PDA

View Full Version : Go Fish: Broncos' Boy Blunder


BMarsh615
04-30-2009, 04:11 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-30-2009, 04:13 PM
Wait until he gets rid of BMarsh, BMarsh... it's inevitable.

Malcontent
04-30-2009, 04:14 PM
Geez...he really likes McD eh?

DeuceOfClub
04-30-2009, 04:24 PM
I heard the Raiders board had 835 names.

lostknight
04-30-2009, 04:27 PM
I heard the Raiders board had 835 names.

All of them wide receivers no doubt.

I for one, am sick of our franchise being the laughing stock of the NFL. It does not surprise me that our drafting board was thing. What did they think would happen when you fired the Goodman's?

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Boy Blunder

Does Rick Reilly post here?

Rulon Velvet Jones
04-30-2009, 04:28 PM
Every time I see a new McDaniels piece from any jackass, the Benny Hill theme song goes off in my head.

Kid A
04-30-2009, 04:29 PM
McD crossed his boy Cutler. Reilly got buddy buddy with Jay writing the article about his diabetes a while back (pretty decent article too), and now he's sticking with his guy by hating all things McDaniels.

Reilly, love him or hate him, isn't a hard hitting, in-depth sports reporter with any special insight on any sport. He becomes friends with athletes and writes heart-warming stories about them. It's interesting enough, but it certainly colors his "analysis" down the road.

colonelbeef
04-30-2009, 05:01 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

all true, all sad. Listen to popps tho, he knows that we need to build through the line. I mean, build through the defensive backfield. I forget, which is it this week?

gyldenlove
04-30-2009, 05:26 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.


Most teams have between 100 and 200 players on their boards. Many players get taken off boards for medical or character issues or because they don't fit the team system.

Williams
04-30-2009, 05:26 PM
Yeah he sure blundered selecting two of Mike Mayock's top three prospects. Mayock doesnt know what the **** he's doing. ::)

Stick to the heartwarming stories there dbag.

RunSilentRunDeep
04-30-2009, 05:33 PM
Another blatant distortion. The Broncos primary board had fewer than 100 names on it with round values placed on each player. They had a "back board" to go to if there were not players on their board that met the value of the pick. Reilly can't accept that his man crush John Elway has retired.

tsiguy96
04-30-2009, 05:40 PM
Another blatant distortion. The Broncos primary board had fewer than 100 names on it with round values placed on each player. They had a "back board" to go to if there were not players on their board that met the value of the pick. Reilly can't accept that his man crush John Elway has retired.

exactly, if you combine his boards it was the same as everyone else. in fact, i imagine every team does it the same. have a first board and second board, only resorting to the back board if their first board is empty.

TonyR
04-30-2009, 05:52 PM
I've always liked Reilly but this is awful. Just awful. Wow.

Popps
04-30-2009, 05:54 PM
all true, all sad. Listen to popps tho, he knows that we need to build through the line. I mean, build through the defensive backfield. I forget, which is it this week?

Poor little pooch. Still following me around after the last time your nosed was shoved in your own poop?

We've been through this, and our staff IS addressing the front seven. You and a few very obtuse others are just choosing to ignore it, hoping it'll give you some kind of leg to stand on.

Honestly, your posts are just sad, dude. It's tough to watch. Maybe take a break for a while.

OBF1
04-30-2009, 05:58 PM
No this crap again

NYBronco
04-30-2009, 05:59 PM
I heard the Raiders board had 835 names.

That has really worked well for them.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-30-2009, 06:01 PM
Reillyis one of the more self-righteous annoying ones out there. In fact, he annoys me so much, that if i were in mcdaniels position, i'd love to win just so i can take that article and literally shove it up his ass

Popps
04-30-2009, 06:02 PM
I've always liked Reilly but this is awful. Just awful. Wow.

Just sounds to me like a lot of the spineless, short-sighted posters on this board. Nothing I haven't heard from plenty of other goofs.

Popps
04-30-2009, 06:03 PM
Reillyis one of the more self-righteous annoying ones out there. In fact, he annoys me so much, that if i were in mcdaniels position, i'd love to win just so i can take that article and literally shove it up his ass

Oh, the future is going to be fun.

There's going to be a lot of back-referencing, here and elsewhere.

:~ohyah!:

footstepsfrom#27
04-30-2009, 06:08 PM
Ha ha..."Boy Blunder"...McBlunder...hadn't thought of that one.

I don't claim to be a mathematician but I'll take a crude stab at this.

100 names? Assuming other NFL teams had these guys on their list as well and knowing 31 other teams are picking 7 rounds plus compensatory picks that's roughly 230 potential opportunities for these ten guys to go elsewhere...a 1 in 23 chance we get any one of these specific guys...so since he had 100 names in there...roughly 1 in 2.3 chances Denver would draft any single player on that list, or 43%. Drop that down to the 30 he worked out and now it's 7.6% for each of those 20. Yet we got all 10 on our A list? We beat 93% odds against us 10 straight times? Granted we moved up for two players...so that's 8 straight times.

Ok.

Kaylore
04-30-2009, 06:09 PM
All will be revealed in two and half years. Then we will know.

maher_tyler
04-30-2009, 06:19 PM
all true, all sad. Listen to popps tho, he knows that we need to build through the line. I mean, build through the defensive backfield. I forget, which is it this week?

You just LOVE stories like this don't you??!!

Archer81
04-30-2009, 06:21 PM
Wow...yet another ridiculous article criticizing McDaniels for no apparent reason.


:Broncos:

jayman_37
04-30-2009, 06:25 PM
All will be revealed in two and half years. Then we will know.

Whats the fun in that?

BroncoMan4ever
04-30-2009, 06:52 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

i am sorry, but this is bull**** reporting here. it is from ESPN, why should anyone care?

with his board of around 100, as opposed to 500 like most teams, there is a difference. he zeroed in on guys who he felt would make the team better now, as opposed to looking at guys who will need a few years.

he picked out guys he felt fit his scheme, who are going to help him win now, as opposed to building for the future.

Tombstone RJ
04-30-2009, 06:57 PM
All of them wide receivers no doubt.

I for one, am sick of our franchise being the laughing stock of the NFL. It does not surprise me that our drafting board was thing. What did they think would happen when you fired the Goodman's?

Then go be a fan of another team and get the hell out of here.

Tombstone RJ
04-30-2009, 07:03 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure if McD was the HC of the Pats, these moves would be praised as decisive and a calculated risk. But, since its the dumb ole Broncos, he's all of a sudden boy blunder... typical ESPN crap.

watermock
04-30-2009, 07:10 PM
http://saraandbrian.com/images/small_napoleon.jpg.

ZONA
04-30-2009, 07:12 PM
I don't understand what 5'8 has to do with anything. As if there were never any good corners who played in the league that were on the short side. That's the same stupid thing as saying a RB who doesn't run a 4.4 40 won't be that good.

Bunch of BS.

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 08:07 PM
I don't understand what 5'8 has to do with anything. As if there were never any good corners who played in the league that were on the short side. That's the same stupid thing as saying a RB who doesn't run a 4.4 40 won't be that good.

Bunch of BS.

In the long run, I think the negativity is something the Broncos will be able to use to their advantage. Teams tend to get a lot of mileage out of the "nobody believed in us" card, and the Broncos are prime candidates in my opinion. I mean, our offense has a ton of talent even without Cutler. A ton. Bookend tackles. 2 star wide receivers. And we added the best running back in the draft. If Orton or Simms can't be effective behind our o-line and with all the weapons, they absolutely suck and don't even belong in the league. All the defense has to be is somewhere above God Awful. Of course, that may be a lot to hope for, but I've got faith that Nolan can do it. Add to that a healthy dose of "us vs them" as a result of all the negative media attention, and I think we'll make a good run next year. :)

Mile High Mojoe
04-30-2009, 08:15 PM
Another blatant distortion. The Broncos primary board had fewer than 100 names on it with round values placed on each player. They had a "back board" to go to if there were not players on their board that met the value of the pick. Reilly can't accept that his man crush John Elway has retired.


Another blatant distortion? It’s no distortion he said to God and everybody he had a list of 100. He had no “backboard” what every the hell that is. He said he made a list of 100 and only wanted players that could help the team win right away, watch the news clips on the Broncos official website.

McDaniels said that 7 of the 10 choices were among the nearly 30 players the Broncos had brought in for private workouts weeks before the draft, and that the Broncos had worked out the other 3 elsewhere. He didn’t have a wide scope of players he was interested in this proves it. As such he didn’t have some double secret backup plan, it was all tunnel vision.

As for Reilly he is one of the best most respected reporters in the country, I’ve been reading him since I first subscribed to Sports Illustrated back in the 70’s. He’s not some hack journalist or a reporter who does just feel good up close and personal stories. I’ve read many of his stories where he’s chopped off plenty of guys at the knees. The one he did on Barry Bonds was one of the best ever. What if he does have a man crush on Elway is that a bad thing? BTW anybody who loves the Broncos loves Elway too, can’t a reporter admire Elway's greatness?

The thing that cracks me up about the Orange Mane is that if you don’t go along with certain guy’s opinions or side with McD in all his brilliance you’re dismissed as some sort of negative Nelly who just wants to pitch a b**** for something to do.

Reilly, like almost everybody else who’s a 3rd party outside the Orange Mane plastic bubble and knows anything football has said that the McD’s draft was ridiculous. Just don’t step inside the plastic bubble in here and try to crack the denial or you’re a certified nads kicker. I can’t believe the blind homerism on this board. Some will go to any length to defend him when it’s clear by almost every one on outside looking in that he put himself and the Broncos behind the 8 ball with the Cutler trade right up to his very, very questionable draft choices.

Mile High Mojoe
04-30-2009, 08:24 PM
http://saraandbrian.com/images/small_napoleon.jpg.Hilarious!

watermock
04-30-2009, 08:25 PM
I'm just shocked that people are accepting this as some sort of genius plan when it has all the markings of a coach in way over his head.. that has run off our best drafters and Bowlen just nods.

Do we even have a GM?

garandman
04-30-2009, 08:33 PM
Then go be a fan of another team and get the hell out of here.

I for one are sick of everyone that has an opinion, that isn't sucking McDaniels ****, accused of not being a fan. Quite the contrary actually,
it's like saying "your not an American if you don't agree with Obama", we"ll you know what I disagree with a lot Obama is doing but I am a red blooded American to the bone!

We can still be fans even if we dont like how our team is being run...

SoCalBronco
04-30-2009, 08:36 PM
Good points.

Mile High Mojoe
04-30-2009, 08:38 PM
I for one are sick of everyone that has an opinion, that isn't sucking McDaniels ****, accused of not being a fan. Quite the contrary actually,
it's like saying "your not an American if you don't agree with Obama", we"ll you know what I disagree with a lot Obama is doing but I am a red blooded American to the bone!

We can still be fans even if we dont like how our team is being run...Good post and by the way you made a typo, you're an "Orange" Blooded American.

Tombstone RJ
04-30-2009, 08:41 PM
I for one are sick of everyone that has an opinion, that isn't sucking McDaniels ****, accused of not being a fan. Quite the contrary actually,
it's like saying "your not an American if you don't agree with Obama", we"ll you know what I disagree with a lot Obama is doing but I am a red blooded American to the bone!

We can still be fans even if we dont like how our team is being run...

"I for one am sick and tired of our franchise being he laughing stock of the NFL."--This is what lostnight said.

He's sick and tired of it! Boooohooohooo!

I'm tired of pathetic fans like him b****ing and moaning about the Broncos. If your "sick and tired" of what is going on, why post on the Mane? Why come here and be a part of the crappiness that is the Broncos?

b****ing and moaning accomplishes nothing. I can understand fans being anxious about what is going on. I can understand fans questioning the new front office. I can understand fans questioning McD's moves.

But what I can't stand is cry babies.

garandman
04-30-2009, 08:52 PM
"I for one am sick and tired of our franchise being he laughing stock of the NFL."--This is what lostnight said.

He's sick and tired of it! Boooohooohooo!

I'm tired of pathetic fans like him b****ing and moaning about the Broncos. If your "sick and tired" of what is going on, why post on the Mane? Why come here and be a part of the crappiness that is the Broncos?

b****ing and moaning accomplishes nothing. I can understand fans being anxious about what is going on. I can understand fans questioning the new front office. I can understand fans questioning McD's moves.

But what I can't stand is cry babies.

What is worse than a crybaby, well it's BLIND faith in someone with no credibility or sense of real leadership. It will all come out in the wash, I really hope that I and many others are wrong and this guy is a freakin genius. I will stand on top of the mountain if at the end of the year we make the playoffs, shouting how wrong I was and this guy is great, but he has painted a HUGE target on his back for criticism which is well deserved.

I take this franchise's future personally, I have followed them for a LONG time and I have yet to see such bold yet at times bizarre behavior from a HC or the front office for that matter since, ever.

My whole point is we can still be fans of a team even if we can't agree on how it's being run. Hell, this has made for some great debates here, as long as we can keep the emotions in check...

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 08:54 PM
Yeah he sure blundered selecting two of Mike Mayock's top three prospects. Mayock doesnt know what the **** he's doing. ::)

Stick to the heartwarming stories there dbag.
Nobody's really arguing with the first round, not many anyway.

And while I agree the writer's kind of a douche ... just 100 names on his draft board? Really?! That's less than three rounds.

I guess it wasn't "best player available" after all :~ohyah!:



Gawd I miss Jim Goodman.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 08:57 PM
http://saraandbrian.com/images/small_napoleon.jpg.

Classic ... LOL

Tombstone RJ
04-30-2009, 09:06 PM
What is worse than a crybaby, well it's BLIND faith in someone with no credibility or sense of real leadership. It will all come out in the wash, I really hope that I and many others are wrong and this guy is a freakin genius. I will stand on top of the mountain if at the end of the year we make the playoffs, shouting how wrong I was and this guy is great, but he has painted a HUGE target on his back for criticism which is well deserved.

I take this franchise's future personally, I have followed them for a LONG time and I have yet to see such bold yet at times bizarre behavior from a HC or the front office for that matter since, ever.

My whole point is we can still be fans of a team even if we can't agree on how it's being run. Hell, this has made for some great debates here, as long as we can keep the emotions in check...

I have no problem with criticism of McD. I don't pester posters who don't agree with what is going on. But there is a big difference between posters who have a ligitimate concern, and a cry baby who just posts the "woe is me" crap and offer nothing constructive.

For the first time in a long time, this team is going through significant changes. Shanahan's incessant mediocrity is over. IMHO, there is nothing worse than being an 8-8 team that is just good enough not to suck, but no where close to being championship caliber.

Many fans here are just plane scared. They grew so used to Shanny's system that they forgot what it means to really sacrifice in order to win.

Not any more. Times have changed and I'm all for it.

Sure, McD might fail miserably. But any fan that hopes for that is not a fan of the Broncos at all. McD is throwing caution to the wind and blowing a lot of the old ways up. He's doing it with conviction.

I say, more power to him. No more mediocrity. It's either build something great, or flame the phhhhuck out!

Rohirrim
04-30-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm just shocked that people are accepting this as some sort of genius plan when it has all the markings of a coach in way over his head.. that has run off our best drafters and Bowlen just nods.

Do we even have a GM?

That's the problem with really bold moves. They can be either genius or madness. Hard to know which one it is yet. The conventional wisdom would say that Mac has ****ed up big time. By about four games into this season we should have a pretty good idea which one is right. Strange for me. I agreed with letting Cutler go (even though I don't think we had much choice). I think that boy has issues that are going to bubble to the surface at some point. I don't agree with the draft picks. Trading that #1 was pure nutso. I guess we'll see.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:16 PM
That's the problem with really bold moves. They can be either genius or madness. Hard to know which one it is yet. The conventional wisdom would say that Mac has ****ed up big time. By about four games into this season we should have a pretty good idea which one is right. Strange for me. I agreed with letting Cutler go (even though I don't think we had much choice). I think that boy has issues that are going to bubble to the surface at some point. I don't agree with the draft picks. Trading that #1 was pure nutso. I guess we'll see.

Yep ... it looks kinda bad so far, but it's way too early to judge. It'll take until halfway into the 2010 season to get a decent feel for whether the kid's plan will work. With all these changes, you gotta spot him '09. He might pull an '08 Dolphins/Falcons kind of season outta his butt, but I'm not holding my breath.

As I am wont to say: The kid has written alotta big checks.

Drek
04-30-2009, 09:21 PM
I'm sure they did preliminary scouting on every single player that was a legitimate shot to get drafted, that number is probably in the 1100 to 1300 range. They then narrow it down to who they think deserves to be drafted. Then after that they chop it down further by round values, weed out character concerns, injury concerns, etc..

They chose to work off a 100 player board this year come the actual draft week. I'm continually shocked at just how many people on here like showing off how much of a brain dead ****ing moron they can be, assuming that just because come draft day it was a 100 person board that meant the entire draft preparation process only considered 100 prospects.

They looked at just as many prospects as every other team. McDaniels felt it was a better move for them to focus on their top targets in each round, and make getting them a priority. I don't see the big deal. Its a whole lot better than if he'd gone in with a 500 person draft board and let guys the scouting and coaching staffs where really high on go in front of them because ****, they've got another 200 guys to pick from, who cares if they aren't actually the right fit for what they want to do at the position or in the locker room? The draftniks will love all the "value" they're scooping up, so its gotta be good!

Darcel McBath is a perfect example of this. Was he the best value on the board at safety? Probably not. From that standpoint two or three more safeties probably should've gone and McBath should've been a mid to late 2nd instead. But McBath is exactly what they're looking for in one of their safety spots, a cover safety who isn't afraid to help out in the box. Hence them signing Renaldo Hill.

They have a system in mind, and it isn't some vague theory as to what we might eventually end up with as they grab any random piece that sounds like a gamer. They know exactly what they want at every last position, right down to the finer details of the player's skill set and their attitude on and off the field. Its a focused, highly selective criteria for who fits where, so why shouldn't the draft board they work off of match that same guideline?

DBroncos4life
04-30-2009, 09:28 PM
Then go be a fan of another team and get the hell out of here.

Maybe if you don't like the media taking pop shots at our rookie HC and some of our fans not liking him maybe you can go look for another sport to watch. They did it to Shanny so why does boy wonder get a pass?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:29 PM
I'm sure they did preliminary scouting on every single player that was a legitimate shot to get drafted, that number is probably in the 1100 to 1300 range. They then narrow it down to who they think deserves to be drafted. Then after that they chop it down further by round values, weed out character concerns, injury concerns, etc..

They chose to work off a 100 player board this year come the actual draft week. I'm continually shocked at just how many people on here like showing off how much of a brain dead ****ing moron they can be, assuming that just because come draft day it was a 100 person board that meant the entire draft preparation process only considered 100 prospects.

I'm not sure if I'm one of the "brain dead" ones you mention ... ::)

I'm just saying that a mere 100 player board proves it was definitely not a "best player available" draft strategy. Like you pointed out, there must have been alotta criteria applied to rule out so many guys.

DBroncos4life
04-30-2009, 09:31 PM
What would we have done if those 100 players ended up being picked?

SportinOne
04-30-2009, 09:33 PM
I've always liked Reilly but this is awful. Just awful. Wow.

Because it doesn't back up your opinion?

tsiguy96
04-30-2009, 09:34 PM
Another blatant distortion? It’s no distortion he said to God and everybody he had a list of 100. He had no “backboard” what every the hell that is. He said he made a list of 100 and only wanted players that could help the team win right away, watch the news clips on the Broncos official website.

McDaniels said that 7 of the 10 choices were among the nearly 30 players the Broncos had brought in for private workouts weeks before the draft, and that the Broncos had worked out the other 3 elsewhere. He didn’t have a wide scope of players he was interested in this proves it. As such he didn’t have some double secret backup plan, it was all tunnel vision.

As for Reilly he is one of the best most respected reporters in the country, I’ve been reading him since I first subscribed to Sports Illustrated back in the 70’s. He’s not some hack journalist or a reporter who does just feel good up close and personal stories. I’ve read many of his stories where he’s chopped off plenty of guys at the knees. The one he did on Barry Bonds was one of the best ever. What if he does have a man crush on Elway is that a bad thing? BTW anybody who loves the Broncos loves Elway too, can’t a reporter admire Elway's greatness?

The thing that cracks me up about the Orange Mane is that if you don’t go along with certain guy’s opinions or side with McD in all his brilliance you’re dismissed as some sort of negative Nelly who just wants to pitch a b**** for something to do.

Reilly, like almost everybody else who’s a 3rd party outside the Orange Mane plastic bubble and knows anything football has said that the McD’s draft was ridiculous. Just don’t step inside the plastic bubble in here and try to crack the denial or you’re a certified nads kicker. I can’t believe the blind homerism on this board. Some will go to any length to defend him when it’s clear by almost every one on outside looking in that he put himself and the Broncos behind the 8 ball with the Cutler trade right up to his very, very questionable draft choices.

most people said we had a very good draft who actually look at the players we got. and yes, mcdaniels said he didnt have to go to his back board once.

tsiguy96
04-30-2009, 09:35 PM
What would we have done if those 100 players ended up being picked?

move up to get them. oh, wait....we did that

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:36 PM
What would we have done if those 100 players ended up being picked?

Doubtful, I'm sure the 100 players they listed spanned the breadth of likely choices through all 7 rounds.

I'm actually pretty supportive of this strategy ... like Drek said, they're probably following a blueprint, and acccordingly weeded out guys for a number of deal-breaker reasons. I like that, at least in priciple. It's a whole lot better than Shanny drafting Middlebrooks, Toviessi, O'Neal, etc., and signing Dale Carter, Daryl Gardener, etc.

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 09:39 PM
Nobody's really arguing with the first round, not many anyway.

And while I agree the writer's kind of a douche ... just 100 names on his draft board? Really?! That's less than three rounds.

I guess it wasn't "best player available" after all :~ohyah!:



Gawd I miss Jim Goodman.

The thing I'm not understanding with this argument is the Broncos only picked one player that most consider to be an extreme "reach". That would be Quinn. With that being said, I've seen two sites that valued him in the second/third rounds. So, if they ended up with players who were not "reaches" that also fit their other requirements (character, intelligence, system), what's the problem with only having 100 players that made the final cut to their board?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:43 PM
The thing I'm not understanding with this argument is the Broncos only picked one player that most consider to be an extreme "reach". That would be Quinn. With that being said, I've seen two sites that valued him in the second/third rounds. So, if they ended up with players who were not "reaches" that also fit their other requirements (character, intelligence, system), what's the problem with only having 100 players that made the final cut to their board?

It's okay with me to whittle down your board based on criterian you value.

My only problem with the draft was no 3-4 D-linemen (although the Denver Post is now reporting Ayers will be a 3-4 DE after all). And the signing of NT Chris Baker as a NT is an excellent bet on a boom-bust guy, this year's Marcus Thomas. I'll bet he makes the final 53.

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 09:47 PM
It's okay with me to whittle down your board based on criterian you value.

My only problem with the draft was no 3-4 D-linemen (although the Denver Post is now reporting Ayers will be a 3-4 DE after all). And the signing of NT Chris Baker as a NT is an excellent bet on a boom-bust guy, this year's Marcus Thomas. I'll bet he makes the final 53.

Regarding your concerns with the D-Line... I've asked this in a bunch of threads, but haven't gotten a response. What do you think about the fact that Nolan is involved? Don't you think he's whispering to McDaniels what he needs to make the team successful? If Nolan didn't think he could win with our current D-Line, don't you think that he'd be screaming at McDaniels do get him some firepower? This is not some buddy McDaniels brought over from New England who is going to just do what McD says. He's an established coach with very specific ideas of scheme and what he needs to run it.

Just curious what you think...

RMT
04-30-2009, 09:49 PM
All of them wide receivers no doubt.

I for one, am sick of our franchise being the laughing stock of the NFL. It does not surprise me that our drafting board was thing. What did they think would happen when you fired the Goodman's?

yeah, the Goodmans and Shanahan did such a "great job" in the draft ... the Broncos had what, TWO good drafts in the past DECADE?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:59 PM
Regarding your concerns with the D-Line... I've asked this in a bunch of threads, but haven't gotten a response. What do you think about the fact that Nolan is involved? Don't you think he's whispering to McDaniels what he needs to make the team successful?
I trust Mike Nolan totally, as a defensive coordinator at least.

I wish Shanny would've fired Slowick when Pat asked him, kept his mouth shut about the Dove Valley facilities, hired Mike Nolan as DC, and left the draft to Jim Goodman as he had been doing the past three years (that according to him btw).


If Nolan didn't think he could win with our current D-Line, don't you think that he'd be screaming at McDaniels do get him some firepower?

Just curious what you think...
It takes some brass ones to completely ignore your weakest unit on draft day ... but you make a good point, he would not have simply ignored Nolan in that warroom. Josh might be arrogant, but he is not stupid. He knows we had the worst defense in the league, and he knows it must improve dramatically if he's gonna be successful.

When the draft ended with no 3-4 defensive linemen drafted (we still thought Ayers would be a LB), I suggested in here that we might be abandoning the 3-4. We simply cannot go into training camp with Ron Fields as the only NT - with just 5 NFL starts in his career - and untested Carlton Powell as his backup. That would be lunacy, NT is a heavy-rotation position.

I still think we might very well delay installing the 3-4 until next year, or at the very least we'll run it on fewer downs. We just don't have the personnel

(Thanks for asking what I think by the way)

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 10:07 PM
I still think we might very well delay installing the 3-4 until next year, or at the very least we'll run it on fewer downs. We just don't have the personnel

(Thanks for asking what I think by the way)

Thank you for the response. You're one of the posters that is on the "other side of the fence" from me with regards to McDaniel's moves so far... But you have well thought out takes and respect differing opinions. I appreciate that.

Woot woot! :sunshine:

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Thank you for the response. You're one of the posters that is on the "other side of the fence" from me with regards to McDaniel's moves so far... But you have well thought out takes and respect differing opinions. I appreciate that.

Woot woot! :sunshine:

Okay, your turn: What do you think of the D-line, you think we might hold off on the 3-4 'til next year?

(What part of Seattle btw?)

footstepsfrom#27
04-30-2009, 10:23 PM
I have no problem with them having a 100 player board, or in working out 30 players and choosing only from those. I just doubt the truth of this statement by McKidd. It smacks of him tryinig to represent himself as a draft guru. Look at the reality here; if in fact they actually selected only from those 30 players, thats a huge reduction in the available pool of talent. Even if you consider the draft worthy players as only those actually picked instead of factoring in FA talent that should have been, you're still talking about a talent pool that's 13% the size of the entire draft elibigle group. The odds of 230 selection opportunities leaving 1/3 of that 13%...about 4%....available to Denver are very remote. Coaches always say crap ike this. "We had this guy ranked #1 on our board"..."we liked him here all along"..."we were shocked he was there"...blah blah blah.

We'll know soon enough of this guys can play or not so in the meantime they get the benefit of the doubt but I'm not buying the hype.

Mile High Mojoe
04-30-2009, 10:25 PM
I'm sure they did preliminary scouting on every single player that was a legitimate shot to get drafted, that number is probably in the 1100 to 1300 range. They then narrow it down to who they think deserves to be drafted. Then after that they chop it down further by round values, weed out character concerns, injury concerns, etc..

They chose to work off a 100 player board this year come the actual draft week. I'm continually shocked at just how many people on here like showing off how much of a brain dead ****ing moron they can be, assuming that just because come draft day it was a 100 person board that meant the entire draft preparation process only considered 100 prospects.

They looked at just as many prospects as every other team. McDaniels felt it was a better move for them to focus on their top targets in each round, and make getting them a priority. I don't see the big deal. Its a whole lot better than if he'd gone in with a 500 person draft board and let guys the scouting and coaching staffs where really high on go in front of them because ****, they've got another 200 guys to pick from, who cares if they aren't actually the right fit for what they want to do at the position or in the locker room? The draftniks will love all the "value" they're scooping up, so its gotta be good!

Darcel McBath is a perfect example of this. Was he the best value on the board at safety? Probably not. From that standpoint two or three more safeties probably should've gone and McBath should've been a mid to late 2nd instead. But McBath is exactly what they're looking for in one of their safety spots, a cover safety who isn't afraid to help out in the box. Hence them signing Renaldo Hill.

They have a system in mind, and it isn't some vague theory as to what we might eventually end up with as they grab any random piece that sounds like a gamer. They know exactly what they want at every last position, right down to the finer details of the player's skill set and their attitude on and off the field. Its a focused, highly selective criteria for who fits where, so why shouldn't the draft board they work off of match that same guideline?

Doing preliminary scouting of 1100 to 1300 players is what you’d expect them to do, what’s in question is the players he brought down to his Top 100. If his 100 included drafting 3 DB’s and only one DE/LB (whatever Ayers ends up playing) higher than 3 LB’s or DL then his list was to narrow and his draft strategy was flawed.

Trading away a #1 pick to get a #2 makes no sense, it muddies the waters of an already blurry draft. Why give up a 1st round pick to pick up another 5-9 smurf in the second? Was he so unimpressed with the LB’s and DL’s left in the draft that he thought maybe Smith could rotate in the 3-4 as a Nose Tackle?

At best McD must of truly believed that it was smarter to draft what he consider the best players available, at worst he forgot what got him hired in the first place, a bad D overall and a miserable front 7. It always starts up front, 3 Rookie DB’s won’t be the run stoppers or the guys leading the team in QB sacks. Whether he had a list of 100 or 1000 players of the 10 drafted only 2, Moreno & Ayers, seem likely “to help the team win right away.” Maybe.

tsiguy96
04-30-2009, 10:26 PM
dude you are grasping so hard at reasons not to like him its ridiculous. you keep pulling numbers from your ass to make it look like he doesnt know what he is doing, and its so blatantly obvious that you are out of arguments not to like him that you are just making **** up.

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 10:30 PM
Okay, your turn: What do you think of the D-line, you think we might hold off on the 3-4 'til next year?

(What part of Seattle btw?)

I live in Ballard at the bottom of Phinney Ridge... I believe you said you were downtown, right?

As for the D-Line, I actually think they're going 3-4 primarily. Just a gut feeling based upon all the interviews I've read. I'm sure they'll do both, as I believe that that was one of the big appeals for Ayers for them... His versatility across schemes.

I don't know why, but I get the feeling that Nolan has someone in mind to backup Fields at NT in the 3-4. I think he thinks he can make it work with either Powell or Thomas.

I'm not super concerned with which way they go, though (interested, but not overly concerned). I'm just confident that Nolan has a plan to make it work.

Mile High Mojoe
04-30-2009, 10:42 PM
dude you are grasping so hard at reasons not to like him its ridiculous. you keep pulling numbers from your ass to make it look like he doesnt know what he is doing, and its so blatantly obvious that you are out of arguments not to like him that you are just making **** up.Making **** up? Did you watch any of the Broncos games last year or were following McD around carrying his gatorade cup for him? If you did see some Broncos games what was the biggest single weakness on the team? By all means tell me, fill me in please because I'm just a clueless hater making **** up.

Archer81
04-30-2009, 10:52 PM
Making **** up? Did you watch any of the Broncos games last year or were following McD around carrying his gatorade cup for him? If you did see some Broncos games what was the biggest single weakness on the team? By all means tell me, fill me in please because I'm just a clueless hater making **** up.



Offense couldnt score inside the 20s consistently, defense couldnt hold a lead. Fixing the redzone offense and having an offense geared for ball control actually helps the 2nd problem.

:Broncos:

ton80
04-30-2009, 10:59 PM
McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

Archer81
04-30-2009, 11:01 PM
McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah

McD is an idiot blah blah blah...

Our draft sucked blah blah blah...

Cutler lied, no McD lied blah blah blah...

our team sucks blah blah blah....

Bowlen is a drunk blah blah blah...

The defensive woes have not been addressed blah blah blah...

4-12 blah blah blah



You trying to say something JR? HAHAHAHAHA...


:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
05-01-2009, 12:42 AM
I heard the Raiders board had 835 names.

yes, but deceiving though. 550 of those names on the raider board were as followed; 400 track athletes from the USA Olympic team and colleges around the nation, Ben Johnson, Bolt, 90 players that have been retired for 3 years or more, 30 convicts that Al Davis saw running from the law on his local tv station and commented, "now that is speed our vertical game can live with!" and 28 names that were later to be cartoon characters, sitcom names of Al's favorite shows or names that Al told to write down on the board and later found out to be former classmates and football players from his high school alma mater.

ton80
05-01-2009, 12:46 AM
No one knows if McD is a good head coach.

No one knows the true story behind McD and Cutler.

No one knows if Al Smith is worth next year's 1st.

No one knows if Quinn is worth two 3rds.

No one knows how the draft will shake out long term.

No one knows if the D has improved from ****ty to decent. On and on and on.

Yet, so many posters obsess over things that they know very little about and take such a pessimistic attitude to boot. I don't get the mentality when there are so many reasons to think that the Broncos will be a good football team this upcoming season.

Speaking for myself, this has been a fun offseason. There have been fun discussions on the Mane and lots of topics to discuss that are truly unique to this offseason. However, the negative obsessions are killing me. What's the point. Just roll with it and enjoy the ride.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Blueflame
05-01-2009, 01:01 AM
Offense couldnt score inside the 20s consistently, defense couldnt hold a lead. Fixing the redzone offense and having an offense geared for ball control actually helps the 2nd problem.

:Broncos:

The offense was under pressure to score on every possession because every time the defense took the field, the other team would have at minimum 3 more points within minutes. And Special Teams consistently losing the field position battle didn't help either.

Atlas
05-01-2009, 03:38 AM
http://saraandbrian.com/images/small_napoleon.jpg
Broncos Coach Josh McDaniels leaves for the draft

Drek
05-01-2009, 04:27 AM
I'm not sure if I'm one of the "brain dead" ones you mention ... ::)

I'm just saying that a mere 100 player board proves it was definitely not a "best player available" draft strategy. Like you pointed out, there must have been alotta criteria applied to rule out so many guys.

No Buff, you actually read counterpoints, rebuttals, etc. and take them into consideration. Too many on here are far too obtuse in their perspective of this team's moves. Despite disagreeing with you on a lot of things, you're still a damn high quality poster.

It definitely wasn't a BPA draft strategy, the Broncos brass have basically laid it all out for us. When I can see exactly what they have in mind for every player on this team, the rationale behind every pick right back to the final selection, I think it becomes pretty clear that they didn't go BPA and instead had a tightly focused board and made sure to take the guys they wanted on it when the value made sense.

Shanahan used to do basically the same thing, focusing on his guys and making sure he got them, but he did it through over picking them a round or more early. That stopped when the Goodmans came in and I thought that was their single biggest contribution to Shanahan. They gave him perspective on how the rest of the league viewed his targets, so he knew how long he could sit on them before needing to jump.

McDaniels obviously doesn't need that kind of assistance, because everyone he took was valued at pretty close to the same point he selected them at. Some a little higher, but thats what happens when you have a pick at X and you think the prospect should go between X+n where n is a number small enough to be inconsiquential in draft value (i.e. you don't move back to pick Darcel McBath later if you think he's going to go within 10 spots of #48, as you don't risk losing your guy for at best a 4th).

What would we have done if those 100 players ended up being picked?

Every single guy they took was on that 100 player board, so I'd say it was a pretty well thought out list.

It wasn't their "these are the top 100 guys in the draft" list. It was a list of the guys they though were correct fits for what they wanted to do. In fact, its a step further than what a lot of teams do. Most just rank players in a 1 to X list of "best to worst". McDaniels and co. took the filter to the next level and took that best to worst perspective and culled out all the character/health concerns (which a lot of teams do), guys who wheren't exactly the kind of system fit they want (not so many teams do that) and then finally put them in a order of what system fits they thought they could get in each round.

That second phase, sorting by who you think fits your system, is key. Not doing that correctly is when a lot of teams lose out on their targets. If you went into the draft saying "well there's 15 players who look like better overall ball players than this guy we really want at 16, so we should be safe" you're likely to get screwed when a team up at 12 or 13 grabs him because while he might not be the best player out there, he's close enough and he's a better fit for their system.

Go ask Pats fans how many of them thought Logan Mankins was worth a late first. Most didn't get it. But for the Pats style he was a perfect fit and he wasn't too far off in value from where they took him. Or why the Titans took Chris Johnson when Mendenhall was still on the board. I'm sure most teams had Mendenhall ranked higher in raw talent at RB than Johnson, but Johnson was a perfect compliment to White and added a new dimension, while Mendenhall did not. It isn't just about filling positional needs, its about filling them with the right kind of player.

It's okay with me to whittle down your board based on criterian you value.

My only problem with the draft was no 3-4 D-linemen (although the Denver Post is now reporting Ayers will be a 3-4 DE after all). And the signing of NT Chris Baker as a NT is an excellent bet on a boom-bust guy, this year's Marcus Thomas. I'll bet he makes the final 53.

I was listening to Tim Ryan and Pat Kirwan on the way home last night and they made some interesting points about Baker. One, as a player they think he shows a lot of NT potential. He's got long arms (34") and very good functional strength. Ryan liked the fact that he was a guy you could see beating and controlling double teams on tape, not a projection to do it like a lot of NT prospects are.

Two, the part where it got real interesting, was when Kirwan started talking about UDFA signing bonuses and how the bigger the bonus the more it tells you just how much the team wanted the guy. He wouldn't say what signing bonus we gave to Baker, but he said his conclusion from it was that the FO would've been fine with taking him in the draft and that he'll likely be given every chance to earn a job in the NT rotation.

As long as the character concerns are behind him and he shows up ready to work hard I wouldn't be at all surprised if he finds himself getting some quality snaps on Sundays in rotation with Fields and Powell.

cutthemdown
05-01-2009, 04:36 AM
Doing preliminary scouting of 1100 to 1300 players is what you’d expect them to do, what’s in question is the players he brought down to his Top 100. If his 100 included drafting 3 DB’s and only one DE/LB (whatever Ayers ends up playing) higher than 3 LB’s or DL then his list was to narrow and his draft strategy was flawed.

Trading away a #1 pick to get a #2 makes no sense, it muddies the waters of an already blurry draft. Why give up a 1st round pick to pick up another 5-9 smurf in the second? Was he so unimpressed with the LB’s and DL’s left in the draft that he thought maybe Smith could rotate in the 3-4 as a Nose Tackle?

At best McD must of truly believed that it was smarter to draft what he consider the best players available, at worst he forgot what got him hired in the first place, a bad D overall and a miserable front 7. It always starts up front, 3 Rookie DB’s won’t be the run stoppers or the guys leading the team in QB sacks. Whether he had a list of 100 or 1000 players of the 10 drafted only 2, Moreno & Ayers, seem likely “to help the team win right away.” Maybe.

To tell you the truth if you get 2 really good starters each draft you are doing pretty good. Then you hope to get 2 more next yr. Throw in a couple FA that work out and you are in business.

How many starters do you expect to find each yr. If Moreno and Ayers end up all pros the draft is a success. If Smith and some of the other are good also then you are looking at a really strong draft.

barryr
05-01-2009, 06:30 AM
Upset the Broncos didn't have hundreds of names on it? All those players are going to make it in the NFL? Arrogant means the coach thinks he knows what he's doing and doesn't have to rely on Kiper and others? Whatever.

So they deemed some guys not going to be very good NFL players and didn't bother to put them on their draft board. Really stretching to find ANYTHING to be upset about if having to resort to this.

rugbythug
05-01-2009, 06:39 AM
I can't even believe this is an Issue. His Board had a hundred names on it of that we drafted 10. This means of the people on his draft board only 10% became Broncos. It really is ludicrous for a Professional Football team to pay full time scouts if they can not then whittle the list down from 1000 to a 100.


I remember watching one of those Greatest drafts shows on NFL network. They were speaking with Bill Walsh about his greatest draft. It sounded like he only had 10-15 guys on his board. And he just traded up and also away to get them where he thought he could.

colonelbeef
05-01-2009, 07:29 AM
http://saraandbrian.com/images/small_napoleon.jpg
Broncos Coach Josh McDaniels leaves for the draft

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels leaves the podium feeling confident after explaining why he traded next years' #1 for a 2nd rounder this year

Beantown Bronco
05-01-2009, 07:45 AM
Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them!

This second sentence has to be BS. Or else it proves that "most" teams are idiots.

Think about it. If only 256 guys get drafted, why on Earth would you have another 250+ names on your board? They can't all possibly get picked ahead of you. This is pretty simple math.

Less than a hundred does seem low, but they were able to do a full draft with extra picks, plus they managed to sign a dozen or so undrafted FAs. There is absolutely no reason to have 500+ names on a list. You can't possibly make it down that low on a list even if you predict every possible pick ahead of time, every pick goes against you, and you wait a month before signing a single undrafted FA. You just can't.

tsiguy96
05-01-2009, 07:46 AM
Broncos coach Josh McDaniels leaves the podium feeling confident after explaining why he traded next years' #1 for a 2nd rounder this year

because he wants to make htis team better NOW by making their highest rated corner in the draft get a year of experience under his belt, possibly even seeing the field, and we still have a first round pick next year. its really not hard.3

dbfan21
05-01-2009, 07:49 AM
I think it ruins the credibility of the story and, inevitably, the writer when they resort to elementary-like name calling. Boy Blunder? Gimme a break!

I have liked Reilly's story's in the past, but he's hurting himself by taking this approach. Keep it above board and keep your personal feelings out of the way.

vancejohnson82
05-01-2009, 08:59 AM
I think it ruins the credibility of the story and, inevitably, the writer when they resort to elementary-like name calling. Boy Blunder? Gimme a break!

I have liked Reilly's story's in the past, but he's hurting himself by taking this approach. Keep it above board and keep your personal feelings out of the way.

I liked Reilly when he was writing for Sports Illustrated because he managed to find stories that mattered and raised public awareness on them....

as far as a sports analyst goes, he is a dunce...and he obviously has no idea how to write an article without keeping his personal issues aside...this is the second time since McDaniels came on board that he decided to go out of his way to degrade him...Reilly is a chump

RunSilentRunDeep
05-01-2009, 09:11 AM
Another blatant distortion? It’s no distortion he said to God and everybody he had a list of 100. He had no “backboard” what every the hell that is. He said he made a list of 100 and only wanted players that could help the team win right away, watch the news clips on the Broncos official website.

McDaniels said that 7 of the 10 choices were among the nearly 30 players the Broncos had brought in for private workouts weeks before the draft, and that the Broncos had worked out the other 3 elsewhere. He didn’t have a wide scope of players he was interested in this proves it. As such he didn’t have some double secret backup plan, it was all tunnel vision.

As for Reilly he is one of the best most respected reporters in the country, I’ve been reading him since I first subscribed to Sports Illustrated back in the 70’s. He’s not some hack journalist or a reporter who does just feel good up close and personal stories. I’ve read many of his stories where he’s chopped off plenty of guys at the knees. The one he did on Barry Bonds was one of the best ever. What if he does have a man crush on Elway is that a bad thing? BTW anybody who loves the Broncos loves Elway too, can’t a reporter admire Elway's greatness?

The thing that cracks me up about the Orange Mane is that if you don’t go along with certain guy’s opinions or side with McD in all his brilliance you’re dismissed as some sort of negative Nelly who just wants to pitch a b**** for something to do.

Reilly, like almost everybody else who’s a 3rd party outside the Orange Mane plastic bubble and knows anything football has said that the McD’s draft was ridiculous. Just don’t step inside the plastic bubble in here and try to crack the denial or you’re a certified nads kicker. I can’t believe the blind homerism on this board. Some will go to any length to defend him when it’s clear by almost every one on outside looking in that he put himself and the Broncos behind the 8 ball with the Cutler trade right up to his very, very questionable draft choices.

Sounds like you have a severe man crush on Reilly. And McDaniels talked about the "back board" in those same clips you referenced. And by the way, Reilly is a columnist for the ESPN clown factory. A reporter (if he/she is a good one) passes along well investigated info without bias. Is this case, Reilly clearly distorts the truth in his effort to entertain.

vancejohnson82
05-01-2009, 09:25 AM
Sounds like you have a severe man crush on Reilly. And McDaniels talked about the "back board" in those same clips you referenced. And by the way, Reilly is a columnist for the ESPN clown factory. A reporter (if he/she is a good one) passes along well investigated info without bias. Is this case, Reilly clearly distorts the truth in his effort to entertain.

exactly...when he called him "Boy Blunder" I immediately disregarded the piece as trash....

i dont understand what the big deal is about having 100 guys on the board...i think we had a great draft

BroncoBuff
05-01-2009, 10:04 AM
Broncos coach Josh McDaniels leaves the podium feeling confident after explaining why he traded next years' #1 for a 2nd rounder this year

Hahahaha .... I'm gonna start a "Caption This" thread....

TonyR
05-01-2009, 12:16 PM
Because it doesn't back up your opinion?

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with going so far out of one's way to slam somebody when you don't know what you're talking about. Do you think Rick Reilly ever heard of Alphonso Smith before this story hit? And to predict we're going to go 4-12? And then to call McD "terribly naive and doubly confident"?

Rick Reilly is very good at his craft but I find this far beneath the normal quality of his work. He clearly has some type of emotional attachment to this story, be it being a Shanahan fan or Cutler fan or Patriots hater or something else, to make such derogatory and inflammatory comments about something he doesn't know much about. Garbage like this from amateurs on a public forum like is one thing, but from a well respected professional is quite another. I'm sorry for you that you even have to ask.

SportinOne
05-01-2009, 12:36 PM
It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with going so far out of one's way to slam somebody when you don't know what you're talking about. Do you think Rick Reilly ever heard of Alphonso Smith before this story hit? And to predict we're going to go 4-12? And then to call McD "terribly naive and doubly confident"?

Rick Reilly is very good at his craft but I find this far beneath the normal quality of his work. He clearly has some type of emotional attachment to this story, be it being a Shanahan fan or Cutler fan or Patriots hater or something else, to make such derogatory and inflammatory comments about something he doesn't know much about. Garbage like this from amateurs on a public forum like is one thing, but from a well respected professional is quite another. I'm sorry for you that you even have to ask.

Shouldn't it speak volumes, then, that a "respected professional" would hold that opinion of our new coach? He's not the only one on that train, by the way.

I'm sure he doesn't know what he's talking about. He only gets the same access that we do to newspaper articles, the same ones that have you trusting every move McDaniels makes. In fact, let's not forget he probably knows more than all of us do considering the fact that he writes for a damn sports magazine and has access to things that we don't. But yeah, trust in McDaniels because he told you to. If someone says something bad about McDaniels it HAS to be a personal vendetta.

SportinOne
05-01-2009, 12:50 PM
No one knows if McD is a good head coach.

No one knows the true story behind McD and Cutler.

No one knows if Al Smith is worth next year's 1st.

No one knows if Quinn is worth two 3rds.

No one knows how the draft will shake out long term.

No one knows if the D has improved from ****ty to decent. On and on and on.

Yet, so many posters obsess over things that they know very little about and take such a pessimistic attitude to boot. I don't get the mentality when there are so many reasons to think that the Broncos will be a good football team this upcoming season.

Speaking for myself, this has been a fun offseason. There have been fun discussions on the Mane and lots of topics to discuss that are truly unique to this offseason. However, the negative obsessions are killing me. What's the point. Just roll with it and enjoy the ride.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Take everything you said, and then ask yourself why you think there are "so many reasons to think that the Broncos will be a good football team this upcoming season."

outdoor_miner
05-01-2009, 01:01 PM
Shouldn't it speak volumes, then, that a "respected professional" would hold that opinion of our new coach? He's not the only one on that train, by the way.

There were also a ton of "respected professionals" that hated Jay Cutler. That thought Mike Shanahan was an over-rated coach. That thought our 2006 & 2008 draft classes were a joke. etc. etc. etc. You know what they say... "Opinions are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Or something like that...

watermock
05-02-2009, 05:09 PM
My opinion is we should of held on to our 2 #1's next year, for obvious reasons.

Broncojef
05-02-2009, 05:57 PM
This clown will laugh at 100 names only being on the board until it works better than anything the NFL has ever seen then he'll laugh at others for not doing it McDaniels way. the NFL is such a copycat business, one guy wins the SuperBowl a certain way then 20 others try following his lead. Nice to see McDaniels had a short list of the guys he really wanted then went after them and he's not shy about doing things his way. If Pat gave each of you the keys to the Broncos today would you emulate someone else who is successful or do it the way you think you should to succeed?

Paladin
05-02-2009, 06:08 PM
most people said we had a very good draft who actually look at the players we got. and yes, mcdaniels said he didnt have to go to his back board once.



good point. So he had a very good first board, didn't he?

C'mon, people. Quit trying to make up something to b**** about that had nothing to do with anything of any improtance whatsoever. If he has a draft somewhat like this next year, I wouldn't care if he had just 25 frigging names on the board.

What the numbnut haters are not getting is that he is praising his scouts and their abilty to look for players that will fit his sysem best. Now, I don't give a rats' arse whom you thought he should have picked. He is going to build his team, and the results will be not known for a couple of years, although you are griping as iff the season is already lost. BS. Like Popps, I believe there are goiing to be a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls around here are gonna eat crow big time. I hoipe you have the guts to admit it, which I don't think many of you will have.....

Boy blunder, indeed. What a crock of sh*t.....

Yuk it up, fuzzball. Crows' coming.........

Bronx33
05-02-2009, 06:24 PM
good point. So he had a very good first board, didn't he?

C'mon, people. Quit trying to make up something to b**** about that had nothing to do with anything of any improtance whatsoever. If he has a draft somewhat like this next year, I wouldn't care if he had just 25 frigging names on the board.

What the numbnut haters are not getting is that he is praising his scouts and their abilty to look for players that will fit his sysem best. Now, I don't give a rats' arse whom you thought he should have picked. He is going to build his team, and the results will be not known for a couple of years, although you are griping as iff the season is already lost. BS. Like Popps, I believe there are goiing to be a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls around here are gonna eat crow big time. I hoipe you have the guts to admit it, which I don't think many of you will have.....

Boy blunder, indeed. What a crock of sh*t.....

Yuk it up, fuzzball. Crows' coming.........


QFT! and a side order of rep!


Some of the folks on here are out of freaking control to the point where they have lost all comprehension.

Popps
05-02-2009, 06:39 PM
good point. So he had a very good first board, didn't he?

C'mon, people. Quit trying to make up something to b**** about that had nothing to do with anything of any improtance whatsoever. If he has a draft somewhat like this next year, I wouldn't care if he had just 25 frigging names on the board.

What the numbnut haters are not getting is that he is praising his scouts and their abilty to look for players that will fit his sysem best. Now, I don't give a rats' arse whom you thought he should have picked. He is going to build his team, and the results will be not known for a couple of years, although you are griping as iff the season is already lost. BS. Like Popps, I believe there are goiing to be a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls around here are gonna eat crow big time. I hoipe you have the guts to admit it, which I don't think many of you will have.....

Boy blunder, indeed. What a crock of sh*t.....

Yuk it up, fuzzball. Crows' coming.........



I can't wait to watch these **********s squirm when the team starts winning.

BroncoBuff
05-02-2009, 06:45 PM
I can't wait to watch these **********s squirm when the team starts winning.

Nobody wants us to lose!

You're mistaking valid criticism with dislike. You're pulling a George Bush, permitting only blind loyalty ... "you're either with us or against us." That's pretty sad, that's not fair to fans who have valid criticisms.

tsiguy96
05-02-2009, 06:49 PM
Nobody wants us to lose!

You're mistaking valid criticism with dislike. You're pulling a George Bush, permitting only blind loyalty ... "you're either with us or against us." That's pretty sad, that's not fair to fans who have valid criticisms.

those criticisms may not even be correct! wait until you see a product on the field before you start bitching about how the season is gonna go!

gyldenlove
05-02-2009, 07:02 PM
those criticisms may not even be correct! wait until you see a product on the field before you start b****ing about how the season is gonna go!

So if you want to critizice you have to shut the f up until the season but if you want to sing the guys praises you are free to speak up?

Do you want ice with that or do you prefer your bigotry straight?

Paladin
05-02-2009, 07:26 PM
dude you are grasping so hard at reasons not to like him its ridiculous. you keep pulling numbers from your ass to make it look like he doesnt know what he is doing, and its so blatantly obvious that you are out of arguments not to like him that you are just making **** up.

QFT

BroncoBuff
05-02-2009, 07:33 PM
He's shown plain signs he doesn't know what he's doing as a GM ...

But he is definitely an impressive offensive mind and coach.


You can criticize one, but love the other. Like me ;D

watermock
05-02-2009, 07:35 PM
We used up 3 firsts.

Whatever. The draft SHOULD of been good considering our positions, many of which I feel were squandered.

Indeed, it will be shown one way or another.

Paladin
05-02-2009, 07:44 PM
Nobody wants us to lose!

You're mistaking valid criticism with dislike. You're pulling a George Bush, permitting only blind loyalty ... "you're either with us or against us." That's pretty sad, that's not fair to fans who have valid criticisms.

There may be one of two of the McD haters who have "valid croiticism" but then they cloud that up with a bunch of juvenile name calling and mind-numbing BS that just makes the whole "Valid Criticism" thing an exercise in Junior High Smack.....

Valid Criticism laced with subsequent dire predicitons of future castrophe without considering alternative outcomes rarely amounts to more than a BS on a stick. Sometimes, BB, you make some sense, then you crap on it with a chunk of used oatmeal that just turns the entire argument into mushy, fuzzy thinking, and certainly looks like "dislike" to me and I am sure many others.....

Even you should know that McD is, after all, a professional coach and knows something of what he is doing. Further, he has a cadre of other professional coaches who have been successful in the past, and also may know what they are doing. Efforts to paint McD as incompetent or unknowing, uncaring and/or wharever, are just grossly misplaced efforts at diaplacements of blame for the "loss" of Shanahan and Jay Quitler. McD really had little to do with those events, particulaly when Bowlen made his decision about Quitler.

Sorry. But that's how I see it.....

Have a great evening.....

Paladin
05-02-2009, 07:46 PM
We used up 3 firsts.

Whatever. The draft SHOULD of been good considering our positions, many of which I feel were squandered.

Indeed, it will be shown one way or another.

For you , I make allowances......

Popps
05-02-2009, 08:29 PM
He's shown plain signs he doesn't know what he's doing as a GM ...

You're positive of this, despite the team not holding a single practice in pads, huh?

Seems a little like a stretch, Buff.

You're doing better, lately. You're returning to being an interesting poster and not just a one-sided complainer. But, you're still not giving the coach a fair shot, here. You're determined to have him fail to justify your prior position, instead of keeping an open mind and being optimistic that perhaps he's doing some things right and you just don't quite get it yet.

When Shanahan came to town, he made a bunch of VERY questionable decisions. We had a chance to go after premiere pass-rushers like Kevin Greene, and instead brought in Alfred Williams, a talented guy... but not a world-beater at that point. We brought in guys like Romo, Eddie Mac, Tanuvassa and others... none of which looked like team-changers on paper. I remember having very mixed feelings about Shanahan's early free agent work. I DID like his initial moves going after the Browns' tackles, but then it got a little confusing.

But, at the end of the day... he identified the PERFECT players to build a foundation for the defense, and continued to add to them with key additions like N. Smith.

I guarantee you, a few months into Shanahan's tenure... no one was crowning him as a top-flight GM, and in fact... I'd suspect most people were highly critical. I admit to being confused to a lot of his moves, myself.

But, looking back... he make brilliant moves, and the rest was history.

Point being, you probably don't really know if McDaniels is a good GM or not.
(Even though he isn't a GM, I'll assume he's as involved as most head coaches.)

You're determined to have this guy fail, and I think you're going to be re-thinking that position as this plays out. You really ought to step back and take a wider view of all of this. It's much more interesting when you do.

watermock
05-02-2009, 08:29 PM
Homer on...

SoCalBronco
05-02-2009, 09:08 PM
You're determined to have this guy fail, .

Determined to have him fail?

This is a message board, dude. We have no control over anything. Only he has control over whether he is a success or a failure. Now we might think he's doomed to fail, or that its far more likely than not that he will fail, or that he's way in over his head, but I don't think anyone wants the team to fail. Obviously, we would like to see him fired because we're afraid of how much more destruction he can do. But wanting him to fail would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've got it backwards, Popps. It's not that people want him to fail, its that people want him out because what he has shown us thus far would lead a reasonable person (although there is obviously room for reasonable people to disagree) to believe that if he continues to hold the reins, it will lead to failure. That's the nuance, here. We don't want him here PRECISELY BECAUSE we want to AVOID failure.

Now, obviously there is the question with regard to how much do you need to see to be able to make up your mind. Some (tsiguy96 and others) have advanced the position that we have to wait until games are played, no matter WHAT he does in the offseason prior to that. Others have said that no matter how bad it is in the first year, he should be given a second year, no matter what happens in that first year and in that second offseason as well. And then there are those of us who have already seen enough, already, based on what we believe are errors of biblical proportions. Who's right? We'll see. It is clear that Bowlen does not share the opinion of the third group. The reason for that is not clear. It could be that he really believes in Josh and believes he should be given a season or two (or more) and that he also believes that Josh was right to do the various things he did this offseason. An equally credible alternative theory is that Bowlen simply is unwilling to make a change at this point because he simply cannot afford to pay three different head coaches, especially when he appears to be more financially conscious than ever. Or it could be that there is some ego involved there, as firing Josh quickly (whether it be now or after his first season if he does poorly) would reflect badly on Bowlen. We don't know what the primary reason is, it might be some combination of all of those things.

In any case, what is clear is that Bowlen is on your side, so far, for whatever reason. So, we will just have to see what the kid does during the season. But that doesn't mean that his detractors want him to fail. I'd LOVE to see him get fired, but the reason why is because I want to AVOID FAILURE, not that I'm rooting for it. It's a matter of perspective. It's a question of what each individual Bronco fan feels is in the best interest of the team. Some of us simply feel we've seen enough that we're convinced that the longer this guy is around the worse things will get.

At some point, we will be able to look back and see which of the three groups had the most reasonable position.

Durango
05-02-2009, 09:53 PM
Hadn't been here in a while. I guess we've separated into different camps.

I hope the best for McDaniels, but from what I've seen, the guy seems in a bit over his head. The draft was awful, and this is coming from someone who doesn't really follow the ins and outs of player development all that closely, but you'd think we'd concentrate on defense.

I have no real passionate point of view one way or the other, so no bone to pick with anyone. By the same measure though, we have no choice but to hope he gets up to speed in time for the season. My family is investing a few hundred dollars we really don't have to see three home games this year (combined with business trips each time, but fun for the family) and the last thing I want to see is another embarrassment (We attended the Oakland game. It was horrible beyond belief).

A good game and I'll be happy. Wins would be better.

Williams
05-02-2009, 09:58 PM
Determined to have him fail?

This is a message board, dude. We have no control over anything. Only he has control over whether he is a success or a failure. Now we might think he's doomed to fail, or that its far more likely than not that he will fail, or that he's way in over his head, but I don't think anyone wants the team to fail. Obviously, we would like to see him fired because we're afraid of how much more destruction he can do. But wanting him to fail would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've got it backwards, Popps. It's not that people want him to fail, its that people want him out because what he has shown us thus far would lead a reasonable person (although there is obviously room for reasonable people to disagree) to believe that if he continues to hold the reins, it will lead to failure. That's the nuance, here. We don't want him here PRECISELY BECAUSE we want to AVOID failure.

Now, obviously there is the question with regard to how much do you need to see to be able to make up your mind. Some (tsiguy96 and others) have advanced the position that we have to wait until games are played, no matter WHAT he does in the offseason prior to that. Others have said that no matter how bad it is in the first year, he should be given a second year, no matter what happens in that first year and in that second offseason as well. And then there are those of us who have already seen enough, already, based on what we believe are errors of biblical proportions. Who's right? We'll see. It is clear that Bowlen does not share the opinion of the third group. The reason for that is not clear. It could be that he really believes in Josh and believes he should be given a season or two (or more) and that he also believes that Josh was right to do the various things he did this offseason. An equally credible alternative theory is that Bowlen simply is unwilling to make a change at this point because he simply cannot afford to pay three different head coaches, especially when he appears to be more financially conscious than ever. Or it could be that there is some ego involved there, as firing Josh quickly (whether it be now or after his first season if he does poorly) would reflect badly on Bowlen. We don't know what the primary reason is, it might be some combination of all of those things.

In any case, what is clear is that Bowlen is on your side, so far, for whatever reason. So, we will just have to see what the kid does during the season. But that doesn't mean that his detractors want him to fail. I'd LOVE to see him get fired, but the reason why is because I want to AVOID FAILURE, not that I'm rooting for it. It's a matter of perspective. It's a question of what each individual Bronco fan feels is in the best interest of the team. Some of us simply feel we've seen enough that we're convinced that the longer this guy is around the worse things will get.

At some point, we will be able to look back and see which of the three groups had the most reasonable position.


There are a lot of Bronco fans (maybe even most) that believe this has been a great offseason... and the kind of shake-up the Broncos have needed. I for one disagreed with the firing of Shanahan. Having helped bring two Lombardis to the team I've been following since a young child, part of me wanted the man to stick around for life... Paterno-style. Now, when he lost his job, I disagreed but he may have said it best himself... you're judged based on performance. Obviously performance over the past few seasons has been weak. Obviously when it looked like we were playoff bound with three games to go and we couldnt even win one... including vs. Buffalo at home, something isnt right. I came to grips with Shanahan's firing.

McDaniels came in and shook things up right off the bat. Dumped half of our weak ass D and brought in a legit D-coordinator in Nolan. He dumped a very talent, but pu**y ass QB who thought he was above the team and the new coach. Denver did not need that distraction and thank god its not something we'll have to deal with this season. As talented as Cutler may be, I highly doubt he had the leadership intangibles to take this team anywhere. Could it be developed? Sure... but he acted like a little b*tch, so he got the boot. On top of those obvious moves, he stocked the team with intelligent, team leader types in free agency and the draft. Talent, inteligence, and leadership is something this team could use. Leadership especially is something that's been sorely lacking, especially on D, since losing Al W.

I for one am very happy with the direction this team is headed and believe McD has done a great job thus far. The only things I havent really been crazy about is trading next years first and two thirds in the draft... but I'm even coming around on that the more I read about the Smith & Quinn.

I just dont understand all the McD hate with all these positive moves.

SoCalBronco
05-02-2009, 10:00 PM
I just dont understand all the McD hate with all these positive moves.

Well thats the thing. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. We do not all agree that there have been "all these positive moves".

Williams
05-02-2009, 10:04 PM
Well thats the thing. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. We do not all agree that there have been "all these positive moves".

True... I suppose that's what it all boils down to. Like you said, we'll just have to wait and see.

TotallyScrewed
05-02-2009, 10:22 PM
You're positive of this, despite the team not holding a single practice in pads, huh?

Seems a little like a stretch, Buff.

You're doing better, lately. You're returning to being an interesting poster and not just a one-sided complainer. But, you're still not giving the coach a fair shot, here. You're determined to have him fail to justify your prior position, instead of keeping an open mind and being optimistic that perhaps he's doing some things right and you just don't quite get it yet.

When Shanahan came to town, he made a bunch of VERY questionable decisions. We had a chance to go after premiere pass-rushers like Kevin Greene, and instead brought in Alfred Williams, a talented guy... but not a world-beater at that point. We brought in guys like Romo, Eddie Mac, Tanuvassa and others... none of which looked like team-changers on paper. I remember having very mixed feelings about Shanahan's early free agent work. I DID like his initial moves going after the Browns' tackles, but then it got a little confusing.

But, at the end of the day... he identified the PERFECT players to build a foundation for the defense, and continued to add to them with key additions like N. Smith.

I guarantee you, a few months into Shanahan's tenure... no one was crowning him as a top-flight GM, and in fact... I'd suspect most people were highly critical. I admit to being confused to a lot of his moves, myself.

But, looking back... he make brilliant moves, and the rest was history.

Point being, you probably don't really know if McDaniels is a good GM or not.
(Even though he isn't a GM, I'll assume he's as involved as most head coaches.)

You're determined to have this guy fail, and I think you're going to be re-thinking that position as this plays out. You really ought to step back and take a wider view of all of this. It's much more interesting when you do.

When Mike came to Denver as the head coach, he reunited with Elway. When bad things happened to Mike Shanahan it started with the lost of John Elway...while the franchise QB was there, Mike was able to put enough "other" puzzle pieces in place to win. Once Elway was gone, things unraveled.

While Cutler isn't a 12-year veteran version of John Elway (not as much saavy), he was a franchise QB (up and coming) and now he's gone. The concern by some fans is that the team was building and is now going backwards. Some fans see it otherwise. Time will tell.

I can't say that the players McDaniels has picked will be stars or flops, I just see other personnel mistakes...the Cutler situation foremost.

gyldenlove
05-03-2009, 07:47 AM
There are a lot of Bronco fans (maybe even most) that believe this has been a great offseason... and the kind of shake-up the Broncos have needed. I for one disagreed with the firing of Shanahan. Having helped bring two Lombardis to the team I've been following since a young child, part of me wanted the man to stick around for life... Paterno-style. Now, when he lost his job, I disagreed but he may have said it best himself... you're judged based on performance. Obviously performance over the past few seasons has been weak. Obviously when it looked like we were playoff bound with three games to go and we couldnt even win one... including vs. Buffalo at home, something isnt right. I came to grips with Shanahan's firing.

McDaniels came in and shook things up right off the bat. Dumped half of our weak ass D and brought in a legit D-coordinator in Nolan. He dumped a very talent, but pu**y ass QB who thought he was above the team and the new coach. Denver did not need that distraction and thank god its not something we'll have to deal with this season. As talented as Cutler may be, I highly doubt he had the leadership intangibles to take this team anywhere. Could it be developed? Sure... but he acted like a little b*tch, so he got the boot. On top of those obvious moves, he stocked the team with intelligent, team leader types in free agency and the draft. Talent, inteligence, and leadership is something this team could use. Leadership especially is something that's been sorely lacking, especially on D, since losing Al W.

I for one am very happy with the direction this team is headed and believe McD has done a great job thus far. The only things I havent really been crazy about is trading next years first and two thirds in the draft... but I'm even coming around on that the more I read about the Smith & Quinn.

I just dont understand all the McD hate with all these positive moves.

You see the moves as adding leadership, I see the moves as detracting talent. I guess it depends on the balance of high leadership to high talent players you want - I prefer to have a balance that heavily favours talent, maybe 3 to 1.

We traded Cutler for a QB and some picks, I don't see that move as adding leadership to the QB position, but I did see it as detracting talent.

The only significant addition we made to the defensive line so far is Ron Fields who was a 3rd stringer with a not very good team. We did bring in Andra Davis who I think is an upgrade and a leader, I like that move. We did revamp the secondary and while I am not sure about Goodman, I like the Hill and Dawkins signings.

In the draft I think we gave up a lot of value, 1st and 5th next year to recieve not a lot. I am very happy with the 1st round, we added talent, but beyond that I see several players we took well ahead of where we could have gotten them and that ended up costing us.

You say Mcdaniels purged the defense, yet aside from Andra Davis the LB group will be the same, aside possibly from Ron Fields the DL seems to be the same, and those are people who played like poo last year. It seems to me that Mcdaniels has given the weakest part of the team a wide berth when it comes to remaking.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 08:53 AM
He's shown plain signs he doesn't know what he's doing as a GM ...You're positive of this ... seems a little like a stretch, Buff.His new coach, Josh McDaniels, committed "rookie mistakes"..

Ba-ZING!

Inkana7
05-03-2009, 09:00 AM
Ba-ZING!

"Rookie mistakes" translate into "He doesn't know what he's doing"?

Buff, you just like saying "I told you so" too much to make a logical point.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 09:18 AM
You're positive of this, despite the team not holding a single practice in pads, huh?
Practices are about COACHING Popps ... most of us including me have no problem with his coaching and have stated no objections whatsoever to Josh as a coach. Quite to the contrary, I am excited to see this offense ...

I was talking about Josh as a GENERAL MANAGER. And my opinion, and that of the majority of fans, is that Josh has made "rookie mistakes," I have personally used that phrase dozens of times. Now I see this morning that Woody Paige and PAT BOWLEN HIMSELF agree with me ... even used the same phrase I use.

It's nice to beat you with Pat Bowlen's own words. ^5


You're all alone now, Popps .... even Bowlen disagrees with you :(


You're doing better, lately. You're returning to being an interesting poster and not just a one-sided complainer. But, you're still not giving the coach a fair shot, here. You're determined to have him fail to justify your prior position, instead of keeping an open mind and being optimistic that perhaps he's doing some things right and you just don't quite get it yet.
I'm "doing better lately," well thank you.

But again, there's a difference between the two jobs. Almost nobody has problems with Josh as a coach .... you're conflating these two functions, I think in an effort to further this obsessive "war" of yours.


Point being, you probably don't really know if McDaniels is a good GM or not. (Even though he isn't a GM, I'll assume he's as involved as most head coaches.)
Josh is in charge, near 100% ... Jerry Angelo and Pat Bowlen made that very clear.

And like I said, Pat Bowlen agreed with me - even used my words "rookie mistakes" - to describe much of what's happened with Josh's front office work so far.

The good news is he's clearly learning how to deal wth this stuff ... he called Dan Graham before he drafted a blocking tight end. You gotta keep the locker room leaders in the loop about stuff. It's too late to do that with Jay of course, but that's over and done with.


You're determined to have this guy fail, and I think you're going to be re-thinking that position as this plays out. You really ought to step back and take a wider view of all of this. It's much more interesting when you do.
"Determined to have him fail"?!

This is the saddest part of your non-sensical unquestioning support of the new regime: You CAN'T WAIT 'til we win our first game so you can throw your "I told you so" nonsense at the rest of us.

NOBODY (almost nobody) is "determined to have him fail," least of all me. But in this twisted, obsessive "war" you continue to wage (mostly with yourself), we all know you're going to fervently attack anyone and everyone who expressed even the slightest misgivings about the moves this rookie made - when we win our first game. You're like a snake in the grass ... getting ready to pounce.

Popps .... there is a big difference between COACH and FRONT OFFICE.

Most of us - even Pat Bowlen - think Josh has made some real mistakes as a front office guy. But most of us - I'm sure Pat too - are looking forward to a great offense and an improved team overall.

See now?

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 09:21 AM
"Rookie mistakes" translate into "He doesn't know what he's doing"?

Buff, you just like saying "I told you so" too much to make a logical point.

You're right ... I should not have said he has "shown signs he doesn't know what he's doing." That's far too broad and dismissive an explanation. He does know what he's doing, and has made many good moves.

My preferred explanation has been, in fact, exactly what Pat/Woody said: That he's made "rookie mistakes." I've posted that dozens of times.

ZachKC
05-03-2009, 11:15 AM
Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure if McD was the HC of the Pats, these moves would be praised as decisive and a calculated risk. But, since its the dumb ole Broncos, he's all of a sudden boy blunder... typical ESPN crap.

Heh, well there IS a reason for everything.

zdoor
05-03-2009, 01:38 PM
Well thats the thing. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. We do not all agree that there have been "all these positive moves".

As more of a lurker than poster, i've been reading most of the posts here from guy's with knowledge for years now. Got to say Socal and Popps among several others, have always been some of the better posters on this board. And while i was as dissappointed as anyone in the Cutler camp with losing him, I can't make the leap that its all on McDaniels. There's more to that story than we'll ever really know.... Apart from that major blunder (on all concerned) i liked the mix of vets he had brought in and thought prior to the Cutler fiasco the mix of leaders and coaches he was bringing on board were solid moves.

While what happened with Cutler truly sucked in epic proportions, it was obvious McDaniels and Xanders inexperience on handling delicate trade discussions, played a part in how it unfolded. That said, it's as much on Cutler as anyone else. He showed major immaturity and from an outside perspective, an agenda that was based on more than having his feelings hurt. Whatever that may have been.

I'm happy to move on. I believe we'll see more of a team this year and I hope for the best. I think anything close to .500 is a move in the right direction considering the major changes. What I'd like to see is a team that fights and show some balls when it counts. Let's face it, Cutler positives or not, the last few years have been dissappointing to say the least. And while the defense was the worst I've seen in all my years as a Bronco fan, the offense turned the ball over at the worst times possible.It wasn't all roses on that side of the ball either.

Didn't love the draft in terms of not going after more D players, but i love the fact that we went with team leaders and BPA available, especially early on. I wouldn't have traded a one for a two but I'll reserve judgement until i see Smith play.

So far I would say if you took out the Cutler mess, we've had a better offseason than any in recent years and I'm happy with the direction of the team, apart from the uncertainty at QB. Hopefully Mcadaniels knew something we didn't. I'll give him time to put a product on the field before I condenm the guy.

As for Bowlens commitment, he has been a great owner and you must add to your considerations that there could be an additional reason he has some faith. He has more intimate knowledge than any of us as to the people he's brought in vs the people that were already here. He knows the types of football minds, the type of vision and accumen they have. Hopefully his opinion is based more on his interactions and experiences than ego or finances. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as well. He's earned that much...

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 03:07 PM
I just dont understand all the McD hate with all these positive moves.

SoCal is correct. Your conclusion there assumes we all agree that there's nothing but positive moves. But reasonable people can differ on this ... Pat Bowlen for example, differs. He was quoted today as acknowledging Josh has made rookie mistakes.

But again, I think it's important to acknowlege these mistakes have all been front office mistakes. I still have major high hopes for Josh as coach, even though this is his first ever head coaching stint. Especially in that Mike Nolan is handling the defense. Nolan has seen the fires of head coaching in the NFL, too ... hopefully he will provide a check on any potential landmines for Josh.

BroncoBuff
05-07-2009, 10:14 AM
. There's more to that story than we'll ever really know.... Apart from that major blunder (on all concerned) i liked the mix of vets he had brought in and thought prior to the Cutler fiasco the mix of leaders and coaches he was bringing on board were solid moves.

While what happened with Cutler truly sucked in epic proportions, it was obvious McDaniels and Xanders inexperience on handling delicate trade discussions, played a part in how it unfolded. That said, it's as much on Cutler as anyone else. He showed major immaturity and from an outside perspective, an agenda that was based on more than having his feelings hurt. Whatever that may have been.

Rep ... every word there.

Post more often :thumbs:

vancejohnson82
05-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Well thats the thing. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. We do not all agree that there have been "all these positive moves".

yea...there are those that believe he has made errors of "biblical proportions"...that the moves have set the franchise back "a decade" and that McDaniels simply "has no idea what he is doing" and would "LOVE to have him fired"

meanwhile some of us are trying to evaluate the moves, figure out the direction of the team and actually withhold some massively overstated "facts" and opinions until we get to see the whole picture

in my opinion the Anti-McDaniels movement has gone so far to the extreme that even when good posts come out from that side they get lost in the frenzied feeding of the hate sharks

colonelbeef
09-08-2009, 02:05 PM
You're positive of this, despite the team not holding a single practice in pads, huh?

Seems a little like a stretch, Buff.

You're doing better, lately. You're returning to being an interesting poster and not just a one-sided complainer. But, you're still not giving the coach a fair shot, here. You're determined to have him fail to justify your prior position, instead of keeping an open mind and being optimistic that perhaps he's doing some things right and you just don't quite get it yet.

When Shanahan came to town, he made a bunch of VERY questionable decisions. We had a chance to go after premiere pass-rushers like Kevin Greene, and instead brought in Alfred Williams, a talented guy... but not a world-beater at that point. We brought in guys like Romo, Eddie Mac, Tanuvassa and others... none of which looked like team-changers on paper. I remember having very mixed feelings about Shanahan's early free agent work. I DID like his initial moves going after the Browns' tackles, but then it got a little confusing.

But, at the end of the day... he identified the PERFECT players to build a foundation for the defense, and continued to add to them with key additions like N. Smith.

I guarantee you, a few months into Shanahan's tenure... no one was crowning him as a top-flight GM, and in fact... I'd suspect most people were highly critical. I admit to being confused to a lot of his moves, myself.

But, looking back... he make brilliant moves, and the rest was history.

Point being, you probably don't really know if McDaniels is a good GM or not.
(Even though he isn't a GM, I'll assume he's as involved as most head coaches.)

You're determined to have this guy fail, and I think you're going to be re-thinking that position as this plays out. You really ought to step back and take a wider view of all of this. It's much more interesting when you do.


So basically what you are saying is that you were completely wrong on Shanahan- guess what, you are wrong on McDaniels as well. Shouldn't be a shock as you just admitted your track record, which belies a lack of understanding regarding the Broncos and what actually constitutes a good, smart personnel move.

BroncoBuff
09-08-2009, 03:02 PM
McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.
Wow ... same as George W. Bush :~ohyah!:

Popps
09-08-2009, 05:25 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you were completely wrong on Shanahan.

No, not remotely what I said.

I had faith in Shanahan from the beginning, and we won two SBs.

I've got faith in McDaniels, and we haven't played a regular season game yet, so we'll need several years to know if anyone was "right" or wrong about anything.

I know you lead a sad, lonely existence... following people around, stalking them on team boards posing as a fan, but maybe branch out a bit. When 100% of your posts are crybaby bull****, you just become a drone.

As a poster, Lex posts circles around you. Let's start there.

lex
09-08-2009, 05:32 PM
No, not remotely what I said.

I had faith in Shanahan from the beginning, and we won two SBs.

I've got faith in McDaniels, and we haven't played a regular season game yet, so we'll need several years to know if anyone was "right" or wrong about anything.

I know you lead a sad, lonely existence... following people around, stalking them on team boards posing as a fan, but maybe branch out a bit. When 100% of your posts are crybaby bull****, you just become a drone.

As a poster, Lex posts circles around you. Let's start there.

Wow, good to know. That just tells me I need to ratchet it up a couple of notches. I doubt youll be as complimentary by the end of the season assuming it doesnt go well...and believe me...I have a lot of **** planned...youre going to love it.

Broncos4tw
09-08-2009, 05:37 PM
because he wants to make htis team better NOW by making their highest rated corner in the draft get a year of experience under his belt, possibly even seeing the field, and we still have a first round pick next year. its really not hard.3

Well that was stupid. Does he really think we will be SB contenders this year? Seriously? If not, why is he trying to build Rome in a day? I'd rather we get our value for the next few years, if we have to build this team from scratch.

hambone13
09-08-2009, 05:57 PM
Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure if McD was the HC of the Pats, these moves would be praised as decisive and a calculated risk. But, since its the dumb ole Broncos, he's all of a sudden boy blunder... typical ESPN crap.

No, b/c he was never the head coach for NE, nor was he involved in any of the detailed planning or strategy related to drafting for NE. If he was involved on the inner circle of the original Hoodies strategy, he'd probably would have handled it much better....

hambone13
09-08-2009, 06:00 PM
In the long run, I think the negativity is something the Broncos will be able to use to their advantage. Teams tend to get a lot of mileage out of the "nobody believed in us" card, and the Broncos are prime candidates in my opinion. I mean, our offense has a ton of talent even without Cutler. A ton. Bookend tackles. 2 star wide receivers. And we added the best running back in the draft. If Orton or Simms can't be effective behind our o-line and with all the weapons, they absolutely suck and don't even belong in the league. All the defense has to be is somewhere above God Awful. Of course, that may be a lot to hope for, but I've got faith that Nolan can do it. Add to that a healthy dose of "us vs them" as a result of all the negative media attention, and I think we'll make a good run next year. :)

We'll see how good our O-Line is when there's not a big, talented, QB that is mobile and accurate on the move. I don't see Simms or Orton evading the safety that Doom nearly put on Cutler......

Popps
09-08-2009, 06:08 PM
Wow, good to know. That just tells me I need to ratchet it up a couple of notches. I doubt youll be as complimentary by the end of the season assuming it doesnt go well...and believe me...I have a lot of **** planned...youre going to love it.

Yea, you're a steaming turd... but you're at least capable of rational football discussion when you're not in attention-whore mode.

Colon-beef is basically a Raiders fan, and not even an interesting one.

Inkana7
09-08-2009, 06:25 PM
Wow, good to know. That just tells me I need to ratchet it up a couple of notches. I doubt youll be as complimentary by the end of the season assuming it doesnt go well...and believe me...I have a lot of **** planned...youre going to love it.

Wow, nice, douchebag.

fdf
09-08-2009, 06:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

Blah blah blah blah blah Josh McDaniels blah blah blah blah blah Alphonso first blah blah blah cutler blah blah young blah blah blah. . .

The author has clearly been hanging out on the Mane.

fdf
09-08-2009, 06:31 PM
Hadn't been here in a while. I guess we've separated into different camps. . .

I cannot imagine what would make you say that :)

JPEZ
09-08-2009, 06:38 PM
Does Rick Reilly post here?

McBoy Blunder that is..........

tsiguy96
10-03-2009, 03:45 PM
good bump, too bad it was by a loser...

HAT
10-03-2009, 03:56 PM
good bump, too bad it was by a loser...

I don't know tsi.....TSR's posts so far are more informative than anything by lex or buff.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:02 PM
yawn

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:20 PM
I for one, am sick of our franchise being the laughing stock of the NFL. It does not surprise me that our drafting board was thing. What did they think would happen when you fired the Goodman's?

Yes, we're DOOMED!

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:21 PM
all true, all sad. Listen to popps tho, he knows that we need to build through the line. I mean, build through the defensive backfield. I forget, which is it this week?

DOOMED I say. DOOMED!

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:24 PM
i'm just shocked that people are accepting this as some sort of genius plan when it has all the markings of a coach in way over his head.. That has run off our best drafters and bowlen just nods.


The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:27 PM
...BLIND faith in someone with no credibility or sense of real leadership. It will all come out in the wash...

Yes. Yes it will.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Dooomed!!!

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:30 PM
...I'm not buying the hype.

I wonder what footy will buy if we go 4-0 tomorrow?

NYBronco
10-03-2009, 04:30 PM
Dooomed!!!

As in 2 sacks per game average after the first 3 games.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:34 PM
Dooooooomed!!!!

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 04:34 PM
good bump, too bad it was by a loser...

Hmmmmm..... looks like you were the guy who bumped it.

Loser ;D



http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8554/loserq.jpg

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostknight
I for one, am sick of our franchise being the laughing stock of the NFL. It does not surprise me that our drafting board was thing. What did they think would happen when you fired the Goodman's?


quit being a fan will ya.

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:35 PM
Shouldn't it speak volumes, then, that a "respected professional" would hold that opinion of our new coach? He's not the only one on that train, by the way.

I'm sure he doesn't know what he's talking about. He only gets the same access that we do to newspaper articles, the same ones that have you trusting every move McDaniels makes. In fact, let's not forget he probably knows more than all of us do considering the fact that he writes for a damn sports magazine and has access to things that we don't. But yeah, trust in McDaniels because he told you to. If someone says something bad about McDaniels it HAS to be a personal vendetta.

Champ, you still going with the gospel according to Rick Reilly?

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 04:36 PM
DOOMED I say. DOOMED!

Shame on you dude ... you're quoting 3, 4, 5 and 6 month old posts to gloat like this.

Bad form, dude :nono:

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Doooooomed!!!!

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Take everything you said, and then ask yourself why you think there are "so many reasons to think that the Broncos will be a good football team this upcoming season."

This is fun!

DenverBrit
10-03-2009, 04:40 PM
Shame on you dude ... you're quoting 3, 4, 5 and 6 month old posts to gloat like this.

Bad form, dude :nono:

Those old posts were about the 'future' too.

The future is now. ;D

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:40 PM
those criticisms may not even be correct! wait until you see a product on the field before you start b****ing about how the season is gonna go!

Some people love to hate on tsi but the guy was 100% correct on this topic. It was clear then, it's even more clear now.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:41 PM
These old post were just burning to be released it was just a matter of time.

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:42 PM
He's shown plain signs he doesn't know what he's doing as a GM ...


Perhaps. But Buff, you have to admit, there are also some signs that he did know what he was doing all along. That or he just got lucky.

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:43 PM
At some point, we will be able to look back and see which of the three groups had the most reasonable position.

Yes. Yes we will.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
good point. So he had a very good first board, didn't he?

C'mon, people. Quit trying to make up something to b**** about that had nothing to do with anything of any improtance whatsoever. If he has a draft somewhat like this next year, I wouldn't care if he had just 25 frigging names on the board.

What the numbnut haters are not getting is that he is praising his scouts and their abilty to look for players that will fit his sysem best. Now, I don't give a rats' arse whom you thought he should have picked. He is going to build his team, and the results will be not known for a couple of years, although you are griping as iff the season is already lost. BS. Like Popps, I believe there are goiing to be a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls around here are gonna eat crow big time. I hoipe you have the guts to admit it, which I don't think many of you will have.....

Boy blunder, indeed. What a crock of sh*t.....

Yuk it up, fuzzball. Crows' coming.........



nice post.....

Blueflame
10-03-2009, 04:50 PM
Hmmmmm..... looks like you were the guy who bumped it.

Loser ;D



http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8554/loserq.jpg

Actually the thread was bumped by a prolific (and now banned) spammer who then proceeded to post the same spam post 25 consecutive times.

Bronx33
10-03-2009, 04:59 PM
All will be revealed in two and half years. Then we will know.


remember this statement as well people....

TonyR
10-03-2009, 04:59 PM
Shame on you dude ... you're quoting 3, 4, 5 and 6 month old posts to gloat like this.

Bad form, dude :nono:

Come on, Buff, I'm just having a little fun. It's a good thing that the "good guys" are "winning", right? 3-0 and being more wrong than right is better than 0-3 and being more right than wrong, right? I'm sure if we go 3-10 the rest of the way y'all will return the favor.

Seriously, go read post #103 in this thread and then tell me with a straight face that you backed the right horse. Can't you see clearly now that the "wait until we play a game that counts" crowd held the more rational, logical, intelligent position? It's what some of us have been saying all along and were shouted down and ridiculed for it in threads like this one.

This awful crap from Rick Reilly, and the support of it from several posters here, is exactly what had so many of us ticked off. I have no pity for the "McD is in over his head and the Broncos are going 4-12" crowd. None.

Karenin
10-03-2009, 05:32 PM
Wait until he gets rid of BMarsh, BMarsh... it's inevitable.

Another great and correct take from (not a) Dr. Goldensteinenbergensteinowitz.

Rock Chalk
10-03-2009, 05:56 PM
Hmmmmm..... looks like you were the guy who bumped it.

Loser ;D



http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8554/loserq.jpg

No, some dude who was spamming bumped it. Blueflame deleted about 30 of his posts.

Rock Chalk
10-03-2009, 05:58 PM
Shame on you dude ... you're quoting 3, 4, 5 and 6 month old posts to gloat like this.

Bad form, dude :nono:

NO its not. Its ****ing hilarious.

I love when old threads get bumped even when I am wrong on them. Just goes to show you that until you see it on the field you should probably shut teh **** up.

Somethign you and your ilk just couldn't do for 6 months.

houghtam
10-03-2009, 06:08 PM
Shame on you dude ... you're quoting 3, 4, 5 and 6 month old posts to gloat like this.

Bad form, dude :nono:

Bad form to hold someone accountable for something they said in the past? Hey Buff, if that's the kind of accountability you're into, maybe ESPN is hiring.

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 06:08 PM
Perhaps. But Buff, you have to admit, there are also some signs that he did know what he was doing all along. That or he just got lucky.
Again, no fair ... that was a v e r y old post. I've said three or four times this past week that Josh has done much better since the Jay thing. He handled the Marshall situation beautifully, it seems like he pulled that one out of the fire.

Looking back on the Bengals game ... remember how he kept calling Brandon's number even though he was off his game? My take on that is Josh was making certain to let Brandon know he mattered ... looks like it worked :thumbs:


But Tony, you gotta stop this yanking up 6-month old posts to say I-Told-You-So.

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 06:09 PM
No, some dude who was spamming bumped it. Blueflame deleted about 30 of his posts.

Okay, fair enough ... but what does it say about tsiguy that he LIKED this spammer?

That's pretty bad too ... :~ohyah!:

Rock Chalk
10-03-2009, 06:09 PM
Again, no fair ... that was a v e r y old post. I've said three or four times this past week that Josh has done much better since the Jay thing. He handled the Marshall situation beautifully, it seems like he pulled that one out of the fire.

Looking back on the Bengals game ... remember how he kept calling Brandon's number even though he was off his game? My take on that is Josh was making certain to let Brandon know he mattered ... looks like it worked :thumbs:


But Tony, you gotta stop this yanking up 6-month old posts to say I-Told-You-So.

No, he doesn't.

If you cant laugh at yourself then you shouldn't be here.

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 06:10 PM
Somethign you and your ilk just couldn't do for 6 months.

It's called an opinion, weiner ... don't be so afraid of them.

Rock Chalk
10-03-2009, 06:10 PM
Okay, fair enough ... but what does it say about tsiguy that he LIKED this spammer?

That's pretty bad too ... :~ohyah!:

Dude I dont even know how to address your idiocy anymore.

Rock Chalk
10-03-2009, 06:11 PM
It's called an opinion, weiner ... don't be so afraid of them.

Im not moron.

I can laugh at my own opinions when they are wrong. I have no problem people bumping things. I will look through said thread and see I was wrong from time to time and I chuckle.

Your the douche that's scared of having your name in lights for being wrong.

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 06:22 PM
Dude I dont even know how to address your idiocy anymore.
Okay, I was half-wrong. He liked the bump, but called the bumper a loser.

Might want to alert the news media: "Tonight at 11 ... BroncoBuff made a mistake! We'll have team coverage."

Tombstone RJ
10-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Heh, well there IS a reason for everything.

And your a chefs fan. How you like me now?

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 06:28 PM
Your the douche that's scared of having your name in lights for being wrong.

What?! Boy are you wrong ... I just said I was wrong two posts above!

So you're wrong yet again, Boy Blunder (we don't have to alert the news media on that tid-bit though).

Tombstone RJ
10-03-2009, 06:37 PM
OK kids can we all settle down now... lets all play nice...

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Come on, Buff, I'm just having a little fun. It's a good thing that the "good guys" are "winning", right? 3-0 and being more wrong than right is better than 0-3 and being more right than wrong, right? I'm sure if we go 3-10 the rest of the way y'all will return the favor.
You honestly think if we go 3-10 the rest of the way I'll be happy? It's sad I have to inform you that I don't want that. And that's the same "you want the Broncos to lose" crap. It makes no sense, it's just angry and divisive, nothing more.

That said, you might want to back away from this premature gloating ... so far we beat 2 of the 3 worst teams in the league, and it took a miracle to beat Cincy. So maybe don't jump the gun, huh? The next 9 days will really tell the story.


Seriously, go read post #103 in this thread and then tell me with a straight face that you backed the right horse.
I didn't write that post, weiner ???

And there's no "backing horses," we're all Broncos fans.


Can't you see clearly now that the "wait until we play a game that counts" crowd held the more rational, logical, intelligent position? It's what some of us have been saying all along and were shouted down and ridiculed for it in threads like this one.
Intelligence and logic have nothing to do with it. In fact. the VAST majority of commentators think we screwed up on Cutler. Right down the line on both studio shows ... from Dan Marino to Boomer Esiason to Jimmy Johnson and Howie Long. So I'm not alone, not by a long shot. Therefore, to call my opinion unintelligent is, sorry to say, unintelligent. ;D


I have no pity for the "McD is in over his head and the Broncos are going 4-12" crowd. None.
Pity? Who TF wants your pity? I'm just as happy as you we're 3-0.

Look at it this way ... for example, I've been remarkably correct about personnel over the years, as good or better than anyone here. Not the draft as much, but veterans and trades, I've been on the money over and over and over again. And I argued bitterly with people here about lots of these guys. But the last thing in the world I'd do is spend the time looking up those arguments to gloat on them (and I sure as hell wouldn't keep Word documents with lists of their posts, that's kinda obsessive and disturbing). I might gloat on my own, but I'd never attack others for being wrong. almost never anyway.

In my humble opinion, being a sore winner is the sign of poor character.

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 07:03 PM
OK kids can we all settle down now... lets all play nice...

Ahhh crap. I agree with that sentiment, but I already posted the flamer above.

Okay the, I'll stop ....................... now!

Tombstone RJ
10-03-2009, 07:23 PM
I feel better already... wait, no I'm petty sure I do...

TonyR
10-03-2009, 08:51 PM
You honestly think if we go 3-10 the rest of the way I'll be happy?

No, I don't. And I didn't say that I did. I'm not sure where you get that. And I didn't mean for this to be taken so seriously.

My point about post #103 is that you've been supportive of that poster and others making similar arguments, while not necessarily making those arguments yourself. I thought such posts were ridiculous at the time, and I'm hoping that now with the benefit of perspective and hindsight some others might see so as well.

Gort
10-03-2009, 09:28 PM
Dude I dont even know how to address your idiocy anymore.

i do.

now itz time ve danze!

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i187/SUepilepsy/misc/104p0s8.gif

Paladin
10-03-2009, 09:58 PM
The dumb just got dumber......

scorpio
10-03-2009, 10:16 PM
The BroncoBuff damage control machine has gone from "suck" to "blow"

http://blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/megamaid-spaceballs.jpg

BroncoBuff
10-03-2009, 10:37 PM
The BroncoBuff damage control machine has gone from "suck" to "blow"

http://blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/megamaid-spaceballs.jpg

?

TailgateNut
10-06-2009, 06:53 AM
Mods.

WTF

Ban this asshole.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
10-06-2009, 07:00 AM
Mods.

WTF

Ban this a-hole.

SECONDED.

Christ.

oubronco
10-06-2009, 07:01 AM
WTF is this shyt

Dukes
10-06-2009, 07:10 AM
SECONDED.

Christ.

Thirded.

I think..... ;D

baja
10-06-2009, 07:22 AM
sstop posting and refreshing this thread and it will move off the main page

Rohirrim
10-06-2009, 07:57 AM
That's the problem with really bold moves. They can be either genius or madness. Hard to know which one it is yet. The conventional wisdom would say that Mac has ****ed up big time. By about four games into this season we should have a pretty good idea which one is right. Strange for me. I agreed with letting Cutler go (even though I don't think we had much choice). I think that boy has issues that are going to bubble to the surface at some point. I don't agree with the draft picks. Trading that #1 was pure nutso. I guess we'll see.

:woowoo:

Blueflame
10-06-2009, 11:45 AM
We seem to have a recurring spammer that likes to post something like 25 consecutive posts on this particular thread. I've already deleted posts/banned the poster twice.

Thanks for reporting the posts guys. :thumbs:

Cito Pelon
10-06-2009, 12:07 PM
quit being a fan will ya.

lostknight's been through rehab, so everythings cool with him now. ;D

Cito Pelon
10-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Come on, Buff, I'm just having a little fun. It's a good thing that the "good guys" are "winning", right? 3-0 and being more wrong than right is better than 0-3 and being more right than wrong, right? I'm sure if we go 3-10 the rest of the way y'all will return the favor.

Seriously, go read post #103 in this thread and then tell me with a straight face that you backed the right horse. Can't you see clearly now that the "wait until we play a game that counts" crowd held the more rational, logical, intelligent position? It's what some of us have been saying all along and were shouted down and ridiculed for it in threads like this one.

This awful crap from Rick Reilly, and the support of it from several posters here, is exactly what had so many of us ticked off. I have no pity for the "McD is in over his head and the Broncos are going 4-12" crowd. None.

This is true. In fairness though Tony, these guys were in the grip of hysteria. They were mentally unbalanced by the abrupt changes. As I've said many times, the abrupt changes were akin to yanking the pacifier out of a toddler's mouth for many.

HEAV
10-06-2009, 01:09 PM
Gotta love seeing/reading the old guard trying to spin the past. Just be like the others (including your leader) and say "I was so wrong, I'm not smarter than McDaniels...I'm just a fan." then move on.

skpac1001
10-06-2009, 01:29 PM
I don't know if I would call what Tony was doing being a sore winner. Seemed to me more like friendly, good natured ribbing. I have seen the sore winners posts, and they are pretty obviously not good natured. I always thought the place you show character is in how you handle being wrong, not when you are right.