PDA

View Full Version : Thread for people who enjoy winning


Pages : 1 [2] 3

errand
10-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Perhaps this thread is misnamed, and really should be "Thread for people who will cover Jake's ass no matter how uninspiring he looks," since that's all this is really about.


Defending Jake Plummer for 5 uninspiring games and 3 consecutive playoff appearances vs defending Brian Griese for 4 seasons of mediocre to terrible play and 0 playoff appearances (No, TJ...that was Gus who took us to the playoffs in '00).

You sir, are the one legged man who decided to enter an ass kicking contest.

errand
10-17-2006, 05:47 PM
2. I want us to win the SB.

3. This offense is not going to get it done vs teams like the Colts/Chargers and other competition in the playoffs.

So tell me...how many SB's have we won the last 7 seasons when our offense was one of the league's best and our defense laid an egg in the playoffs?

So are you trying to tell us that if we win the SB 13-3 you'd be pissed?

Arkie
10-17-2006, 05:56 PM
Offense sells tickets, and the fans are getting restless. The whole dynamic changes if we added ten points to each offense. These results look better even though the margin of victory remains the same.

Rams 28, Broncos 20
Broncos 19, Chiefs 16
Broncos 27, Pats 17
Broncos 23, Ravens 13
Broncos 23, Raiders 13

errand
10-17-2006, 05:58 PM
I'll admit it... I supported Griese. I wish Shanahan would have dumbed down the offense for him like he's doing for Plummer. We might have had much better luck then. .

Gee, I thought all we needed was a LT to protect him.

Now you're saying that we should have dumbed down the playbook for him as well?

Why would you need to dumb down the playbook for a guy who not only scored a 39 on the Wonderlic test, and in your infinite wisdom was the "NFL's most efficient QB when given protection, bar none"?

watermock
10-17-2006, 05:58 PM
So tell me...how many SB's have we won the last 7 seasons when our offense was one of the league's best and our defense laid an egg in the playoffs?

So are you trying to tell us that if we win the SB 13-3 you'd be pissed?

At least we had an offense, even with SOB compared to this crap. We have a fine defense, but not one that could go into the playoffs and expect to shut down a team to 3 points.

Your going to tell me the offense didn't lay an egg in these playoffs? Fine...Jake didn't fumble or throw a pick. I would trade one of either for a few TD passes.

errand
10-17-2006, 06:09 PM
There are two people you can blame: Mike Shanahan and Jake Plummer.


So why do you still believe in Mike?

Would you advocate his firing as rabid as you do Jake's?

errand
10-17-2006, 06:12 PM
And Jake Plummer has lead the team the the fewest amount of touchdowns the Broncos have ever experienced in a 5 game stretch in the history of the Broncos, .

He's also led us to the playoffs 3 years in a row....only 2 other Bronco QB's can say that (Morton '77-'79 and Elway '96-'98), so what's your freaking point?

Popps
10-17-2006, 06:13 PM
Your going to tell me the offense didn't lay an egg in these playoffs? Fine...Jake didn't fumble or throw a pick. I would trade one of either for a few TD passes.


Well, the Indy games don't even count. Those defensive performances were so embarrassing, it's not even worth talking about. We're talking NFL first-half record bad.... i.e., worst in the history of the game, bad.

But, the Pittsburgh games could at BEST be called a total TEAM melt-down.

The question is, where you believe it started.

Our offense came out flat. Our defense allowed scores on every one of the first four drives. (3 of them TDs.)

Game over.

Conversely, against New England... our offense came out slow... but our defense played playoff-style football. They hung tough, and we got the offense rolling and put up some points... and miraculously, WON.

Pittsburgh (after smoking us) went to the Superbowl and had a horrific first half, offensively... worse than the start we had against them.

Yet, their D hung tough... and they won.

That is playoff football, folks. You don't dig yourself into 21 point holes and expect to win against top caliber teams. You MUST possess a defense that can hold a game tight when your O starts slow, because against the better defenses... it's LIKELY to happen.

This year, our D has played VERY tough in games where there hasn't been much offense. No surprise, we're winning.

There is a time-tested formula, and it STARTS with shutting down other teams. Those who think football games should have basketball scores and that 30 points half-time deficits are the responsibility of an OFFENSE are just simply not looking at the very clear blueprint for winning, which is traceable throughout the history of the game.

errand
10-17-2006, 06:22 PM
All of us would too DS49. But let's be realistic.

In fact, since you know about DS49, tell everyone what happened to the Broncos the last time they went to the Super Bowl with the leagues leading Scoring Defense?

I don't know why I waste my time on foolish threads like this. There is a real difference between "Bronco fan", and "Football Expert/Bronco Fan".

Really, so tell us what has leading the NFL in scoring done for us lately?

errand
10-17-2006, 06:26 PM
For those who don't remember, the last time the Broncos went to the Super Bowl with the leagues leading scoring defense, the final score was 55-10.

Against arguably the NFL's best team all-time.

BTW, the last time the Broncos led the NFL in scoring they were beaten in a wildcard game 42-24 by the Raiders...so what's your point?

Popps
10-17-2006, 06:29 PM
It's no different than when we would win a game with Griese, despite how you want to paint it. It's just part of the package.

Yea, thing was... we rarely won with him. He was usually pouting on the sidelines or looking disinterested.

I rooted my ass off for Griese, even if I thought he was horrible.

errand
10-17-2006, 06:41 PM
Exactly. Funny how some of the guys who go to bat for Plummer were only to eager to burn Brian to the cross. I mean, aside from mobility there isnt much that seperates Brian from Jake honestly. One guy trips over his dog and another trips over his couch. The only difference is that Jake has benefited from a much better defense the last couple of years.

One has led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons, the other led us into the depths of mediocrity.

One could makes plays when the protection broke down, the other was a freaking statue who folded like a cheap lawn chair.

One has won 75% of his games as our starter and the other has won barely 50%

One has led the team, where as the other was just another mediocre player on it.

Northman
10-17-2006, 06:45 PM
One has led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons, the other led us into the depths of mediocrity.

One could makes plays when the protection broke down, the other was a freaking statue who folded like a cheap lawn chair.

One has won 75% of his games as our starter and the other has won barely 50%

One has led the team, where as the other was just another mediocre player on it.



One was a very young and inexperienced Qb while the other was a 8 year vet. The list could go on. And didnt i mention the mobility thing? Yea, i kinda think i did.

errand
10-17-2006, 06:49 PM
One was a very young and inexperienced Qb while the other was a 8 year vet. The list could go on.

I'm sure it could...but there are more positives on Jake's side than Brian's.

Northman
10-17-2006, 06:51 PM
I'm sure it could...but there are more positives on Jake's side than Brian's.


Yea, he is mobile.

DBroncos4life
10-17-2006, 10:39 PM
Yea, thing was... we rarely won with him. He was usually pouting on the sidelines or looking disinterested.

I rooted my ass off for Griese, even if I thought he was horrible.

Thats how I was. Griese was finished after that Raiders game, but it didn't stop me from liking him.

I just don't understand. We scored points last year and not one person here thought that Mike let Plummer do anything. Why then all of the sudden did Mike make the rope around Plummers neck shorter? Is it Kubes? I can tell you I've seen way more three TE sets this year then last year. I also know that everyone loves Kircus but he sure isn't my idle third WR either.

freak6
10-17-2006, 10:47 PM
Against arguably the NFL's best team all-time.

BTW, the last time the Broncos led the NFL in scoring they were beaten in a wildcard game 42-24 by the Raiders...so what's your point?

Errand, of course I'd be thrilled if we won the superbowl 2-0.

I just don't see us winning 3 straight over playoff competition unless the offense dramatically improves.

BTW - we had a great offense in 98 and the defense was less than great in the Super Bowl, but we won the SB over the Packers anyway.

Obviously we need to be better on offense, because you can't rely upon a statiscally great defense in pts against, because eventually the defense will give up points. Last year we had a dominating defense, 4th in scoring I believe, and you saw what happened.

Also, we have forced 4 turnovers in the redzone in 3 tight games. You can't count on that vs better competition than Andy Walter, Steve McNair, and two forced fumbles.

Popps
10-17-2006, 10:52 PM
One has led us to the playoffs 3 consecutive seasons, the other led us into the depths of mediocrity.

One could makes plays when the protection broke down, the other was a freaking statue who folded like a cheap lawn chair.

One has won 75% of his games as our starter and the other has won barely 50%

One has led the team, where as the other was just another mediocre player on it.

Yea, but... he said it, so it's true. (Orange Mane rule.)

On an unrelated note, the moon is made of green cheese. Just thought you should know.

SoCalBronco
10-17-2006, 11:13 PM
(No, TJ...that was Gus who took us to the playoffs in '00).

.

Really? I wasn't aware you could get into the playoffs by winning 4 games.

I guess that means Andrew Walter and the Raiders may get into the dance this year.

Popps
10-17-2006, 11:16 PM
Thats how I was. Griese was finished after that Raiders game, but it didn't stop me from liking him.

I just don't understand. We scored points last year and not one person here thought that Mike let Plummer do anything. Why then all of the sudden did Mike make the rope around Plummers neck shorter? Is it Kubes? I can tell you I've seen way more three TE sets this year then last year. I also know that everyone loves Kircus but he sure isn't my idle third WR either.

The thing is, everyone just assumes Jake is afraid of Cutler so he's playing bad. I mean, it could be. Of course, there's no way to prove that..... so who knows.

More technical-minded fans would look into having a new O.C. as a potential problem. That doesn't mean Jake isn't struggling, because he is. But, something doesn't look right.

We just don't seem to see guys getting open like we did last year. Walker does a great job, but Rod's looked rather covered... as much as I love him.
Sheffler doesn't seem to be getting open, and when he does... either Jake isn't hitting him where he should, or he looks like he's fighting the ball.
(He really looks nervous out there, which surprises me... he looked extremely confident in the pre-season, given... it's pre-season. )

The running game is solid. But, I don't know. Something just doesn't look right...beyond Jake making some bad throws. We just seem to be seeing a lot of situations where Jake looks down a couple of covered receivers and dumps the ball off or throws it away. I realize we're telling him to be careful with the ball, but we told him that last year, too.

I do know that QBs almost always struggle a bit under new OCs. People just might have to have some patience with this, and Shanahan might have to step in a bit more than he has had to in the past.

Northman
10-18-2006, 02:53 AM
Yea, but... he said it, so it's true. (Orange Mane rule.)

On an unrelated note, the moon is made of green cheese. Just thought you should know.



I love cheese, just not green. ;)

Kaylore
10-18-2006, 03:11 AM
The title of this thread is so pathetic that I laugh harder everytime I read it.

Arkie
10-18-2006, 10:43 AM
I felt gross after the Raiders game. It was the worst I've ever felt after a win - especially a Raider win.

You obviously didn't enjoy winning the last game, but you sure enjoy reading this thread title, so here's another bump. :)

orange 4 life
10-18-2006, 12:20 PM
With good reason.

Whereas we (in my opinion) are winning games despite not being up to our full sprint, yet. Honestly, we're 4-1 and not playing as good as I think we can... and will. That's some fairly exciting stuff, to me. I know it's not real fashionable around here to be optimistic... but I'm going to go ahead and buck the rules on that one.

....and thats an EXTREMELY important thing to think about.

we are not even close to playing our best offensively, we have every reason (based on the track record of jake and more importantly shanahan) to think that the offense will improve (and probably drastically), and despite that we're STILL WINNING.

its VERY good reason for optimism.

sure, the glass could be half empty and we could predict an entire season of doom and gloom for plummer and co., but of course there would be no history whatsoever to lend credence to that negative viewpoint.

yes, the offensive struggles have been frustrating, but the future looks so bright i gotta 8')
patience.

jake

orange 4 life
10-18-2006, 01:01 PM
Because TJ, we wouldn't be winning close games with Cutler.

He'd be prone to make a rookie mistake. Nailbiter games like the ones we've been playing require your QB to calm, cool and confident....and that the team respects him.

Just look at it this way....we're winning games and Jake and the O haven't even began to get untracked. Imagine how well they'll do once they do.

I can remember a few seasons ago when 8-8 was all we had to look forward too...once again we have some on here who think 4-1 with an anemic O is worse than 8-8 with an O led by the NFL's most efficient QB bar none when given protection.

great post.

its amazing to me that SO MANY people here (and around town) dont see it, because it seems obvious to me.

if this offense gets on track (and history tells us they will) and shanahan opens things up, we have a chance to be a very special team.
people should be excited, not full of fear.

Northman
10-18-2006, 01:05 PM
great post.

its amazing to me that SO MANY people here (and around town) dont see it, because it seems obvious to me.

if this offense gets on track (and history tells us they will) and shanahan opens things up, we have a chance to be a very special team.
people should be excited, not full of fear.



What makes you think Shanahan is going to open it up? We are winning playing conservatively. You think Shanahan is going to open up the playbook because Javon isnt happy? Think again. What your seeing now is what your going to get the rest of the year unless we start losing. Its sad to say but if we are winning Shanahan isnt going to risk letting Jake make a mistake to bring it down. Read my sig, if we win a Super Bowl this year it will be because of what i stated there. So all i ask of Jake is DONT TURN THE BALL OVER and we will be fine. Let the Defense do their thing. :yayaya:

orange 4 life
10-18-2006, 01:16 PM
The title of this thread is so pathetic that I laugh harder everytime I read it.

ummmm, how?

there's something funny about being happy we're winning?

i honestly dont get it.
popps started the thread to get some postive mojo going, and of course it deteriorated into another bash jake thread, but his intent was good.
where's the comedy in that?
i guess i dont have a sense of humor. ???

Northman
10-18-2006, 01:17 PM
ummmm, how?

there's something funny about being happy we're winning?

i honestly dont get it.
popps started the thread to get some postive mojo going, and of course it deteriorated into another bash jake thread, but his intent was good.
where's the comedy in that?
i guess i dont have a sense of humor. ???



Certainly not on draft day. LOL

orange 4 life
10-18-2006, 01:21 PM
What makes you think Shanahan is going to open it up? We are winning playing conservatively. You think Shanahan is going to open up the playbook because Javon isnt happy? Think again. What your seeing now is what your going to get the rest of the year unless we start losing. Its sad to say but if we are winning Shanahan isnt going to risk letting Jake make a mistake to bring it down. Read my sig, if we win a Super Bowl this year it will be because of what i stated there. So all i ask of Jake is DONT TURN THE BALL OVER and we will be fine. Let the Defense do their thing. :yayaya:

shanahan knows that at some point (with SD twice, pitt, indy, etc.) we ARE gonna need to score 20+ points, so at some point (if not this week then against indy) he'll open things up. expand on the gameplan and put the ball in the air more often and downfield more often.

history tells us that we'll have a successful offense.
patience.

BroncoInSkinland
10-18-2006, 01:24 PM
Its sad to say but if we are winning Shanahan isnt going to risk letting Jake make a mistake to bring it down.

Why is it sad to say? We are winning. That is all that matters. I think you feel the same based off some of your other posts and your sig. Just pointing out how the Jake-is-going-to-make-us-lose crowd is affecting everyone elses mentality. I hope I never get to the point where fear of losing keeps me from enjoying winning. If I do get to that point, I guess I will just lay around in bed all day for fear I might get hit by a bus if I go outside.

freak6
10-18-2006, 01:29 PM
history tells us that we'll have a successful offense.
patience.

History is just that. Things have changed. Jake Plummer has gotten worse. 5 games is not a bump in the road. It's not a trend. It's who we are. Dramatic changes are needed in the playcalling, but Shanahan doesn't trust his QB to make those changes. Thus far he has been able to win by leaning on the defense.

But Shanahan cannot count on 4 forced turnovers in the redzone that saved our asses in 3 very close HOME games.

I think we will beat the Browns because thier Oline is one of the worst in the NFL. But then I think Jake will be truly tested with a full plate of aggressive plays to defeat the Colts. If he fails, I predict the Cutler era starts.

Northman
10-18-2006, 01:39 PM
Why is it sad to say? We are winning. That is all that matters. I think you feel the same based off some of your other posts and your sig. Just pointing out how the Jake-is-going-to-make-us-lose crowd is affecting everyone elses mentality. I hope I never get to the point where fear of losing keeps me from enjoying winning. If I do get to that point, I guess I will just lay around in bed all day for fear I might get hit by a bus if I go outside.



Obviously you dont know me or what im getting at. Its Sad to say because this offense is capable of so much more than what its showing. If this offense was putting up 20-25 points a game you wouldnt hear a complaint whatsover from me. Because it would mean that we are dominating in all facets of the game. But to answer your question, yea we are winning. And you know what? We won last year and the year before that. But im looking at the LARGER picture. Im looking at the possibility of this defense wearing down because of the lack of offense generated. Could it be worse right now? Absolutely.

But i have confidence in our 2 time SB winning coach to make sure we get back to the Championship game. Because in the end, another Championship is all that matters. Peyton has a winning history too but no rings. You think their fans are just content with them winning in regular season? Hell No. Shanahan has already proven he can get this team to the playoffs. My only concern is when we get there. So forgive me if i dont go jerk off to beating the raiders which i totally expected anyway. Im just glad our defense is still playing tough and i hope they can continue it till 1) Jake and the offense get more scores or 2) carry us all the way like the 2000 Ravens did. And does my sig really offend you? Even if we win it like the Ravens did? Are you not going to enjoy another trophy if Jake isnt the MVP of the team?

Kaylore
10-18-2006, 01:51 PM
ummmm, how?

there's something funny about being happy we're winning?

i honestly dont get it.
popps started the thread to get some postive mojo going, and of course it deteriorated into another bash jake thread, but his intent was good.
where's the comedy in that?
i guess i dont have a sense of humor. ???

Well I know why the thread was really made. Plummer had a bad game and Popps knew it and made it as a refuge for Plummer apologists.

It's just so condescending and even has a flavor of McCarthyism. The idea that if you crticize a player after a win means that you hate winning is hilarious and stupid. Nothing should innoculate a player from criticism.

It's one of the stupidest things about message boards; After we lose a game, suddenly everyone on our team sucks and after we win, everyone on our team is all-word. If you rip on a player after we win? You HATE WINNING! You're a communist! If we win that means that everyone on that team is playing perfectly!

:~ohyah!:

BroncoInSkinland
10-18-2006, 01:56 PM
Obviously you dont know me or what im getting at. Its Sad to say because this offense is capable of so much more than what its showing. If this offense was putting up 20-25 points a game you wouldnt hear a complaint whatsover from me. Because it would mean that we are dominating in all facets of the game. But to answer your question, yea we are winning. And you know what? We won last year and the year before that. But im looking at the LARGER picture. Im looking at the possibility of this defense wearing down because of the lack of offense generated. Could it be worse right now? Absolutely.

But i have confidence in our 2 time SB winning coach to make sure we get back to the Championship game. Because in the end, another Championship is all that matters. Peyton has a winning history too but no rings. You think their fans are just content with them winning in regular season? Hell No. Shanahan has already proven he can get this team to the playoffs. My only concern is when we get there. So forgive me if i dont go jerk off to beating the raiders which i totally expected anyway. Im just glad our defense is still playing tough and i hope they can continue it till 1) Jake and the offense get more scores or 2) carry us all the way like the 2000 Ravens did. And does my sig really offend you? Even if we win it like the Ravens did? Are you not going to enjoy another trophy if Jake isnt the MVP of the team?

1. I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, I am not sure where I got the idea that you might be enjoying wins. I must have been thinking of someone else.

2. Your sig doesn't offend me in anyway. I don't have as negative a view of Jake as you do apparently, but I also don't mind seeing him upstaged by our defense, or any other player for that matter. I am a get it done however we have to type of guy.

3. The Ravens are my second favorite team, mostly due to location, but also because of thier SB defense year. I like that kind of ball and have no problems winning games with a smashmouth defense.

4. I enjoy every win, and the trophys even more. I thought thats what this thread was about, and it is definately what my post was about.

I may be misreading you (again), but I think there was a little hostility in your post. I am not sure what I did to piss in your wheaties, but I apologize for whatever it might have been. I'll let it go at cheers to a 4-1 start and hope you can do the same.

Northman
10-18-2006, 02:04 PM
I may be misreading you (again), but I think there was a little hostility in your post. I am not sure what I did to piss in your wheaties, but I apologize for whatever it might have been. I'll let it go at cheers to a 4-1 start and hope you can do the same.



Im not hostile at you im was just explaining my stance. You have understand ( your new so you wouldnt know ) that i am constantly under siege for being a Jake hater when that couldnt be farther from the truth. I really want Jake to do well here but he hasnt shown me the consistency to get it done and so far this year he has proved me right. I, like you have zero problems winning it all this year with the defense but i do have concerns. Thats all im pointing out in my posts. But no worries man, im not angry at you for anything. :thumbsup:

Taco John
10-18-2006, 02:44 PM
ummmm, how?

there's something funny about being happy we're winning?



Do you seriously believe that there are Broncos fans who aren't happy that we're winning?

Do you understand that we are tied for dead last in touchdowns scored with the Oakland Raiders? Do you understand that you can be happy that we're winning, but unhappy that we're tied for dead last in scoring with the current worst franchise in all of sports?

Bronco_Beerslug
10-18-2006, 02:45 PM
Well I know why the thread was really made. Plummer had a bad game and Popps knew it and made it as a refuge for Plummer apologists.

It's just so condescending and even has a flavor of McCarthyism. The idea that if you crticize a player after a win means that you hate winning is hilarious and stupid.
:~ohyah!:
Careful you just made popps people that are "devoid of any argument list".
http://www.digital-inn.de/images/smilies/anims/13.gif

errand
10-18-2006, 04:14 PM
Really? I wasn't aware you could get into the playoffs by winning 4 games.

I guess that means Andrew Walter and the Raiders may get into the dance this year.

Gus led us to those 5 wins down the stretch SoCal.... don't crunchtime wins count in your bizzaro world?

listopencil
10-18-2006, 09:01 PM
"Sometimes a lineman will make a mistake, sometimes a wide receiver will make a mistake, a quarterback will make a mistake," Shanahan said. "But as a group, to make an offense work, it's the whole group. And all the pressure will go to the quarterback because most people don't understand who broke down.

Popps
10-18-2006, 09:31 PM
"Sometimes a lineman will make a mistake, sometimes a wide receiver will make a mistake, a quarterback will make a mistake," Shanahan said. "But as a group, to make an offense work, it's the whole group. And all the pressure will go to the quarterback because most people don't understand who broke down.

Way too logical. Get that **** outta here.

watermock
10-18-2006, 09:42 PM
Im looking at the possibility of this defense wearing down because of the lack of offense generated.

If people didn't see the hands on the hips, the frustration Sunday night, they were blind. We can't expect to score zero points or the defense is eventually going to crack. Actually, pass coverage did but Walter is such a tool he couldn't hit wide open recievers.

This is hardly what I would call a DOMINANT defense. It's very good, but hardly dominant. I don't care about what the points say. We are leaving recievers open, and QB's like Manning will tear us apart. You think I like it? I'm just saying there were open recievers that Walter missed.

Jake needs to get his sh!t together this week because some legitimate contenders are going to step into the ring.

watermock
10-18-2006, 09:48 PM
"Sometimes a lineman will make a mistake, sometimes a wide receiver will make a mistake, a quarterback will make a mistake," Shanahan said. "But as a group, to make an offense work, it's the whole group. And all the pressure will go to the quarterback because most people don't understand who broke down.

That's the 3rd time I have seen you post that quote Listo. Did Shanahan single out the OL? The WR's? Even the secondary? If you had a brain youwould of een that he qualified the entire statement, saying SOMETIMES. I didn't hear anything like "our offensive line struggled all game"...or WR's ran some bad routes and some was micommunication....

Shanahan didn't say anything of the sort in that regard whatsoever.

watermock
10-18-2006, 09:49 PM
What mistake did Shanahan point out by either OL or WR's?

Bronco Billy
10-18-2006, 09:57 PM
Do you seriously believe that there are Broncos fans who aren't happy that we're winning?

Do you understand that we are tied for dead last in touchdowns scored with the Oakland Raiders? Do you understand that you can be happy that we're winning, but unhappy that we're tied for dead last in scoring with the current worst franchise in all of sports?

Right on, TJ! I am very happy that we're winning. That being said, I'm not happy knowing that we are not where we need to be on offense to win the Super Bowl. We are spoiled with the offenses that we've had in the past - and that may be part of our problem with accepting this team. I love football being won with defense and running the ball - it's what the game was built on! We do have a very good D and run the ball well, but we're not scoring points! I do not see us even making the Super Bowl if we continue to play like this on offense.

Lev Vyvanse
10-18-2006, 10:27 PM
I don’t get this. Why wouldn’t Shanahan start a player that gives the team the best chance to win? Because essentially many of you are saying that either:

A.) You know more about the current state of affairs on the team then the head coach
or
B.) Shanahan does not want the team to reach its potential

Bronco Bob
10-18-2006, 10:36 PM
That's the 3rd time I have seen you post that quote Listo. Did Shanahan single out the OL? The WR's? Even the secondary? If you had a brain youwould of een that he qualified the entire statement, saying SOMETIMES. I didn't hear anything like "our offensive line struggled all game"...or WR's ran some bad routes and some was micommunication....

Shanahan didn't say anything of the sort in that regard whatsoever.

"But as a group, to make an offense work, it's the whole group. And all the pressure will go to the quarterback because most people don't understand who broke down."

In other words when things go wrong, people blame the QB because they
don't know what the real problem was.

Northman
10-19-2006, 03:07 AM
Way too logical. Get that **** outta here.


Brian Griese agrees with you.

Kaylore
10-19-2006, 03:28 AM
I don’t get this. Why wouldn’t Shanahan start a player that gives the team the best chance to win? Because essentially many of you are saying that either:

A.) You know more about the current state of affairs on the team then the head coach
or
B.) Shanahan does not want the team to reach its potential

There are definitely some things we don't know.

1. We don't know how far Jay has progressed. I'd like to think that as fast as he picked up the playbook during the pre-season, and as fast as he progressed in traning camp, that he's really catching on, but I don't know and neither does anyone here.

2. If you make a switch you can piss off your veterans. Obviously Shanahan had a bad experience when Brister made no effort in the preseason of '99 and put Griese in. Griese did outplay Brister, but some of the veterans on the team were upset with the move and felt it was short-changing their team. The team seems to be in relatively close so you don't want to mess with that unless it's absolutely necessary.

3. They're winning. Whether you think Jake has been a main factor in that or not, you don't make a major change to a critical position like that unless that position is costing you games. Pro-Jakeites will say he's why were winning, while others will say he's why we're not winning bigger. Until he loses us games, Cutler's just going to be watching fill and preparing for next season.

Rohirrim
10-19-2006, 07:39 AM
There are definitely some things we don't know.

1. We don't know how far Jay has progressed. I'd like to think that as fast as he picked up the playbook during the pre-season, and as fast as he progressed in traning camp, that he's really catching on, but I don't know and neither does anyone here.

But all indications are that he would certainly be no worse than Jake, and possibly better, given that it is obvious he is a more accurate passer and a faster runner.


2. If you make a switch you can piss off your veterans. Obviously Shanahan had a bad experience when Brister made no effort in the preseason of '99 and put Griese in. Griese did outplay Brister, but some of the veterans on the team were upset with the move and felt it was short-changing their team. The team seems to be in relatively close so you don't want to mess with that unless it's absolutely necessary.

What veterans? Rod Smith? I doubt Javon would care if it meant he got more touches. Scheffler and Kircus played better with Jay than they have with Jake. They'd probably be happy. Why would Tatum care who's handing him the ball? He probably cares more about the Oline. Maybe Nalen and Lepsis would be a little disgruntled, but if the O started posting in the 30s and Tatum started busting the 100 yard mark every game, they would mellow out pretty quick. Foster would probably prefer Jay as he gets it off faster and Foster wouldn't have to hold his blocks as long. Change is the nature of the Not For Long league. The pros know that.


3. They're winning. Whether you think Jake has been a main factor in that or not, you don't make a major change to a critical position like that unless that position is costing you games. Pro-Jakeites will say he's why were losing, while others will say he's why we're not winning bigger. Until he loses us games, Cutler's just going to be watching fill and preparing for next season.

That's the crux of the whole thing - they're winning. I agree. There will be no changes until they stop winning. I just dread the day this offense takes the field and finds itself 10 points down.

orange 4 life
10-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Well I know why the thread was really made. Plummer had a bad game and Popps knew it and made it as a refuge for Plummer apologists.

It's just so condescending and even has a flavor of McCarthyism. The idea that if you crticize a player after a win means that you hate winning is hilarious and stupid. Nothing should innoculate a player from criticism.

It's one of the stupidest things about message boards; After we lose a game, suddenly everyone on our team sucks and after we win, everyone on our team is all-word. If you rip on a player after we win? You HATE WINNING! You're a communist! If we win that means that everyone on that team is playing perfectly!

:~ohyah!:

i saw this thread on page three and was gonna just let it go, but this is ridiculous.

youre comparing popps starting a thread (which didnt mention plummers name!!) about being happy to be winning to mccarthyism?

is popps gonna start finding people in their homes and cart them off for questioning?

gimme a break.

i know for all you "cutler homers" everything has to be about plummer, but there actually are some of us left who just want to win.
some of us out there who believe that shanahan will open things up and we'll hit stride at the right time.
you know, that crazy positive thinking crap!!

wow.
mccarthyism?

bronclvr
10-20-2006, 01:50 PM
If people didn't see the hands on the hips, the frustration Sunday night, they were blind. We can't expect to score zero points or the defense is eventually going to crack. Actually, pass coverage did but Walter is such a tool he couldn't hit wide open recievers.

This is hardly what I would call a DOMINANT defense. It's very good, but hardly dominant. I don't care about what the points say. We are leaving recievers open, and QB's like Manning will tear us apart. You think I like it? I'm just saying there were open recievers that Walter missed.

Jake needs to get his sh!t together this week because some legitimate contenders are going to step into the ring.


I lurk here a lot without Posting, and a lot of the time I don't agree with your Posts, but I think you are right on with this-I really don't care who is under Center if we're moving the Ball, hitting Receivers and getting 3-4 yards per carry with our RB's. I am looking forward to Jay, but what if we dump Plummer and Jay sucks? (not like this hasn't been brought up before).

I think after this week, the jigs up-we are going to have to put up or shut up. Payton will bring it-

Northman
10-20-2006, 03:10 PM
I lurk here a lot without Posting, and a lot of the time I don't agree with your Posts, but I think you are right on with this-I really don't care who is under Center if we're moving the Ball, hitting Receivers and getting 3-4 yards per carry with our RB's. I am looking forward to Jay, but what if we dump Plummer and Jay sucks? (not like this hasn't been brought up before).

I think after this week, the jigs up-we are going to have to put up or shut up. Payton will bring it-


Yea, he brought it against the Titans too. I dont know, no one really fears them anymore and thus are playing them tougher. Yea, they are undefeated but they arent blowing the doors off anyone. This might be their weakest offense to play against this D in a long while. Not too mention we never got the chance to see how we would fair last year. In Pre-season we showed we could get pressure on Manning. I know, i know, that was pre-season but it is there for a purpose and that is too see what you got both in players and how opposing teams handle your offense and defense. Im just not sold on Indy's greatness this year.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 03:48 PM
i saw this thread on page three and was gonna just let it go, but this is ridiculous.

youre comparing popps starting a thread (which didnt mention plummers name!!) about being happy to be winning to mccarthyism?

is popps gonna start finding people in their homes and cart them off for questioning?

gimme a break.

i know for all you "cutler homers" everything has to be about plummer, but there actually are some of us left who just want to win.
some of us out there who believe that shanahan will open things up and we'll hit stride at the right time.
you know, that crazy positive thinking crap!!

wow.
mccarthyism?


I think what Kaylore meant by "McCarthyism" is the effort to control... via social pressure... what content other posters put on any given thread. Positive thinking is all well and good, but when one starts ridiculing everyone who posts a different perspective than "happy, happy, joy, joy", it does appear to be an attempt to silence other viewpoints, if only in a single thread.

BTW... I've avoided this thread until this post so as not to "piss in everyone's Wheaties"... ::) :P

Northman
10-20-2006, 03:55 PM
I think what Kaylore meant by "McCarthyism" is the effort to control... via social pressure... what content other posters put on any given thread. Positive thinking is all well and good, but when one starts ridiculing everyone who posts a different perspective than "happy, happy, joy, joy", it does appear to be an attempt to silence other viewpoints, if only in a single thread.

BTW... I've avoided this thread until this post so as not to "piss in everyone's Wheaties"... ::) :P



You are in some hot water now young lady! LOL

Kaylore
10-20-2006, 04:00 PM
i saw this thread on page three and was gonna just let it go, but this is ridiculous.

youre comparing popps starting a thread (which didnt mention plummers name!!) about being happy to be winning to mccarthyism?

is popps gonna start finding people in their homes and cart them off for questioning?

gimme a break.

i know for all you "cutler homers" everything has to be about plummer, but there actually are some of us left who just want to win.
some of us out there who believe that shanahan will open things up and we'll hit stride at the right time.
you know, that crazy positive thinking crap!!

wow.
mccarthyism?

I said it had a mccarthyistic tone and it absolutely does. The title of this thread is accusatory in it's tone when you consider when it was made. It basically accuses anyone of being critical of the team as someone who doesn't enjoy winning. It was made after the offense performed poorly and Popps wanted to smugly dismiss Plummer criticism, thus the "thread for people who enjoy winning."

People can criticize poor play and still enjoy winning.

People who want Plummer to play better want as much because they enjoy winning.

People who want Cutler to start don't "hate winning."

It's like someone speaking on the poor play of the quarterback and suddenly a bunch of peple tell them to "STFU! You just hate winning! Real fans support their team!" Thus making all kinds of fallacious accusations akin to the reasoning of the Spanish Inquisition - any criticism means you're guilty, thus the team cannot be criticized.

It was completely transparent. No one was fooled by this thread, the time it was made and the real objectives of it's creator. I can see some child on the playground taking his ball and walking away saying "Oh yeah!? Well I'm going over here with the people who don't hate winning" as he stomps off pouting. Please.

Northman
10-20-2006, 04:07 PM
I said it had a mccarthyistic tone and it absolutely does. The title of this thread is accusatory in it's tone when you consider when it was made. It basically accuses anyone of being critical of the team as someone who doesn't enjoy winning. It was made after the offense performed poorly and Popps wanted to smugly dismiss Plummer criticism, thus the "thread for people who enjoy winning."

People can criticize poor play and still enjoy winning.

People who want Plummer to play better want as much because they enjoy winning.

People who want Cutler to start don't "hate winning."

It's like someone speaking on the poor play of the quarterback and suddenly a bunch of peple tell them to "STFU! You just hate winning! Real fans support their team!" Thus making all kinds of fallacious accusations akin to the reasoning of the Spanish Inquisition - any criticism means you're guilty, thus the team cannot be criticized.

It was completely transparent. No one was fooled by this thread, the time it was made and the real objectives of it's creator. I can see some child on the playground taking his ball and walking away saying "Oh yeah!? Well I'm going over here with the people who don't hate winning" as he stomps off pouting. Please.



REP. :thumbsup:

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 04:11 PM
You are in some hot water now young lady! LOL

Ah, well... it's not the first time and it won't be the last... ;) Ha! ;D

Popps
10-20-2006, 04:58 PM
I said it had a mccarthyistic tone and it absolutely does. The title of this thread is accusatory in it's tone when you consider when it was made. It basically accuses anyone of being critical of the team as someone who doesn't enjoy winning.

As usual, you couldn't be further from the truth.

The thread was posted amid an absolute "sky is falling" panic attack of people weeping, b****ing and wanting to slit their wrists on this board. Take a little trip back in time and look at the threads.

I posted one thread that basically said... hey, screw it, we're 4-1, have a dominant defense playing playoff style football and are winning games.
EVERYONE who posted on the thread has recogized the slow offensive start.
But, it was basically a little plot of land for some optimism on a globe of misery.

Naturally, you couldn't help yourself. You had to come piss on the party. But, people enjoyed the thread. Sorry. Some people still enjoy winning, even when part of that happiness is discussing how the team can get better.

As for the tone being "accusatory".... all you had to do was ignore it. Unless of course, you thought you were guilty of not enjoying the win. If you were confident in your stance, why would you need to come on a thread clearly designed for some simple celebration? I think we know the answer.

Sorry the thread was so hard on you. Others enjoyed it...




-It sucks that your thread got turned into a pissing match by a bunch of a-holes who aren't happy unless they have something to b**** about...but here's to another BRONCO WIN!!

-Rep

-Great thread, shame it got jacked, but I have a feeling you were expecting that. Point proven at least to some, I just hope it gets teh message through to some who were on the fence.

-Dude, I agree 10000000%

-I agree with you. You know what happened and understand more than most people on here what is being accomplished with this team. Yeah, the offense could play better and we did fine in the 1st half. People just don't realize how limited were in the second half last night.

-It's a real shame that people like _____ had to come in there and tear our own damn team down just so they could have something to b**** about.

-Just thought I'd give you kudos for not being a short-sighted idiot like a bunch of the people you're arguing with.

-I just had to vent some, and it seems that people like me and you are in the minority when it comes to being true fans.


-keep up the good work. Glad to see somebody with a positive outlook instead of all the doom and gloom......



So, yea... some people do just enjoy kicking around a win a bit before they start into a b****-fest about our 3rd down percentage, or something.


Sorry! :welcome:

Bronco_Beerslug
10-20-2006, 05:16 PM
As usual, you couldn't be further from the truth.


Sorry the thread was so hard on you. Others enjoyed it...




-It sucks that your thread got turned into a pissing match by a bunch of a-holes who aren't happy unless they have something to b**** about...but here's to another BRONCO WIN!!

-Rep

-Great thread, shame it got jacked, but I have a feeling you were expecting that. Point proven at least to some, I just hope it gets teh message through to some who were on the fence.

-Dude, I agree 10000000%

-I agree with you. You know what happened and understand more than most people on here what is being accomplished with this team. Yeah, the offense could play better and we did fine in the 1st half. People just don't realize how limited were in the second half last night.

-It's a real shame that people like _____ had to come in there and tear our own damn team down just so they could have something to b**** about.

-Just thought I'd give you kudos for not being a short-sighted idiot like a bunch of the people you're arguing with.

-I just had to vent some, and it seems that people like me and you are in the minority when it comes to being true fans.


-keep up the good work. Glad to see somebody with a positive outlook instead of all the doom and gloom......





LOL

You just made up a bunch of pretend reps to try and feel good about your "I love Plummer" thread, otherwise you would have posted their names unless, of course, you were afraid of embarrassing them ROFL!

Paladin
10-20-2006, 05:18 PM
I am happy the Broncso are winning. I will leave it to all the deep thinkers around here as to whether winning with D or a poor O or banged up ST play is good or bad. And it is up to others to b*8tch and moan that Cutler isn't playing. And it is rather academic to me as to whether Jake throws eleventy kazillion ints because I don't play FF. Stats don't mean sh&t to me. Wins do. They win, I am happy, and I enjoy that. Purists be dammed.

To date, the Broncos are 4 - 1. Damm that's nice to see. Maybe, just maybe they will be 5 - 1. That will be great.

Four and freaking one!!!

And, as far as I know, they have not lost the game against INDY yet, so predictions of disater in that game are a bit premature. But right now, I am happy the Broncos are 4 - 1, and I enjoy the wins. I don't give a sh*t if you're unhappy that the O didn't score 40 points. The Broncos won and they are 4 -1. Isn't that great?

Paladin
10-20-2006, 05:21 PM
I am not afraid of posting my name:


GREAT THREAD, POPPS. I ENJOY THE BRONCOS' WINS!!!!!


FOUR AND ONE, BABY!!!!!

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 05:35 PM
. . . . . .fear of losing keeps me from enjoying winning. If I do get to that point, I guess I will just lay around in bed all day for fear I might get hit by a bus if I go outside.

Ahhh, the "fear of losing" mentality. Yes, seen quite a bit of that since game one. Many a poster has stated they'd hate to make the playoffs just to lose. Seems goofy to me, but there we are.

Popps
10-20-2006, 05:42 PM
I am not afraid of posting my name:

[/SIZE]


Ha! It's all good. I left the names off, A. because I didn't know if certain people wouldn't want them posted and B. certain people got blasted in a couple of them, so I left that out. It was an interesting response, for sure. Some people enjoyed it, and some just couldn't stand the thread even existing. (Usual suspects.)

Anyway, I'm definitely optimistic, too. Mostly because we're playing lights-out defense in close games. The offense needs to pick it up, obviously.
But, last year (for example) ... we'd score 28 points and be in real danger of losing the game at some stage. This year, aside from week 1, I've never felt like we were going to lose. Our D has just been phenomenal.

Let's hope the offense settles in. We have a lot of new elements at work, there... and sometimes that takes time. To me, the idea that we're winning while not even playing as well as I think we're GOING to play is pretty exciting.

Popps
10-20-2006, 05:44 PM
Ahhh, the "fear of losing" mentality. Yes, seen quite a bit of that since game one. Many a poster has stated they'd hate to make the playoffs just to lose. Seems goofy to me, but there we are.

Yea, I'd rather go 4-12. Hey, we get to draft high... WOO HOO!! :yayaya:

Seriously, losing in the AFCCG at home was brutal. But, it WAS still a fun season. We had a lot of great wins, some tough losses and at least had hope a lot longer than 26 other teams.

Hopefully this year, we'll gel at the right time and get it done.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 06:15 PM
Well I know why the thread was really made. Plummer had a bad game and Popps knew it and made it as a refuge for Plummer apologists.

It's just so condescending and even has a flavor of McCarthyism. The idea that if you crticize a player after a win means that you hate winning is hilarious and stupid. Nothing should innoculate a player from criticism.

It's one of the stupidest things about message boards; After we lose a game, suddenly everyone on our team sucks and after we win, everyone on our team is all-word. If you rip on a player after we win? You HATE WINNING! You're a communist! If we win that means that everyone on that team is playing perfectly!

:~ohyah!:

Some of you folks do remind me of the Soviet Bureau of Disinformation.

It's the overly-strident, exaggerated terms and phrases I keep seeing. And it never stops. I can see a rant here and there, but it's been nutso.

A stat that is very, very, very important:

4th Q (and OT) scoring - Denver 26, Opponents 10. That's a big deal.

ludo21
10-20-2006, 06:25 PM
Some of you folks do remind me of the Soviet Bureau of Disinformation.

It's the overly-strident, exaggerated terms and phrases I keep seeing. And it never stops. I can see a rant here and there, but it's been nutso.

A stat that is very, very, very important:

4th Q (and OT) scoring - Denver 26, Opponents 10. That's a big deal.


amen :notworthy

This thread was meant for those of us who enjoy basking in a win for a few hours, not constant whining that we need to improve on this and that.

We know!!! the O sucks, but sheeesh, letting the win sink in for a few hours was all we wanted.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 06:30 PM
. . . . . .. I just dread the day this offense takes the field and finds itself 10 points down.

Worry about it when it happens. You have no impact on the situation. I don't want to single you out, so I'll just say there are plenty of posters that seem to invent crises. The object being to stoke an already bad case of nerves, I guess. Makes no sense to me.

freak6
10-20-2006, 07:18 PM
Larry Coyer has been <b>MARGINAL</b>, I can't believe anyone would want to kiss his ass.

Yeah, our offense may not be performing to expectations (Jake has been awful), but what I can't believe is that anyone would want to kiss Larry Coyer's ass!?!?!?

I mean, for a defensive coordinator, he has been <b>marginal.</b> I know this because Popps told me so.

marginal - of something or someone close to a <b>lower limit or lower class</b>; "marginal abilities"

marginal - of questionable or <b>minimal quality.</b>

Enough with all these whinying party poopers, they don't know what they are talking about. 4-1!!! WOO!!! Why worry!!! We beat the Raiders at home by 10!!! WOOO!!!

Spider
10-20-2006, 07:33 PM
Let me put my point of view in prespective , I am very old school ( mens 1 aday ;D ) but I became a fan in 72 after the infamous half a loaf game ..... we could have beaten Miami .. but anyhoo , things got real lean again , to the point where we cheered a 1 st down , we were worse then todays Cards , that changed in 75 , we started getting solid , then along came Morton , Moses , Upchurch , the the very best defense the NFL has ever witnessed , the orange Crush D ....So when we start out 4-1 or above .500 , us old timers get all giddy ............ Most of you never got the pleasure of seeing the Orange Crush in action .Well I take that Back , you are getting an Idea with this Denvers Defense ........ John Lynch is a breath of fresh air , I just wish going over the middle was the same , Lynch would be feared .....more so then now

freak6
10-20-2006, 07:46 PM
Most of you never got the pleasure of seeing the Orange Crush in action .Well I take that Back , you are getting an Idea with this Denvers Defense.

I remember having some bad teams in the early 90s that I knew before the start of the season, we had no shot. That was true torture, especially watching Elway toil.

I think what <u> Popps</u> is trying to stress in this thread is how exuberant we all should be to have a record of 4-1, <b>despite the inadaquacies of our MARGINAL defensive coordinator. </b>

It's like some people just don't watch the game, and are unable to give credit where credit is do. We are 4-1!!!

Right Popps?

OWNED!!!!!!!

Arkie
10-20-2006, 08:32 PM
Do you seriously believe that there are Broncos fans who aren't happy that we're winning?


Kaylore said he felt gross. That wouldn't make me happy. Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 08:45 PM
I think what Kaylore meant by "McCarthyism" is the effort to control... via social pressure... what content other posters put on any given thread. Positive thinking is all well and good, but when one starts ridiculing everyone who posts a different perspective than "happy, happy, joy, joy", it does appear to be an attempt to silence other viewpoints, if only in a single thread.. . . ..

It's a two-way street.

listopencil
10-20-2006, 08:53 PM
...a bunch of stuff that makes sense...


Nice to see an old timer jumping in to try and straighten out some of these morons. Stick around and post more. The board is facing a serious lack of equilibrium these days.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 09:06 PM
I said it had a mccarthyistic tone and it absolutely does. The title of this thread is accusatory in it's tone when you consider when it was made. It basically accuses anyone of being critical of the team as someone who doesn't enjoy winning. It was made after the offense performed poorly and Popps wanted to smugly dismiss Plummer criticism, thus the "thread for people who enjoy winning.". . . . . .

Let's see - "critical of winning" vs. "enjoy winning". "Making up issues" vs. "real issues".

As we used to say during the Soviet era, "It's a long, slippery slope to Communism." You're pretty much a Commie, now that you bring it up. I hadn't thought of you that way before, but it's obvious. Turns out you're a subversive. TJ is Stalin, you're his trusted henchmen Beria. Beware, Stalin executed Beria. The Comintern lives on the Mane. Just kidding, relax. Let the team win without the subversive slant, jeez.

listopencil
10-20-2006, 09:07 PM
That's the 3rd time I have seen you post that quote Listo. Did Shanahan single out the OL? The WR's? Even the secondary? If you had a brain youwould of een that he qualified the entire statement, saying SOMETIMES. I didn't hear anything like "our offensive line struggled all game"...or WR's ran some bad routes and some was micommunication....

Shanahan didn't say anything of the sort in that regard whatsoever.



Maybe I should post it another five or six times. You still didn't get it. Never mind. I'll just translate what Shanny said for you:


"Our offense isn't as efficicent as I like and I would like us to score more. Our offensive players are making mistakes and it is costing us. Stupid and/or lazy people will blame the QB because they either can't or won't take the time to understand what is going on," Shanny said, "It's a good thing for the Bronco organization that I am the Head Coach instead of one of those brain-dead, mouth breathing, inbred monkey ****ers or this team would go to hell in a handbasket."


Well said, Shanny. Well said.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 09:12 PM
It's a two-way street.

Hmmm... please point me in the direction of the thread titled "Thread for those who agree the offense is sucking". To my knowledge, this is the only one that made the effort to limit the facets of the debate that are "welcome" and exclude the ones that "are not"...

Bronx33
10-20-2006, 09:14 PM
Maybe I should post it another five or six times. You still didn't get it. Never mind. I'll just translate what Shanny said for you:


"Our offense isn't as efficicent as I like and I would like us to score more. Our offensive players are making mistakes and it is costing us. Stupid and/or lazy people will blame the QB because they either can't or won't take the time to understand what is going on," Shanny said, "It's a good thing for the Bronco organization that I am the Head Coach instead of one of those brain-dead, mouth breathing, inbred monkey ****ers or this team would go to hell in a handbasket."


Well said, Shanny. Well said.





And i thought slap had a way with words!

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:16 PM
Some of you folks do remind me of the Soviet Bureau of Disinformation.

It's the overly-strident, exaggerated terms and phrases I keep seeing. And it never stops. I can see a rant here and there, but it's been nutso.

A stat that is very, very, very important:

4th Q (and OT) scoring - Denver 26, Opponents 10. That's a big deal.

The funny thing is going to be next year (or whenever) when these goofs who accuse anyone of pointing out other team problems as "Plummer homers" have to come up with an explanation as to why myself and others are still here breaking down games the same way they have been.... pointing out ALL flaws that exist, not just single-mindedly focusing on one.

Even Taco can tell you I've been on our defense for years, MUCH before Jake got to town. I was banging the table for a legitimate DE back in the RMN days.

Even funnier, is going to be the "I told you so" crowd, if Cutler does pan out. (Which would be awesome.) See, if Cutler plays well, then they are allowed to celebrate wins, and by celebrating wins... I mean bashing people who they THINK give a crap whether we're winning with Plummer, Cutler or Elvis Presley's ghost at QB.

I can't wait to see Cutler play. If they put him in and bench Jake next week, then I'll be his biggest fan.

See, smart people can separate these two statements...


1. I'm a Jake Plummer fan. He's the greatest ever.

and...

2. I think we CAN win with Plummer, even though he's got limitations AND I don't excuse other areas of poor performance because Jake may have also played poorly.



See, I've been saying point 2 for a long time. If you're smart, when I say 2, you'll understand that it's 2. If you are NOT smart, I'll say 2 repeatedly, and you'll just assume that I'm saying 1.

Most people who "defend" Plummer (that I've read) are generally saying point 2. Even O4L, who is accused of being the biggest Plummer homer on the planet has basically said he just doesn't think it's all Plummer's fault and that we COULD win with him if we're executing.
Yet, those without real arguments MUST claim that it's 1, or they can't sensationalize and avoid real, substantive discussion.

Taco John
10-20-2006, 09:24 PM
Funny, because I read where Shanahan said this:

"With the first pick in the 2006 draft, the Broncos select Jay Cutler, Quarterback, Vanderbilt."

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:26 PM
Hmmm... please point me in the direction of the thread titled "Thread for those who agree the offense is sucking". To my knowledge, this is the only one that made the effort to limit the facets of the debate that are "welcome" and exclude the ones that "are not"...

Huh?

There must be 20 threads on our offense sucking in the past 2 days, alone.

The SAME people posting on this thread have also posted on those.

This thread was intended as a little celebratory thread in the sea of "gloom and doom" threads around here. How hard is that to understand?

ludo21
10-20-2006, 09:27 PM
Funny, because I read where Shanahan said this:

"With the first pick in the 2006 draft, the Broncos select Jay Cutler, Quarterback, Vanderbilt."



I thought Tagliabue said that .....???

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 09:27 PM
We could win with most any QB if we're executing, Popps. The problem is, Plummer has not been executing. If he continues with "not executing", it is possible that we could start to lose games as the result of his failure to execute.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 09:31 PM
Huh?

There must be 20 threads on our offense sucking in the past 2 days, alone.

The SAME people posting on this thread have also posted on those.

This thread was intended as a little celebratory thread in the sea of "gloom and doom" threads around here. How hard is that to understand?

Yes, there are many such threads. The difference is that no one on those threads has attempted to limit who can post on the thread and who can't.

Northman
10-20-2006, 09:33 PM
We could win with most any QB if we're executing, Popps. The problem is, Plummer has not been executing. If he continues with "not executing", it is possible that we could start to lose games as the result of his failure to execute.



Exactly. This isnt about the playcalling, this isnt about the defense. This is about Jake Plummer not executing the plays called like he should. Are there certain times throughout the game that some other players make mistakes? Absolutely. But the one individual who is playing way below his standard is number 16. And yes, this concerns some of us for the long run. There is nothing " gloom and doom " about it. It is just a concern. The only people getting offended are the ones who cannot and will not accept that fact that our team leader and ball distributor is playing way below par right now. THAT IS JUST FACT. So for all you guys and gals constantly making excuses for the one player who needs to step it up the most, just shut the **** up already.

BroncoInSkinland
10-20-2006, 09:34 PM
-Great thread, shame it got jacked, but I have a feeling you were expecting that. Point proven at least to some, I just hope it gets teh message through to some who were on the fence.

That one was me. I am not afraid to tack my name to it (though if I had known it would be public, I probably would have spell checked it). I have NO friends who are Broncos fans. Not one. It would be nice to be able to kick back with someone and enjoy a win for a change, and I thought when I came to this board that I might be able to do that. Instead all I hear is Jake sucks, we can't win the superbowl playing like this, and I want Plummer on every thread on the board. Well all of those things may be true, but I don't give a rats ass. We are 4-1 and I am happy about it. My next rep to Popps is gonna say "You are still right, and no matter how many people want to make themselves and everyone else around them miserable you should continue to enjoy our %80 win ratio."

Taco John
10-20-2006, 09:36 PM
I thought Tagliabue said that .....???



He's Shanahan's puppet. At least if you ask Chiefs fans...

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:40 PM
We could win with most any QB if we're executing, Popps. The problem is, Plummer has not been executing. If he continues with "not executing", it is possible that we could start to lose games as the result of his failure to execute.

No ****?

Northman
10-20-2006, 09:41 PM
That one was me. I am not afraid to tack my name to it (though if I had known it would be public, I probably would have spell checked it). I have NO friends who are Broncos fans. Not one. It would be nice to be able to kick back with someone and enjoy a win for a change, and I thought when I came to this board that I might be able to do that. Instead all I hear is Jake sucks, we can't win the superbowl playing like this, and I want Plummer on every thread on the board. Well all of those things may be true, but I don't give a rats ass. We are 4-1 and I am happy about it. My next rep to Popps is gonna say "You are still right, and no matter how many people want to make themselves and everyone else around them miserable you should continue to enjoy our %80 win ratio."



You mean the same guy who thinks the defense is only Champ Bailey? You mean the guy who thinks that Larry Coyer doesnt deserve any of the credit for creating the scheme that our defense runs? This very same guy who crucified Brian Griese when he was here in a much worse manner than what Plummer is seeing on here? Again, you guys are real slow on this. No one is trying to make anyone miserable. We just show concern on how one player is performing on the field. If you get upset about a discussion on a particular player, that is your problem. Im still happy as a ****ing clam we are 4-1 but i know that number 16 can do a ****load better than what he is doing out there right now. And i will talk about on here whether the Plummer homers like it or not.

listopencil
10-20-2006, 09:42 PM
Funny, because I read where Shanahan said this:

"With the first pick in the 2006 draft, the Broncos select Jay Cutler, Quarterback, Vanderbilt."

I heard we signed a FA OT. What's up with that?

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:44 PM
Yes, there are many such threads. The difference is that no one on those threads has attempted to limit who can post on the thread and who can't.

Really? Was the thread an attempt to "limit" or an appeal to those who wanted an optimistic thread?

Do you go on hockey threads and insist on talking about water polo? No? Wow, I guess those hockey threads are trying to "limit" you, huh?

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:46 PM
Funny, because I read where Shanahan said this:

"With the first pick in the 2006 draft, the Broncos select Jay Cutler, Quarterback, Vanderbilt."


Amen.

Win/Win.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 09:47 PM
No ****?

Precisely what I thought when reading your post above...

"Most people who "defend" Plummer (that I've read) are generally saying point 2. Even O4L, who is accused of being the biggest Plummer homer on the planet has basically said he just doesn't think it's all Plummer's fault and that we COULD win with him if we're executing."

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 09:49 PM
Hmmm... please point me in the direction of the thread titled "Thread for those who agree the offense is sucking". To my knowledge, this is the only one that made the effort to limit the facets of the debate that are "welcome" and exclude the ones that "are not"...

"It's a two-way street" meaning don't jump on somebody for presenting or defending a point of view in a certain fashion, while presenting or defending a point of view in the same fashion oneself.

Paladin
10-20-2006, 09:51 PM
C'mon Blue. That statement had to do with the TEAM executing, and you and a couple of others immediately limited the statement to Jake. I call BS on your "objectivity" and your reading comprehension.

The last I heard, this game is a team sport. Shanahan has consistently talked about "breakdowns" throughout the TEAM. No just Plummer, but the TEAM.

Man, the narrow minded are having a terrible time getting through the door here.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 09:55 PM
"It's a two-way street" meaning don't jump on somebody for presenting or defending a point of view in a certain fashion, while presenting or defending a point of view in the same fashion oneself.

It's an internet messageboard.... any opinion one posts can and probably will be challenged, in which case the poster will be expected to "engage" in the debate and defend the post. Tis the nature of things.

Popps
10-20-2006, 09:56 PM
C'mon Blue. That statement had to do with the TEAM executing, and you and a couple of others immediately limited the statement to Jake. I call BS on your "objectivity" and your reading comprehension.

Bingo.

Arkie
10-20-2006, 09:57 PM
Amen.

Win/Win.

True. We all know Shanny made the right choice in the draft. Some are questioning his decision to keep him on the bench. He'll put him in when it's best for the team (and the future) Shanny's a smart man with long term security. Maybe he's looking at a bigger picture than everybody else.

Popps
10-20-2006, 10:00 PM
It's an internet messageboard.... any opinion one posts can and probably will be challenged, in which case the poster will be expected to "engage" in the debate and defend the post. Tis the nature of things.

You continue to sink further into a puddle of skewed logic.

First off, enjoying winning isn't "an opinion"... it's a fact. Some people enjoy winning to the extent that they like to celebrate a little before they get teary eyed about an "almost-fumble" in the 2nd quarter.

So, again... totally flawed logic.

The thread wasn't a question up for debate. It was an outlet for fans who were happy, as opposed to gloomy.

The less confident among us felt it necessary to rush in and piss all over it.

"Enjoying" something isn't an opinion. I enjoy the Broncos. That is a fact.
It's not up for debate.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 10:03 PM
C'mon Blue. That statement had to do with the TEAM executing, and you and a couple of others immediately limited the statement to Jake. I call BS on your "objectivity" and your reading comprehension.

The last I heard, this game is a team sport. Shanahan has consistently talked about "breakdowns" throughout the TEAM. No just Plummer, but the TEAM.

Man, the narrow minded are having a terrible time getting through the door here.

If the QB is struggling, the offense is going to be struggling.

Taco John
10-20-2006, 10:07 PM
The thread wasn't a question up for debate. It was an outlet for fans who were happy, as opposed to gloomy.


I know that I wasn't gloomy after the win... I did come away from the game with complete disdain for Arizona quarterbacks though. Looked like a contest between the two on who could look the most impotent. Jake won... er, lost that contest, though the judges are still beating their heads on the table over it because Walter actually played a good defense.

Anyway, I'm thrilled that we won even if our coach doesn't trust our quarterback and seems to purposefully make him look weak on national television.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 10:08 PM
You continue to sink further into a puddle of skewed logic.

First off, enjoying winning isn't "an opinion"... it's a fact. Some people enjoy winning to the extent that they like to celebrate a little before they get teary eyed about an "almost-fumble" in the 2nd quarter.

So, again... totally flawed logic.

The thread wasn't a question up for debate. It was an outlet for fans who were happy, as opposed to gloomy.

The less confident among us felt it necessary to rush in and piss all over it.

"Enjoying" something isn't an opinion. I enjoy the Broncos. That is a fact.
It's not up for debate.

Any thread on a messageboard is a topic for debate.

Popps
10-20-2006, 10:17 PM
Any thread on a messageboard is a topic for debate.

Right, if you're really unconfident... sure. I could see where other people enjoying themselves might bother you.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 10:26 PM
Right, if you're really unconfident... sure. I could see where other people enjoying themselves might bother you.

Absolutely nothing that's posted on an internet messageboard bothers me, Popps.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 10:27 PM
. . . .smart people can separate these two statements...


1. I'm a Jake Plummer fan. He's the greatest ever.

and...

2. I think we CAN win with Plummer, even though he's got limitations AND I don't excuse other areas of poor performance because Jake may have also played poorly.



See, I've been saying point 2 for a long time. If you're smart, when I say 2, you'll understand that it's 2. If you are NOT smart, I'll say 2 repeatedly, and you'll just assume that I'm saying 1.
. . .. . . . ...

That's too complicated. You're introducing variables.

If you reduce the argument to "Just enjoy winning, don't over-analyze, enjoy one of the most balanced three-phase teams in the League", some people want to start from zero again, so you have to build your position all over again, thereby ending up getting too complicated again. And they still don't understand. We've been through about 7-8 cycles of this.

Spider
10-20-2006, 10:32 PM
Me and Popps have not seen eye to eye on a few things so calling me Popps boy on this doesnt fit , but he is right on this .........100% dead on .......... if he was wrong I would tell him so .......

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 10:41 PM
We could win with most any QB if we're executing, Popps. The problem is, Plummer has not been executing. If he continues with "not executing", it is possible that we could start to lose games as the result of his failure to execute.

That's getting crazy. I remember seeing Denver at the Rams in field goal range, and Hamilton just blown off the LOS and even Jake couldn't escape that rush - by one guy. Denver had to punt. Those things happen, sure, but don't blame it on Jake. Denver has 84 first downs this year, and 56 have come by the pass, 24 by the run, 4 by penalty.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 10:53 PM
Exactly. This isnt about the playcalling, this isnt about the defense. This is about Jake Plummer not executing the plays called like he should. Are there certain times throughout the game that some other players make mistakes? Absolutely. But the one individual who is playing way below his standard is number 16. And yes, this concerns some of us for the long run. There is nothing " gloom and doom " about it. It is just a concern. The only people getting offended are the ones who cannot and will not accept that fact that our team leader and ball distributor is playing way below par right now. THAT IS JUST FACT. So for all you guys and gals constantly making excuses for the one player who needs to step it up the most, just shut the **** up already.

"Concern" is one thing. Constant bashing takes it to another level. "Panic" I think is what that level is called.

Blueflame
10-20-2006, 10:55 PM
That's getting crazy. I remember seeing Denver at the Rams in field goal range, and Hamilton just blown off the LOS and even Jake couldn't escape that rush - by one guy. Denver had to punt. Those things happen, sure, but don't blame it on Jake. Denver has 84 first downs this year, and 56 have come by the pass, 24 by the run, 4 by penalty.

No one on this forum has suggested that Plummer is the only offensive player who is struggling this season, Cito. But even when he does have enough time, he's been making bad reads, overthrowing (or underthrowing) wide-open receivers, throwing into double coverage, floating the ball up for grabs and holding onto the ball too long. His ineptitude is a big part of the offensive doldrums.

Anytime an offense is not putting up points, its highest-profile player (usually the QB) is simply gonna be the lightning rod for the criticism. It's the nature of the sport.

watermock
10-20-2006, 11:46 PM
Maybe I should post it another five or six times. You still didn't get it. Never mind. I'll just translate what Shanny said for you:


"Our offense isn't as efficicent as I like and I would like us to score more. Our offensive players are making mistakes and it is costing us. Stupid and/or lazy people will blame the QB because they either can't or won't take the time to understand what is going on," Shanny said, "It's a good thing for the Bronco organization that I am the Head Coach instead of one of those brain-dead, mouth breathing, inbred monkey ****ers or this team would go to hell in a handbasket."


Nice imagination numbnuts.

Cito Pelon
10-20-2006, 11:55 PM
No one on this forum has suggested that Plummer is the only offensive player who is struggling this season, Cito. But even when he does have enough time, he's been making bad reads, overthrowing (or underthrowing) wide-open receivers, throwing into double coverage, floating the ball up for grabs and holding onto the ball too long. His ineptitude is a big part of the offensive doldrums.

Anytime an offense is not putting up points, its highest-profile player (usually the QB) is simply gonna be the lightning rod for the criticism. It's the nature of the sport.

"Ineptitude" is a severe word. 56 first downs by the pass, 24 by run. Scoring drives in the 4th Q. I don't understand how he does it, but he does it. Teams get on a roll sometimes, and I think you just have to enjoy it.

Natedogg
10-20-2006, 11:59 PM
I'll just chime in that I love winning this year!

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:07 AM
What's missing here? Better yet, Who's missing here?

1 Donovan McNabb PHI 1849 208 122 13 2 87 104.8
2 Philip Rivers SD 1064 144 99 7 2 57 100.6
3 Marc Bulger STL 1619 208 128 10 1 67 99.8
4 Peyton Manning IND 1278 171 106 8 2 41 95.6
5 David Carr HOU 993 138 96 7 4 53 94.9
6 Damon Huard KC 931 136 89 5 1 78 94.3
7 Drew Brees NO 1509 207 138 8 4 86 92.8
8 Eli Manning NYG 1329 176 115 11 7 46 92.3
9 Chad Pennington NYJ 1261 168 109 8 5 71 90.9
10 Carson Palmer CIN 1178 157 99 7 4 51 90.1
11 Mark Brunell WAS 1239 169 105 5 3 74 86.9
12 Alex Smith SF 1285 183 109 8 4 75 86.4
13 Matt Leinart ARI 539 86 52 4 2 49 84.4
14 Bruce Gradkowski TB 429 81 47 4 1 52 83.8
15 Jake Delhomme CAR 1343 205 123 6 3 72 83.0
16 Tom Brady NE 1031 162 88 8 3 35 82.6
17 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 1122 159 96 9 7 49 82.3
18 Byron Leftwich JAC 1034 155 94 7 5 51 82.0
19 Rex Grossman CHI 1387 189 107 10 7 62 82.0
20 Kurt Warner ARI 916 123 77 5 5 54 81.9
21 J.P. Losman BUF 1121 172 106 6 5 51 80.1
22 Jon Kitna DET 1584 228 145 6 7 42 80.0
23 Brad Johnson MIN 1128 170 107 3 4 46 78.3
24 Daunte Culpepper MIA 929 134 81 2 3 52 77.0
25 Brett Favre GB 1275 203 115 7 5 75 76.7
26 Drew Bledsoe DAL 1053 157 83 7 7 51 70.4
27 Charlie Frye CLE 1039 168 105 5 9 75 67.5
28 Michael Vick ATL 676 117 59 3 3 51 66.0
29 Steve McNair BAL 915 169 95 5 7 38 64.1
30 Joey Harrington MIA 498 84 53 1 4 25 63.5

Let's go down the list.

Ernster...kicking 5 yards deep on K.O.'s, punting for 45. Check.

Tater...4.7 yards a carry and 470 after 5 games. Check

Elam...Hitting everything handed him. Check

Defense...Points per game, 7.4. Check

Points per game on offense? 12.4. third from the bottom...only Tampa Bay and Oakland have scored less points per game.

Both Tampa Bay and Oakland are in the bottom half of points allowed.

Guess who is first by a freakin mile? DENVER. Chicago has played one more game, but it's 7.4 vs. 9.8 points per game. both excellent.

People that aren't Ostriches know that the day come we don't give up 7, or even 17.

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:17 AM
I'll just chime in that I love winning this year!


Sure, everyone is just Hunkie Dorie about being 4-1 except the storm watchers that are looking down the road. People go out to the beach because it's a beautifull day when they should be evacuating. Little kids went and gathered fish when the tsunami had sucked the ocean out. They were all swept away.

People act like the people that want to see a change are Jake haters...that isn't true at all. Allmost all of us calling for a change wanted Jake to have a great year down to the man. Or woman for that matter. Someone's going to take us to the woodshed soon. A team that doesn't have a third rate quarterback. Our secondary isn't lockdown by any measure whatsoever. I saw numerous WR's open that Walter missed.

Taco John
10-21-2006, 12:19 AM
That's because Jake is balancing that entire list on his head. That's how balanced he is.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 12:23 AM
"Ineptitude" is a severe word. 56 first downs by the pass, 24 by run. Scoring drives in the 4th Q. I don't understand how he does it, but he does it. Teams get on a roll sometimes, and I think you just have to enjoy it.

"Ineptitude" may be a severe word, but Plummer's numbers merit its use. Perhaps you'd prefer "incompetence" or "ineffectiveness"... all 3 would be accurate and interchangeable.

The scoring drives in the 4th Q might be a tad more impressive if they weren't coming on the heels of an entire half of football that netted six offensive yards.

This defense truly is on a roll. The offense is just rolling over. And playing dead.

24champ
10-21-2006, 12:33 AM
I don't have time to wade through 15 pages of crap, but I'll say this that Im optimistic about this weekend against Cleveland. Looking forward to seeing how the O mix it up and the defense will be fired up playing against their former team.

mosca
10-21-2006, 12:38 AM
I remember having some bad teams in the early 90s that I knew before the start of the season, we had no shot. That was true torture, especially watching Elway toil.

I think what <u> Popps</u> is trying to stress in this thread is how exuberant we all should be to have a record of 4-1, <b>despite the inadaquacies of our MARGINAL defensive coordinator. </b>

It's like some people just don't watch the game, and are unable to give credit where credit is do. We are 4-1!!!

Right Popps?

OWNED!!!!!!!
Gotta love the self-appointed "OWNer" of an internet debate. Just... gotta love 'em.

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:44 AM
Christ...Joey Harrington has a better rating in Miami than Jake. He's not even in the top 30 anymore.

I like Jake...I like his moxy for standing up for his friend Pat Tillman, flipping the one finger salute doesn't bother me much because he's not pulling knives or guns, and he's basically a good soldier. That is, if James Dean was a good soldier. Of course, James Dean didn't drive a Honda Element. Ha!

My main point is that the finger points where I have been saying it has been. It's like watching Milkin or Eslinger from Disney stuffing his pockets while the ship is sinking.

Random thought of the early morning...anyone know if they recovered the safe from the Titanic?

That's what I feel like right now...I'm riding on the Titianic and folks are saying we are unsinkable...I'm looking at a shortage of lifeboats for us chicken littles that are scared...heh...and have allrady sited icebergs in the distance.

The guy who shaved his moustache and put on women's clothing on the Titanic", my great great uncle. Ha!

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:49 AM
I think what Popps is trying to stress in this thread is how exuberant we all should be to have a record of 4-1, despite the inadaquacies of our MARGINAL defensive coordinator.


Well that makes a hell of alot of sense considering we are giving up the fewest points per game in the NFL. Let's fire Coyer. WTF?

Greg Robinson...pick up the pink courtesy phone...

24champ
10-21-2006, 12:51 AM
Christ...Joey Harrington has a better rating in Miami than Jake. He's not even in the top 30 anymore.

I like Jake...I like his moxy for standing up for his friend Pat Tillman, flipping the one finger salute doesn't bother me much because he's not pulling knives or guns, and he's basically a good soldier. That is, if James Dean was a good soldier. Of course, James Dean didn't drive a Honda Element. Ha!

My main point is that the finger points where I have been saying it has been. It's like watching Milkin or Eslinger from Disney stuffing his pockets while the ship is sinking.

Random thought of the early morning...anyone know if they recovered the safe from the Titanic?

That's what I feel like right now...I'm riding on the Titianic and folks are saying we are unsinkable...I'm looking at a shortage of lifeboats for us chicken littles that are scared...heh...and have allrady sited icebergs in the distance.

The guy who shaved his moustache and put on women's clothing on the Titanic", my great great uncle. Ha!

Sooo the vikings ship is sinking?

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 01:00 AM
Sure, everyone is just Hunkie Dorie about being 4-1 except the storm watchers that are looking down the road. People go out to the beach because it's a beautifull day when they should be evacuating. Little kids went and gathered fish when the tsunami had sucked the ocean out. They were all swept away.

People act like the people that want to see a change are Jake haters...that isn't true at all. Allmost all of us calling for a change wanted Jake to have a great year down to the man. Or woman for that matter. Someone's going to take us to the woodshed soon. A team that doesn't have a third rate quarterback. Our secondary isn't lockdown by any measure whatsoever. I saw numerous WR's open that Walter missed.

Man, I was looking at the tsunami going the other way. The other guys have been experiencing the tsunami. If the team gets taken to the woodshed once or twice in 16 games, what's the big deal? The big deal is make the playoffs and go on a roll, that's all that counts.

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 01:06 AM
[QUOTE=Blueflame;1321628. . . . .. The scoring drives in the 4th Q might be a tad more impressive if they weren't coming on the heels of an entire half of football that netted six offensive yards. . . . ..[/QUOTE]

Scoring in the $th Q to win after 6 passing yards in the first half is very impressive. Not many teams can do that. That's teamwork and professionalism.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 01:14 AM
Scoring in the $th Q to win after 6 passing yards in the first half is very impressive. Not many teams can do that. That's teamwork and professionalism.

Perhaps it's "teamwork and professionalism" to you. But if our defense was not playing at such a high level, it's very possible that we might all be referring to a 4th quarter scoring drive (after a 6-yard first half) as "too little too late".

Do we really expect the defense to hold our opponents to less than 8 points per game through the entire 16-game season? And the postseason as well? IMO, that's unrealistic.

ClevelandBronco
10-21-2006, 01:25 AM
Absolutely nothing that's posted on an internet messageboard bothers me, Popps.

Bully for you, fem-mod.

This is what "bothers" me: "Sorry Blueflame is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

I had you on Ignore, but apparently that's no longer an option.

Damned shame, that. I'd rather ignore you than attack you.

watermock
10-21-2006, 01:41 AM
Sooo the vikings ship is sinking?

http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 01:42 AM
Bully for you, fem-mod.

This is what "bothers" me: "Sorry Blueflame is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

I had you on Ignore, but apparently that's no longer an option.

Damned shame, that. I'd rather ignore you than attack you.

Ah, well... such is life. :P :)

Popps
10-21-2006, 01:46 AM
No one on this forum has suggested that Plummer is the only offensive player who is struggling this season,

No, they're just suggesting that he's the only one you can talk about.

Popps
10-21-2006, 01:49 AM
Ah, well... such is life. :P :)

Whatever that means.

Why wouldn't someone be allowed to ignore a moderator? Even Taco can be put on ignore, from what I understand. Certainly one of his followers should be eligible for ignore-status.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 01:52 AM
No, they're just suggesting that he's the only one you can talk about.

That's because, as the highest-profile player on the offense, he is always gonna be the one whose mistakes are examined the closest. He can put a screeching halt to the criticism, y'know. All he has to do is play better. ;)

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 01:57 AM
Whatever that means.

Why wouldn't someone be allowed to ignore a moderator? Even Taco can be put on ignore, from what I understand. Certainly one of his followers should be eligible for ignore-status.

Because I've never attempted to put myself on ignore, I have no clue if it's possible or not. However, I'm quite certain that Cleveland's... and your... pc is equipped with a scroll button so it is possible for either of you to go right on past it if you see my username at the top of a post. No one forces you to read or reply to 'em. (shrug)

Popps
10-21-2006, 01:59 AM
That's because, as the highest-profile player on the offense, he is always gonna be the one whose mistakes are examined the closest. He can put a screeching halt to the criticism, y'know. All he has to do is play better. ;)

Right. I'm sure if he has a couple of good games, you'll get right behind him, huh? I mean, I know you're just interested in winning. After all, you were one of Griese's biggest supporters, long after his ineptitude was painfully apparent.

ROFL!

Popps
10-21-2006, 02:03 AM
I don't have time to wade through 15 pages of crap, but I'll say this that Im optimistic about this weekend against Cleveland. Looking forward to seeing how the O mix it up and the defense will be fired up playing against their former team.

Yea. Droughns will be looking to have a big game, but he'll have 4 former Browns trying to stop him on every play... who also have a little extra to play for.

I expect good things.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 02:06 AM
Right. I'm sure if he has a couple of good games, you'll get right behind him, huh? I mean, I know you're just interested in winning. After all, you were one of Griese's biggest supporters, long after his ineptitude was painfully apparent.

ROFL!

Hey, I didn't criticize Plummer until it became obvious that his subpar performance wasn't a one-or-two-game fluke. And yes, I'll shut up if he stops sucking and plays better.

The Bears' backup QB doesn't interest me in the slightest.

ClevelandBronco
10-21-2006, 02:24 AM
Hey, I didn't criticize Plummer until it became obvious that his subpar performance wasn't a one-or-two-game fluke. And yes, I'll shut up if he stops sucking and plays better.

The Bears' backup QB doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Go get us a beer and a sandwich, honey. We're enjoying the wins here.

watermock
10-21-2006, 02:35 AM
If ands or butts.

Dedhed
10-21-2006, 04:28 AM
Bully for you, fem-mod.

This is what "bothers" me: "Sorry Blueflame is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

I had you on Ignore, but apparently that's no longer an option.

Damned shame, that. I'd rather ignore you than attack you.
Ignore is for the feeble minded and thin skinned. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that Popps has an ignore list that includes anyone who brings a modicum of objectivity to assessing the team.

Northman
10-21-2006, 05:26 AM
"Concern" is one thing. Constant bashing takes it to another level. "Panic" I think is what that level is called.



It may seem bashing to you because of how long Jake's struggles have carried on from game to game. But in reality its not. Unfortuantely, the more Jake continues to struggle getting the offense going the more its going to be talked about. Do i think we need 20 threads on it? No, but again a mod can easily delete or merge any thread and solve the problem in that area. But i dont think its bashing ( at least when it comes to core group of members on here ) but you will get the dip****s who just flat out claim he sucks and dont put any thought behind their posts.

Northman
10-21-2006, 05:32 AM
Right. I'm sure if he has a couple of good games, you'll get right behind him, huh? I mean, I know you're just interested in winning. After all, you were one of Griese's biggest supporters, long after his ineptitude was painfully apparent.

ROFL!

Ill be a lot happier about how he is playing than he is right now. And yea, i wouldnt get super excited because one of the things that bothers me is his inconisistency. But, i would kill to have him play as he did in the regular season last year right about now.

elsid13
10-21-2006, 05:58 AM
So has this thread broken down into something similar to the North Korean and US talks???

OK I happy to be winning. But the offense needs to play better. Plummer is not living up to the strandard that we expect him to play too. Sorry we're fans and we get to have expectation and standard for our players.

The offense coaches needs to make adjustment to play to Plummer strengths, throwing from the pocket ain't it. Plus the coaches and Plummer need to get the TEs involved. This offense will struggle until that happens. TE production is a joke and we might want to trade for Putz again if this keeps up next year.

The defense is playing well but they need to get more three and outs, this bend don't break is OK but is a little wearing. The Special Teams needs to get it act together on punts and kick off, the field position is not were it needs to be right now.

Finally the team needs get that killer instinct to be great and championship level.

Popps
10-21-2006, 08:48 AM
Ignore is for the feeble minded and thin skinned. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that Popps has an ignore list that includes anyone who brings a modicum of objectivity to assessing the team.

Actually, most people have an ignore list. It just makes sense.

As for objective posters, those are the best kind. I even enjoy reading people who's views conflict with mine if they can make a good argument.
(A good argument is not calling people names, FYI.)

Rest assured that objective posters never come near my ignore list. It's more reserved for the kinds of people who attack your children because you made a thread about being happy for a win.

So, any time you want to address me directly with any kind of substance to your post, feel free. If you want to just do drive-by insults, it's you that ends up looking silly.

Paladin
10-21-2006, 08:54 AM
That's because, as the highest-profile player on the offense, he is always gonna be the one whose mistakes are examined the closest. He can put a screeching halt to the criticism, y'know. All he has to do is play better. ;)

SO. You target Jake because he is the "highest-profile" on offense? Gosh/ If Walker had caught the balls in St. Louis, or had not dropped the balls in the Oakland game, or if Sapp had not dropped a sure TD in theOakland game, Jake would not be the subject of this crusade of assassination? How quaint.

By your logic, if the offense is not clicking, it is all Jakes' fault. Even if Shanahan himself tells you that that is not correct? Wow! Just Wow!

That is dumb, if you don't mind my saying. I''d rather say that the O is not producing right now because of a lot of different issues. But I would never say that one person is the sole cause of the lack of productivity. That would be emblamatic of an incompetent, inept and blind analyst who is having problems seeing beyond the nose.

Instead, I am going to enjoy 4-1 another day and I think the Broncos have a chance to get to 5-1, but then, that will be because Jake didn't screw up enough, right?

And Mock, before you go calling posters "numbnuts", don't you think you need to respect their right to post? Why do you need to resort to name-calling? Don't you know that the first time you call someone a derogetory name, you expose your own level of intellefctual incompetence? C'mon. You can do better than that!

Or are you a numbskull?

Popps
10-21-2006, 08:57 AM
But, i would kill to have him play as he did in the regular season last year right about now.

We all would. I think everyone has recognized that, and I do think we'll see him start to look better over the coming weeks. I think any time there's a new O.C., a QB and his offense are going to have an adjustment period.
Even great QBs, but especially guys like Jake, who was really benefiting from the stability of the system/coordinator.

Give it a couple of games. He had a terrible starting game, then has just looked a little stifled. We ARE scoring points when we have to. Hopefully we'll see the beginning of a higher offensive output this week.

orange 4 life
10-21-2006, 09:28 AM
We all would. I think everyone has recognized that, and I do think we'll see him start to look better over the coming weeks. I think any time there's a new O.C., a QB and his offense are going to have an adjustment period.
Even great QBs, but especially guys like Jake, who was really benefiting from the stability of the system/coordinator.

Give it a couple of games. He had a terrible starting game, then has just looked a little stifled. We ARE scoring points when we have to. Hopefully we'll see the beginning of a higher offensive output this week.

amen.

again, it needs to be recognized that while the offense has been struggling, they have ALSO made plays in the 4th quarter when they needed to, and that is encouraging.

here's to hoping the breakout starts tomorrow.
27 hours and 45 mins till kickoff.
we'll know soon!!

Spider
10-21-2006, 09:33 AM
this bears repeating .........
Offenses sell tickets
Defense wins championships ........

watermock
10-21-2006, 09:46 AM
What makes you think most people have an ignore list Popps? That's a typical assumption. When did you become a moderator able to see who is on ignore where? This is just another Poppesque assertion presented as fact. You think Moderators have people on ignore?

If your so insecure that you can't handle opinions, well, this isn't the old Pravda shoved down your throat or N. Korean propoganda/mind control. See that escape hatch on the very upper right?

You are about as close to ignore as I could get but I find you amusing honestly, your such a dumbass. You didn't see my post where Jake Plummer isn't even listed among the top 30 quarterbacks in passer rating? It's all just some vendetta and hate mongering because what? Maybe we read the stat line that said SIX YARDS PASSING IN THE FIRST HALF.

watermock
10-21-2006, 09:49 AM
amen.

again, it needs to be recognized that while the offense has been struggling, they have ALSO made plays in the 4th quarter when they needed to, and that is encouraging.

here's to hoping the breakout starts tomorrow.
27 hours and 45 mins till kickoff.
we'll know soon!!

What plays do you speak of exactly. We didn't score a single point in the second half against the only winless team in the NFL. Our defense was stout, our RB was adequate, our DB's got kinda lucky against a very sub par QB.

I don't see the OFFENSE struggling...I see JAKE PLUMMER struggling.

Spider
10-21-2006, 09:51 AM
I love the fact we are not putting the game in Jakes hands , not that Jake sucks , but to many things can go wrong .............

watermock
10-21-2006, 09:54 AM
I love the fact we are not putting the game in Jakes hands , not that Jake sucks , but to many things can go wrong .............


Listen to yourself! Extropolate it and realize what your saying. It's become not about putting the game in Jake's hands, it's become taking the game OUT of his hands.

Spider
10-21-2006, 09:57 AM
Listen to yourself! Extropolate it and realize what your saying. It's become not about putting the game in Jake's hands, it's become taking the game OUT of his hands.

I would agree , I think Jake is a fine QB , but our defense is alot better

elsid13
10-21-2006, 10:03 AM
I would agree , I think Jake is a fine QB , but our defense is alot better

Spider

Plummer is ten year vet and been in the system for 4 years, if Shanahan has to take the offense out of his hands to win what good is he for Denver. That what killing me. If cannot trust your QB, then make the switch.

Rohirrim
10-21-2006, 10:40 AM
Worry about it when it happens. You have no impact on the situation. I don't want to single you out, so I'll just say there are plenty of posters that seem to invent crises. The object being to stoke an already bad case of nerves, I guess. Makes no sense to me.

Yeah, let's turn this board into Fishheaven. If you disagree, you're out. If you mention the slightest negativity, you're out. If you question any decision, you're out. If you question the QB, you're out. If you even so much as look down the road and question the possibility that the offense might possibly not have the power to cut it, you're out. Only those who believe, "We will be greeted with flowers," are allowed. There's a lot of that going around these days.

Rohirrim
10-21-2006, 10:44 AM
We could win with most any QB if we're executing, Popps. The problem is, Plummer has not been executing. If he continues with "not executing", it is possible that we could start to lose games as the result of his failure to execute.

The lady splits the darkness with a little, much needed light! :thumbs:

Popps
10-21-2006, 11:11 AM
Yeah, let's turn this board into Fishheaven. If you disagree, you're out.

No, you've got it inverted. If you create one optimistic thread in a sea of negativity, you get blasted.

You're a smart guy, Ro. Check the threads on the main board the day of our win over Oakland. There were probably 20-30 threads of people panicking.... and one for those who wanted to celebrate a little before settling into "sky is falling" mode.

Only those who believe, "We will be greeted with flowers," are allowed. There's a lot of that going around these days.

Nah. Just one thread for optimism amidst a board full of gloom and doom.

But, I know... being overtly negative makes one more "savvy," right?

If the glass is half full, you're an idiot. If the glass is half empty, you're "realistic."

If one thinks we've got a shot this year, they have "their head in the sand," but if one has thrown in the towel already, they're a "smart" fan?

Uhhh... O.K..



In fact, Ro.
Please point out a single post on this forum where ANY poster claims that this team doesn't have problems to overcome.
Your claim is that people aren't "allowed" to bitch and moan.
So, you should be able to back that up pretty easily by simply showing me ONE SINGLE post from ONE SINGLE poster who claims this team does NOT have a problem on offense.


I'll check back in a bit for your response.

Spider
10-21-2006, 11:19 AM
Spider

Plummer is ten year vet and been in the system for 4 years, if Shanahan has to take the offense out of his hands to win what good is he for Denver. That what killing me. If cannot trust your QB, then make the switch.

I dont think it is a matter of trust in the QB ,more of a why take a chance when you dont have to ? how many interceptions have yo usee cause a reciever ran the wrong route , tripped , fell down ? Holding penalties ? Balls deflected .........
what I am saying is there is alot more than can go wrong then just Plummer .....

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 11:22 AM
Actually, most people have an ignore list. It just makes sense.

As for objective posters, those are the best kind. I even enjoy reading people who's views conflict with mine if they can make a good argument.
(A good argument is not calling people names, FYI.)

Rest assured that objective posters never come near my ignore list. It's more reserved for the kinds of people who attack your children because you made a thread about being happy for a win.

So, any time you want to address me directly with any kind of substance to your post, feel free. If you want to just do drive-by insults, it's you that ends up looking silly.

Y'know, I don't think most of the Mane's posters do have an ignore list. I've never put anyone here on iggy and have no plans for ever doing so in the future. The rep remark about your child was wrong and was dealt with... hopefully (if he even returns to the board) the poster realizes that kind of stuff simply won't be tolerated.

Spider
10-21-2006, 11:24 AM
I put myself on iggy .............

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 11:33 AM
SO. You target Jake because he is the "highest-profile" on offense? Gosh/ If Walker had caught the balls in St. Louis, or had not dropped the balls in the Oakland game, or if Sapp had not dropped a sure TD in theOakland game, Jake would not be the subject of this crusade of assassination? How quaint.

By your logic, if the offense is not clicking, it is all Jakes' fault. Even if Shanahan himself tells you that that is not correct? Wow! Just Wow!

That is dumb, if you don't mind my saying. I''d rather say that the O is not producing right now because of a lot of different issues. But I would never say that one person is the sole cause of the lack of productivity. That would be emblamatic of an incompetent, inept and blind analyst who is having problems seeing beyond the nose.

Instead, I am going to enjoy 4-1 another day and I think the Broncos have a chance to get to 5-1, but then, that will be because Jake didn't screw up enough, right?

And Mock, before you go calling posters "numbnuts", don't you think you need to respect their right to post? Why do you need to resort to name-calling? Don't you know that the first time you call someone a derogetory name, you expose your own level of intellefctual incompetence? C'mon. You can do better than that!

Or are you a numbskull?

The onus for any incompletion that hits a WR in the hands is on the receiver. He's supposed to get that ball. But those are just a few isolated plays in the big picture that is the diminished performance level of Jake Plummer. You're right in saying (in general terms) "the offense simply isn't clicking" but the player who touches the ball on every offensive down... who clearly isn't playing up to par... is going to receive the brunt of the criticism. That may be "dumb", but it is also fact. Shanahan may not be openly dissing his starting QB in the media, but his actions say all one needs to know about where he puts any culpability. The fact that the leash is not only on, but strained to the utmost... says his confidence level in Plummer isn't high, regardless of what he tells ESPiN.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 11:36 AM
No, you've got it inverted. If you create one optimistic thread in a sea of negativity, you get blasted.

You're a smart guy, Ro. Check the threads on the main board the day of our win over Oakland. There were probably 20-30 threads of people panicking.... and one for those who wanted to celebrate a little before settling into "sky is falling" mode.



Nah. Just one thread for optimism amidst a board full of gloom and doom.

But, I know... being overtly negative makes one more "savvy," right?

If the glass is half full, you're an idiot. If the glass is half empty, you're "realistic."

If one thinks we've got a shot this year, they have "their head in the sand," but if one has thrown in the towel already, they're a "smart" fan?

Uhhh... O.K..



In fact, Ro.
Please point out a single post on this forum where ANY poster claims that this team doesn't have problems to overcome.
Your claim is that people aren't "allowed" to b**** and moan.
So, you should be able to back that up pretty easily by simply showing me ONE SINGLE post from ONE SINGLE poster who claims this team does NOT have a problem on offense.


I'll check back in a bit for your response.

More accurately, Popps... you might as well be trying to herd cats as to be making any attempt whatsoever to control what others post on an internet messageboard... or even on a single thread of that forum. I haven't been "blasting you" so much as amused by it all... Ha!

watermock
10-21-2006, 11:38 AM
The lady splits the darkness with a little, much needed light! :thumbs:

It always seems rather dark in there.

Popps
10-21-2006, 11:41 AM
Y'know, I don't think most of the Mane's posters do have an ignore list. I've never put anyone here on iggy and have no plans for ever doing so in the future.

Some people have more tolerance (or enjoyment?) for idiocy than others, or maybe it's free time, etc.

I enjoy a healthy debate, as is pretty obvious. But, there are a number of "professional troll" types who do nothing but clutter up the threads, imo.
(Those who only call people names, etc.)

If you have an interest in reading someone calling someone else an idiot 30 times a thread, that's your own business. I'd rather the threads were condensed a bit, with solid posters... whether I agree with them or not.

It's a handy feature that no one is requiring anyone to use.

Popps
10-21-2006, 11:49 AM
More accurately, Popps... you might as well be trying to herd cats as to be making any attempt whatsoever to control what others post on an internet messageboard.!

Right, that's why I'm not remotely trying to "control" what people post. Not remotely.

The thread was an invitation for some celebration. But, as someone else pointed out, it did end up being an interesting psychology experiment on what kinds of people felt it necessary to go onto that thread and spread as much gloom as they could.

I'm not a big NBA fan, for the most part... and I'm comfortable with that. Therefore, I don't need to go onto NBA threads and regularly tell people how much it sucks.

See, when you're comfortable and confident in your stance, there's no need to go onto a thread designed for one thing....and attempt to force it to be another, especially when there are dozens of threads dedicated to that purpose.

Now, had the thread been titled... "Let's argue about how good this team is"... you might have a point. But, it was a little call-out to those who were happy about the win and needed a few minutes before jumping off a building because of our 3rd down %.

Control what people post? Hardly. Quite the contrary. This thread was a little haven for some celebration, yet... yourself and others felt it necessary to "control" it by attempting to remind people how armageddon was approaching.

watermock
10-21-2006, 11:51 AM
Yeah Popps, we are just a bunch of negative idiots that deserve to go on ignore. Forget rational thought. Blind Homerism doesn't cut it for many posters here. Leading the NFL in points allowed per game is great, but it doesn't say much more since Jake can't even hit the top 30 in passer rating. That doesn't concern you? Well, it concerns a hell of alot of us tht know what the hell we are watching. Zero points in the entire second half last week AND YOUR STILL MAKING EXCUSES. AGAINST OAKLAND FOR CHRIST SAKE.

What part of this is so confusing? We didn't take Cutler in the 11th round, we took him with the 11th pick. I don't remember a single poster say that we should start him out of the gate. Well this is after camp and 9 games counting preseason.

You think that I am guaranteeing some sort of miracle cure?

I'm just saying that Jake has SUCKED. He has 3 TD's and 5 picks, and isn't even LISTED on the nfl.com passing list.

Freakin' Harrington has a higher rating.

Lev Vyvanse
10-21-2006, 11:56 AM
Shanahan may not be openly dissing his starting QB in the media, but his actions say all one needs to know about where he puts any culpability. The fact that the leash is not only on, but strained to the utmost... says his confidence level in Plummer isn't high, regardless of what he tells ESPiN.

And Cutler is still on the bench. What does that tell you about his confidence in the rookie?

Spider
10-21-2006, 11:58 AM
I gotta pee

Popps
10-21-2006, 11:59 AM
Yeah Popps, we are just a bunch of negative idiots that deserve to go on ignore.

Wow, I didn't even mention you... and you're not on my (very small) ignore list. Interesting that you thought I must have been talking about you, though.

Blind Homerism doesn't cut it for many posters here.


It definitely doesn't cut it for me, either. That's why I've been breaking down this team's pros/cons for about 10 years on these boards. So, we totally agree.

Jake can't even hit the top 30 in passer rating. That doesn't concern you?


Actually, if you look at the top of the page, there's numbers that go... 1,2,3,4...

Those correspond to each page of the thread. On page one, you'll find my initial post. In that post, you'll find that I expressed concern about the offense. You can also search the various other posts on the forum and find me agreeing with the offensive concerns dozens of times.

So, looks like we agree again.

What part of this is so confusing?

Ummmm, none of it?

I'm just saying that Jake has SUCKED.

Right, I'm pretty sure you mentioned that already.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 11:59 AM
Right, that's why I'm not remotely trying to "control" what people post. Not remotely.

The thread was an invitation for some celebration. But, as someone else pointed out, it did end up being an interesting psychology experiment on what kinds of people felt it necessary to go onto that thread and spread as much gloom as they could.

I'm not a big NBA fan, for the most part... and I'm comfortable with that. Therefore, I don't need to go onto NBA threads and regularly tell people how much it sucks.

See, when you're comfortable and confident in your stance, there's no need to go onto a thread designed for one thing....and attempt to force it to be another, especially when there are dozens of threads dedicated to that purpose.

Now, had the thread been titled... "Let's argue about how good this team is"... you might have a point. But, it was a little call-out to those who were happy about the win and needed a few minutes before jumping off a building because of our 3rd down %.

Control what people post? Hardly. Quite the contrary. This thread was a little haven for some celebration, yet... yourself and others felt it necessary to "control" it by attempting to remind people how armageddon was approaching.

Hey, the thread title alone was like waving a red flag in front of a bull, but whatever. This thread had slid down to page 3 without a single post of mine on it till it got bumped back up to the top. Had it not been bumped... I would have left it alone. ;D

watermock
10-21-2006, 11:59 AM
See, when you're comfortable and confident in your stance, there's no need to go onto a thread designed for one thing....and attempt to force it to be another, especially when there are dozens of threads dedicated to that purpose.


Yeah, I see that you think your posts are gospel and noone can dissagree. Noone changed a thread. They just dididn't agree with you. We have scored 62 points, tied with Tampa.

The D is off the chart for points allowed.

orange 4 life
10-21-2006, 12:01 PM
Yeah, let's turn this board into Fishheaven. If you disagree, you're out. If you mention the slightest negativity, you're out. If you question any decision, you're out. If you question the QB, you're out. If you even so much as look down the road and question the possibility that the offense might possibly not have the power to cut it, you're out. Only those who believe, "We will be greeted with flowers," are allowed. There's a lot of that going around these days.

if we did that we'd only have a few people left!!

....and by a "few", i mean like 3? maybe 4 or 5? ;D

orange 4 life
10-21-2006, 12:02 PM
seriously though, thats not what ANYONE has advocated in any way.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 12:06 PM
I'm amazed how so many egos are so fragile that they have to bring stats into an argument to blame the teams lacking of not being at the top of the league in every stat....if the tsunami comes there is no amount of whining that is going to prevent it. I have my life preserver handy so I don't care if you aren't prepared to deal with it.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 12:06 PM
And Cutler is still on the bench. What does that tell you about his confidence in the rookie?

It tells you the rookie isn't ready yet. Perhaps you've mistaken me for one of the Broncos fans who is calling for Cutler. I'm not. What I want is for the powers that be to do whatever it takes to get Plummer playing at a higher level. What part of this is difficult to understand? Plummer is capable of playing better than he currently is playing. I want him to do it.

It's frustrating as hell to watch him out there Sunday after Sunday giving a half-assed performance when I know for a fact he can play better.

Popps
10-21-2006, 12:08 PM
Yeah, I see that you think your posts are gospel and noone can dissagree.

Nah. I actually enjoy a healthy debate/disusssion.

But, let me help you out a little....

1. I (Popps) like ice cream.

You can't disagree with that statement. It's simply a personal observation.
YOU may not like ice cream, but whether I do or not is not up for debate.
I do like ice cream, so there's no real need for analysis/debate.

2. Ice cream is the best food on earth.

You CAN disagree with that statement because it contains a variable.

See the difference?

Now apply it to the following...

1. I enjoyed the win.

2. We have no flaws as a team.


The thread was basically a bunch of people saying #1, and subsequently a bunch of people trying to argue about #2. Hope that clears it up.

orange 4 life
10-21-2006, 12:14 PM
What plays do you speak of exactly. We didn't score a single point in the second half against the only winless team in the NFL. Our defense was stout, our RB was adequate, our DB's got kinda lucky against a very sub par QB.

I don't see the OFFENSE struggling...I see JAKE PLUMMER struggling.

wow. youre not watching then.

you didnt see cecil sapp drop an easy TD?
you didnt see walker drop two straight passes (one for a td) against st louis?
you didnt see the SEVEN drops against new england?
you havent noticed the conservative playcalling?
you havent seen the line struggle in pass coverage more than in years past?
you didnt see us struggle to find a starting running back the first few games?
you missed that tatum didnt even average 4 yards a carry against oakland?
you havent noticed that we have no production from the tight ends?
youve overlooked the fact that we have alot of new faces at skill positions?
you think it doesnt matter that we have a new OC?

whatever my friend.
its plain to see that its the entire offense struggling, and not just jake.

....and as for "what i speak of exactly", i speak of the 4th quarter drive that tied the game against kc and the overtime drive that won it.
i speak of the 4th quarter td that iced the game against new england, and i speak of the 10 4th quarter points we scored against baltimore to break up a 3-3 game.

yes, we've been struggling a ton, and no, its not all on one player.
look at what plummers done the last three years. the guys been very good in this offense, and very good for this team.

he's played inconsistent this year.
we also have had conservative gameplans, we've had no production from the tight ends, we're not using the middle of the field (and before you blame that on plummer note sharpes 62 catches in '03), we have alot of new faces at skill positions, we have a new OC, we've been inconsistent in pass coverage, and we've been in a few situations where the conservative approach made sense.

the problems go much deeper than just "its all plummers fault", and i would expect you to know that.

jake

Rohirrim
10-21-2006, 12:16 PM
No, you've got it inverted. If you create one optimistic thread in a sea of negativity, you get blasted.

You're a smart guy, Ro. Check the threads on the main board the day of our win over Oakland. There were probably 20-30 threads of people panicking.... and one for those who wanted to celebrate a little before settling into "sky is falling" mode.



Nah. Just one thread for optimism amidst a board full of gloom and doom.

But, I know... being overtly negative makes one more "savvy," right?

If the glass is half full, you're an idiot. If the glass is half empty, you're "realistic."

If one thinks we've got a shot this year, they have "their head in the sand," but if one has thrown in the towel already, they're a "smart" fan?

Uhhh... O.K..



In fact, Ro.
Please point out a single post on this forum where ANY poster claims that this team doesn't have problems to overcome.
Your claim is that people aren't "allowed" to b**** and moan.
So, you should be able to back that up pretty easily by simply showing me ONE SINGLE post from ONE SINGLE poster who claims this team does NOT have a problem on offense.


I'll check back in a bit for your response.

You just want me to join you in splitting hairs at the sub-atomic level. Not going there. Wouldn't be prudent. As far as the reaction to the Oakland game, IMO most of us thought the Broncos were going take the Fade apart. They didn't. They won. That's about it. There was a lot in that victory, especially on the O side of the ball, to make a fan nervous, and rightfully so.

I'm not blasting anybody for being optimistic. I'm mucho optimistic about this season. Hell, we were one game away last year from going to the big show. I simply see Jake underperforming and Shanahan dumbing down the offense to save his ass and squeak out games. At some point, Jake is going to have to be given a "fish or cut bait" moment. Against the Colts and Steelers, the Broncos have to score points. Our D has been incredible, but you can't hang the weight of the season on them.

Negativity isn't "savvy." But then there's something called "reality." The reality is that the Broncos have been winning games by the skin of their teeth (Defense) against the weakest part of their schedule. Now, we're approaching the meat of the schedule. Compare the QBs the Broncos have faced in the first five games to the QBs they are going to be facing starting next week. And truth be told, in the preseason, regardless of the competition, we saw a rookie QB who is stronger, faster, has a better arm, is more accurate and spreads the ball around more than Jake, a 10 year vet. In baseball, you can allow a guy to have a five game slump, but not in football.

Lev Vyvanse
10-21-2006, 12:23 PM
What I want is for the powers that be to do whatever it takes to get Plummer playing at a higher level. What part of this is difficult to understand? Plummer is capable of playing better than he currently is playing. I want him to do it.

It's frustrating as hell to watch him out there Sunday after Sunday giving a half-assed performance when I know for a fact he can play better.

I’m sure “the powers that be” have a whole list of things to straighten out Jake and they are just waiting for the perfect moment to use it.:thumbs:

As for Jake half-assed performances, I’d say if anything he is trying too hard he needs to calm down some.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 12:35 PM
I’m sure “the powers that be” have a whole list of things to straighten out Jake and they are just waiting for the perfect moment to use it.:thumbs:

As for Jake half-assed performances, I’d say if anything he is trying too hard he needs to calm down some.

I'm not sure that "trying too hard" can explain some of the stuff I've seen him do... like throwing into double coverage, staring down his intended receiver, and overthrowing/underthrowing a guy who's wide open. But I hope you're right and the Broncos offense gets back on track tomorrow. We'll need them next week against Indy, I'm thinking.

Lev Vyvanse
10-21-2006, 12:38 PM
We'll need them next week against Indy, I'm thinking.
Agree 100%

Popps
10-21-2006, 12:49 PM
You just want me to join you in splitting hairs at the sub-atomic level. Not going there. Wouldn't be prudent.

O.K... that was at least funny.

There was a lot in that victory, especially on the O side of the ball, to make a fan nervous, and rightfully so. .

I'd agree, to a point. But again... Sapp dropped the TD that easily puts us up 17-0. Now, let's assume he did what he should have done, and we tack on the FG in the 3rd... we're up 20-0. How much concern do we have then?
Some, certainly. We're not putting up basketball scores, but a 20-3 win is pretty cozy. Add to the mix, Oakland is ranked 8th in total D.

Again, not saying there isn't room for concern. I just never felt like we were in danger of losing that game, or any of our other last 4.

The reality is that the Broncos have been winning games by the skin of their teeth (Defense) against the weakest part of their schedule.

Again, agree to a point. But, two of the 4 teams we beat were ranked in almost everyone's top 5 when we beat them. The other two were division rivals, who usually make it tough, even when we're executing at our best.

But, yea... I think we'd all like to see us winning a little more comfortably.
Then again, this is the new NFL. Parity is reality. Look at the "best" teams in the league right now. The Bears? Indy? Both have looked very beatable at times. So, I'll take any kind of win we can get.

At some point, Jake is going to have to be given a "fish or cut bait" moment. Against the Colts and Steelers, the Broncos have to score points. Our D has been incredible, but you can't hang the weight of the season on them.

Totally agree, though I'd say our entire offense has to "fish or cut bait."

Hoping it comes together this weekend, even though the reaction around here will be... "it's just the Browns" if it does. I'd love to see the O get some confidence rolling into the tough games coming up.

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:54 PM
you didnt see cecil sapp drop an easy TD?
Everyone saw it. That makes it 17 instead of 13. So what?
you didnt see walker drop two straight passes (one for a td) against st louis?
So what...Walker has been the offensive MVP so far this year. Shouldn't we wonder where the TE's are?
you didnt see the SEVEN drops against new england
Actually, the D won that game not the O. Bring a stat that we had 7 drops rather than an assertion.
you havent noticed the conservative playcalling?
And you are confused why?
[wuote]you havent seen the line struggle in pass coverage more than in years past?
you didnt see us struggle to find a starting running back the first few games?
We started a back that is averaging 4.7
[wuote]you missed that tatum didnt even average 4 yards a carry against oakland?
Well maybe he could of done better if there were not 8 in the box. Jesus.
you havent noticed that we have no production from the tight ends?
Yep, that's why I mention it every week for you boy Jake.
youve overlooked the fact that we have alot of new faces at skill positions?
you think it doesnt matter that we have a new OC?
[/QUOTE]

That whole post is just apologist. I dot tired of it line by line.

Jake cuts his own throat ondn everal comments and does't even know it.

Popps
10-21-2006, 12:55 PM
like throwing into double coverage.

Can you point out which plays in the past two games he did that? I watched both a few times, and I'm drawing a blank on which plays those were. Sounds like you have it all pretty well documented, so it should be easy.

staring down his intended receiver

Actually, he was going through reads finding no one open to an extent that even the commentators mentioned it. He was forced to dump off several times because his first couple of reads were covered. Now, THAT is a problem... just not the one you stated.

overthrowing/underthrowing a guy who's wide open. .

He had two bad throws to what could be considered open receivers against Oakland. (Certainly not "wide" open.) One was a comeback route to Rod Smith that he overthrew. The other was a boot cross to Sheffler where Plummer was under heavy duress, but... he still should have completed the pass.

We didn't throw much against Baltimore, but I believe he had 1-2 bad throws that game, as any QB would.

If you've got information that conflicts with that, I'd be interested in reading it... particularly if you can document exactly which plays you're talking about.

watermock
10-21-2006, 12:56 PM
The apoligists are free to post.

I'm just not on board.

Northman
10-21-2006, 12:59 PM
And Cutler is still on the bench. What does that tell you about his confidence in the rookie?



Its not a confidence issue. The Team is still winning and that is why Cutler sits until it is time for him to come in. And that will happen 2 ways. 1) Jake continues to play poorly and we start losing those close games. Or 2) We do our thing this year whether we win a Super Bowl or not and Jay starts next year. There never was a Qb competition this offseason as Jake was the starter from the get go.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:01 PM
The apoligists are free to post.

I'm just not on board.No apology coming from me....I'm glad we are 4-1 and love it when gamblers think we are going to romp and lose their house and then blame the Broncos for not making them rich...life is good.

Northman
10-21-2006, 01:02 PM
You just want me to join you in splitting hairs at the sub-atomic level. Not going there. Wouldn't be prudent. As far as the reaction to the Oakland game, IMO most of us thought the Broncos were going take the Fade apart. They didn't. They won. That's about it. There was a lot in that victory, especially on the O side of the ball, to make a fan nervous, and rightfully so.

I'm not blasting anybody for being optimistic. I'm mucho optimistic about this season. Hell, we were one game away last year from going to the big show. I simply see Jake underperforming and Shanahan dumbing down the offense to save his ass and squeak out games. At some point, Jake is going to have to be given a "fish or cut bait" moment. Against the Colts and Steelers, the Broncos have to score points. Our D has been incredible, but you can't hang the weight of the season on them.

Negativity isn't "savvy." But then there's something called "reality." The reality is that the Broncos have been winning games by the skin of their teeth (Defense) against the weakest part of their schedule. Now, we're approaching the meat of the schedule. Compare the QBs the Broncos have faced in the first five games to the QBs they are going to be facing starting next week. And truth be told, in the preseason, regardless of the competition, we saw a rookie QB who is stronger, faster, has a better arm, is more accurate and spreads the ball around more than Jake, a 10 year vet. In baseball, you can allow a guy to have a five game slump, but not in football.



This is a excellent post and right on the money. You cant explain it any better to Popps and co. like this. This is exactly how many of us feel right now. Winning isnt making us concerned, the lack of offensive production is.


Rep.

elsid13
10-21-2006, 01:09 PM
I put myself on iggy .............

Well you're finally showing some sense then.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 01:16 PM
Can you point out which plays in the past two games he did that? I watched both a few times, and I'm drawing a blank on which plays those were. Sounds like you have it all pretty well documented, so it should be easy.



Actually, he was going through reads finding no one open to an extent that even the commentators mentioned it. He was forced to dump off several times because his first couple of reads were covered. Now, THAT is a problem... just not the one you stated.



He had two bad throws to what could be considered open receivers against Oakland. (Certainly not "wide" open.) One was a comeback route to Rod Smith that he overthrew. The other was a boot cross to Sheffler where Plummer was under heavy duress, but... he still should have completed the pass.

We didn't throw much against Baltimore, but I believe he had 1-2 bad throws that game, as any QB would.

If you've got information that conflicts with that, I'd be interested in reading it... particularly if you can document exactly which plays you're talking about.


My remarks were about Plummer's performance this season, Popps... not just in the last two games... games in which, btw, the playcalling had become incredibly conservative, perhaps at least partially in response to the problems noted.

In '06 Plummer has: 1)made bad reads 2)thrown into double coverage 3)overthrown/underthrown his receiver 4)stared down the intended receiver 5) floated the ball up for grabs, counting on his receiver to beat the defender and 6) held onto the ball too long. Tell you what, I'll take the time as I re-watch all the games I have on DVD (my collection is missing the first two games) to list precisely which passes were, from my perspective, problematic. It might take a while to compile the list, so I'll start a new thread to discuss it.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:23 PM
Other than floating the ball up for grabs... if I wanted to slam Elway I could probably come up with a pretty good highlight reel from my old vcr tapes... if I were so obsessed with proving someone wrong.

Northman
10-21-2006, 01:26 PM
Other than floating the ball up for grabs... if I wanted to slam Elway I could probably come up with a pretty good highlight reel from my old vcr tapes... if I were so obsessed with proving someone wrong.


Yea, but i would much rather watch the Highlight and Championship videos of Jake instead..................wait...........Ha!

elsid13
10-21-2006, 01:33 PM
Other than floating the ball up for grabs... if I wanted to slam Elway I could probably come up with a pretty good highlight reel from my old vcr tapes... if I were so obsessed with proving someone wrong.

This isn't about slamming Plummer. If we started a thread like "Foster is worse RT in the league", that would be idiotic poster trying to slam a player. What is happening is Plummer isn't playing up to the expectation of the fans of the team. By the 4th year in the systems, I was truly hoping that Plummer would be hitting at 60% plus of his passes and leading this offense to scoring around 21 points a game. There is no question that is within his ability.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:37 PM
You're right, it isn't about slamming plummer....it's is about enjoying a win without slamming anyone....so sit back and enjoy the ride

elsid13
10-21-2006, 01:40 PM
You're right, it isn't about slamming plummer....it's is about enjoying a win without slamming anyone....so sit back and enjoy the ride

OK what were your expectation for this offense this year?

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:42 PM
My expectations were to compete for a playoff spot and hopefully improve on last years finish....so far we are on course......I didn't want to lead the league in offense or defense, just get to the dance and see what happens...I'm not crying in my beer yet.

freak6
10-21-2006, 01:45 PM
I just don't understand why these party poopers can't enjoy the Broncos winning. It must really drive them crazy to see us at 4-1. These "fans' want our starting QB to get injured so they can throw away the season just to see a Rookie play who hasn't even taken an NFL snap!

I am just happy to be at 4-1, despite the work of our <b>marginal </b> defensive coordinator. I can't believe anyone would want to praise Larry Coyer.

I know all of this because <u>Popps </u>said so.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:46 PM
yeah the Broncos suck...so since you bet the house you need a place to stay Freak?

Rascal
10-21-2006, 01:52 PM
Can just imagine what you guys would sound like if we were actually losing and sticking with Plummer.

Relax and enjoy it!!

Rascal
10-21-2006, 01:54 PM
What is happening is Foster isn't playing up to the expectation of the fans of the team. By the 4th year in the systems, I was truly hoping that Foster would be blocking his guy 60% of the time and anchoring down the right side of the line. There is no question that is within his ability.

Fixed :)

freak6
10-21-2006, 01:55 PM
yeah the Broncos suck...so since you bet the house you need a place to stay Freak?

Yeah, I'm actually at a library computer right now. I need to get down to the Goodwill soon, so hurry up and tell me where to go, because I'm tired of sleeping on the beach!

Broncos suck!!! Cutler RULES!!! lmao

Rascal
10-21-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm not sure that "trying too hard" can explain some of the stuff I've seen him do... like throwing into double coverage, staring down his intended receiver, and overthrowing/underthrowing a guy who's wide open. But I hope you're right and the Broncos offense gets back on track tomorrow. We'll need them next week against Indy, I'm thinking.

When has he done that on a regular basis the past two games?

Sure Jake sucked it up at first, just like last year, but I honestly cannot put the offenses dismal performance the past two games on his shoulders which 99.9% of you are. If he was playing that badly he would be replaced. Obviously Shanny feels the offense will perform better with Jake at the helm instead of Cutler. I'll take his judgement.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 01:59 PM
haha...just giving you crap my friend....you were overly enthusiastic before that game and I tried to bring a bit of history of rivalry into the picture....if it makes you feel any better my bud lost a lot of money on that game....told him the same thing...NEVER give points on a rivalry game.....the score didn't shock me in the least bit

freak6
10-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Can just imagine what you guys would sound like if we were actually losing and sticking with Plummer.

Relax and enjoy it!!

Yeah, relax. I mean, it's not like as diehard football fans that follow this teams every move 365 days a year, we should be concerned about an offense that has to go for 4th and ones at thier own 35 to continue thier only touchdown drive in a game.

We should stop worrying about the offensive struggles, and enjoy the 4 redzone turnovers that our defense has forced, despite the calls and strategies employed by our <b> MARGINAL</b> defensive coordinator. It's not like that river of redzone turnovers is likely to stop flowing.

And Shanahan's playcalling...why worry? It's not like his playcalling is directly tied to the fact he has almost no confidence in his QB's ability to read the defense, identify an open reciever, and then make an accurate throw to that reciever.

Thank you Rascal, but most of all, thank you <u> Popps</u>, for all your wisdom. To bad he has me on ignore, I really want to thank him for sharing his expertise on the subject. It's not like his view is skewed, or even the least bit unobjective.

Popps
10-21-2006, 02:29 PM
My remarks were about Plummer's performance this season, Popps... not just in the last two games

Right, and I asked you to provide some examples from the last two games. How about the last 3? 4?

We know he did those things in week one, without question.

But, your stance is that he's done them repeatedly since then, so you should have no problem providing specific examples, as I have done.

I just went over the last game and the one before that. He was arguably the MVP of the game before that.

Go ahead and list specific examples to back up your claims. I'd love to engage in some discussion about those claims once we can pinpoint which plays you're talking about.

Popps
10-21-2006, 02:36 PM
When has he done that on a regular basis the past two games?


Well, he hasn't. She knows that, but she didn't expect to be asked to provide proof for her blanket claims.

But, we'll see if she's up to providing some in depth breakdowns of exactly which plays she's talking about.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 03:08 PM
When has he done that on a regular basis the past two games?

Sure Jake sucked it up at first, just like last year, but I honestly cannot put the offenses dismal performance the past two games on his shoulders which 99.9% of you are. If he was playing that badly he would be replaced. Obviously Shanny feels the offense will perform better with Jake at the helm instead of Cutler. I'll take his judgement.

What's with this "last two games" timeframe you and Popps are trying to limit the debate to? Is it really a credit to a 10-year professional QB in his 4th season in the offensive system that the coaches barely trust him to do more than hand off the ball to the RB?

As stated above, I'll provide the specifics... but it may take a bit of time, so when the list is compiled, a new thread will be started to discuss it. By then, it is to be hoped that our offense will shine in tomorrow's game, rendering the point moot.

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 03:13 PM
What's with this "last two games" timeframe you and Popps are trying to limit the debate to? Is it really a credit to a 10-year professional QB in his 4th season in the offensive system that the coaches barely trust him to do more than hand off the ball to the RB?

As stated above, I'll provide the specifics... but it may take a bit of time, so when the list is compiled, a new thread will be started to discuss it. By then, it is to be hoped that our offense will shine in tomorrow's game, rendering the point moot.
To be fair Blue, if 2 games is unacceptable then all games played should satisfy everyone...not just selective objectivity....based on that by the time you come up with raw data to support your stance, the season will be half over....hopefully we will still have a winning record

elsid13
10-21-2006, 03:21 PM
Ok here are two examples for you. One the INT by Ravens Chris Mac. Throws a fade when CB is clearly playing off the ball. Two in the second QTR Plummer locks onto Walker and miss the fact that Suggs (dropping into coverage), Lewis, Reed and Rolle are bracketting him. Throws the ball into coverage, Suggs drops the INT. No pressure, on Plummer.

Popps
10-21-2006, 03:23 PM
What's with this "last two games" timeframe you and Popps

Hey Flame... maybe you missed the post. I'll say it again, just in case...

Aside from game one, where we all know he sucked. Please provide detailed examples of exactly which plays you're talking about.

This is the third request. I've given a detailed overview of which throws I though were poor in the last three games. You have not.

Since you are making a host of claims, we're all waiting for a detailed breakdown.

Any time now.

Popps
10-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Ok here are two examples for you. One the INT by Ravens Chris Mac. Throws a fade when CB is clearly playing off the ball. Two in the second QTR Plummer locks onto Walker and miss the fact that Suggs (dropping into coverage), Lewis, Reed and Rolle are bracketting him. Throws the ball into coverage, Suggs drops the INT. No pressure, on Plummer.

Lines up with what I said. I saw a couple of throws that game he would have been better off not throwing.

Blueflame is making a case that this is so consistent, it must be more than that, though. 2 throws a game? C'mon... at least half of his throws must be horrible.

I'm sure she'll come through with the breakdown soon.

elsid13
10-21-2006, 03:28 PM
Lines up with what I said. I saw a couple of throws that game he would have been better off not throwing.

Blueflame is making a case that this is so consistent, it must be more than that, though. 2 throws a game? C'mon... at least half of his throws must be horrible.

I'm sure she'll come through with the breakdown soon.

Dude he had 6 yards passing against the Ravens in the 1st half. That would a pretty crappy consistent there, huh?

Popps
10-21-2006, 03:51 PM
Dude he had 6 yards passing against the Ravens in the 1st half. That would a pretty crappy consistent there, huh?

Sure, he had a crappy first half to a game that we eventually won... and a game where he made key throws in the 2nd half. But, yes... he did have a very poor first half in that game.

However, limited passing output isn't exactly what we're talking about, here. Blueflame made a host of claims that should be easy enough to back up.
(Constantly overthrowing open receivers, throwing into double coverage regularly, only locking on one WR)

Yet, still no response from her when asked for a specific, game by game breakdown if which passes she means.

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:02 PM
Well you're finally showing some sense then.

thats it , you have gotten on my last nerve .......... I am introducing you to my sister . that will teach you ;D

elsid13
10-21-2006, 04:10 PM
thats it , you have gotten on my last nerve .......... I am introducing you to my sister . that will teach you ;D

Teach me what??? Well at least its your sister and not your sheep :wiggle:

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:12 PM
Teach me what??? Not to pick on me ;D

Well at least its your sister and not your sheep :wiggle:

2 hours with my sister and you will be paying me for sheep ;D

elsid13
10-21-2006, 04:16 PM
Not to pick on me ;D



I would stop picking on you, if Hotrod and Pez haven't gone into the Witness Protection Program. And I it way to easy to make fun of some other in War and Politic forum. How can I make fun of someone who believe in mini nukes??? When we all know it about flying monkeys.

24champ
10-21-2006, 04:17 PM
Teach me what??? Well at least its your sister and not your sheep :wiggle:

Least he didn't invite you to spend a weekend at Brokeback Mountain resort up there in Wyoming.;D

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:18 PM
I would stop picking on you, if Hotrod and Pez haven't gone into the Witness Protection Program. And I it way to easy to make fun of some other in War and Politic forum. How can I make fun of someone who believe in mini nukes??? When we all know it about flying monkeys.

LOL

elsid13
10-21-2006, 04:18 PM
Sure, he had a crappy first half to a game that we eventually won... and a game where he made key throws in the 2nd half. But, yes... he did have a very poor first half in that game.

However, limited passing output isn't exactly what we're talking about, here. Blueflame made a host of claims that should be easy enough to back up.
(Constantly overthrowing open receivers, throwing into double coverage regularly, only locking on one WR)

Yet, still no response from her when asked for a specific, game by game breakdown if which passes she means.

The limited pass output is the product of locking on to WRs (Walker), and throwing behind them.

elsid13
10-21-2006, 04:20 PM
Least he didn't invite you to spend a weekend at Brokeback Mountain resort up there in Wyoming.;D

That reserved for Pezman. But if your nice, he might meet you at truck stop shower of your choice. ;D

Northman
10-21-2006, 04:20 PM
Sure, he had a crappy first half to a game that we eventually won... and a game where he made key throws in the 2nd half. But, yes... he did have a very poor first half in that game.

However, limited passing output isn't exactly what we're talking about, here. Blueflame made a host of claims that should be easy enough to back up.
(Constantly overthrowing open receivers, throwing into double coverage regularly, only locking on one WR)

Yet, still no response from her when asked for a specific, game by game breakdown if which passes she means.



Guess some people just got to prove themselves right eh Popps? :giggle: :rofl:

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:22 PM
Least he didn't invite you to spend a weekend at Brokeback Mountain resort up there in Wyoming.;D

you busy next week ?

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:22 PM
That reserved for Pezman. But if your nice, he might meet you at truck stop shower of your choice. ;DHey you didnt lie........ you are not the kiss and tell type ;D

24champ
10-21-2006, 04:23 PM
you busy next week ?

Booked solid...some other time spider.;D

Spider
10-21-2006, 04:24 PM
Booked solid...some other time spider.;D

LOL ok

Popps
10-21-2006, 04:24 PM
Guess some people just got to prove themselves right eh Popps? :giggle: :rofl:

Well, she could if she'd just post the specifics. It would certainly help the discussion along. But, I didn't make the claims... she did. So, you'd have to ask her.

24champ
10-21-2006, 04:25 PM
That reserved for Pezman. But if your nice, he might meet you at truck stop shower of your choice. ;D
hmmm so thats why you were so nice to him awhile ago...

Taco John
10-21-2006, 04:39 PM
The Rod Smith concussion was a pretty poor throw on Plummer's part.

Northman
10-21-2006, 04:41 PM
Well, she could if she'd just post the specifics. It would certainly help the discussion along. But, I didn't make the claims... she did. So, you'd have to ask her.



But, if she doesnt put them out i guess you would have been right. Just like you always wanted to prove correct? I mean, you have already bugged her about it 3 times.

Ballhawk
10-21-2006, 04:43 PM
I would think that being 4-1 just isn't thaqt thrilling because we usually start out this way. We have had a very soft schedule so far. NE was a quality win. We do have a nice road schedule left, but it will be all for naught if we get bounced in 1st week of the playoffs.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 04:44 PM
To be fair Blue, if 2 games is unacceptable then all games played should satisfy everyone...not just selective objectivity....based on that by the time you come up with raw data to support your stance, the season will be half over....hopefully we will still have a winning record

In the five games he's played this season, I have seen Plummer make all the mistakes listed above. I'm not the one who's trying to limit the scope here or demand specifics. It's yet another way to try to "prove" their point (that Plummer's performance hasn't been "all that bad") if, on a Saturday afternoon in between doing several loads of laundry and other assorted chores around the house, I'm not able to re-watch two football games and cite specific examples within a couple of hours. ::) I said it would take time... as doing any job properly always does. It won't be instantly... maybe even not today. But the list will be made.

Northman
10-21-2006, 04:51 PM
In the five games he's played this season, I have seen Plummer make all the mistakes listed above. I'm not the one who's trying to limit the scope here or demand specifics. It's yet another way to try to "prove" their point (that Plummer's performance hasn't been "all that bad") if, on a Saturday afternoon in between doing several loads of laundry and other assorted chores around the house, I'm not able to re-watch two football games and cite specific examples within a couple of hours. ::) I said it would take time... as doing any job properly always does. It won't be instantly... maybe even not today. But the list will be made.



Exactly. Jake's Passing Percentage tells us everything we need to know. But, just like i called it after the Rams game we have people already starting to blame everyone else just like they did in the AFCCG. The Spinmeisters are in full force but there is nothing to back up their statements this year. They are grasping at straws.

Popps
10-21-2006, 04:55 PM
It's yet another way to try to "prove" their point (that Plummer's performance hasn't been "all that bad")

Just asking for some specifics. I don't think his performance has been very good, though I'm not sure it's ALL him. He HAS made clutch throws to win the games, though.

I'm just asking for specifics, since I have watched the games a couple times each, and am not sure where all of these throws are that you're talking about.

If anything, I'd just say our offense looks flat. The problem looks to me to be more global than specific to particular throws. But, that's why I'm asking for specifics.

Popps
10-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Exactly. Jake's Passing Percentage tells us everything we need to know. But, just like i called it after the Rams game we have people already starting to blame everyone else just like they did in the AFCCG.

The problem is, Plummer was a CAUSE of the problems in the Rams game. He was the one that made the initial screw-ups. (Though, he had a little help, of course... Tatum, P-Chuck, etc.)

In the Pittsburgh game, our defense absolutely collapsed out of the gate, putting the offense in a crap-hole that John Elway only dug out of twice in a 13 year career.


So, in one game Jake screwed it up for us... in another, our defense screwed it up for us.

Now, here's a case you COULD make... in the game where Jake screwed it up, the D held tough. In the game where the D took the day off, the offense took the day off as well.

But, they were still drastically different scenarios.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 05:15 PM
Just asking for some specifics. I don't think his performance has been very good, though I'm not sure it's ALL him. He HAS made clutch throws to win the games, though.

I'm just asking for specifics, since I have watched the games a couple times each, and am not sure where all of these throws are that you're talking about.

If anything, I'd just say our offense looks flat. The problem looks to me to be more global than specific to particular throws. But, that's why I'm asking for specifics.

Hey, I understand that... but agreeing to make a list means it should be done right. Again, my game collection is missing the Rams and Chefs games (a good thing for your argument; a detriment to mine 'cause a lot of suckage at the QB position occurred in those first two games), but the list will include all plays in the Pats, Ravens, and Fade games that I'd chalk up to ineptitude on Plummer's part. As an added bonus, perhaps an analysis of the Browns game will be forthcoming as well. ;D (hopefully it will be more positive and include a much-improved offensive performance so that the carping can subside somewhat.)

Popps
10-21-2006, 05:24 PM
But, if she doesnt put them out i guess you would have been right. Just like you always wanted to prove correct? I mean, you have already bugged her about it 3 times.

Well, she may well be correct. Just interested in seeing the breakdown. I gave mine... interested in hers, since her statements seem to go against some of what I saw.

No big deal, right?

Popps
10-21-2006, 05:29 PM
Hey, I understand that... but agreeing to make a list means it should be done right. Again, my game collection is missing the Rams and Chefs games (a good thing for your argument; a detriment to mine 'cause a lot of suckage at the QB position occurred in those first two games), but the list will include all plays in the Pats, Ravens, and Fade games that I'd chalk up to ineptitude on Plummer's part. As an added bonus, perhaps an analysis of the Browns game will be forthcoming as well. ;D (hopefully it will be more positive and include a much-improved offensive performance so that the carping can subside somewhat.)

That's cool. Sounds like a lot of trouble, though. I just thought since you seemed pretty adamant about those statements, you would have remembered off the top of your head. Having a couple hours of being stationary while babysitting each night, I've been able to tivo through each a couple times and remember each offensive/defensive series pretty vividly. Hence, I know Plummer had one obvious bad throw and one I thought was bad, though he was under a blitz. (Smith and Sheffler, accordingly)

He had a couple bad throws against Baltimore and was an MVP against New England.

Now, if you want to say he wasn't effective in those games, I'd be more inclined to agree with that. Our offense has looked flat. Some of that is Jake, some of it looks like a new system, etc.

But, as for these hoards of horrific throws, I'd need details.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 05:45 PM
That's cool. Sounds like a lot of trouble, though. I just thought since you seemed pretty adamant about those statements, you would have remembered off the top of your head. Having a couple hours of being stationary while babysitting each night, I've been able to tivo through each a couple times and remember each offensive/defensive series pretty vividly. Hence, I know Plummer had one obvious bad throw and one I thought was bad, though he was under a blitz. (Smith and Sheffler, accordingly)

He had a couple bad throws against Baltimore and was an MVP against New England.

Now, if you want to say he wasn't effective in those games, I'd be more inclined to agree with that. Our offense has looked flat. Some of that is Jake, some of it looks like a new system, etc.

But, as for these hoards of horrific throws, I'd need details.

It will be some work detailing everything... but imo, it will be worth it for the discussion material. While I could cite a few examples off the top of my head, reviewing to be absolutely certain of the circumstances is more my style.

Might be working on it right now, but hubby has commandeered the tv to switch back and forth between the world series and college football. And tomorrow's all NFL all day long....

Popps
10-21-2006, 06:01 PM
It will be some work detailing everything... but imo, it will be worth it for the discussion material. While I could cite a few examples off the top of my head, reviewing to be absolutely certain of the circumstances is more my style.

Might be working on it right now, but hubby has commandeered the tv to switch back and forth between the world series and college football. And tomorrow's all NFL all day long....

Hoping he'll have a great game with the rest of our offense, and it won't even need to be discussed.

16 hours away... but who's counting?

Kaylore
10-21-2006, 06:04 PM
Did anyone watch the Mike Shanahan show just now? Dave Logan asked Mike how Jake has played thus far. He was predictably political at first, but toward the end said some interesting things. He said that he didn't like how he played the second half of last game, that he was ok during the Ravens game, though he liked the fourth quarter. When asked about Jake specifically he said "well we missed some opportunities and we need to be more consistant. We have some guys getting open, which is good, but we need to put it all together."

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 06:06 PM
GO BRONCOS!!!!

Popps
10-21-2006, 06:08 PM
Did anyone watch the Mike Shanahan show just now? Dave Logan asked Mike how Jake has played thus far. He was predictably political at first, but toward the end said some interesting things. He said that he didn't like how he played the second half of last game, that he was ok during the Ravens game, though he liked the fourth quarter. When asked about Jake specifically he said "well we missed some opportunities and we need to be more consistant. We have some guys getting open, which is good, but we need to put it all together."

Sounds about right. Just looks like the offense need to gel, to me... and get back to what we were doing last year. But, there some new parts and a new OC, which I really think takes adjusting.

Kaylore
10-21-2006, 06:12 PM
The line needs to play better, and Jake needs to hit those receivers that by Shanahan's own admission are "getting open".

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 06:21 PM
The Rod Smith concussion was a pretty poor throw on Plummer's part.

Did you forget the sarcasm smilie? Jake hit him in stride for a first down.

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 06:29 PM
I would think that being 4-1 just isn't thaqt thrilling because we usually start out this way. We have had a very soft schedule so far. NE was a quality win. We do have a nice road schedule left, but it will be all for naught if we get bounced in 1st week of the playoffs.

No point in going to the playoffs if there's a chance of losing? Never mind, rhetorical question. You lack competitive spirit.

freak6
10-21-2006, 06:37 PM
haha...just giving you crap my friend....you were overly enthusiastic before that game and I tried to bring a bit of history of rivalry into the picture....if it makes you feel any better my bud lost a lot of money on that game....told him the same thing...NEVER give points on a rivalry game.....the score didn't shock me in the least bit

Not that big of a loss for me. We should've blown them out, I underestimated how tight that leash around Jake's neck is. If Sapp catches that TD you never know. I'm just <b>glad we won</b>, and got out of that game healthy.

Blueflame
10-21-2006, 06:38 PM
No point in going to the playoffs if there's a chance of losing? Never mind, rhetorical question. You lack competitive spirit.

IMO, what he's saying is that through the first five games of the '06 season, the Broncos have not displayed a playoff-caliber offense. Of the teams we've faced, the Pats and Ravens are the only two AFC teams that have a snowball's chance of making a postseason appearance. Against playoff-quality teams, we're likely to need more than 12 points...

freak6
10-21-2006, 06:40 PM
Blueflame made a host of claims that should be easy enough to back up.
(Constantly overthrowing open receivers, throwing into double coverage regularly, only locking on one WR)



Here is an example where I would crush Popps as I have been doing for years now. But the coward finally took his ball and went home. He put me on ignore because I constantly call him out for all the complete B.S. that he constantly vomits on this board.

Pathetic.

The dumbass stole my avatar for his signature though!!

I guess that is fair since my signature features one of the million retarded takes that fool has blessed us with.

ha ha

Moon§hiner
10-21-2006, 06:55 PM
Not that big of a loss for me. We should've blown them out, I underestimated how tight that leash around Jake's neck is. If Sapp catches that TD you never know. I'm just <b>glad we won</b>, and got out of that game healthy.Amen....I hope for no injuries this week also and we finally face Indy with our secondary intact instead of depending on second stringers like Roc Alexander to bail us out....That will be a telling game for us.

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 08:40 PM
Yeah, let's turn this board into Fishheaven. If you disagree, you're out. If you mention the slightest negativity, you're out. If you question any decision, you're out. If you question the QB, you're out. If you even so much as look down the road and question the possibility that the offense might possibly not have the power to cut it, you're out. Only those who believe, "We will be greeted with flowers," are allowed. There's a lot of that going around these days.

That's not what I meant, and you know it.

Rascal
10-21-2006, 08:46 PM
Yeah, relax. I mean, it's not like as diehard football fans that follow this teams every move 365 days a year, we should be concerned about an offense that has to go for 4th and ones at thier own 35 to continue thier only touchdown drive in a game.

We should stop worrying about the offensive struggles, and enjoy the 4 redzone turnovers that our defense has forced, despite the calls and strategies employed by our <b> MARGINAL</b> defensive coordinator. It's not like that river of redzone turnovers is likely to stop flowing.

And Shanahan's playcalling...why worry? It's not like his playcalling is directly tied to the fact he has almost no confidence in his QB's ability to read the defense, identify an open reciever, and then make an accurate throw to that reciever.

Thank you Rascal, but most of all, thank you <u> Popps</u>, for all your wisdom. To bad he has me on ignore, I really want to thank him for sharing his expertise on the subject. It's not like his view is skewed, or even the least bit unobjective.


Do you think the colts fans are about to drop of the face of the earth, or the Bengals for that matter? No.

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 08:52 PM
I dont think it is a matter of trust in the QB ,more of a why take a chance when you dont have to ? how many interceptions have yo usee cause a reciever ran the wrong route , tripped , fell down ? Holding penalties ? Balls deflected .........
what I am saying is there is alot more than can go wrong then just Plummer .....

Yeah, that's just smart coaching. Andy Reid at Philly pretty much ended their season last year by game six by throwing, and throwing, and throwing, when they could have won the games by being more conservative. Naturally, when you go conservative, some skill players start complaining. That's something Shanny will have to juggle. If the skill players that are complaining are pro's and team players, they realize winning is the big deal and keeping their mouths shut will help.

Cito Pelon
10-21-2006, 09:01 PM
Did anyone watch the Mike Shanahan show just now? Dave Logan asked Mike how Jake has played thus far. He was predictably political at first, but toward the end said some interesting things. He said that he didn't like how he played the second half of last game, that he was ok during the Ravens game, though he liked the fourth quarter. When asked about Jake specifically he said "well we missed some opportunities and we need to be more consistant. We have some guys getting open, which is good, but we need to put it all together."

Sounds good to me. I don't see how it's an indictment of Jake, which you seem to be implying.