PDA

View Full Version : Oh, Woody: Broncos looking to erase old odor


Inkana7
07-20-2008, 06:47 PM
Broncos looking to erase old odor
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post

The Broncos start camp Friday with the fresh scent of lavender baby powder.

Last season, the Broncos stunk like a skunk.

The stench could have been worse.

They were close to stinking like a Titan Arum, a large, flowering plant that is indigenous to Sumatra and emits an odor considered by many botanists, and the people in Sumatra, to be the foulest on Earth.

I've never sniffed a Titan Arum, but I got a whiff of the Broncos last season.

They won only seven games, but their record easily could have been 3-13, down below the Oakland and Kansas City nether regions.

In the opener, the Broncos escaped Buffalo with a fire-drill, last-second field goal and won in overtime the next week when the Raiders' winning field goal was nullified because of The Shanahan Shenanigan — or Shanahanigan. The coach called time out a millisecond before the ball was snapped. The Raiders, who had believed they won, missed the second kick, and the Broncos prevailed with their own field goal.

The Broncos beat the clock and the Steelers with a field goal for a 31-28 victory and barely defeated Minnesota in overtime with a field goal after the Vikings rallied late in the fourth quarter with two touchdowns and two two-point conversions, then promptly fumbled on their 12 in the extra period.

The Orange was predominantly blue — dropping three at home and six on the road. The 44-7 and 41-3 blowouts, in particular, reeked.

So the Broncos are not some middle-of-the-NFL team that needs minor alteration. This camp requires major transmutation.

Gone from last year's stinkorama are both coordinators, the general manager (in title only), the original No. 1 running back, the previous leading wide receiver, defensive linemen and backs and linebackers, the punter and the kicker (sigh for Jason Elam).

They've removed warts and wart- hogs, malcontents and incompetents. They've added (relative cheap) free agents and draft choices and re-added injured veterans.

At least a third of the 53-player roster will be turned over — and the club will be turned around.

Football, said coach Vince Lombardi, or maybe sports anchor Vic Lombardi, "is only two things — blocking and tackling." The Broncos could do neither last season.

Will they block and tackle this season? Throw and catch? Punt and kick? Run the ball? Defend the pass? Return and stop returners?

And coach a whole lot better?

Twelve victories are there for the taking, but, if the Broncos don't do the "things," eight losses are there for the giving. They have to win seven or eight at home and half the road games, or the Broncos will have wasted a relatively undemanding schedule, which should include victories over Miami, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New York Jets, Atlanta, and twice each over Kansas City and Oakland. Beat Jacksonville and New Orleans at home and either split with San Diego or win at Cleveland or Carolina, and there you have it. Lose to the Falcons and the Bills and the Dolphins and the Bucs, and you don't have it.

The first practice of camp Friday morning won't have the same clean-sheet feel and excitement of the old days in Fort Collins and Greeley. The Broncos train at their complex in Dove Valley; they've been working out most of the offseason, and the team is limited to 80 players in camp, not the 120-odd players and oddballs they used to bring in. No quarterback controversy or Travis Henry revelations or, it is hoped, Brandon Marshall dealings with marshals and deputies to worry about.

The usual questions will be: Will they keep both those free-agent safeties, and who will be the backup right guard and the fifth wide receiver, and how's that new guy in at middle linebacker and the old guy back at center, and who's Nos. 65 and 48, and is Marshall recovering, and can John Lynch play another year, and can Ryan Torain play this year, and which of the new free-agent wide receivers is looking good, and was Ryan Clady the best choice for No. 1 and can the rookie start at left tackle, and how about those three linebackers, and how many defensive tackles will the Broncos have on the roster and which will start, and who's going to replace Elam?

Will Selvin Young run for 2,000 yards? How about 1,000 yards? Can Michael Pittman help?

Jay Cutler?

The quarterback will come up big in his third camp — in control of the offense and his diabetes.

The Broncos will be improved (vastly) at linebacker, on the defensive line, at wide receiver and on the offensive line.

With new, improved coordinators on both sides.

Watch Boss Bailey. He can play.

Keep both eyes wide open for Eddie Royal, the No. 2 draft pick who's a wide receiver/returner, who will be a contributor immediately, and the rookie free-agent lineman from Colorado, Tyler Polumbus, who is hefty, smart and a pleasure to be around.

Take a look at Torain, the all-terrain vehicle.

And check out those defensive ends. Elvis Dumervil has not left the building.

On July 25, the Broncos will smell good — like sweat.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_9929776

watermock
07-20-2008, 07:20 PM
People are underestimating the Broncos. We also have an easy schedule.

Wild card.

theAPAOps5
07-20-2008, 07:39 PM
http://www.sikkrikk.com/img/lombardi-trophy_full.jpg

loborugger
07-20-2008, 07:56 PM
In the opener, the Broncos escaped Buffalo with a fire-drill, last-second field goal and won in overtime the next week when the Raiders' winning field goal was nullified because of The Shanahan Shenanigan — or Shanahanigan. The coach called time out a millisecond before the ball was snapped. The Raiders, who had believed they won, missed the second kick, and the Broncos prevailed with their own field goal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt Woody write an article when we were 2-0 praising our excellent last minute work and predicting we would be a SB contestant with a 13-3 record?

elsid13
07-20-2008, 08:05 PM
Wonder if Woody predict 19-0 again this season? If not were winning the bowl

Kaylore
07-20-2008, 08:07 PM
You know some of our games were close loses too. People don't like to bring this up though.

Blueflame
07-20-2008, 08:55 PM
You know some of our games were close loses too. People don't like to bring this up though.

All but 3 of the '07 losses were by double-digit margins...

09/23 Jags 23-14 (9 points)
09/30 Colts 38-20 (18 points)
10/07 Bolts 41-03 (38 points)
10/29 Pack 19-13 (6 points)
11/04 Lions 44-07 (37 points)
11/25 Bears 37-34 (3 points)
12/02 Fade 34-20 (14 points)
12/13 Texans 31-13 (18 points)
12/24 Bolts 23-03 (20 points)

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2007.htm

watermock
07-20-2008, 08:59 PM
touche Sassy.

I didn't see many games, but let''s assume we fell apart late...the run d was atrotious.

Blueflame
07-20-2008, 09:51 PM
touche Sassy.

I didn't see many games, but let''s assume we fell apart late...the run d was atrotious.

Injuries on both lines were definitely a factor... hopefully the team can stay healthier this year.

Bob's your Information Minister
07-20-2008, 10:16 PM
Watch Boss Bailey. He can play.

Amazing that this chump gets paid so much to write statements like this.

theAPAOps5
07-20-2008, 10:21 PM
I am a disgusting fat ass who tosses his mom's salad.

What's even funnier is your pathetic ass stated you aspired to be just like him. Problem is your writing is pathetic and fits in well on your gay ass little website.

Killericon
07-20-2008, 10:26 PM
You know some of our games were close loses too. People don't like to bring this up though.

And a bunch of our wins were close, too.

PaintballCLE
07-21-2008, 12:05 AM
ok so for the sake of the argument, we should have lost to oakland, yet we should ahve won against chicago so it all evens out

wolf754life
07-21-2008, 01:23 AM
lol, could of would of should of, WE are NOT up to PAR!!!

COMPRENDE???

wake up you blind ass fools!

theAPAOps5
07-21-2008, 08:57 AM
lol, could of would of should of, WE are NOT up to PAR!!!

COMPRENDE???

wake up you blind ass fools!

Hey I offered to put my money where my mouth is and challenged you to a bet. No response was recieved so to me you are just in for the shock value. Comprende?

TheReverend
07-21-2008, 09:00 AM
lol, could of would of should of, WE are NOT up to PAR!!!

COMPRENDE???

wake up you blind ass fools!

Don't bet against an angry rat

Kaylore
07-21-2008, 10:27 AM
All but 3 of the '07 losses were by double-digit margins...

09/23 Jags 23-14 (9 points)
09/30 Colts 38-20 (18 points)
10/07 Bolts 41-03 (38 points)
10/29 Pack 19-13 (6 points)
11/04 Lions 44-07 (37 points)
11/25 Bears 37-34 (3 points)
12/02 Fade 34-20 (14 points)
12/13 Texans 31-13 (18 points)
12/24 Bolts 23-03 (20 points)

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2007.htm

And we killed the Chiefs in double-digits. So what? I get annoyed when people say "we could easily have been worse" and then point to the close wins but ignore close loses. SoCal will always to say "we were an 11-5 team in 2005" but ignores that two of our loses were for a combined four points. If you're going to start manufacturing analysis based on what could have happened, you're no longer dealing with reality.

My point? It doesn't matter and what you "could be" means jack. You are what your record is. Close wins show that you had the ability to close things out. It doesn't matter if you win on a fluke, that just means you played well enough to let that fluke help you win. If you lose on a fluke than you didn't play well enough to overcome that. We played a tough schedule last year and had a lot of injuries. We had a lot of young people starting and a lot of people on the team who didn't care. I think 7-9 reflects a team of this description pretty well; Talented but young and inconsistent with some injuries. I don't care what we could be or what we almost were. Neither should any of you.

vancejohnson82
07-21-2008, 10:57 AM
My point? It doesn't matter and what you "could be" means jack. You are what your record is. Close wins show that you had the ability to close things out. It doesn't matter if you win on a fluke, that just means you played well enough to let that fluke help you win. If you lose on a fluke than you didn't play well enough to overcome that. We played a tough schedule last year and had a lot of injuries. We had a lot of young people starting and a lot of people on the team who didn't care. I think 7-9 reflects a team of this description pretty well; Talented but young and inconsistent with some injuries. I don't care what we could be or what we almost were. Neither should any of you.

they are what we thought they were!!!

theAPAOps5
07-21-2008, 11:01 AM
God that is the best meltdown ever......

Crown their ass!

CHANGSTER
07-21-2008, 11:07 AM
And we let em off the hook!

Cito Pelon
07-21-2008, 11:40 AM
And we killed the Chiefs in double-digits. So what? I get annoyed when people say "we could easily have been worse" and then point to the close wins but ignore close loses. SoCal will always to say "we were an 11-5 team in 2005" but ignores that two of our loses were for a combined four points. If you're going to start manufacturing analysis based on what could have happened, you're no longer dealing with reality.

My point? It doesn't matter and what you "could be" means jack. You are what your record is. Close wins show that you had the ability to close things out. It doesn't matter if you win on a fluke, that just means you played well enough to let that fluke help you win. If you lose on a fluke than you didn't play well enough to overcome that. We played a tough schedule last year and had a lot of injuries. We had a lot of young people starting and a lot of people on the team who didn't care. I think 7-9 reflects a team of this description pretty well; Talented but young and inconsistent with some injuries. I don't care what we could be or what we almost were. Neither should any of you.

Nice rant. ;D

Dudeskey
07-21-2008, 11:48 AM
they are what we thought they were!!!
ROFing-L
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_N1OjGhIFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_N1OjGhIFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Atlas
07-21-2008, 11:50 AM
Broncos looking to erase old odor
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post



They won only seven games, but their record easily could have been 3-13, down below the Oakland and Kansas City nether regions.



It works both ways. Denver's record could have also be 9-7 with tough loses in games they dominated against Green Bay and Chicago.

Cito Pelon
07-21-2008, 01:09 PM
The Denver O actually played well last year. The worst Denver D in 40 years pretty much f'd that up. Damn Shanny, that was pathetic. Fired Coyer, hired a washed up Bates who was out of the NFl for a year and is out of the NFL again. Denver has 4 draft picks and spends 3 on DL guys, the only one who was worth a damn was Crowder. Moss never stood out at all, the kid had only one-two good games in his college career and traded up to get him. Bates, who Shanny hand-picked as "The Man", the coach that was out of the NFl for a year influenced that draft. Hired as Assistant Head Coach by Shanahan, and what a bust that was. One year as Assistant Head Coach for Defense with the Broncos after being out of the NFl for the previous year, followed by the worst Bronco D in 40 years, then asked to take the linebackers coaching job or get fired. That's as poor VP of Football Operations as ever seen in the NFL. Thank god he didn't take the LB coaching job. The former LB coach Baker is moved to Offensive Assistant I guess so they don't pay him for nothing. Jim Ryan, the former Offensive Assistant is moved to LB coach. Slowik, who got snubbed for Bates after Coyer was fired and despite being hired by Shanny and being on the staff for two years, is The Man on D this year. What a soap opera Shanny runs. I hope it works out.

Rock Chalk
07-21-2008, 04:09 PM
And we killed the Chiefs in double-digits. So what? I get annoyed when people say "we could easily have been worse" and then point to the close wins but ignore close loses. SoCal will always to say "we were an 11-5 team in 2005" but ignores that two of our loses were for a combined four points. If you're going to start manufacturing analysis based on what could have happened, you're no longer dealing with reality.

My point? It doesn't matter and what you "could be" means jack. You are what your record is. Close wins show that you had the ability to close things out. It doesn't matter if you win on a fluke, that just means you played well enough to let that fluke help you win. If you lose on a fluke than you didn't play well enough to overcome that. We played a tough schedule last year and had a lot of injuries. We had a lot of young people starting and a lot of people on the team who didn't care. I think 7-9 reflects a team of this description pretty well; Talented but young and inconsistent with some injuries. I don't care what we could be or what we almost were. Neither should any of you.

You sound like you are rationalizing a **** performance.

Look at the scores, draw your conclusions from that.

I saw how we played last year and that was a **** team. We did not field a professional team last year.

When 7 of your nine losses are by more than a touchdown, and 6 of your nine losses are just ****ing blowouts, you have no business pretending to be in the NFL.

Hopefully this year will be better but you just dont know.

And I love the dumb****s on this board just caking right on over Buffalo who we BARELY managed to beat last year and had we played them later in the year would certainly have lost. They got better, we got worse.

Kaylore
07-21-2008, 04:13 PM
You sound like you are rationalizing a **** performance.

I'm not rationalizing anything. 7-9 is 7-9. It's not 9-7 and it's not 3-13. It's seven and nine. We beat a team that needed to beat us to make the playoffs when we were already out of it. We also had our trash handed to us in two games. There are good and bad points from the season and in this case there was more bad - hence a losing record. You're doing what I just pointed out - only looking at the bad.

Blueflame
07-21-2008, 04:59 PM
You sound like you are rationalizing a **** performance.

Look at the scores, draw your conclusions from that.

I saw how we played last year and that was a **** team. We did not field a professional team last year.

When 7 of your nine losses are by more than a touchdown, and 6 of your nine losses are just ****ing blowouts, you have no business pretending to be in the NFL.

Hopefully this year will be better but you just dont know.

And I love the dumb****s on this board just caking right on over Buffalo who we BARELY managed to beat last year and had we played them later in the year would certainly have lost. They got better, we got worse.

There were reasons... valid ones... why the team got worse later in the season, including Cutler's undiagnosed diabetes and a greater-than-normal number of injuries on both lines.