PDA

View Full Version : Did Denver really have to rebuild?


watermock
09-07-2009, 02:44 PM
We had A 25 year old probowl QB, a probowl WR, a probowl caliber LT, probowl center and line that could protect, 2 soild TE's and a secnd round slot that has turned into a #1 WR.

We had exceptional drafts in 06 and 08, had them signed, a good owner, SB winngg coach, and competent Front office.

A miracle flub by Bowe and a tough 2 road games sent down the road to a series of events almost unheard of in modern dat NFL history.

7 months later Denver is compared to a expansion team.

I'm sorry tell everyone, but this them isn't going to be the second coming of the 4/3 Orange Crush of 77.

And I'm not a big fan of Nolan either.

I'm not a fan of our draft, especially taking 6 of 9 on offense and a slow RB at 11 or our FA moves. WTF? we draft a sub 300 C for straight blocking then cut?

Our draft looks horrible considering what we gave up for smith. Raideresque.

Ayers has never played LB. Neither have ANY of our OLB's

Odl and older=dumb dumber.

We needed 2 RB's and lots of fresh D, not OL, QB, TE and corners. Bly proved that.

Hell, our stars are Hillis, Larsen and Woodyard. Who knows of Torain or Powell might of done, Moreno is doing his Torain impesonation.

All I'm saying is if your going to dump Shannyan an obviously successfull rebuilding on offense, why not bring in a real Dc as HC and keep Bates?

Gcver2ver3
09-07-2009, 02:46 PM
good questions...

we haven't touched on any of those issues you bring up at all this offseason...

let's vigorously discuss them at nausiam on this here shiny new thread...

Punisher
09-07-2009, 02:46 PM
No Denver REALLY HAD TO HIRE Steve Spagnuolo

baja
09-07-2009, 02:46 PM
Wouldn't that be 3 - 4 orange crush

watermock
09-07-2009, 02:49 PM
I can only type with 2 fingers, so lay off.

NUB
09-07-2009, 02:50 PM
The offense was stellar even though it was very young. The defense was deplorable.

The obvious action is to not blow up the offense but I dunno I'm just some schmuck on the street.

baja
09-07-2009, 02:52 PM
You better tell Tom Jackson or Bob Swenson or Joe Rizzo or this guy;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rg53dnb2.jpg Randy Gradishar

That they played in a 4 - 3 defense.

Chris
09-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Holy redundant thread batman!!

watermock
09-07-2009, 02:52 PM
No Denver REALLY HAD TO HIRE Steve Spagnuolo

Once Bowlen jerked, that would of been the right move.

Keeping Slowick WAS NOT Shanny's option. owner trumps gm.

watermock
09-07-2009, 02:54 PM
you better tell tom jackson or bob swenson or joe rizzo or this guy;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:rg53dnb2.jpg randy gradishar

that they played in a 4 - 3 defense.

denver should be playing the 4/3.

missingnumber7
09-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Seriously...the 2.5 million other threads about this topic haven't been enough?

watermock
09-07-2009, 02:56 PM
Regardless, we drafted for the 4/3.

Slowick was an idiot.

At least we are bringing pressure now.

baja
09-07-2009, 02:56 PM
We had A 25 year old probowl QB, a probowl WR, a probowl caliber LT, probowl center and line that could protect, 2 soild TE's and a secnd round slot that has turned into a #1 WR.

We had exceptional drafts in 06 and 08, had them signed, a good owner, SB winngg coach, and competent Front office.

A miracle flub by Bowe and a tough 2 road games sent down the road to a series of events almost unheard of in modern dat NFL history.

7 months later Denver is compared to a expansion team.

I'm sorry tell everyone, but this them isn't going to be the second coming of the 4/3 Orange Crush of 77.

And I'm not a big fan of Nolan either.

I'm not a fan of our draft, especially taking 6 of 9 on offense and a slow RB at 11 or our FA moves. WTF? we draft a sub 300 C for straight blocking then cut?

Our draft looks horrible considering what we gave up for smith. Raideresque.

Ayers has never played LB. Neither have ANY of our OLB's

Odl and older=dumb dumber.

We needed 2 RB's and lots of fresh D, not OL, QB, TE and corners. Bly proved that.

Hell, our stars are Hillis, Larsen and Woodyard. Who knows of Torain or Powell might of done, Moreno is doing his Torain impesonation.

All I'm saying is if your going to dump Shannyan an obviously successfull rebuilding on offense, why not bring in a real Dc as HC and keep Bates?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1379975/article_images/groundhog.jpg

Gcver2ver3
09-07-2009, 02:58 PM
http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1379975/article_images/groundhog.jpg

nice call...

SoCalBronco
09-07-2009, 03:02 PM
This is what Pat wanted.

Bigdawg26
09-07-2009, 03:04 PM
Well the answer is very simple... HELL NO.. You would be crazy to dismantle an offense that has a young all pro Tackles, veteran center, 25 pro bowl quarterback with a cannon for an arm, a 6-4 230 pro bowl wide out and lightning quick #2 receiver, and one of the best young receiving tight ends in the league... Now look at our offense we shipped out our franchise QB for an average at best QB, a nickel back (and they will probably release champ bailey because of him) and Vernon Ghoston, our pro bowl receiver going through the motions until next year when he's gone, almost traded away the tight end, and base on changing systems from zone blocking quick linemen to big power blockers our all pro tackles might be gone as well. It's pretty sad when you think about it. All we really needed was a new defense. Just think last year we were talking about challenging for the super bowl and we are debating about if we are going to break even...

watermock
09-07-2009, 03:05 PM
Seriously...the 2.5 million other threads about this topic haven't been enough?


Considering how this team has looked thus far, think again.


9/13 1:00 PM ET Opening betED Bodog 5Dimes SPORTSBETTING Legends SBGGlobal BETUS.com Sports Interaction
Denver
Cincinnati
45o -110
2.5 -110 43o -110
-4 -110 OFF
OFF 43o -110
-4.5 -110 44.5o -110
-4 -110 43o -110
-4.5 -110 43.5o -110
-4.5 -110 43.5o -110
-4.5 -110 43o -110
-4 -110
---------------------

Denver is1-1.5 road dogs this week.

DenverBrit
09-07-2009, 03:06 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/kaeli/waaahmbulance__cat_macros.jpg

chadta
09-07-2009, 03:07 PM
good questions...

we haven't touched on any of those issues you bring up at all this offseason...

let's vigorously discuss them at nausiam on this here shiny new thread...

you dont get to 75,000 posts without making 1 or 2 thousand bad ones, give the guy a break.

SpringStein
09-07-2009, 03:08 PM
Let's see, if I can count correctly - when Kuper and Hamilton come back from injuries we'll have 9 of 11 offensive starters back.

Yep - blew it up.

baja
09-07-2009, 03:12 PM
Let's see, if I can count correctly - when Kuper and Hamilton come back from injuries we'll have 9 of 11 offensive starters back.

Yep - blew it up.

And one of the replacements is the best running back Denver has seen since TD.

watermock
09-07-2009, 03:12 PM
Let's see, if I can count correctly - when Kuper and Hamilton come back from injuries we'll have 9 of 11 offensive starters back.

Yep - blew it up.


except the 2 probowlers, and our franchise back OUT.

Yep, the offense was set. LAST YEAR. This year, they would of had a second or 4th year together.

The problem was DEFENSE.

watermock
09-07-2009, 03:14 PM
And one of the replacements is the best running back Denver has seen since TD.

How'd our 7th do this year?

He was on IR the last 4 weeks.

baja
09-07-2009, 03:19 PM
No the problem was a team with No Heart

3 to go and 3 up and still lose division =" Need a change at the top"

baja
09-07-2009, 03:20 PM
How'd our 7th do this year?

He was on IR the last 4 weeks.

Switch to English will ya.

Popps
09-07-2009, 03:22 PM
good questions...

we haven't touched on any of those issues you bring up at all this offseason...

let's vigorously discuss them at nausiam on this here shiny new thread...

:spit:

SpringStein
09-07-2009, 03:23 PM
The problem was DEFENSE.

Correct.

And are you opposed to the fact that there are only a couple returning starters on the D this year? Seems like makor change was in order - and that's exactly what has happened.

baja
09-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Correct.

And are you opposed to the fact that there are only a couple returning starters on the D this year? Seems like makor change was in order - and that's exactly what has happened.

Quit bring up the facts , you'll ruin the thread.

BroncoBuff
09-07-2009, 03:27 PM
Funny ... everybody whines about this thread, an yet it's on its second page in less than an hour. :~ohyah!:

Baba Booey
09-07-2009, 03:27 PM
No Denver REALLY HAD TO HIRE Steve Spagnuolo

Real talk. Cutler would still be our QB, we could have kept Bates, and we would have gotten a solid defensive mind to mend the D.

Cue the "Cutler's gone, get over it" crowd.

baja
09-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Funny ... everybody whines about this thread, an yet it's on its second page in less than an hour. :~ohyah!:

Same reason Bob's threads always hit 5 + pages Oh and that's also why Bob will never get banned...

baja
09-07-2009, 03:31 PM
Real talk. Cutler would still be our QB, we could have kept Bates, and we would have gotten a solid defensive mind to mend the D.

Cue the "Cutler's gone, get over it" crowd.

You should go read what he has done for the Rams.

Gcver2ver3
09-07-2009, 03:35 PM
Funny ... everybody whines about this thread, an yet it's on its second page in less than an hour. :~ohyah!:

yea but half the replies on here are insults...

besides, it's either this thread or choice of two shawn merrimen threads and jumping on the Jake Locker bandwagon?...

chrisp
09-07-2009, 03:41 PM
I'm not totally convinced that the situation is as cut and dried as 'the defense sucked'. Yes it did. However, there was also the fact that we had this incredibly boom-and-bust offense. We either went three-and-out or we scored. We never gave the defense a break or a chance to catch its breath.

So the question is, what would have happened if we'd trotted out the same garbage next year? 8-8 season with a ****ty defense and a high-ranked offense? It could easily have happened, particularly with Slowik returning.....

Pseudofool
09-07-2009, 03:43 PM
Good thing Ed Hochuli got the call wrong, cuz this argument looks so much more sheepish if we were 7-9.

Every sports team's boons and banes rests on a few what if that didn't happen plays. Give it a rest. Really sophomoric post.

KevinJames
09-07-2009, 04:03 PM
regardless of who was the coach this year it was going to be a rebuilding season whether you believe that or not.

Jay hit his ceiling as a QB that is why he is no longer with us.

Mr.Meanie
09-07-2009, 04:05 PM
How is the offense "blown up"? The only blown up part of the team is the defense, which needed to be.

Again (for the hundredth time) we upgraded every single position on this team except QB. How is that possibly bad?

TheDave
09-07-2009, 04:12 PM
regardless of who was the coach this year it was going to be a rebuilding season whether you believe that or not.

Jay hit his ceiling as a QB that is why he is no longer with us.

http://smoothfewfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm2ly3.jpg

Archer81
09-07-2009, 04:18 PM
With all this probowl offensive talent...we only had 8 wins. Our "franchise" QB turned the ball over 20 times, killing a defense that was horrific in the first place. Would it be better if Cutler was here? Of course. I think with McDaniels he would have curbed the tendency to lock on to one guy and actually make the offense more dangerous. Didnt work out that way. So we will see how the team does with a different direction.

:Broncos:

KevinJames
09-07-2009, 04:38 PM
http://smoothfewfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm2ly3.jpg

the truth hurts

kiss the baby

well it this situation kick the baby

glad his b****ass is gone tho:wave:

anyway lets move on

The problem was DEFENSE.

:rofl: yeah its the defenses fault we sucked in the redzone, turned the ball over and had a very predictable offense :thumbs:

watermock
09-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Correct.

And are you opposed to the fact that there are only a couple returning starters on the D this year? Seems like makor change was in order - and that's exactly what has happened.

What's happened on D?

Blitzing OLB's that used to be DE's?

Drafting 3 corners and signing 3 covers? Drafting ZERO DL?

Who's gonna cover?

We gonna be able to run a 3-3-5 and rush the passer?

RhymesayersDU
09-07-2009, 04:47 PM
How is the offense "blown up"? The only blown up part of the team is the defense, which needed to be.

Again (for the hundredth time) we upgraded every single position on this team except QB. How is that possibly bad?

ROFL, no way.

But feel free to try to explain.

We moved laterally at RB. (Note: I think Knowshon has loads of potential, but that means squat. He's played for 2 minutes and gotten hurt. Just saying, at this point we don't know on the RB.)

Our WRs are potentially worse with the Marshall situation. Does he even know the playbook?

QB, which is only the most important position on the field, took a huge hit. (And don't give me the Trent Dilfer argument either. Those situations are few and far between.)

Defense we got some new players, but we still have a ton of 4-3 players trying to fit into a 3-4 scheme. I don't know that I'd call it an upgrade. I mean, it is probably a move in the right direction, but that is going to take time. IMO we'll be no better or worse than we were last year on defense, although a healthy Champ & DJ will help. I of course like Dawkins, but we'll see.

Who knows about Prater. Hopefully he makes more kicks this year.

I'm not sure why people have this notion that we improved over the offseason. We didn't. I won't go over every position, but I assure you we didn't upgrade at all of them. And at the team level, we are much worse, at least for this year. It is a work in progress.

SoCalBronco
09-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Jay hit his ceiling as a QB that is why he is no longer with us.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/fd/Picard-no-facepalm.jpg

Good Lord. Where do these people come from? Oh wait....I have a pretty good idea:

www.denverbroncos.com/forums/homomania

KevinJames
09-07-2009, 05:08 PM
a lot of people still have Jay's unit lodged in the back of their throat its okay to remove it now the man is gone.

please move on.............

all he had is a big arm and a big head (with a small brain), and that is about it...............

watermock
09-07-2009, 05:15 PM
regardless of who was the coach this year it was going to be a rebuilding season whether you believe that or not.

Jay hit his ceiling as a QB that is why he is no longer with us.

Wow.

And what is Beavis ceiling? or Cutlers?

Last year was a building season IMO.

errand
09-07-2009, 05:25 PM
you dont get to 75,000 posts without making 1 or 2 thousand bad ones, give the guy a break.

you haven't been on here that long dude....Mock is famous for crap like this..

ScottXray
09-07-2009, 05:27 PM
Well the answer is very simple... HELL NO.. You would be crazy to dismantle an offense that has a young all pro Tackles, veteran center, 25 pro bowl quarterback with a cannon for an arm, a 6-4 230 pro bowl wide out and lightning quick #2 receiver, and one of the best young receiving tight ends in the league... Now look at our offense we shipped out our franchise QB for an average at best QB, a nickel back (and they will probably release champ bailey because of him) and Vernon Ghoston, our pro bowl receiver going through the motions until next year when he's gone, almost traded away the tight end, and base on changing systems from zone blocking quick linemen to big power blockers our all pro tackles might be gone as well. It's pretty sad when you think about it. All we really needed was a new defense. Just think last year we were talking about challenging for the super bowl and we are debating about if we are going to break even...

After last year I had NO thought that we would be challenging for a SB any time soon. Slowick staying would have torpedoed ANY possibility of that happening as long as he was here.

And our stellar offense had a LOT of trouble trying to put up 20 points a game after the first 3 games last year, so I didn't think that the offense was as stellar as some here thought. The fact is that the team needed some Backs that could stay healthy, some depth at WR, some injury luck, and a Complete D rebuild. Considering Shanahans previous history in building a good D that was NOT going to happen.

The injury problems we had a RBand in the secondary last year was some really bad luck, but our other players that remained healthy did not pick up the slack (including the QB) when they needed to, to win one of the last 4 games.
That is an indictment of the scheme and the coaching and the Players who let that division title slip away.

Maybe we didn't need a rebuild on offense, but we definitely didn't have all the pieces there either.

watermock
09-07-2009, 05:44 PM
Maybe we didn't need a rebuild on offense, but we definitely didn't have all the pieces there either.

So draft a slow RB that ran behind a #1 ranked team with the first pick in the draft that can't run a sub 4.5 and his QB in the first player taken?


Jesus, how many red flags do you need?

We had an NFL RECORD 7 RB go on IR.

Not to mention the D.

So why was the O dismantled? HUH?

Denver had all the pieces on offense, and room to draft and buy some playuers.


Beavis bought RB's and DB's and drafted more, along with a second round TE.

He's a ****up.
Not all of it, but enough.

TonyR
09-07-2009, 05:52 PM
...there was also the fact that we had this incredibly boom-and-bust offense.

Yep, very inconsistent. And very mediocre overall after the first 3 games of the season last year.

And I'd still like to know how a coach and FO with an abysmal record of talent acquisition on defensive side of the football were going to rebuild that awful unit.

ScottXray
09-07-2009, 05:53 PM
So draft a slow RB that ran behind a #1 ranked team with the first pick in the draft that can't run a sub 4.5 and his QB in the first player taken?


Jesus, how many red flags do you need?

I didn't say we fixed anything, just that there WAS need to do so. Face it, Shanny got lucky when he drafted TD. He also traded away Portis in an attempt to keep up with INDYs pass game. Champ has been a good player for us, but Portis was a pretty good RB, and still is getting it mostly done even now.

RhymesayersDU
09-07-2009, 05:55 PM
I didn't say we fixed anything, just that there WAS need to do so. Face it, Shanny got lucky when he drafted TD. He also traded away Portis in an attempt to keep up with INDYs pass game. Champ has been a good player for us, but Portis was a pretty good RB, and still is getting it mostly done even now.

I thought Shanny didn't want to pay Portis' asking price. I liked Portis a lot, but given our prior success (and our success since) running the ball in our system, I don't think it was a bad move.

ScottXray
09-07-2009, 05:58 PM
I thought Shanny didn't want to pay Portis' asking price. I liked Portis a lot, but given our prior success (and our success since) running the ball in our system, I don't think it was a bad move.

Didn't say that either, but if you look at the contracts both players got after the trade the amounts were pretty similar. So the money was there.

And I brought up Portis because of Mocks comment about Moreno.

baja
09-07-2009, 05:59 PM
I thought Shanny didn't want to pay Portis' asking price. I liked Portis a lot, but given our prior success (and our success since) running the ball in our system, I don't think it was a bad move.

It's my take we will say exactly that about the Cutler trade for the very same reason, but we'll see.

RhymesayersDU
09-07-2009, 06:03 PM
Didn't say that either, but if you look at the contracts both players got after the trade the amounts were pretty similar. So the money was there.

And I brought up Portis because of Mocks comment about Moreno.

Yeah I know Champ got paid. What I meant was, Shanny didn't want to put money into a position that we could get similar production out of at a lesser price. Or at least so I thought.

RhymesayersDU
09-07-2009, 06:04 PM
It's my take we will say exactly that about the Cutler trade for the very same reason, but we'll see.

That is the million dollar question. Can Josh McD turn Orton (or Brandstater, or a future draft pick) into a leader of a great offense.

I'm obviously skeptical. QB's don't grow on trees like RBs do. But let's hope it works out.

jhat01
09-07-2009, 06:05 PM
God this stuff is tedious. How many times is the same **** discussed? ****

baja
09-07-2009, 06:08 PM
God this stuff is tedious. How many times is the same **** discussed? ****

And you have punished yourself 1,100 times

ScottXray
09-07-2009, 06:10 PM
Yeah I know Champ got paid. What I meant was, Shanny didn't want to put money into a position that we could get similar production out of at a lesser price. Or at least so I thought.

Hard to say now, but Portis was a game breaker on the Offensive side, and though we racked up the yards we never had a real threat that could score from any point on the field, at RB after that. No one the Defenses HAD to account for or get burned.

Unfortunately it seems that that is where we are still at, but I'm hoping Moreno was worth that #1.

jhat01
09-07-2009, 06:13 PM
And you have punished yourself 1,100 times

yeah i know..the picture is cool though, and in at least 100 of those posts I'm bitchin' at you, so it's all good.

Ironlung
09-07-2009, 06:19 PM
So draft a slow RB that ran behind a #1 ranked team with the first pick in the draft that can't run a sub 4.5 and his QB in the first player taken?


Jesus, how many red flags do you need?

We had an NFL RECORD 7 RB go on IR.

Not to mention the D.

So why was the O dismantled? HUH?

Denver had all the pieces on offense, and room to draft and buy some playuers.


Beavis bought RB's and DB's and drafted more, along with a second round TE.

He's a ****up.
Not all of it, but enough.S
So now you're saying Moreno is a product of the system, and he's basically just a slow runningback? The guy runs like a man possessed. Jesus Christ, you're a whiny bitch. Do you like any players on the team or are Cutler and Shanahan the only two broncos you liked?

watermock
09-07-2009, 06:19 PM
I didn't say we fixed anything, just that there WAS need to do so. Face it, Shanny got lucky when he drafted TD. He also traded away Portis in an attempt to keep up with INDYs pass game. Champ has been a good player for us, but Portis was a pretty good RB, and still is getting it mostly done even now.


BTW, while everyone was fawning over Champ and his record breaking contract, Portis is soon to become Wsh. all time leading rusher in the era of passers.

I've held my peace about the Portis trade for many years.
BTW, Bly picked off Orton, not Champ.

watermock
09-07-2009, 06:22 PM
Your talking a decade ago with TD.

Your talking about trading a player that had 2 years remaining as in PORTIS.

BM has zero.

oubronco
09-07-2009, 06:27 PM
except the 2 probowlers, and our franchise back OUT.

Yep, the offense was set. LAST YEAR. This year, they would of had a second or 4th year together.

The problem was DEFENSE.

I agree I'm not happy with what McD has done but what are we going to do but roll with it

jhat01
09-07-2009, 06:28 PM
I agree I'm not happy with what McD has done but what are we going to do but roll with it

apparently rehash the same **** over and over and over and over and over. Sunday can't come soon enough.

ScottXray
09-07-2009, 06:28 PM
Your talking a decade ago with TD.

Your talking about trading a player that had 2 years remaining as in PORTIS.

BM has zero.

Okay, now you lost me....where did BM come into this? Do you think we Should have traded him? After giving in to Whiny in March? Let another all pro go?

baja
09-07-2009, 06:30 PM
Your talking a decade ago with TD.

Your talking about trading a player that had 2 years remaining as in PORTIS.

BM has zero.

Pssst Mock it was Shanahan that traded Portis...

Lolad
09-07-2009, 06:33 PM
Well the answer is very simple... HELL NO.. You would be crazy to dismantle an offense that has a young all pro Tackles, veteran center, 25 pro bowl quarterback with a cannon for an arm, a 6-4 230 pro bowl wide out and lightning quick #2 receiver, and one of the best young receiving tight ends in the league... Now look at our offense we shipped out our franchise QB for an average at best QB, a nickel back (and they will probably release champ bailey because of him) and Vernon Ghoston, our pro bowl receiver going through the motions until next year when he's gone, almost traded away the tight end, and base on changing systems from zone blocking quick linemen to big power blockers our all pro tackles might be gone as well. It's pretty sad when you think about it. All we really needed was a new defense. Just think last year we were talking about challenging for the super bowl and we are debating about if we are going to break even...

This

Everybody and their momma said we could contend if we picked up some defensive starters and improved in the redzone. Now 8-8 is the new Super Bowl here for most posters

Lolad
09-07-2009, 09:30 PM
I'm not totally convinced that the situation is as cut and dried as 'the defense sucked'. Yes it did. However, there was also the fact that we had this incredibly boom-and-bust offense. We either went three-and-out or we scored. We never gave the defense a break or a chance to catch its breath.

So the question is, what would have happened if we'd trotted out the same garbage next year? 8-8 season with a ****ty defense and a high-ranked offense? It could easily have happened, particularly with Slowik returning.....

this is a lie if i've ever saw 1. Look at the stats we were # 2 in 1st downs per game. and # 3 in 3rd downs per game

Retire #30!!!
09-07-2009, 10:47 PM
I wonder if Mock has a tear roll down his face everytime he puts any of his bronco gear on... Oh what could have been if the FO did everything you wanted them to do. The fact is no one knows how this is going to play out. I guess you have everyright to throw a temper tantrum and call all the players worthless. But it's a new season I recommend that you try to look at the bright side. Maybe if you're lucky Mc'whateverthe****youthinkiscutewordplay' will surprise you. Save this **** for next offseason, but if you need to continue your cycle of negativity have at it, I guess it has to be raining somewhere.:-[

Cool Breeze
09-07-2009, 11:24 PM
I wonder how Bodog did on that CSU VS CU game?

OBF1
09-07-2009, 11:25 PM
Jesus Christ already. TJ, give Mock 80,000 posts and shut him down for the rest of the season.

orange 4 life
09-07-2009, 11:28 PM
Did Denver really have to rebuild?

The short answer is "no," but the question should be "DID we rebuild?"

Personally, I think we're a MUCH better team outside the qb position, and if Orton is healthy and can play well (which I think he CAN) then we just might have a shot here.

Like I've said many times, Cutler has more talent in his right arm than Orton has in his whole body, but Orton has heart, smarts, and leadership ability.
Three things we DIDN'T get with Cutler.

If his play is HALF that of Cutler, we'll be a pretty solid team. Just my .02.

Jake

watermock
09-07-2009, 11:44 PM
Hard to say now, but Portis was a game breaker on the Offensive side, and though we racked up the yards we never had a real threat that could score from any point on the field, at RB after that. No one the Defenses HAD to account for or get burned.

Unfortunately it seems that that is where we are still at, but I'm hoping Moreno was worth that #1.

Yet even now, dimwits say that was a good trade.

Portis next year,will become the all time leading rusher for Washington.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-07-2009, 11:51 PM
We had A 25 year old probowl QB, a probowl WR, a probowl caliber LT, probowl center and line that could protect, 2 soild TE's and a secnd round slot that has turned into a #1 WR.

We had exceptional drafts in 06 and 08, had them signed, a good owner, SB winngg coach, and competent Front office.

A miracle flub by Bowe and a tough 2 road games sent down the road to a series of events almost unheard of in modern dat NFL history.

7 months later Denver is compared to a expansion team.

I'm sorry tell everyone, but this them isn't going to be the second coming of the 4/3 Orange Crush of 77.

And I'm not a big fan of Nolan either.

I'm not a fan of our draft, especially taking 6 of 9 on offense and a slow RB at 11 or our FA moves. WTF? we draft a sub 300 C for straight blocking then cut?

Our draft looks horrible considering what we gave up for smith. Raideresque.

Ayers has never played LB. Neither have ANY of our OLB's

Odl and older=dumb dumber.

We needed 2 RB's and lots of fresh D, not OL, QB, TE and corners. Bly proved that.

Hell, our stars are Hillis, Larsen and Woodyard. Who knows of Torain or Powell might of done, Moreno is doing his Torain impesonation.

All I'm saying is if your going to dump Shannyan an obviously successfull rebuilding on offense, why not bring in a real Dc as HC and keep Bates?

ah oh. kool aid drinkers won''t like this. the truth.

watermock
09-07-2009, 11:52 PM
S
So now you're saying Moreno is a product of the system, and he's basically just a slow runningback? The guy runs like a man possessed. Jesus Christ, you're a whiny b****. Do you like any players on the team or are Cutler and Shanahan the only two broncos you liked?


Yes, I am.

Moreno would of carried us into the playoffs LAST YEAR.

Right now, he's a 4 ypc back.

And no. Beavis has even ****ed that up.

We are mano mano blocking now.

Hamilton is going to be owned.

ZONA
09-08-2009, 12:08 AM
This one calls for the double facepalm

http://www.offresonance.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/double-facepalm.jpg

Rock Chalk
09-08-2009, 12:44 AM
Real talk. Cutler would still be our QB, we could have kept Bates, and we would have gotten a solid defensive mind to mend the D.

Cue the "Cutler's gone, get over it" crowd.

You lost me.

Bates had to go, abso-****ing-lutely HAD to go.

****ing horrible offensive coordinator.

Dont believe it? Go look at the stats of the offense last year AFTER the Shanahan scripted plays.

****ing HORRIBLE.

The only reason Cutler liked him so much is because all he ****ing did was pass the ****ing ball instead of playing ball control offense to help our abso-****ing-lutely ATROCIOUS defense out.

Bates HAD to go.

tsiguy96
09-08-2009, 12:50 AM
bates sucked big time, go watch the home raiders game for proof. the team, as a whole, has much better depth and a renewed emphasis on defense. remember the reports the defense felt like second class citizens last year?

found quote:
Things got so ugly that a culture of failure developed in the locker room. But don't take my word for it. We take you to D.J. Williams, who admitted that he and his defensive teammates felt like "second-class citizens" compared to the offense.
Now for the good news. It took a coaching change and a major upheaval in the personnel department, but the Broncos finally are making moves that were every bit as inevitable as they were overdue.
If Mike Shanahan were in charge, Bob Slowik would have returned to oversee a defense with a handful of new starters. Instead, Josh McDaniels and his staff have gutted the defensive depth chart, dumping five starters in a matter of days.

DBroncos4life
09-08-2009, 12:55 AM
bates sucked big time, go watch the home raiders game for proof. the team, as a whole, has much better depth and a renewed emphasis on defense. remember the reports the defense felt like second class citizens last year?
Only the Lions and the Chiefs had worse D's then us and combined they won 2 games. I think you would have a hard time to find a team that had worse D stat wise from top to bottom on D that finished with a .500 record in modern football.

broncocalijohn
09-08-2009, 01:28 AM
I can only type with 2 fingers, so lay off.

Compared to the "old days" of 5 fingers, fist punch, alcohol drool heavy enough to press a key and beezer laying down on the keyboard spelling words better than you.

Did you not think we need to rebuild our defense or just get a new coach (which you dont like the one we just got)?

broncocalijohn
09-08-2009, 01:35 AM
I wonder if Mock has a tear roll down his face everytime he puts any of his bronco gear on... Oh what could have been if the FO did everything you wanted them to do. The fact is no one knows how this is going to play out. I guess you have everyright to throw a temper tantrum and call all the players worthless. But it's a new season I recommend that you try to look at the bright side. Maybe if you're lucky Mc'whateverthe****youthinkiscutewordplay' will surprise you. Save this **** for next offseason, but if you need to continue your cycle of negativity have at it, I guess it has to be raining somewhere.:-[

He always has his Vikings gear to fall back on. BTW: 3 post in three years. Way to spread your thoughts out. Dont rush it. :strong:

tsiguy96
09-08-2009, 02:05 AM
Only the Lions and the Chiefs had worse D's then us and combined they won 2 games. I think you would have a hard time to find a team that had worse D stat wise from top to bottom on D that finished with a .500 record in modern football.

hell, a team that finished 16th in scoring and straight sucked in all defensive categories. they gave up more points than they scored. to say they lucked into some of those wins is an understatement. after week 3, they only won 1 game where the defense allowed more than 20 points (cleveland thriller on a thursday). the offense faded horribly too.

TonyR
09-08-2009, 06:49 AM
Everybody and their momma said we could contend if we picked up some defensive starters and improved in the redzone. Now 8-8 is the new Super Bowl here for most posters

That's a BIG if! Shanny and this FO couldn't have had a worse track record with acquiring defensive talent. What was going to change?

Broncos_OTM
09-08-2009, 07:45 AM
We had A 25 year old probowl QB, a probowl WR, a probowl caliber LT, probowl center and line that could protect, 2 soild TE's and a secnd round slot that has turned into a #1 WR.

We had exceptional drafts in 06 and 08, had them signed, a good owner, SB winngg coach, and competent Front office.

A miracle flub by Bowe and a tough 2 road games sent down the road to a series of events almost unheard of in modern dat NFL history.

7 months later Denver is compared to a expansion team.

I'm sorry tell everyone, but this them isn't going to be the second coming of the 4/3 Orange Crush of 77.

And I'm not a big fan of Nolan either.

I'm not a fan of our draft, especially taking 6 of 9 on offense and a slow RB at 11 or our FA moves. WTF? we draft a sub 300 C for straight blocking then cut?

Our draft looks horrible considering what we gave up for smith. Raideresque.

Ayers has never played LB. Neither have ANY of our OLB's

Odl and older=dumb dumber.

We needed 2 RB's and lots of fresh D, not OL, QB, TE and corners. Bly proved that.

Hell, our stars are Hillis, Larsen and Woodyard. Who knows of Torain or Powell might of done, Moreno is doing his Torain impesonation.

All I'm saying is if your going to dump Shannyan an obviously successfull rebuilding on offense, why not bring in a real Dc as HC and keep Bates?Ayers HAS played the lb position in college,please for the love of god look at his highlight tape. I have showed you this twice.

stars ...? eddie royal, champ, bdawk, dumervil, clady

you do realize shanny was the coach of the biggest flop in nfl history. you cant have your cake and eat it to mock.

mock as it turns how do you know whats going at dove valley. there are unfounded rumors that pat is in a penny crunch. trading away the first saves him presumeably top pick money. they get a cb to groom to possibly replace champ who due to salary migh get cut or traded they also got quinn to possibly replace graham who makes a very large cheque himself. and basically is super cheap. maybe and it has shown mcd doesnt value te like shanny did

two fingers....quit crying i am forced to use a play station3 controller... i can only dream of having a keyboard. its not how fast you type. its the broken english. incomplete sentances. i am not a grammar nazi, but literaly people dont speak mock (some might)we speak english. it would do you a big service if you proof read what you say, spell check they do have such a thing.


BTW post count dont mean **** if your posts dont make sense. you are just going to have people attack the poster not the post. you are here to discuss bronco football.

BBTW this post took me forty two minutes. and its for the most part coherant

GoBroncos DownUnder
09-08-2009, 08:08 AM
you do realize shanny was the coach of the biggest flop in nfl history.
You mean "biggest MULTI GAME flop"!
I thought the biggest flop was a few years ago - 49ers at Denver, in week 17.;)

Mr.Meanie
09-08-2009, 08:32 AM
Ayers HAS played the lb position in college,please for the love of god look at his highlight tape. I have showed you this twice.

stars ...? eddie royal, champ, bdawk, dumervil, clady

you do realize shanny was the coach of the biggest flop in nfl history. you cant have your cake and eat it to mock.

mock as it turns how do you know whats going at dove valley. there are unfounded rumors that pat is in a penny crunch. trading away the first saves him presumeably top pick money. they get a cb to groom to possibly replace champ who due to salary migh get cut or traded they also got quinn to possibly replace graham who makes a very large cheque himself. and basically is super cheap. maybe and it has shown mcd doesnt value te like shanny did

two fingers....quit crying i am forced to use a play station3 controller... i can only dream of having a keyboard. its not how fast you type. its the broken english. incomplete sentances. i am not a grammar nazi, but literaly people dont speak mock (some might)we speak english. it would do you a big service if you proof read what you say, spell check they do have such a thing.


BTW post count dont mean **** if your posts dont make sense. you are just going to have people attack the poster not the post. you are here to discuss bronco football.

BBTW this post took me forty two minutes. and its for the most part coherant

wow...a PS3 controller? Props!

Broncos_OTM
09-08-2009, 08:35 AM
wow...a PS3 controller? Props!yeah the puter cought a std...lol


i see your sf game and raise you the jacksonville playoff game :)

TailgateNut
09-08-2009, 08:40 AM
yeah the puter cought a std...lol


i see your sf game and raise you the jacksonville playoff game :)

Yikes!!!

You win!

Inkana7
09-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Mock, you're retarded.

GoBroncos DownUnder
09-08-2009, 09:15 AM
i see your sf game and raise you the jacksonville playoff game :)

Jacksonville WERE a good team at the time though, unlike San Fran of the past 5+ years! ;)

TailgateNut
09-08-2009, 09:18 AM
Jacksonville WERE a good team at the time though, unlike San Fran of the past 5+ years! ;)

That can be said of the Broncos also.:spit:

Peoples Champ
09-08-2009, 09:21 AM
you make good points, but we cant do anything about it as fans, so I will just accept the team even if they suck this year.

Popps
09-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Well, Mock... this thread worked out well for you.

Keep up that "smarter than everyone" routine you're running, though. Very effective.

jhns
09-08-2009, 09:45 AM
hell, a team that finished 16th in scoring and straight sucked in all defensive categories. they gave up more points than they scored. to say they lucked into some of those wins is an understatement. after week 3, they only won 1 game where the defense allowed more than 20 points (cleveland thriller on a thursday). the offense faded horribly too.

The offense didn't fade horribly. They started trying to overcompensate for a horrible defense. They also were extremely young and making mistakes is not an excuse, or good justification for what happened, to downgrade the most important position on the field. It isn't like we slightly downgraded either.

The offense didn't do all that bad though. 16th is a team stat. We were top 10 in offensive scoring. That is if you take out defensive and special teams TDs. Our offense slowed down to help the defense. Our defense saw fewer drives than any defense in this league. This offense drove further per drive than any other offense in the league. We punted the fewest times per drive in the league. The offense also had to overcome the 32nd ranked starting field position in the league.... Should I continue?

tsiguy96
09-08-2009, 09:54 AM
no, you dont need to, and i believe offensive scoring was 11th, not top 10. at the end of the day, for them being "so good" they still didnt put GREAT points up. like i said, after week 3, they sucked. they were 24th in scoring after that, they scored 1/3 of their points in the first 3 weeks. try to blame the defense all you want, but when offensive scoring is that low, theres clearly a problem. again, they only won a single game that the defense allowed more than 20 points after week 3. that means unless the defense showed up, the offense was screwed. thats not what you see in a team thats supposedly has a great offense.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-08-2009, 09:56 AM
What a forward thinking thread. Seriously. Brilliant, Mock.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Offensive scoring was actually 16th. Ouch. Just barely good enough for top half of the league.

jhns
09-08-2009, 09:57 AM
no, you dont need to, and i believe offensive scoring was 11th, not top 10. at the end of the day, for them being "so good" they still didnt put GREAT points up. like i said, after week 3, they sucked. they were 24th in scoring after that, they scored 1/3 of their points in the first 3 weeks. try to blame the defense all you want, but when offensive scoring is that low, theres clearly a problem. again, they only won a single game that the defense allowed more than 20 points after week 3. that means unless the defense showed up, the offense was screwed. thats not what you see in a team thats supposedly has a great offense.

They were rookie-3rd year players that had a lot of injuries while tryong to carry a team. Nothing was wrong other than experience and a durable RB. Are you kidding me?

They are 11th if you don't take out the extra points scored on the defensive and special teams TDs. They are 9 if you do. That is also with a pretty crappy kicker, which isn't the offenses fault.

Your other scoring rank is again including defense and special teams. Why not use offensive stats when trying to discredit this offense? Afraid they don't help you enough?

TailgateNut
09-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Offensive scoring was actually 16th. Ouch. Just barely good enough for top half of the league.

.........but they got some SERIOUS YARDAGE.:spit: If the red zone wouldn't have tripped them up, we would have made it to the dance.:spit:

Maybe Jay's diabetes was acting up when he approached the endzone. He was ok between the 20s.:wiggle:

jhns
09-08-2009, 10:06 AM
Offensive scoring was actually 16th. Ouch. Just barely good enough for top half of the league.

When you can't use offensive stats to discredit the offense, what does that say about your side of the argument?

What it tells me is you don't have one.

GoBroncos DownUnder
09-08-2009, 10:09 AM
... If the red zone wouldn't have tripped them up, ... :spit:

Ahhh, the glory days of "tripping" ... remember when our QB used to trip over the dog ... and the driveway!!
But hey, at least he never tripped over Tila Tequila! ;)

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 10:49 AM
We had A 25 year old probowl QB, a probowl WR, a probowl caliber LT, probowl center and line that could protect, 2 soild TE's and a secnd round slot that has turned into a #1 WR.



Just reading that you would think you were talking about the Cleveland Browns.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Only the Lions and the Chiefs had worse D's then us and combined they won 2 games. I think you would have a hard time to find a team that had worse D stat wise from top to bottom on D that finished with a .500 record in modern football.

2008 Arizona Cardinals.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-08-2009, 10:52 AM
When you can't use offensive stats to discredit the offense, what does that say about your side of the argument?

What it tells me is you don't have one.

Excuse me? I am using offensive stats to discredit the offense.

Second in the league in YARDS. 16th in the league in SCORING.

you tell me which is more important, smart guy.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 10:52 AM
YES! 10 years of not rebuilding produced one above average season with more mediocrity on the way. This team settled and was too damn comfortable the last few years. F*** that. At least now they are going to try again.

lex
09-08-2009, 11:01 AM
Offensive scoring was actually 16th. Ouch. Just barely good enough for top half of the league.

How much of that is a function of the defense not generating turnovers? Theres a reason yards is the most heavily relied on stat.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 11:05 AM
How much of that is a function of the defense not generating turnovers? Theres a reason yards is the most heavily relied on stat.

It hurts for sure, but the red zone numbers were totally opposite of the yardage numbers across the board.

As far as yardage being relied on as a stat, I think that is too simplisitic. TO +/- is much more correlated to winning. As far as helping the other side of the ball, yards is great, but it still takes creating and stopping scoring to win games.

Lolad
09-08-2009, 11:05 AM
no, you dont need to, and i believe offensive scoring was 11th, not top 10. at the end of the day, for them being "so good" they still didnt put GREAT points up. like i said, after week 3, they sucked. they were 24th in scoring after that, they scored 1/3 of their points in the first 3 weeks. try to blame the defense all you want, but when offensive scoring is that low, theres clearly a problem. again, they only won a single game that the defense allowed more than 20 points after week 3. that means unless the defense showed up, the offense was screwed. thats not what you see in a team thats supposedly has a great offense.

this is fallacy. We were top 10 in redzone scoring up until week 10.. Look it up

lex
09-08-2009, 11:07 AM
YES! 10 years of not rebuilding produced one above average season with more mediocrity on the way. This team settled and was too damn comfortable the last few years. **** that. At least now they are going to try again.


Settled? Very few teams turned over the roster to the degree Denver did over the past 2.5 seasons. With that in mind they actually did well and were on the rise even with Slowik. Now suddenly, every one is coping with this new regime by lying to themselves.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 11:07 AM
this is fallacy. We were top 10 in redzone scoring up until week 10.. Look it up

Actually, that is if you include the heavy scoring of the first 4 weeks. IF you start at week 5 to the end of the season is what he is saying I believe.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 11:08 AM
this is fallacy. We were top 10 in redzone scoring up until week 10.. Look it up

Do they just quit keeping stats after week 10? Denver's Offense was very overrated last year especially when one win was needed for playoffs and they couldn't come up with scoring drives when it counted and instead turned the ball over.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 11:12 AM
Settled? Very few teams turned over the roster to the degree Denver did over the past 2.5 seasons. With that in mind they actually did well and were on the rise even with Slowik. Now suddenly, every one is coping with this new regime by lying to themselves.

Bull. Go check the NFL rosters of every team. The league Turnover rate is around 25% every season. That means teams totally turnover except for Premier players almost every four years. But keep lying about stuff to make your point.

ONLY one part of the game was possibly on the rise. Defense and ST's were still crap and not going anywhere quick. As for the offense, they were very poor down the stretch, when it counted. So, trying to point to them as a bright spot is wishful thinking, when they could not execute when it counted the most.

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:20 AM
Excuse me? I am using offensive stats to discredit the offense.

Second in the league in YARDS. 16th in the league in SCORING.

you tell me which is more important, smart guy.

We were top 10 in offensive scoring. You are using a team stat to try discrediting the offense. You are showing you have nothing.

lex
09-08-2009, 11:21 AM
It hurts for sure, but the red zone numbers were totally opposite of the yardage numbers across the board.

As far as yardage being relied on as a stat, I think that is too simplisitic. TO +/- is much more correlated to winning. As far as helping the other side of the ball, yards is great, but it still takes creating and stopping scoring to win games.


When your offense has had to drive over 60 yards significantly more than anyone else because theyre not getting field position help from special teams and the defense (via turnovers) scoring comparisons become apples and oranges.

Another issue that people are choosing to ignore is the issue of having so many injured RBs, namely Pittman and Hillis. When those two guys played, scoring inside the 10 was less of an issue. Hillis actually had a rushing TD in every game over the 4 or 5 game span that he was THE guy. And its not even like we had great RBs (aside from possibly Hillis who seems to have massive potential but is now behind Jordan), but a couple of guys made a difference inside the 10.

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:24 AM
Do they just quit keeping stats after week 10? Denver's Offense was very overrated last year especially when one win was needed for playoffs and they couldn't come up with scoring drives when it counted and instead turned the ball over.

Yes, the offense not keeping up with the 110 points scored the last 3 weeks shows they needed to completely redo it.....

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:25 AM
2008 Arizona Cardinals.

Aside from the fact that they had a better defense in every category, you can look at turnovers alone and see that you gave a horrible example.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 11:27 AM
When your offense has had to drive over 60 yards significantly more than anyone else because theyre not getting field position help from special teams and the defense (via turnovers) scoring comparisons become apples and oranges.

Another issue that people are choosing to ignore is the issue of having so many injured RBs, namely Pittman and Hillis. When those two guys played, scoring inside the 10 was less of an issue. Hillis actually had a rushing TD in every game over the 4 or 5 game span that he was THE guy. And its not even like we had great RBs (aside from possibly Hillis who seems to have massive potential but is now behind Jordan), but a couple of guys made a difference inside the 10.

Not really. The red Zone % was based on early season changes that could not be replicated as teams adjusted to the scheme. A team that is Second in the league in yards should be nowhere near Average in scoring. In fact, they should be in the top 5 at the worst. Otherwise, they are overrated. That is what this offense was last year.

The RB situation was an issue as the year progressed. No one loses 7 RB's and will not struggle offensively. Injuries took their toll. However, they were still struggling before Hillis and even Pittman went down. So, while that did make recovering from poor red zone play harder, it was not WHY they struggled before then. It was they struggled to execute against teams wehn they no longer had a new scheme advantage.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 11:31 AM
Aside from the fact that they had a better defense in every category, you can look at turnovers alone and see that you gave a horrible example.

No he said find a team with similar stats to Denver's and Detroit's that was over .500 and I pointed out to the Arizona Cardinals. They were absolutely terrible is several games last year and gave up 426 pts or something similar to that. I know off the top of my head they gave up 56, 48, 37, 47, and 35 pt games. They did play better in the playoffs and at the end of the season but they were terrible for most of the season.

lex
09-08-2009, 11:32 AM
Bull. Go check the NFL rosters of every team. The league Turnover rate is around 25% every season. That means teams totally turnover except for Premier players almost every four years. But keep lying about stuff to make your point.

ONLY one part of the game was possibly on the rise. Defense and ST's were still crap and not going anywhere quick. As for the offense, they were very poor down the stretch, when it counted. So, trying to point to them as a bright spot is wishful thinking, when they could not execute when it counted the most.

We went from a less than stellar Lepsis to Clady. We went from someone like Pears/Foster to Harris. We even went from someone like Carlisle to Kuper. The only drop off was probably at center and even Wiegmann was an all pro.

We went from an aging/hobbled Rod Smith and Ashlie Lelie to Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal.

On defense, if you look at the opening day roster youll see a lot of attrition due to age/injury. The defense wasnt significantly upgraded (perhaps if solely due to Slowik) but the offense was so good and young that the team still won 8 games (and that was with the RBs being ravaged by injuries) in spite of having Slowik at DC. We won 4 out of 5 games with a healthy Hillis as the main guy. And with Goodman running the drafts theres no reason to think the recent upturn in drafting wouldnt continue.

Mediator12
09-08-2009, 11:32 AM
We were top 10 in offensive scoring. You are using a team stat to try discrediting the offense. You are showing you have nothing.

What a worthless take. The offense struggled to score after their scheme was common knowledge to the NFL. An offense that produces yards, but not TD's is by definition an underachiever. A guy who throws for 4500 yards but less than 30 TD's and has more Red Zone INT's than the rest of the league is an underachiever.

As far as Points being a team stat, how about the amount of TO's in the red zone taking points off the board, including TO's on down's. The street goes both ways.....

WolfpackGuy
09-08-2009, 11:34 AM
The Packers scored 9 TD's via return, and they ranked 5th in scoring at 26.2 ppg.
The Eagles scored 7 TD's via return, and they ranked 6th in scoring at 26.0 ppg.

It might be interesting if someone created/found a scoring chart subtracting the defensive and special teams scores.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Yes, the offense not keeping up with the 110 points scored the last 3 weeks shows they needed to completely redo it.....

Well they played two superior teams and this so called great offense had 2 drives to tie the game against Buffalo and couldn't get it done. Great offenses take advantage of those situations usually the first time and for sure on the second time. OVERRATED is the bottomline.

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:45 AM
What a worthless take. The offense struggled to score after their scheme was common knowledge to the NFL. An offense that produces yards, but not TD's is by definition an underachiever. A guy who throws for 4500 yards but less than 30 TD's and has more Red Zone INT's than the rest of the league is an underachiever.

As far as Points being a team stat, how about the amount of TO's in the red zone taking points off the board, including TO's on down's. The street goes both ways.....

Cutler has 4 interceptions in the tred zone. Maybe that is league leading but it isn't stalling every drive. That is 4 drives. We had another like 4 fumbles. Yes, these were a problem. They also were from an offense that was top 10 in scoring and second in yards. All of that with rookie-third year players that were trying to carry the franchises worst ever defense and a pretty crappy special teams. Oh yeah, let's not forget the injuries'

What a joke. Yes the offense had some problems. If you think it the answer was anything more than a RB and some experience then you aren't very smart.

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:47 AM
Well they played two superior teams and this so called great offense had 2 drives to tie the game against Buffalo and couldn't get it done. Great offenses take advantage of those situations usually the first time and for sure on the second time. OVERRATED is the bottomline.

Rookie- third year players. You are talking like they should have been fully developed... What a joke.

jhns
09-08-2009, 11:48 AM
The Packers scored 9 TD's via return, and they ranked 5th in scoring at 26.2 ppg.
The Eagles scored 7 TD's via return, and they ranked 6th in scoring at 26.0 ppg.

It might be interesting if someone created/found a scoring chart subtracting the defensive and special teams scores.

I have all of this broken down on another board but can't get it until 5 or so.

lex
09-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Not really. The red Zone % was based on early season changes that could not be replicated as teams adjusted to the scheme. A team that is Second in the league in yards should be nowhere near Average in scoring. In fact, they should be in the top 5 at the worst. Otherwise, they are overrated. That is what this offense was last year.

No, it says they were too pass happy. A lot of pass happy teams have historically been overrated.

The RB situation was an issue as the year progressed. No one loses 7 RB's and will not struggle offensively. Injuries took their toll. However, they were still struggling before Hillis and even Pittman went down. So, while that did make recovering from poor red zone play harder, it was not WHY they struggled before then. It was they struggled to execute against teams wehn they no longer had a new scheme advantage.

During the period of time that Hillis played significant time (after Torain went down in the Cle game to the KC game), Denver averaged 25.2 pts a game, while the defense only gave up 23 pts a game (less than the season average). If you exclude the Raider game, which was their only loss during that 5 game span, the average is 29 points a game for the offense to 21 points a game for the defense. Im not saying the Raider game doesnt or shouldnt count but during that stretch it was kind of the outlier.

Its also worth pointing out that the RBs only had a total of 15 rushing TDs and Pittman and Hillis had 60% of those while having only around 1/3 of the RBs total carries.

The running game was a huge reason for the red zone problems and it should be apparent why there was such a signifcant drop off with the other RBs where red zone scoring is concerned.

It should also be pointed out that overall, the Broncos had the 7th most TD passes and 14th most rushing TDs. 7 and 14 doesnt add up to 16th in scoring offense. So it should be obvious how much of a role special teams and lack of turnovers by the defense played in being 16th in scoring.

Cito Pelon
09-08-2009, 01:02 PM
The team was stale, stagnant. It needed a shakeup.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 01:28 PM
Rookie- third year players. You are talking like they should have been fully developed... What a joke.

What does how many years players have been around have to do with the overrated offense that Denver had on the field last year? I mentioned nothing about the developement of players you put those words in my mouth. I'm not the one calling them a great offense but a great offense between the 20's and below average where it counts in the redzone.

CEH
09-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Denver was 16th in scoring but avg 3.1 pts off every turnover they got in '08
NO was first in scoring at 28 ppg but were 3-8 in games where their D gave up more than 20 ppg . There goes this notion that the Denver offense needed to play better when the #1 scoring offense in the league also failed with a defense that gave up fewer points and forced more turnovers than Denver.

NO took the ball away 25 times. The crappy KC Chefs had 22. Oak 31

Fact is based on our point differential of -78 we should have been closer to 3-13 than 8-8. Even throwing out the Ed Hoculi call puts us 7-9.


24 turnovers is average for an NFL defense so if they were just managed to secured 11 more turnovers at 3 pts per / 16 games that's 2.06 ppg more added on to their 23.1 for 25.16 or 8th in the league in scoring

I suggest our QB and offense was just fine and growing as a unit and the improvement needed to come in the health of our running backs and improvement in takeways by our defense. Nolan was brought in to do just that. Hopefully teh last game starts to translate into teh reg season

jhns
09-08-2009, 01:41 PM
What does how many years players have been around have to do with the overrated offense that Denver had on the field last year? I mentioned nothing about the developement of players you put those words in my mouth. I'm not the one calling them a great offense but a great offense between the 20's and below average where it counts in the redzone.

No one has called last years offense great. You are putting words in my mouth.....

They weren't that bad in the red zone. They just happened to not be the greatest ever offense that could overcome an entire team making it harder on them.

rastaman
09-08-2009, 01:48 PM
The team was stale, stagnant. It needed a shakeup.

Well unless McD instructed the offense to play possum during the pre-season, the offense looked stale and stagnant as well. Just saying.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 01:49 PM
No one has called last years offense great. You are putting words in my mouth.....

They weren't that bad in the red zone. They just happened to not be the greatest ever offense that could overcome an entire team making it harder on them.

Well great might be wrong term but you are calling them top 10 which they were between the 20's and middle of the pack where it counts.

jhns
09-08-2009, 01:50 PM
Well great might be wrong term but you are calling them top 10 which they were between the 20's and middle of the pack where it counts.

They were top 10 in both yards and scoreing. What are you even talking about?

rastaman
09-08-2009, 02:04 PM
Not really. The red Zone % was based on early season changes that could not be replicated as teams adjusted to the scheme. A team that is Second in the league in yards should be nowhere near Average in scoring. In fact, they should be in the top 5 at the worst. Otherwise, they are overrated. That is what this offense was last year.

The RB situation was an issue as the year progressed. No one loses 7 RB's and will not struggle offensively. Injuries took their toll. However, they were still struggling before Hillis and even Pittman went down. So, while that did make recovering from poor red zone play harder, it was not WHY they struggled before then. It was they struggled to execute against teams wehn they no longer had a new scheme advantage.

During the month of December and you're trying to secure a playoff spot at this time the running game comes into play. Just imagine if Denver had a healthy Pittman, Torain, and Hillis all season long! Denver's RBBC would have been clicking on all cylinders by December. No playoff bound team going down the stretch to win their division and aspiration for the playoffs can guarantee winning their last 3 games with the likes of Selvin Young and Tatum Bell as their main running attack.....lets get real.

Lolad
09-08-2009, 02:17 PM
Do they just quit keeping stats after week 10? Denver's Offense was very overrated last year especially when one win was needed for playoffs and they couldn't come up with scoring drives when it counted and instead turned the ball over.

No.. they don't but if you can remember what happened after week 10 you would know why. We had NO RUNNING BACK! A running back contributes a lot especially when you are in the redzone. Hence the reason why we scored a lot of points earlier in the season and were a top redzone team.

Another fact that isn't discussed is the fact that our field position was the last in the league. We weren't even supposed to be in position to score majority of the time we were on the field.

The only thing that was wrong with our offense was that it needed to be refined. That was the 1st year with no RB in the system. Guess what would've happened with 2 years in the same system?

lex
09-08-2009, 02:18 PM
Denver was 16th in scoring but avg 3.1 pts off every turnover they got in '08
NO was first in scoring at 28 ppg but were 3-8 in games where their D gave up more than 20 ppg . There goes this notion that the Denver offense needed to play better when the #1 scoring offense in the league also failed with a defense that gave up fewer points and forced more turnovers than Denver.

NO took the ball away 25 times. The crappy KC Chefs had 22. Oak 31

Fact is based on our point differential of -78 we should have been closer to 3-13 than 8-8. Even throwing out the Ed Hoculi call puts us 7-9.


24 turnovers is average for an NFL defense so if they were just managed to secured 11 more turnovers at 3 pts per / 16 games that's 2.06 ppg more added on to their 23.1 for 25.16 or 8th in the league in scoring

I suggest our QB and offense was just fine and growing as a unit and the improvement needed to come in the health of our running backs and improvement in takeways by our defense. Nolan was brought in to do just that. Hopefully teh last game starts to translate into teh reg season

Good analysis. The issue of how turnovers translates into points was an issue that sorely needed to be addressed. Many have taken this myopic perspective. But also many will ignore much of the analysis done here that pertains to how turnovers correlates to scoring because theyve been repeating "16th in the league in scoring" too long.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:18 PM
They were top 10 in both yards and scoreing. What are you even talking about?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame

I'll give you the yards but this is what I am talking about. I see just like I said before 23 pts a game and middle of the pack.

After week one Denver was averaging 37 ppg. After that only scored over 20 pts 6 out of last 13 games and over 30 pts twice. I'm sure you know that though.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:23 PM
No.. they don't but if you can remember what happened after week 10 you would know why. We had NO RUNNING BACK! A running back contributes a lot especially when you are in the redzone. Hence the reason why we scored a lot of points earlier in the season and were a top redzone team.

Another fact that isn't discussed is the fact that our field position was the last in the league. We weren't even supposed to be in position to score majority of the time we were on the field.

The only thing that was wrong with our offense was that it needed to be refined. That was the 1st year with no RB in the system. Guess what would've happened with 2 years in the same system?

I agree but you should look at the stats after week 3. They averaged a very poor 19 ppg.

rastaman
09-08-2009, 02:24 PM
If McDaniels had to win 4 games during the month of December this year, how confident would we all McD could win 3 games or break evenif his Running backs were Selvin Young and Tatum Bell??

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-08-2009, 02:26 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame

I'll give you the yards but this is what I am talking about. I see just like I said before 23 pts a game and middle of the pack.

After week one Denver was averaging 37 ppg. After that only scored over 20 pts 6 out of last 13 games and over 30 pts twice. I'm sure you know that though.

Rep. As you can see, jhns, those are OFFENSIVE stats, not TEAM stats.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-08-2009, 02:27 PM
If McDaniels had to win 4 games during the month of December this year, how confident would we all McD could win 3 games or break evenif his Running backs were Selvin Young and Tatum Bell??

Ah, more excuses from Shanny apologists. Love it.

TailgateNut
09-08-2009, 02:28 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame

I'll give you the yards but this is what I am talking about. I see just like I said before 23 pts a game and middle of the pack.

After week one Denver was averaging 37 ppg. After that only scored over 20 pts 6 out of last 13 games and over 30 pts twice. I'm sure you know that though.

Yep 2nd in YPG
2nd in Passing YPG
11th in Rushing YPG
But 16th in total PPG and beat like stepchildren when it counted and when in the red zone.

Hey, but our Prima Donnas' made it to Hawaii.

That oughta count for something. No?:~ohyah!:

lex
09-08-2009, 02:28 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame

I'll give you the yards but this is what I am talking about. I see just like I said before 23 pts a game and middle of the pack.

After week one Denver was averaging 37 ppg. After that only scored over 20 pts 6 out of last 13 games and over 30 pts twice. I'm sure you know that though.

During the 5 games from when Hillis started playing as a RB against Cleveland to when he got hurt against KC, Denver went 4-1 and averaged 25.2 points a game and in the four wins they averaged 29 points a game and in those 4 wins, the defense only gave up 21 points a game.

jhns
09-08-2009, 02:31 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame

I'll give you the yards but this is what I am talking about. I see just like I said before 23 pts a game and middle of the pack.

After week one Denver was averaging 37 ppg. After that only scored over 20 pts 6 out of last 13 games and over 30 pts twice. I'm sure you know that though.

That is a team stat. Look how they come up with the totals there.

Go look how many times other teams scored over 20 and 30 points a game. Remember to take out defensive and special temas TDs since they are already subtracted from the denver totals you are looking at. It isn't like you are showing we were bad.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:31 PM
During the 5 games from when Hillis started playing as a RB against Cleveland to when he got hurt against KC, Denver went 4-1 and averaged 25.2 points a game and in the four wins they averaged 29 points a game and in those 4 wins, the defense only gave up 21 points a game.

Yep Hillis started 4 games and Denver's PPG were 23 per game right where they finished. I like Hillis though and losing him was a blow to the team.

lex
09-08-2009, 02:33 PM
Ah, more excuses from Shanny apologists. Love it.

Those are facts. The numbers prove that. Pittman and Hillis accounted for 60% of the overall rushing TDs and as a team Denver only had 15 rushing TDs in spite of being 2nd in overall yards. Its obvious they missed their short yardage guys, especially Hillis.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:33 PM
That is a team stat. Look how they come up with the totals there.

Go look how many times other teams scored over 20 and 30 points a game. Remember to take out defensive and special temas ?Ds since they are already subtracted from the denver totals you are looking at. It isn't like you are showing we were bad.

You would have to do that for everyteam in the league. How do you explain the 19 ppg after week 3 once teams got game film and Denver didn't get to play Defenses like Oakland, San Diego and NO's?

jhns
09-08-2009, 02:35 PM
Rep. As you can see, jhns, those are OFFENSIVE stats, not TEAM stats.

Go to ESPN. Go to the broncos page. Look at the stats for last year. Look under scoring. You see that total? It matches the one you are telling me is an offensive stat. Now under scoreing, look at who got the points. Are you telling me Nate Webster had an offensive TD?

Team stat. Learn what you are looking at before the I told you so.

jhns
09-08-2009, 02:38 PM
You would have to do that for everyteam in the league. How do you explain the 19 ppg after week 3 once teams got game film and Denver didn't get to play Defenses like Oakland, San Diego and NO's?

There are many reasons for it. They didn't get help from the team is the biggest. This is a team sport after all. They had the worst starting field position in the league with a ton of injured RBs. You are saying they aren't good because they didn't score every time as they had to do more than everyone you compare them to.

Also, every offense puts up their best numbers against the bad defenses they play and all of them struggle against top defenses. That isn't new to this team. We had bad scoreing totals in other games like NE because cutler injured himself on the first series. We played tampa bay just like we said we were going to and that was to have a low scoring game with no mistakes.

The offense isn't bad just because they couldn't make a crappy team a SB contender. You do realize you are talking about an offense that went 8-8 with the worst defense in franchise history and a crappy sprcial teams though, right? How you can say they were bad is beyond me.

lex
09-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Yep Hillis started 4 games and Denver's PPG were 23 per game right where they finished. I like Hillis though and losing him was a blow to the team.

They were 3-1 in those games and were the most balanced they were all season. Ill take that any day. And like I said, they were 4-1 in the games where he started playing RB.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:43 PM
There are many reasons for it. They didn't get help from the team is the biggest. This is a team sport after all. They had the worst starting field position in the league with a ton of injured RBs. You are saying they aren't good because they didn't score every time as they had to do more than everyone you compare them to.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they weren't good, I said they were average and they were not good in the redzone. I also said they were very good between the 20's but that won't lead to wins. The team argument works for every team in the league too. New Orleans had a garbage D, Arizona had a garbage D with average RB's, NE had a career back up as the starter for the whole year. I could go on and on but the bottomline is Denver's Offense was considered better than it actually was just because of the first three games of the year.

WolfpackGuy
09-08-2009, 02:47 PM
Well, I think this season, we're all going to be wishing for half of last year's offensive output.
No matter how "terrible" it was.

lex
09-08-2009, 02:48 PM
You would have to do that for everyteam in the league. How do you explain the 19 ppg after week 3 once teams got game film and Denver didn't get to play Defenses like Oakland, San Diego and NO's?


Denver ranked 7th in passing TDs and 14th in rushing TDs. That combination doesnt add up to 16th. It basically comes down to other teams kicking a lot more FGs or turnovers/returns.

azbroncfan
09-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Denver ranked 7th in passing TDs and 14th in rushing TDs. That combination doesnt add up to 16th. It basically comes down to other teams kicking a lot more FGs or turnovers/returns.

How ever you need to spin it but Denver averaged 23 ppg and in reality it was closer to 19 ppg.

lex
09-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Again you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they weren't good, I said they were average and they were not good in the redzone. I also said they were very good between the 20's but that won't lead to wins. The team argument works for every team in the league too. New Orleans had a garbage D, Arizona had a garbage D with average RB's, NE had a career back up as the starter for the whole year. I could go on and on but the bottomline is Denver's Offense was considered better than it actually was just because of the first three games of the year.

You havent really done anything to debunk the analysis of how a lack of turnovers and returns translates to fewer points.

lex
09-08-2009, 02:52 PM
How ever you need to spin it but Denver averaged 23 ppg and in reality it was closer to 19 ppg.

Im not spinning it at all. But go ahead with the head in the sand approach if you want.

ScottXray
09-08-2009, 02:56 PM
If McDaniels had to win 4 games during the month of December this year, how confident would we all McD could win 3 games or break evenif his Running backs were Selvin Young and Tatum Bell??

Shanahan had to win ONE game last December with Selvin Young and Tatum Bell, and a supposed FRANCHISE QB. How did that work out?

Since the situation can't be duplicated it's stupid to suggest it. We might end up needing to win 4 games to make the playoffs, or 4 games to break even. It won't mean squat as far as the performance of the coaches. Different players, different teams, different years, different season.

There is nothing to suggest that Shanny would have changed anything that would have resulted in a better record than what this team achieves this year, facing the same schedule that we will play this year. Except perhaps the love affair between Shanny and He Who Shall Not Be Named would have continued.

I think that QB has more talent than any of our current ones, but he was not getting better, and was not playing up to his ability consistently. Frankly, the change in teams may be what he needed too, letting him realise that he doesn't have to score EVERY time out, and that there are more than one or two targets out there . Hopefully, for our purposes, it takes him another year or two to get that.

The draft may have gone different, but the lack of solid coaching on defense would have continued. Without that Change would Crowder have even come to camp this year, or Moss have shown signs of life on D? Would they both be cut now? Would we have signed Dawkins, or any other free agents at RB, or drafted Moreno or another RB in the first round? Would Bosss Bailey and Bly still be in the LB/ Secondary? These are all things that we just can't say would or wouldn't have happened.


Now that Shanny is gone he is out visiting other teams training camps and studying their defensive schemes. If he had not been fired he wouldn't be doing that. It took getting fired for him to realise that he had been doing a bad job of talent evaluation and had become set in some bad habits. The press that had been giving him pass after pass would have become very vocal about his problems this year, and the call for firing him would have also
been continuing to rise. Appearances by Mopey Jay would have been pointed out in Headlines!

Alternate realities are FUN. But they don't MEAN anything.

colonelbeef
09-08-2009, 02:59 PM
the answer to the OP is obviously a resounding NO.

The franchise has taken 2 steps backward.

broncocalijohn
09-08-2009, 05:55 PM
Settled? Very few teams turned over the roster to the degree Denver did over the past 2.5 seasons. With that in mind they actually did well and were on the rise even with Slowik. Now suddenly, every one is coping with this new regime by lying to themselves.

Im not spinning it at all. But go ahead with the head in the sand approach if you want.

LOL! Kettle meet black.

So what flavored Kool Aid did Taco John serve when he got you to be one of his "rising Broncos teams" servants? Slowick and improving are not on the same page. Firing Slowick and improving ARE on the same page.

lex
09-08-2009, 06:05 PM
LOL! Kettle meet black.

So what flavored Kool Aid did Taco John serve when he got you to be one of his "rising Broncos teams" servants? Slowick and improving are not on the same page. Firing Slowick and improving ARE on the same page.

I was hoping you might actually be saying something...Im still waiting on that.

Inkana7
09-08-2009, 07:12 PM
I was hoping you might actually be saying something...Im still waiting on that.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wagnerr/DeflectionCard.jpg

Clockwork Orange
09-08-2009, 07:38 PM
To answer the original question asked, I'd say yes and no. The offense could've used some tweeks here and there, while the defense (along with the entire defensive coaching staff) needed to be blown up and completely rebuilt.

SoCalBronco
09-08-2009, 07:39 PM
Hey CO!

Long time no see. I hope you are doing well, man.

Clockwork Orange
09-08-2009, 07:41 PM
I'm good, brother. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods too. :)

rugbythug
09-08-2009, 08:07 PM
My Short Term Memory is getting bad. What was our Record Vs the Chargers the last three years? 5-1 by my count. Well 5 losses 1 win. Should we go pull the spread? Face it. We were not going to win the AFC west with out major changes. And Cutler wanted out. McDaniels did not push him out Cutler Ran out.

lex
09-08-2009, 08:16 PM
My Short Term Memory is getting bad. What was our Record Vs the Chargers the last three years? 5-1 by my count. Well 5 losses 1 win. Should we go pull the spread? Face it. We were not going to win the AFC west with out major changes. And Cutler wanted out. McDaniels did not push him out Cutler Ran out.

Nice. Thats like saying, "The founding fathers created the Declaration of Independence, then Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, and then Kennedy was shot...the end."

OABB
09-08-2009, 08:54 PM
Nice. Thats like saying, "The founding fathers created the Declaration of Independence, then Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, and then Kennedy was shot...the end."

Well it's a hell of a lot smarter than saying Kobe never hit a game winning shot, or drafting mendenhall would have been better than Clady. Those things are REALLY STUPID.

rastaman
09-09-2009, 06:39 AM
Ah, more excuses from Shanny apologists. Love it.

Don't worry, we have 3 years to listen to all the excuses the McDaniel's appologist will come up with. It should be interesting.

Like I said earlier......any HC or team in NFL including McDaniels, needing to win their last 3 games to win their division or make the playoffs would be or would have been hard press to do so with the claiber of RB's like Tatum Bell and Selvin Young.

Hell, imagine the excuses from you and your ilk if McDaniel's had to use T Bell and Selvin Young for the first 8 weeks of the 2009 season!!! Just saying.

rastaman
09-09-2009, 07:17 AM
Shanahan had to win ONE game last December with Selvin Young and Tatum Bell, and a supposed FRANCHISE QB. How did that work out?

Since the situation can't be duplicated it's stupid to suggest it. We might end up needing to win 4 games to make the playoffs, or 4 games to break even. It won't mean squat as far as the performance of the coaches. Different players, different teams, different years, different season.

There is nothing to suggest that Shanny would have changed anything that would have resulted in a better record than what this team achieves this year, facing the same schedule that we will play this year. Except perhaps the love affair between Shanny and He Who Shall Not Be Named would have continued.

I think that QB has more talent than any of our current ones, but he was not getting better, and was not playing up to his ability consistently. Frankly, the change in teams may be what he needed too, letting him realise that he doesn't have to score EVERY time out, and that there are more than one or two targets out there . Hopefully, for our purposes, it takes him another year or two to get that.

The draft may have gone different, but the lack of solid coaching on defense would have continued. Without that Change would Crowder have even come to camp this year, or Moss have shown signs of life on D? Would they both be cut now? Would we have signed Dawkins, or any other free agents at RB, or drafted Moreno or another RB in the first round? Would Bosss Bailey and Bly still be in the LB/ Secondary? These are all things that we just can't say would or wouldn't have happened.


Now that Shanny is gone he is out visiting other teams training camps and studying their defensive schemes. If he had not been fired he wouldn't be doing that. It took getting fired for him to realise that he had been doing a bad job of talent evaluation and had become set in some bad habits. The press that had been giving him pass after pass would have become very vocal about his problems this year, and the call for firing him would have also
been continuing to rise. Appearances by Mopey Jay would have been pointed out in Headlines!

Alternate realities are FUN. But they don't MEAN anything.

You make some valid points. However, during the month of December and you're trying to secure a playoff spot or win your division at this time the running game plays a significant role.

Just imagine if Denver had a healthy Pittman, Torain, and Hillis all season long! Denver's RBBC would have been clicking on all cylinders by December. No playoff bound team going down the stretch to win their division and aspiration for the playoffs can guarantee winning their last 3 games with the likes of Selvin Young and Tatum Bell as their main running attack.....lets get real.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-09-2009, 07:19 AM
Don't worry, we have 3 years to listen to all the excuses the McDaniel's appologist will come up with. It should be interesting.

Like I said earlier......any HC or team in NFL including McDaniels, needing to win their last 3 games to win their division or make the playoffs would be or would have been hard press to do so with the claiber of RB's like Tatum Bell and Selvin Young.

Hell, imagine the excuses from you and your ilk if McDaniel's had to use T Bell and Selvin Young for the first 8 weeks of the 2009 season!!! Just saying.

You're right. Cutler's four picks in three games (including one in the end zone that would have put Denver up HUGE on Buffalo) had nothing to do with it.

It was the running game.

Just so long as we don't blame rasta's precious Cutler. Protect the queen!

jhns
09-09-2009, 07:29 AM
You're right. Cutler's four picks in three games (including one in the end zone that would have put Denver up HUGE on Buffalo) had nothing to do with it.

It was the running game.

Just so long as we don't blame rasta's precious Cutler. Protect the queen!

Don't worry, you will understand soon enough. What exactly do you think will happen if Orton has to carry the team himself and keep up with over 100 points in a 3 game stretch? I bet our defense is a lot better this year and with a healthy RB we still don't win as many games. What will that tell you about a 3rd year Cutler?

You guys have to be kidding. All rookie-third year players and they were 2nd in yards (there is a reason this is used for rankings no matter what you tell yourself) and top 10 in offensive points. Anyone with a brain can see this was turning into a top offense. Do you really think rookies and other young players will never make mistakes? How about an entire young unit that is the team? Get real and stop trying to justify this offseason with dumb reasoning.

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 07:30 AM
You're right. Cutler's four picks in three games (including one in the end zone that would have put Denver up HUGE on Buffalo) had nothing to do with it.

It was the running game.

Just so long as we don't blame rasta's precious Cutler. Protect the queen!

But........he's a young pro-bowl QB. Can't put the blame on his shoulders. Just because he chokes when it's "pay dirt" time, doesn't mean he contributed to the LOSS. As we all know it's more important to have great numbers, than to put a W in the books.:rofl:

jhns
09-09-2009, 07:35 AM
But........he's a young pro-bowl QB. Can't put the blame on his shoulders. Just because he chokes when it's "pay dirt" time, doesn't mean he contributed to the LOSS. As we all know it's more important to have great numbers, than to put a W in the books.:rofl:

LOL

To win we just needed to trade for Orton!

LOL

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 07:36 AM
LOL

To win we just needed to trade for Orton!

LOL


Laugh all you want, but your poster child couldn't win a must win game unless Hochuli gift wraps the thing for him.

barryr
09-09-2009, 07:37 AM
Cutler hardly played great down the stretch last season. It wasn't all on him, but he isn't blameless either. Since Shanahan was content in keeping the defensive staff together, one has a hard time really seeing how the defense was going to get any better. Most of the guys the Broncos have let go from the defense from last season, don't even have jobs, much less starting for anybody or even getting a lot of playing time. That says it all right there. The talent level on the defense has been low for quite awhile now.

CEH
09-09-2009, 07:39 AM
You're right. Cutler's four picks in three games (including one in the end zone that would have put Denver up HUGE on Buffalo) had nothing to do with it.

It was the running game.

Just so long as we don't blame rasta's precious Cutler. Protect the queen!

For whatever reason they went away from the running game and Cutler scored twice with his legs but he gets no credit for being Denver's red zone running game?

The real downfall started when Mike attempted a 50 yard FG in 10 degree weather. Somehow he failed to realize that Prater's leg was mash potatoes by the end of the season. We should have punted and force BUF to go 90 instead of 55.

jhns
09-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Laugh all you want, but your poster child couldn't win a must win game unless Hochuli gift wraps the thing for him.

I bet he gets more wins than the Broncos this season. What will be your excuse then?

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 07:40 AM
Cutler hardly played great down the stretch last season. It wasn't all on him, but he isn't blameless either. Since Shanahan was content in keeping the defensive staff together, one has a hard time really seeing how the defense was going to get any better. Most of the guys the Broncos have let go from the defense from last season, don't even have jobs, much less starting for anybody or even getting a lot of playing time. That says it all right there. The talent level on the defense has been low for quite awhile now.


You didn't get the memo???

This offseason has been a complete disaster (according quite a few fans and followers). ;D

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 07:47 AM
I bet he gets more wims than the Broncos this season. What will be your excuse then?


He may get more wims, whatever that might be, or he may not. Regardless, many of us don't give a **** about the "chosen one". He's a Bear and unless we face them in a game I could care less if he wims or looses.

jhns
09-09-2009, 07:52 AM
He may get more wims, whatever that might be, or he may not. Regardless, many of us don't give a **** about the "chosen one". He's a Bear and unless we face them in a game I could care less if he wims or looses.

Maybe if you didn't edit my posts they wouldn't be so hard to read.

Of course you don't care. That is what I have been saying all along. You only care about the social aspect. That is ok, just don't get so bent out of shape when people try actually discussing reality.

GoBroncos DownUnder
09-09-2009, 08:08 AM
... discussing reality.
"Reality" is that we are the BEST team in the NFL right now, leading the league with an 0-0 record.

The whole point us "old guys" are trying to get across is: WAIT. You cant throw out a roast before it's even been put in the oven.

I have enough faith in the organisation to hold my tongue until I see the team play. (I watched almost EVERY play Cutler made in that ugly '07 season before declaring myself a fan of his)
I'm not sure if they'll go 16-0 or 0-16, but we'll all find out in about 18 weeks time from now! ;)

jhns
09-09-2009, 08:17 AM
"Reality" is that we are the BEST team in the NFL right now, leading the league with an 0-0 record.

The whole point us "old guys" are trying to get across is: WAIT. You cant throw out a roast before it's even been put in the oven.

I have enough faith in the organisation to hold my tongue until I see the team play. (I watched almost EVERY play Cutler made in that ugly '07 season before declaring myself a fan of his)
I'm not sure if they'll go 16-0 or 0-16, but we'll all find out in about 18 weeks time from now! ;)

You haven't talked to your buddy enough. He should have told you by now that I am smarter than everyone. That means I know what has happened already and don't need to wait.

The reality is we have a rookie coach and rookie GM that have very little experience in anything. Mcd hasn't even coached at any level before. These guys, who have no track record, are making very high risk moves that are so unconventional that they have set a TON of firsts for this league. You can have all the hope in the world and it will not help this team. I will not get in line to support this front office. I do not want these guys makeing these decisions for multiple more years. It isn't just cutler either. There are many high risk, low reward moves being made. We don't have to see games played to see this fact.

ScottXray
09-09-2009, 08:34 AM
You haven't talked to your buddy enough. He should have told you by now that I am smarter than everyone. That means I know what has happened already and don't need to wait.

The reality is we have a rookie coach and rookie GM that have very little experience in anything. Mcd hasn't even coached at any level before. These guys, who have no track record, are making very high risk moves that are so unconventional that they have set a TON of firsts for this league. You can have all the hope in the world and it will not help this team. I will not get in line to support this front office. I do not want these guys makeing these decisions for multiple more years. It isn't just cutler either. There are many high risk, low reward moves being made. We don't have to see games played to see this fact.

I proved you were wrong about this before, but you continue to state this falsity. Wikipedia is generally accepted to be accurate about facts, which apparently don't count in your world. The more you post , the more you look like a fool.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your cause, but it doesn't. I normally don't put anyone on ignore..but you are an exception that has shown you have nothing to contribute, but anger and misery. Enjoy your season.

jhns
09-09-2009, 08:39 AM
I proved you were wrong about this before, but you continue to state this falsity. Wikipedia is generally accepted to be accurate about facts, which apparently don't count in your world. The more you post , the more you look like a fool.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your cause, but it doesn't. I normally don't put anyone on ignore..but you are an exception that has shown you have nothing to contribute, but anger and misery. Enjoy your season.

LOL

I don't even know who you are and I have never seen you prove this wrong. This all makes it pretty funny for the fact that you think I care. I would like to see this proof though as I have never seen something say he has been a head coach before.

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 08:55 AM
I proved you were wrong about this before, but you continue to state this falsity. Wikipedia is generally accepted to be accurate about facts, which apparently don't count in your world. The more you post , the more you look like a fool.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your cause, but it doesn't. I normally don't put anyone on ignore..but you are an exception that has shown you have nothing to contribute, but anger and misery. Enjoy your season.


He doesn't realize how ignorant he sounds with each keystroke, because in his mind only he knows what was handled correctly and what the right moves should have been. He is so absorbed in his view that he refuses to acknowledge that someone elses' opinion may have merit.

An incorrigable and extremely arrogant young person who mirrors the majority of people his age. Generation "KNOW IT ALL".
I have a son his age, and he also THINKS he knows it all.:rofl:
Life still has a few surprises in store for both of them. The unavoidable RUDE AWAKENINGS which are inevitable.

jhns
09-09-2009, 09:00 AM
He doesn't realize how ignorant he sounds with each keystroke, because in his mind only he knows what was handled correctly and what the right moves should have been. He is so absorbed in his view that he refuses to acknowledge that someone elses' opinion may have merit.

An incorrigable and extremely arrogant young person who mirrors the majority of people his age. Generation "KNOW IT ALL".
I have a son his age, and he also THINKS he knows it all.:rofl:
Life still has a few surprises in store for both of them. The unavoidable RUDE AWAKENINGS which are inevitable.

Then when you figure out that I am right at the end of the year you will be telling yourself that I don't know anything and we got bad by chance. Give it a rest. Everyone outside of a few Bronco homers say the exact same thing as me. I do not know what the older fans problem is. You guys seem to fight reality any chance you get.

Again, that whole you know you don't have enough time so you have to hope we get it right now thing. It must suck being old.

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 09:04 AM
Maybe if you didn't edit my posts they wouldn't be so hard to read.

Of course you don't care. That is what I have been saying all along. You only care about the social aspect. That is ok, just don't get so bent out of shape when people try actually discussing reality.

1. I quoted exactly what you posted (maybe your spelling edit did not register, and I really couldn't care less).You are nothing but a little bug on the windshield of my life.
2. Continue pulling **** out of your ass (ie: I don't care about anything but the social aspect), if it makes you feel better. Something has to improve your current miserable existance.

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 09:11 AM
Then when you figure out that I am right at the end of the year you will be telling yourself that I don't know anything and we got bad by chance. Give it a rest. Everyone outside of a few Bronco homers say the exact same thing as me. I do not know what the older fans problem is. You guys seem to fight reality any chance you get.

Again, that whole you know you don't have enough time so you have to hope we get it right now thing. It must suck being old.


The only thing which sucks about being old is that we see the absolutely worthless offspring which will eventually define our nation. A nation of spoiled whiners.

jhns
09-09-2009, 09:14 AM
1. I quoted exactly what you posted (maybe your spelling edit did not register, and I really couldn't care less).You are nothing but a little bug on the windshield of my life.
2. Continue pulling **** out of your ass (ie: I don't care about anything but the social aspect), if it makes you feel better. Something has to improve your current miserable existance.

You seem to respond to a large majority of my posts as you tell everyone I am just a bug on your windshield. Why can't you get past anything I say then?

I live a wonderful life. Just because I don't like the direction of the team doesn't mean I am miserable. The people who are miserable are the old guys with no lives that get upset on message boards because someone says their team made some bad moves and that means their only social interaction this year has a chance of being far less positive than in the recent past. You don't have to worry old guy. If what you hope is true, orton will lead us to 5 SBs and your parties won't be ruined.

Even if I am right, I doubt many fans boo or stop rooting for the team just because they don't like the head coach. As I keep saying, this team is far bigger than mcdaniels and you aren't a fan if you think otherwise.

TailgateNut
09-09-2009, 09:49 AM
You seem to respond to a large majority of my posts as you tell everyone I am just a bug on your windshield. Why can't you get past anything I say then?

.

Just as one attempts to remove the splattered useless guts of a bug on the windshield, one must attempt to rid themselves of the PIECE OF SLIME which splatters the MB with useless garbage. Regardless of which pest we speak of, both are slime, both are useless, and both are a nuisance.

jhns
09-09-2009, 10:01 AM
Just as one attempts to remove the splattered useless guts of a bug on the windshield, one must attempt to rid themselves of the PIECE OF SLIME which splatters the MB with useless garbage. Regardless of which pest we speak of, both are slime, both are useless, and both are a nuisance.

How exactly are you getting rid of me by constantly responding to me? You do realize that I would have about half the posts I do have if it weren't for our conversations, right? Of course you don't realize this. You aren't a very smart person.

Lolad
09-09-2009, 10:16 AM
Don't worry, we have 3 years to listen to all the excuses the McDaniel's appologist will come up with. It should be interesting.

Like I said earlier......any HC or team in NFL including McDaniels, needing to win their last 3 games to win their division or make the playoffs would be or would have been hard press to do so with the claiber of RB's like Tatum Bell and Selvin Young.

Hell, imagine the excuses from you and your ilk if McDaniel's had to use T Bell and Selvin Young for the first 8 weeks of the 2009 season!!! Just saying.

I think it's even more harder when your defense gives up 37.3 ppg the last 3 games. Lets gets some stats in here and see if an offense has EVER overcome that!

Lolad
09-09-2009, 10:18 AM
I proved you were wrong about this before, but you continue to state this falsity. Wikipedia is generally accepted to be accurate about facts, which apparently don't count in your world. The more you post , the more you look like a fool.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your cause, but it doesn't. I normally don't put anyone on ignore..but you are an exception that has shown you have nothing to contribute, but anger and misery. Enjoy your season.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is the worst place ever to obtain facts. Hence the reason you can't use it as a works cited page when handing in a paper.

Dagmar
09-09-2009, 10:19 AM
A mock thread with 8 pages.

http://www.facepalm.org/img.php

azbroncfan
09-09-2009, 12:12 PM
You havent really done anything to debunk the analysis of how a lack of turnovers and returns translates to fewer points.

Turnovers definately would of helped the team and there is no doubt about that. When all you got to work with is what we all could see out there and the ppg was pretty accurate on where the Denver Broncos stood last year. They moved the ball great but kicked too many FG's or turned it over in the redzone. The same WR's that were good between the 20's struggled to get open in the redzone.

lex
09-09-2009, 12:27 PM
Turnovers definately would of helped the team and there is no doubt about that. When all you got to work with is what we all could see out there and the ppg was pretty accurate on where the Denver Broncos stood last year. They moved the ball great but kicked too many FG's or turned it over in the redzone. The same WR's that were good between the 20's struggled to get open in the redzone.

They were 7th in passing TDs and 14th in rushing TDs. That doesnt add up to 16th unless there is a huge turnover disparity, disparity in special teams, or the other teams are kicking a lot more FGs. And, again, Pittman and Hillis accounted for 9 of the 15 TDs in very limited carries. For as many yards as they had, you could say that they should have had more TDs but if you look at how few TDs came from the other guys playing RB, it becomes apparent that the RB situation contributed significantly, as did TO and ST disparity.

Meck77
09-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Yes

broncocalijohn
09-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Then when you figure out that I am right at the end of the year you will be telling yourself that I don't know anything and we got bad by chance. Give it a rest. Everyone outside of a few Bronco homers say the exact same thing as me. I do not know what the older fans problem is. You guys seem to fight reality any chance you get.

Again, that whole you know you don't have enough time so you have to hope we get it right now thing. It must suck being old.

I guess put me in Old School Camp with TGN. If this was 1995, you would be yelling at the front office not to hire SHanahan because he had one failed NFL head coach job. Actually, you were probably 8 years old then so I doubt you had that on your mind (transformers probably). It is great how you will give McDaniels one year yet we have had 3 years of mediocracy under Mike. He didnt leave us much to be desired and I am hoping for an 8 and 8 record but really seeing if this defense is improved from the disaster that was left to our coach. You seem to forget this with the ilk of TJ and Lex.

jhns
09-09-2009, 05:46 PM
I guess put me in Old School Camp with TGN. If this was 1995, you would be yelling at the front office not to hire SHanahan because he had one failed NFL head coach job. Actually, you were probably 8 years old then so I doubt you had that on your mind (transformers probably). It is great how you will give McDaniels one year yet we have had 3 years of mediocracy under Mike. He didnt leave us much to be desired and I am hoping for an 8 and 8 record but really seeing if this defense is improved from the disaster that was left to our coach. You seem to forget this with the ilk of TJ and Lex.

We were 8-8 last year with the majority of the defense injured and a rookie-3rd year offense. Shanahan did not leave this team in bad shape. There is a reason this was the best job out there this offseason. I had no problem with the hire of McDaniels. I liked it. You are kidding yourself if you think I am just against change. Not all change is good change. You still have to make smart changes. We have not. I don't like this front office AFTER it has shown what it is about. Sorry, just how it is. If they win and prove me wrong, I won't have much more to complain about. Until then, I will assume I am right as always.

Also, Shanahan had 3 years of mediocrity after setting a record for most wins in a 3 seasons span, getting back to back SBs, and getting to the playoffs most every year. I am not against him going now but to act like McDaniels has earned the right to fail on this team is a joke. Even the best coach to ever be on this team was fired for failure.

DBroncos4life
09-09-2009, 06:52 PM
So if we would have averaged 24.5 points per game instead of the 23.1 that we did average how many more games would have we won?

footstepsfrom#27
09-09-2009, 06:55 PM
Yes, but how we had to do it is another story.

broncocalijohn
09-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Also, Shanahan had 3 years of mediocrity after setting a record for most wins in a 3 seasons span, getting back to back SBs, and getting to the playoffs most every year. I am not against him going now but to act like McDaniels has earned the right to fail on this team is a joke. Even the best coach to ever be on this team was fired for failure.

Look, we cannot live in the past like the Raiders do. Those 3 years were remarkable and happened in 96-98. Ten years later, we were 24 and 24 with no playoffs and only team to choke 4 game lead with 4 to play. Mike's inability to push for a strong defense with a smart DC helps the offense. I only hope for the best in the future for Mike but he wont get anywhere having a leash around Slowick's neck and taking him on interviews.

jhns
09-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Look, we cannot live in the past like the Raiders do. Those 3 years were remarkable and happened in 96-98. Ten years later, we were 24 and 24 with no playoffs and only team to choke 4 game lead with 4 to play. Mike's inability to push for a strong defense with a smart DC helps the offense. I only hope for the best in the future for Mike but he wont get anywhere having a leash around Slowick's neck and taking him on interviews.

That wasn't an excuse to keep shanahan around. That was in response to someone asking why shanahan gets 3 years od mediocrity before being fird but I want mcdaniels fired without seeing 3 seasons of mediocrity. I didn't mind shanahan being fired and I understand the reasoning.

strafen
10-13-2009, 07:46 PM
So draft a slow RB that ran behind a #1 ranked team with the first pick in the draft that can't run a sub 4.5 and his QB in the first player taken?


Jesus, how many red flags do you need?

We had an NFL RECORD 7 RB go on IR.

Not to mention the D.

So why was the O dismantled? HUH?

Denver had all the pieces on offense, and room to draft and buy some playuers.


Beavis bought RB's and DB's and drafted more, along with a second round TE.

He's a ****up.
Not all of it, but enough.We never dismantled our offense. Cutler wanted to be traded, and he got traded...

TonyR
10-13-2009, 08:23 PM
...Not all change is good change. You still have to make smart changes. We have not. I don't like this front office AFTER it has shown what it is about. Sorry, just how it is. If they win and prove me wrong, I won't have much more to complain about. Until then, I will assume I am right as always.

...to act like McDaniels has earned the right to fail on this team is a joke. Even the best coach to ever be on this team was fired for failure.

Wow, no wonder jhns hasn't been around here lately.