In terms of raw talent I would say Cutler handily wins. In terms of intangibles I would give it to Orton.

Whether or not Orton is better than Cutler or vice versa depends on how you are defining “better.”

In terms of raw physical abilities, I think the edge would have to go to Cutler. In terms what one does with those abilities, I’m of the opinion the edge currently goes to Orton.

I’m of the belief that, ultimately, we cannot judge which one was better until the 2009 season plays itself out.

Hypothetically, if Cutler goes into Chicago, has a great year while Orton tanks, then we will all say, “Boy, did we screw up.” But if the reverse is true, Orton has the great year and Cutler tanks, then, hopefully, all of us will say “Gee, McD knew what he was doing.”

My guess is the situation will be that both will have adequate years and we’ll be debating this again in the spring of 2010.

:)

I think McD’s knowledge of where the game is won and lost is his problem. He is thinking so far ahead of the pundits, fans, and writers that it gets him in trouble because they can only see the issues under their nose or the ones that slap them in the face.
He is addressing issues that underly, exacerbate, or are developing down the road and I am impressed with his attention to all the aspects of the game.

I am afraid McD doesn’t understand the essential truth that Football is Won and Lost within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage.

Well, each to his own, miner, and I’m not meaning anything personal, but to me, suspecting that a group of fans knows more about the game of football than a guy who grew up in it and is one of the top young coaches in the game (no to mention that Nolan is very good), strikes me as kind of odd. No offense, but that seems kind of unlikely

I agree they had zero pass rush. Switching to a 3-4, standing Doom up and drafting Ayers seem like good steps to me.

I know you think most of us here have a had too much Kool Aid. Like you, I wish Cutler were still here and that Xanders was stronger (although we don’t really know who called which shots). But part of the healty critique you’re talking about is thinking of how things could have been done otherwise. So yes, sure, more front-seven players, but which ones, and at what cost?

I like the personnel moves because it seemed pretty clear that the alternatives were impractical (flashy, even), over the long term. So again, who would you have added to the front-seven? If we start talking about counterfactuals, we’ll all be better off for it.

Paul Toviessi
Montae Reagor
Dorsett Davis
Jarvis Moss (Still a question)
Tim Crowder (Still a question)

Or other positions:
Marcus Nash (WR)
Deltha O’Neal (CB)
Willie Middlebrooks (CB)
Karl Paymah (CB)
Darius Watts (WR)
Ashley Lelie (WR)
Jeremy LeSueur (CB)
Chris Cole (WR)

And that’s the just the first 3 rounds. Point is; taking a bunch of square pegs simply because you have a lot of holes, rarely works out. Outside of Raji, Jackson and Ayers there weren’t really any DL prospects who could make an immediate impact in the 3-4. So do we draft a bunch of players with a bunch of question about playing in the 3-4 scheme? Or do we try to develop the 5 DL players on our pre-McD roster who have less than 4 years experience? Course we also added 11 more players with less than 4 years experience. That doesn’t even mention Kenny Peterson, Ronald Fields or Ryan McBean.

I’d like to see what one of the youngest units on the team can do with real coaching [Bruney had a 81% failure rate in developing productive linemen 9/11], before I condemn them. I just don’t see how throwing spit wads at the wall [what most of the “impact” non-3-4 DL basically amounts to] and hoping they stick is a winning strategy.

In addition, in this way we can determine who among those young players has the potential for or shows success in the 3-4. Then we can go into a rich 3-4 draft 2010) with a clear picture of what we have in the 3-4. As Sun Tzu says its better to act when you have full information, than go blindly into the dark

It is probably just categorized as an inability to really examine what is going on and an odd habit of bringing it up repeatedly.

I think the NFL writers need a new cycle or something. I almost with Favre would have stepped back into the fire because it would have sucked up all the oxygen at ESPN.

Have you ever seen a married couple start to bicker – seemingly over the smallest and stupidest things? They start getting that stiff defensive attitude about something said that, to an outsider, seems innocuous. But that’s because the outsider doesn’t know the culture that has been developed between the couple; they haven’t seen the patterns of miscommunication and unappreciation develop over a longer period of time; they haven’t learned the language that the couple uses. So if an outsider just takes to one comment or conversation and isolates it from the culture of the couple, it doesn’t make sense why defenses have flown up and tensions have risen.

Same goes for the Broncos relationship with the MSM. It’s the culminated pattern of perceived slights, offenses, and rejections (only two players in the HOF) that contribute to the overall culture and how fans react to individual instances.

I’m sure he is quite aware of the scrutiny he is receiving, the accountability that he is under and that he has confidence in himself, his staff and his players, so he’s not worried about what we think, but rather in doing the best he can to teach his team to be the best it can be.

would mean he had them ranked as the 11th-best offseason. That’s not what he says. Undoing the biggest move of the entire NFL offseason doesn’t seem like a minor detail, to me.

It’s sort of like saying, “Well, the Titanic would’ve made my list of the 10 Greatest Ships of All Time if it hadn’t gone down.”