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

“why the heck not”

Because there is a good chance Brandstater will throw several INTs and we will lose the most important game of the season by 30+ points.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 16, 2009 12:24 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

and there’s also a good a chance that simms will again complete only 23% of his passes for an average of 4.33333 yards per completion and the offense will not be functional.

also, the offense has practiced running plays and protections for a right-handed QB all season. it may set the entire team back to adjust for a left-handed QB. and it does not make sense to have polumbus protect the blind-side and relegate clady to effectively a RT. maybe i’d feel better about the left-handed QB thing if harris is healthy, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

by bailey disciple on Nov 16, 2009 12:31 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Although, we don't know that, either. He might go out and throw 4 TDs and 400 yards. We haven't seen him do anything in the regular season.

I’m not saying that we should put him out there. In fact, I think we should save Brandstater for next year, but if we HAD TO put him out there, he may surprise us.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by kentuckybronco on Nov 16, 2009 1:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you, McG. I know what you are saying, but based off what we saw from Simms, I just think Brandstater is better equipped to make a positive impact than Simms.

Also, I’m not sure if you missed that INT that Simms threw, but yeah, there’s that…

by aLuffabo on Nov 16, 2009 1:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The NFL does not usually imitate a feel good movie. Stafford and Sanchez are both really struggling and they are much better prospects than Brandstater.

Tom will need a chance to adjust to the NFL (in practice) before he is ready to face a live NFL defense.

If Simms sucks as bad as he did on Sunday, I’m sure you will see a change to Brandstater or we’ll sign a vet QB.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 16, 2009 2:12 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Did I intimate that I thought Brandstater would be the savior of the franchise if Orton were to sit out? (Orton will play according to the front page). If I did, I didn’t mean to. What I did say is, “I just think Brandstater is better equipped to make a positive impact than Simms.” I don’t think he would come in and dominate, but I do think he would perform better than Simms.

Also, what vet is out there that we could sign that could pick up this system quick enough to not be completely worthless?

Garcia? Correct me if I’m wrong, but he has never played in this system.

by aLuffabo on Nov 16, 2009 2:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Brandstater

BTW, if Orton can’t play and Simms plays as bad as he did on Sunday, you can bet that Brandstater will get some playing time.

by Endzone on Nov 16, 2009 12:37 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

No Worry

Orton will start and play the whole game. Bank on it.

Talk is for Losers and Fools.

by Victim of Love on Nov 16, 2009 12:41 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Who ever it is, the decision needs to be made now....

because those practice time reps are invaluable.

Remember how bad Tommy B looked in the 3rd pre-season game? It made Chris Simms performance on Sunday look Pro-Bowl Caliber. But, that week, Brandy most of the practice reps and went out against AZ and played relatively well.

If McD is thinking Simms, then Simms needs to get all the first team reps…

But if he is thinking Brandstater… then you have do make that decision now… not split the reps or wait until the end of the week.

However, let’s hope it’s all a vain discussion…

"So tell me what happened."
"Well, the last thing I remember is seeing this flash of Blue and Orange and the #22... then everything just went black..."

by HillisRanUover on Nov 16, 2009 12:42 PM MST reply actions 2 recs

+1

agreed

although I think orton is healthy enough and they know that now. they just want to preserve SD’s uncertainty.

by bailey disciple on Nov 16, 2009 12:52 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by kentuckybronco on Nov 16, 2009 1:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Cleveland Brown syndrome.

John Clayton is the head Dean at Fail University (known as F.U. in short)

Formerly known as Calijoefornia

by Joe Medina on Nov 16, 2009 2:31 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs

As you guys probably read...

McDaniels will not declare Orton out this week. I really really can’t see him miss Sunday. He’ll probably take mostly mental reps Wednesday and Thursday and give it a go Friday. I think this is pretty great news considering I read earlier today some AP article saying Orton could be done for the year.

Still, at the very least Brandstater should be given more than a back-up’s share of reps during the week and I wouldn’t expect him on the “inactive” list Sunday.

Honestly, I see the reasoning for Simms starting if Orton can’t, but absolutely disagree with it. When Orton got hurt against Chicago, who came in and showed some promise? Brandstater. Was he getting a lot of reps up until then? I don’t think so. There’s a difference between naturally quick learners and guys who are simply smart. Is Simms smart? Absolutely. But Brandstater showed, more than Simms has, that he can translate mental reps onto the field.

by Vortex7 on Nov 16, 2009 12:53 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

These are my thoughts as well… TB looked poised, efficient, accurate, dynamic, athletic, etc… in that game… I think he is a better play RIGHT NOW than Simms.

by aLuffabo on Nov 16, 2009 1:35 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and Simms looked soooo awesome in his pre-season time according to the Orton haters. They were calling for his but-tocks to replace Orton all season.

Well, they got it….no mine, just the shaft.

Make those miracles happen - Jon Keyworth

by IgorBStrange on Nov 17, 2009 1:53 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a feeling Kyle Orton will start this week and let's hope the injury isn't too bad.

by bfree2bronc on Nov 16, 2009 2:41 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I will take Tom B ober Chris Simms every time....he was a bloody disgrace on the weekend...

When we really needed him to wright the ship, he sunk it!

Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
"Peyton Hillis didn’t rip the sleeves off his jersey, they flew off out of fear."
Calijoefornia.

by boydy2669 on Nov 16, 2009 6:15 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Shoooot

He didn’t even need to wright the ship, just keep it afloat. That didn’t happen and we all collectively said “all aboard the fail boat!”

John Clayton is the head Dean at Fail University (known as F.U. in short)

Formerly known as Calijoefornia

by Joe Medina on Nov 16, 2009 8:58 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

What I'm afraid of

Is Brandstater going in and having his confidence destroyed because it was too soon for him. I have seen that happen before when a rookie is thrown to the wolves and the opposition DC throws everything AND the kitchen sink at the poor kid. SD and the Giants are not the teams to have TB face. Now, if we get a sweet lead on the Raiders, that’s a different story. Put him in to get the feel of a real game.

Make those miracles happen - Jon Keyworth

by IgorBStrange on Nov 17, 2009 1:51 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

While I understand your line of thinking, I have always despised this line of thought. My take on this is, if the situation presents itself (ie; your veteran QB is hurt or the season is lost and it’s time to see what you have) I think a rookie QB should always be thrown out there. If his confidence is lost and he is ruined as a player, then he is clearly not a player you want to pin your future hopes upon.

I think the more experience you can get a young QB the better… Clearly, this is not a thought shared by most, even within the NFL. Coaches and GM’s routinely let a QB take a year or more to develop and learn. But at some point, we’re just playing football. Yes, the game is fast and complicated these days… but really, deep down, it’s a simple game. Throw and catch, run and tackle.

by aLuffabo on Nov 17, 2009 8:40 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs