Glass half full or half empty? This issue has been discussed explicitly numerous times, and invariably, implicitly underlies most of the discussions on this site in the sense that the perspective and assumptions of a poster will typically determine his/her analysis and conclusions. The guy who developed the concept of lateral thinking once defined thinking as, in my words, that activity that exists to justify the conclusions already reached by the person in question through other means.
To see how this relates to McD and QBs, jump with me.....
The collecting of QBs by McD over this off-season has been a major topic for the MSM and certainly has not gone unnoticed by our own, more enlightened membership - (long live MHR, MHR wansui! MHR wansuI! (12 brownie points if you can get this stupid insider's joke.))
I love collecting, on a small scale, Asian art/antiques, but it doesn't matter what you collect: all collectors are the same animal in two sub-species - you collect everything that piques your interest, within broad limits, OR you focus in tightly on a limited, specific sub-genre and focus. Most people and collectors ultimately conclude that the latter is the more sophisticated of the species and ends up with the better collection, and typically the former will evolve into the latter at some point.
It seems to me that McD is seen by the MSM as a collector of the former variety, a catch-as-catch can, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants, grab-what's-available opportunist who saw Quinn available, grabbed him, then saw Tebow available, and had to grab him, too. This is the MSM's glass-half-empty perspective/assumption with respect to McD's QB strategy, (read "non-strategy"), and as a result of that perspective/assumption, they make the following analysis/conclusion. Since McD's acquisition of QBs was haphazard, he'll need to (haphazardly) cut out one or more of the QBs he ended up with. Since the acquisition order of the QB's was Orton - Quinn - Tebow, that means that, being the fickle collector that he is, McD was first enamored with Orton, then desired Quinn, but finally fell in love with Tebow, which can be mathematically written as: Tebow > Quinn > Orton (> TB, although this last piece is seldom really analyzed). Again assuming that this series of acquisitions was random and influenced only by the available flavor of the week, then obviously, McD will need to dispose of one or more of the now superfluous pieces in his collection, for there is only room to display his best 53 pieces in his living room. Based on the simple mathematical formula above, McD will trade Orton! Only the "to whom" and "for what" are now topics of contention. How precise, mathematical, logical, the conclusion!
However, if we consider that McD is a collector of the more sophisticated variety, we would have to reconsider the above - that the acquisitions were not haphazard, but perhaps even planned out in advance! But how could that possibly make sense?
This is the typical starting point of many of the discussions and fanposts here at MHR - we don't accept the perspective/assumption/premise that McD is an idiot, (or Bowlen or the other coaches of our Broncos, by extension). With a different set of assumptions, we try to rethink the analysis and often come up with surprising, non-MSM results.
How about this? Simms was never going to get the job done, reasonable miscalculation in hiring him, problem understood and countermeasures immediately reviewed. Brandstater is not ready (and may never be - I haven't heard enough about him to know one way or the other). So - Quinn for back-up 2010 and beyond. And heck, if he uses his new opportunity to show he can outperform, no downside, it just gets better for the Broncos. Orton played well enough, if not stellar, for his FIRST YEAR in a COMPLICATED SYSTEM. He's a hard worker and will get better. He's the starter for 2010, barring a tremedous resurgence by Quinn. But we need to plan for 2011 and beyond and that means Tebow! But Tebow doesn't need to just sit on the bench for his first year or two, (and, yes! McD must plan for the possibility that Tebow is not ready for 2011, because a smart coach plans for such contingencies). We know he will be able to come in and throw the other team for a loop with some interesting version of the Wild Horse. Immensely tough to have to prepare for, and even the threat of this a few times during the game will force opposing teams to waste preciously preparation time on this option. Only upside here. In the meantime, we ready him to play as our #1, but only when he is really ready to do it. So all three QBs have a definite and important role, and McD was laying out his chess-like strategy from the time Simms showed himself to not be NFL material, (following an injury that most mortals would not have even tried to come back from - I still think he was a fantastically gutsy guy!).
The only question mark is Brandstater, and McD can make a decision based on TC performance. If he gets dropped, it's tough for him, but this is the NFL. If he shows something, then it's a tough decision, but it's a tough decision because we have TOO MANY GOOD QB CANDIDATES - ladies and germs, this is NOT a BAD THING.
Doesn't the above, (my preferred reality) scenario make better sense than some quasi-analysis, trade Orton??? conclusion based on the assumption that McD is stupid and must being doing whatever he is doing because it is stupid and it doesn't make any sense and therefore if the (MSM) analysis and conclusions don't make any sense, well, HEY!! it's McD's fault because how can you analyze nonsense and make it sensical???
But you know I have the utmost respect [gag] for our esteemed [TUIMMAL - throwing up in my mouth a little] members of the MSM [mostest stupidest miscreants]. How can these guys not see the possibilities of the above? Frankly, I'll bet Song dynasty ceramics to donuts with any of the MSM meatheads that Orton is not traded (- but looking at the wastelines, er waistlines of those dudes, they would probably not take that bet even if they really thought they would win just because thinking about lost donuts would be too painful for them). I'll end on that vindictive, petty note. Thank you for reading.