PDA

View Full Version : Can Denver finish 9-7 or 8-8 after starting 6-0?


rastaman
11-10-2009, 07:02 PM
Worse case scenario should the offense not improve and the defense wears down b/c the offense can't sustain drives and score enough points we could see the Broncos season end as follows:


8. Sun Nov _1 @ BAL..1:00 PM............. LOSS
9. Mon Nov _9 V PIT..8:30 PM.............. LOSS
10 Sun Nov 15 @ WAS..1:00 PM........... LOSS
11 Sun Nov 22 V SDG..4:15 PM............ LOSS
12 Thu Nov 26 V NYG..8:20 PM............ LOSS
13 Sun Dec _6 @ KAN..1:00 PM........... WIN
14 Sun Dec 13 @ IND..1:00 PM............ LOSS
15 Sun Dec 20 V OAK..4:05 PM............ WIN
16 Sun Dec 27 @ PHI..1:00 PM............ LOSS
17 Sun Jan _3 V KAN..4:15 PM............. WIN

Right now the Skins are a dangerous team for us to face. They're offensive line is big enough to blow our DL of the ball in the 4th qtr especially if the Def. is already worn down.

Watch out with the NYG suddenly playing to their potential against us and they win. Key here is Denvers Offense showing up.

Indy and Philly will be tough losses b/c they have too much talent. Should our Defense wear down by the 4th qtr both teams could dump over 30 points on us.

Also, although not picked....at this stage KC and Oak will be challenging to sweep b/c of the significance of the rilvary. So if Denver splits with KC and Oak, the Broncos could go 8-8 or 9-7.

Popps
11-10-2009, 07:03 PM
Keep your hopes up, Rasta. Failure might be right around the corner!

bombay
11-10-2009, 07:04 PM
LOL

Pathetic, really.

tsiguy96
11-10-2009, 07:09 PM
you realize the skins may have a bottom 3 offensive line in the league, bottom 10 QB, portis is a shadow of his old self, zorn is all but gone, and their defense is only average at best, right?

HAT
11-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Keep your hopes up, Rasta. Failure might be right around the corner!

:notworthy

misturanderson
11-10-2009, 07:21 PM
This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list. .

mr007
11-10-2009, 07:31 PM
you realize the skins may have a bottom 3 offensive line in the league, bottom 10 QB, portis is a shadow of his old self, zorn is all but gone, and their defense is only average at best, right?

Their D is among the best in the league.

Otherwise, pretty spot on.

tsiguy96
11-10-2009, 07:40 PM
Their D is among the best in the league.

Otherwise, pretty spot on.

wow, they are allowing a LOT less points then i realized. 154 allowed on the season, 30 more than us. that is pretty good especially paired with one of teh worst offenses in the game.

ludo21
11-10-2009, 07:43 PM
I can see this team going 9-7, because I agree, next weeks game will be tough.

But we will win the SD game, and possibly the Iggles one as well.Count in the throw in's and that makes 12-4 sound right.

RMT
11-10-2009, 08:03 PM
"This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list."

this is the best post i have read from rasta - ever.

Circle Orange
11-10-2009, 08:08 PM
you realize the skins may have a bottom 3 offensive line in the league, bottom 10 QB, portis is a shadow of his old self, zorn is all but gone, and their defense is only average at best, right?

Let's not get ugly about it, bub. ;D

rbackfactory80
11-10-2009, 08:12 PM
Oh yeah, watch out for the Giants who are falling faster than everyone in the league. Better watch out for the redskins also, they gave 3 or 4 win-less teams there first win. This is probably the worst thread I have ever read on here, clearly only someone who is a troll or roots for other teams could come up with. This is straight up tripe.

UberBroncoMan
11-10-2009, 08:16 PM
You seriously see us 6-5 after starting 6-0... seriously...?

**** that.

cutthemdown
11-10-2009, 08:53 PM
anything can happen with this schedule. It's great Broncos won 6, we can still win 4-5 more IMO and win division, but I think it will take beating Chargers again.

Teams like Pitt, Balt just a little too physical for Broncos. Our QB not enough of a playmaker to overcome it.

Not defenses fault though they make big plays all over the place.

The Oline just not blocking all that great, or Broncos RB aren't getting it done. We need a better running game that is for sure.

Ray Finkle
11-10-2009, 09:39 PM
you call yourself a fan? You are a piece of crap pal.....

the Redskins have the worst offensive line in football yet you make them sound like they are going to steamroll the Broncos.

broncocalijohn
11-10-2009, 10:22 PM
Their D is among the best in the league.

Otherwise, pretty spot on.

the redskins D is pretty good figuring how long they are out there. This is the only part that worries me as we struggle to score offensively. They will see our D at its best this Sunday with Doom leading the way. If Orton plays like he did from game 2 to 6, we will win it hands down. We will be no worse than 11-5. 10-6 probably gets us in the playoffs so we will take one extra from SD and that will determine the division winner.

Taco John
11-10-2009, 10:31 PM
I see five wins on that schedule at least.

Rigs11
11-10-2009, 10:56 PM
Isn't portis hurt?

Popps
11-10-2009, 10:59 PM
Isn't portis hurt?

He wants to play Sunday. Not sure if he will.

JJJ
11-10-2009, 11:17 PM
There is no way you beat KC twice. Those guys will steal one of those games from you.

This coming week is pretty important. Beating an inferior Redskin team on the road is critical ahead of two tougher games against SD and NYG.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-10-2009, 11:18 PM
Its amazing how much energy a human spends just to avoid the three simple words: I was wrong.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-10-2009, 11:19 PM
There is no way you beat KC twice. Those guys will steal one of those games from you.

This coming week is pretty important. Beating an inferior Redskin team on the road is critical ahead of two tougher games against SD and NYG.

every game is important.

Play2win
11-10-2009, 11:38 PM
Its amazing how much energy a human spends just to avoid the three simple words: I was wrong.

Post of the Decade...

Taco John
11-10-2009, 11:43 PM
I really have to strain to see how we could lose to this sorry excuse for a Redskins team after watching the Redskins Chiefs game a couple weeks back. They were just awful.

Cleo McDowell
11-11-2009, 12:57 AM
Speaking of crappy posts, hows this for a hc matchup

Jim Zorn vs. Josh Zorn (McDaniels). Should be great!

I'd credit the retard who originally made this comparison but his name doesn't seem worth remembering.

PRBronco
11-11-2009, 01:49 AM
Hahaha, I like how it's a worst case scenario, and yet the Chiefs and Raiders still lose. They even suck in a hypothetical disaster!

Hulamau
11-11-2009, 02:05 AM
interesting concept rasta .. seems your gotten into that bad skunk weed stash again?!

You have a headache behind the eyeballs, feel a bit frazzled and disoriented from the PCP lace??

Sleep it off Bevis, there are sure to be better days ahead for ya!

Punisher
11-11-2009, 06:21 AM
If the broncos go 8-8 the O-Mane will become a waste land

WolfpackGuy
11-11-2009, 06:28 AM
I predicted 5 wins, but I know several here were saying that 8-8 or worse would be a huge disappointment.

They SHOULD win at least 4 more.

Possibly 5 if Hamilton and Wiegmann can get their acts together for the Giants game.

Ray Finkle
11-11-2009, 06:28 AM
He wants to play Sunday. Not sure if he will.

He is out, Horton is out, and one I believe Mike Williams is already out.

Bob's your Information Minister
11-11-2009, 06:30 AM
Imagine the Chiefs keeping the Broncos out of the playoffs...it'll be our Super Bowl!

crawdad
11-11-2009, 06:31 AM
Imagine the Chiefs keeping the Broncos out of the playoffs...it'll be our Super Bowl!

Quit wetting your pants BoBo, slim chance of that happening.

Elway777
11-11-2009, 07:12 AM
This is the toughest schuelule the Broncos every had to play and I'm amazed that the Broncos are 6-2. I think if we win the turnover battle in up comming games the Broncos go 5-3 the rest of the season and make the playoff with 11-5 recond. The Changer game is the key to our season.

Rabb
11-11-2009, 07:55 AM
I am so glad you are on ignore, the title alone strengthens your douche factor by 10 or so

Gort
11-11-2009, 08:04 AM
You seriously see us 6-5 after starting 6-0... seriously...?

**** that.

in rasta's defense, he's forgotten that Cutler and Shanny are gone. under Cutler and Shanny, it was quite possible to lose 5 straight games. just a few well-placed redzone INTs and fumbles by the franchise QB, coupled with the soft D favored by the genius' DC, and going from 6-0 to 6-5 was always possible.

under McD, not so much.

Gort
11-11-2009, 08:12 AM
you call yourself a fan? You are a piece of crap pal.....

the Redskins have the worst offensive line in football yet you make them sound like they are going to steamroll the Broncos.

rasta has a crush on Cutler. since the Broncos shipped his beloved franchise QB out to CHI, he now hates the Broncos.

bilbo = Bowlen
frodo = Orton
gollum = rasta
the ring = Cutler

rastaman
11-11-2009, 08:28 AM
Keep your hopes up, Rasta. Failure might be right around the corner!

Calm down Poppy Fields......The reality is if our Offense can't score! its very difficult and fool hardy to believe every Sunday the DEFENSE can win the games for you. An offense that can't score, can't convert 3rd downs and move the ball consistenly will wear down the Defense....hence Denver could finish 8-8 or 9-7.

55CrushEm
11-11-2009, 08:33 AM
This should win the award for most moronic new thread of the year award.

8-8, huh? So we could only win 2 more games, despite having a schedule that includes @Washington, Oakland, KC X2, and two other game at home.......

Yah, ok.

rastaman
11-11-2009, 08:38 AM
in rasta's defense, he's forgotten that Cutler and Shanny are gone. under Cutler and Shanny, it was quite possible to lose 5 straight games. just a few well-placed redzone INTs and fumbles by the franchise QB, coupled with the soft D favored by the genius' DC, and going from 6-0 to 6-5 was always possible.

under McD, not so much.

Believe me I hope I'm wrong about finising 8-8 or 9-7 after starting out 6-0. But it has nothing to do with Cutler or Shanny. Denver finishing 8-8 or 9-7 could be contingent upon whether the offense can score points, convert 3rd downs, and move the ball with consistency. If the Offense can't do the afore mentioned, then the Broncos Defense will wear down by the 3rd and 4th qtrs. Should this scenario happen against the Skins and Denver ends up losing a close hard fought game with a score in the range of 13-10! Then you know the team is not the team we saw in September and October. November and December are the months you win your division title and your conference Championship.

Dukes
11-11-2009, 08:54 AM
Imagine the Chiefs keeping the Broncos out of the playoffs...it'll be our Super Bowl!

Imagine your life with a purpose..... oh nevermind.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-11-2009, 09:41 AM
Imagine the Chiefs keeping the Broncos out of the playoffs...it'll be our Super Bowl!

Oh, keep hoping and wishing and maybe it will come true, BOOB!





















Just kidding. It won't. Because the Chiefs ****ing suck.

rastaman
11-11-2009, 10:16 AM
This should win the award for most moronic new thread of the year award.

8-8, huh? So we could only win 2 more games, despite having a schedule that includes @Washington, Oakland, KC X2, and two other game at home.......

Yah, ok.

The point you're missing here is when your offense is ineffective in terms of not scoring enough points to take the pressure off the defense; And can't convert 3rd downs, which once again requires the defense to go back on the field again!.....slowly whittles down the defense not only over one game but also as the season wears on.

Even rivalry games take on a whole new meaning and intrigue when your offense is ineffective and inconsistent b/c now teams such as KC and Oak although inferior now have a glimmer of hope that they can beat you.....but just very well could beat you.

So yes, due to the inconsistencies with the offense at this stage and should the inconsistencies continue, Denver could very well go 8-8, 9-8, or 7-9 after starting out 6-0.

colonelbeef
11-11-2009, 10:20 AM
in rasta's defense, he's forgotten that Cutler and Shanny are gone. under Cutler and Shanny, it was quite possible to lose 5 straight games. just a few well-placed redzone INTs and fumbles by the franchise QB, coupled with the soft D favored by the genius' DC, and going from 6-0 to 6-5 was always possible.

under McD, not so much.

Really? How many times did Shanahan lose 5 in a row?

Why do you hate the only Hall of Fame coach in Broncos history, moron?

rastaman
11-11-2009, 10:25 AM
interesting concept rasta .. seems your gotten into that bad skunk weed stash again?!

You have a headache behind the eyeballs, feel a bit frazzled and disoriented from the PCP lace??

Sleep it off Bevis, there are sure to be better days ahead for ya!

Naw, just concerned that an inconsistent Offense and a worn down defense could spell disaster during the months of November and December.

You should be concerned as well!;)

55CrushEm
11-11-2009, 10:25 AM
The point you're missing here is when your offense is ineffective in terms of not scoring enough points to take the pressure off the defense; And can't convert 3rd downs, which once again requires the defense to go back on the field again!.....slowly whittles down the defense not only over one game but also as the season wears on.
Yes, I understand this. Looking at how we played in the first six weeks, gives me no indication that the last 2 weeks are a "trend".....and coupled with our schedule......extremely low probability that we win only 2 more games.

So yes, due to the inconsistencies with the offense at this stage and should the inconsistencies continue, Denver could very well go 8-8, 9-8, or 7-9 after starting out 6-0.
Well, hell.....you forgot the 6-10 possibility....we could lose the rest of our games for that matter. Of course it's POSSIBLE, but it's also NOT PROBABLE.

55CrushEm
11-11-2009, 10:26 AM
Really? How many times did Shanahan lose 5 in a row?

Why do you hate the only Hall of Fame coach in Broncos history, moron?

Why do you hate our new coach whose only been around for 8 games?

colonelbeef
11-11-2009, 10:29 AM
Why do you hate our new coach whose only been around for 8 games?

I don't, I just think that he made a few personnel and draft errors, and his judgment of QB talent has to be in question. (Keep in mind, he didn't draft Tom Brady, and Brady was on his way to his 2nd superbowl before McDaniels got within 20 feet of him)

I think he is a good coach, unfortunately he handcuffed himself with a QB that cannot avoid the rush whatsoever, has zero ability to improvise, never hits a receiver in stride, and cannot get the ball down the field without a perfect pocket

I think his management of the team otherwise has been commendable, and his hiring of Mike Nolan was a brilliant move.

Edit: Rookie HCs are going to make mistakes along the way (see Richard Quinn pick, recent dumping of Kern for no real reason).

I really hope that a decent QB is on the way

Beantown Bronco
11-11-2009, 10:32 AM
The point you're missing here is when your offense is ineffective in terms of not scoring enough points to take the pressure off the defense; And can't convert 3rd downs, which once again requires the defense to go back on the field again!.....slowly whittles down the defense not only over one game but also as the season wears on.


The Broncos aren't facing Pittsburgh's or Baltimore's defenses again in the second half of the season.

Check this out:

In the first 8 games, the Broncos faced the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th hardest defenses to score against.

In the next 8 games, they'll face the 27th twice, the 25th, the 24th and the 19th.

55CrushEm
11-11-2009, 10:48 AM
The Broncos aren't facing Pittsburgh's or Baltimore's defenses again in the second half of the season.

Check this out:

In the first 8 games, the Broncos faced the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th hardest defenses to score against.

In the next 8 games, they'll face the 27th twice, the 25th, the 24th and the 19th.

But, but.....it is POSSIBLE that we could only win one more game, right?!?! ::)

Yes, rasta.....math would say, of course, it is possible......(sigh). You're right.

HAT
11-11-2009, 11:05 AM
10 Sun Nov 15 @ WAS..1:00 PM...........6-7 point win (23-16)
11 Sun Nov 22 V SDG..4:15 PM............ 4-6 point win (27-23)
12 Thu Nov 26 V NYG..8:20 PM............ 3-4 point win (19-16)
13 Sun Dec _6 @ KAN..1:00 PM........... 6-7 point win (20-13)
14 Sun Dec 13 @ IND..1:00 PM............ 13-14 point loss (13-27)
15 Sun Dec 20 V OAK..4:05 PM............ 10-11 point win (20-9)
16 Sun Dec 27 @ PHI..1:00 PM............ 3-4 point loss (21-17)
17 Sun Jan _3 V KAN..4:15 PM.............13-14 point win (24-10)

TonyR
11-11-2009, 11:10 AM
I don't, I just think that he made a few personnel and draft errors...

Good thing our former HOF coach never did...

colonelbeef
11-11-2009, 11:57 AM
Good thing our former HOF coach never did...

He did make mistakes for a variety of reasons, they all do. Some more than others.

Fortunately he also oversaw more than his share of epic wins, including the 06 and 08 drafts, both of which constitute the backbone of the current team.

He also swung the Champ Bailey trade which also netted the Brandon Marshall pick, Romanowski, McCaffrey, Neil Smith, Terrell Davis, on and on. You know, the types of accomplishments McDaniels gets a hardon dreaming about.

Gort
11-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Really? How many times did Shanahan lose 5 in a row?

Why do you hate the only Hall of Fame coach in Broncos history, moron?

ok dip****. here's your answer.

i don't hate him. but his last 6 years here was nothing special. 2 playoff blowouts to INDY followed by a blowout by PIT, then the drafting of coach killing QB with emo problems. 9-7, 7-9, 8-8. and a whole string of "failed" experiments. Lelie. Clarrett. Javon. Travis Henry. Sauerbrun. face it... Shanny was hiding fundamental problems with smoke and mirrors and band-aids and it caught up to him. if he had admitted that to himself, he could have started rebuilding in a serious way 3 or 4 years ago and we'd now be one of the elite teams in the league. his need for complete control of everything was his downfall. didn't identify true D talent in the draft. drafted a bunch of marginal O players and assumed the system would allow them to produce beyond their talent. all the while, the Shanny cult proclaimed him coach for life because he won 2 SBs with Elway and TD back in the late 90's.

Shanny's last 3 games here were losses. so that's 3 in a row right there in his most recent games. he lost 4 of 5 earlier last year as well. he lost 5 of 6 and 4 of 5 to account for all 9 losses in 2007. he lost 4 straight in 2006. he lost 4 of 5 in 2003. he lost 4 of 5 in 2002. should i keep going? Shanny's teams almost always fell into a lengthy funk where they lost a string of games.

colonelbeef
11-11-2009, 12:17 PM
ok dip****. here's your answer.

i don't hate him. but his last 6 years here was nothing special. 2 playoff blowouts to INDY followed by a blowout by PIT, then the drafting of coach killing QB with emo problems. 9-7, 7-9, 8-8. and a whole string of "failed" experiments. Lelie. Clarrett. Javon. Travis Henry. Sauerbrun. face it... Shanny was hiding fundamental problems with smoke and mirrors and band-aids and it caught up to him. if he had admitted that to himself, he could have started rebuilding in a serious way 3 or 4 years ago and we'd now be one of the elite teams in the league. his need for complete control of everything was his downfall. didn't identify true D talent in the draft. drafted a bunch of marginal O players and assumed the system would allow them to produce beyond their talent. all the while, the Shanny cult proclaimed him coach for life because he won 2 SBs with Elway and TD back in the late 90's.

Shanny's last 3 games here were losses. so that's 3 in a row right there in his most recent games. he lost 4 of 5 earlier last year as well. he lost 5 of 6 and 4 of 5 to account for all 9 losses in 2007. he lost 4 straight in 2006. he lost 4 of 5 in 2003. he lost 4 of 5 in 2002. should i keep going? Shanny's teams almost always fell into a lengthy funk where they lost a string of games.

The correct answer is he didn't. Don't use hyperbole to back up your weak "points", use facts. The fact of the matter is that Mike Shanahan was the best coach this team has ever seen, and one of the 2 or 3 best coaches of the last 20 years. He was an Elway retirement away from a 3 peat, and is a surefire hall of famer. He somehow got Jake (****box) Plummer into an AFCCG and a pro bowl in 2005/06, a fact many of you seem to forget, and was no small feat.

I don't need to hear from you about what Mike Shanahan is and isn't, I will simply refer to Bill Belichick, who called him the greatest offensive mind in the game, and his strongest adversary, as recently as 2007.

Gort
11-11-2009, 12:20 PM
The correct answer is he didn't. Don't use hyperbole to back up your weak "points", use facts. The fact of the matter is that Mike Shanahan was the best coach this team has ever seen, and one of the 2 or 3 best coaches of the last 20 years. He was an Elway retirement away from a 3 peat, and is a surefire hall of famer. He somehow got Jake (****box) Plummer into an AFCCG and a pro bowl in 2005/06, a fact many of you seem to forget, and was no small feat.

I don't need to hear from you about what Mike Shanahan is and isn't, I will simply refer to Bill Belichick, who called him the greatest offensive mind in the game, and his strongest adversary, as recently as 2007.

well, if you could read, you'd see i said that it was always possible under Shanny to lose 5 straight. i didn't say he did routinely lose 5 straight. but apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. whatever Shanny accomplished was in the past. even Landry had to hang up the hat eventually. the NFL is a meritocracy. 9-7, 7-9, 8-8 in his last 3 years meant it was time for a change. if he wanted a job for life regardless of accomplishments, he should have gone into government work or academia.

colonelbeef
11-11-2009, 12:25 PM
well, if you could read, you'd see i said that it was always possible under Shanny to lose 5 straight. i didn't say he did routinely lose 5 straight. but apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. whatever Shanny accomplished was in the past. even Landry had to hang up the hat eventually. the NFL is a meritocracy. 9-7, 7-9, 8-8 in his last 3 years meant it was time for a change. if he wanted a job for life regardless of accomplishments, he should have gone into government work or academia.

We've gone over this a million times- he was rebuilding on the fly and chose to go with what he knows best, the offense, first. Defense was coming, and it's unfortunate that they didn't manage to squeak into the playoffs last year so that he woudl once again have the authority to make the necessary changes on D while continuing to work the O.

McDaniels is here. He has shown himself to be at least an adequate coach. He probably regrets tying himself to Orton at this point having seen his limitations against a good pash rush, but this is where we are. Orton will win this team 10 games and get a playoff appearance, and who knows from there. I, for one, like teams that can actually compete for championships, and I simply do not see Orton getting this done, he is too limited.

HAT
11-11-2009, 12:27 PM
The correct answer is he didn't. Don't use hyperbole to back up your weak "points", use facts. The fact of the matter is that Mike Shanahan was the best coach this team has ever seen, and one of the 2 or 3 best coaches of the last 20 years. He was an Elway retirement away from a 3 peat, and is a surefire hall of famer. He somehow got Jake (****box) Plummer into an AFCCG and a pro bowl in 2005/06, a fact many of you seem to forget, and was no small feat.

I don't need to hear from you about what Mike Shanahan is and isn't, I will simply refer to Bill Belichick, who called him the greatest offensive mind in the game, and his strongest adversary, as recently as 2007.

'beef.....Do you wish Mike Shanahan was still the HC of this team?

(Serious question)

Gort
11-11-2009, 12:29 PM
We've gone over this a million times- he was rebuilding on the fly and chose to go with what he knows best, the offense, first. Defense was coming, and it's unfortunate that they didn't manage to squeak into the playoffs last year so that he woudl once again have the authority to make the necessary changes on D while continuing to work the O.

McDaniels is here. He has shown himself to be at least an adequate coach. He probably regrets tying himself to Orton at this point having seen his limitations against a good pash rush, but this is where we are. Orton will win this team 10 games and get a playoff appearance, and who knows from there. I, for one, like teams that can actually compete for championships, and I simply do not see Orton getting this done, he is too limited.

i can refute your whole argument about Shanny's defensive plans with one word.

Slowick.

also, Shanny had 10 years to build a team that could actually compete for a championship (again) since his last SB. he couldn't get it done. why do you give him a pass for 10 years of futility, but are determined to hate McD after a half season?

JJJ
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Really? How many times did Shanahan lose 5 in a row?

Why do you hate the only Hall of Fame coach in Broncos history, moron?

I don't know about 5 but as a Charger fan I do remember a 3 game streak that I found rather pleasing.

TonyR
11-11-2009, 01:08 PM
I, for one, like teams that can actually compete for championships, and I simply do not see Orton getting this done, he is too limited.

Well then you haven't liked this team but once in the last 10 years. Which is why Mike Shanahan is no longer the head coach.

cmhargrove
11-11-2009, 01:22 PM
The Redskins are the perfect team for us to get our "balls" back.

I think we win by 10 over Washington, then that will hopefully get us ready for Rivers the next week.

Anything can happen, but I realistically see us only losing 3 more games. Worst case scenario, we finish 10-6.

The only real hurdle seems to be beating the Chargers again. IF we can sweep the Chargers, I will feel "playoff ready" even if that contains an asterisk for sub-par offense.

jhns
11-11-2009, 01:30 PM
i can refute your whole argument about Shanny's defensive plans with one word.

Slowick.

also, Shanny had 10 years to build a team that could actually compete for a championship (again) since his last SB. he couldn't get it done. why do you give him a pass for 10 years of futility, but are determined to hate McD after a half season?

What is a team that can compete to you? He went to the playoffs multiple times and got to the AFCCG. Is it only the two teams in the SB that are competetive to you? Is this how you are going to treat McD?

You are being very disrespectful of the greatest thing to ever happen to this team. I don't think changing the head coach now was a bad move but that is strictly from the last 3 years and the fact that he wanted to keep Slowik. You talking bad about all of his other years is a joke. Since the SB, we have like the 4th most wins in the league. That is bad to you?

chex
11-11-2009, 01:34 PM
Since the SB, we have like the 4th most wins in the league. That is bad to you?

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you mentioned all of our playoff wins since Elway retired.

Br0nc0Buster
11-11-2009, 01:35 PM
What is a team that can compete to you? He went to the playoffs multiple times and got to the AFCCG. Is it only the two teams in the SB that are competetive to you? Is this how you are going to treat McD?

You are being very disrespectful of the greatest thing to ever happen to this team. I don't think changing the head coach now was a bad move but that is strictly from the last 3 years and the fact that he wanted to keep Slowik. You talking bad about all of his other years is a joke. Since the SB, we have like the 4th most wins in the league. That is bad to you?

playoff wins > regular season wins
quick count how many playoff wins this team has had this decade.....ready...set...go!!!

jhns
11-11-2009, 01:42 PM
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you mentioned all of our playoff wins since Elway retired.

A bunch of playoff appearances and a trip to the AFCCG and you guys are all arguing that he didn't field any competitive teams.

LOL ..... Riiiiight.

jhns
11-11-2009, 01:48 PM
playoff wins > regular season wins
quick count how many playoff wins this team has had this decade.....ready...set...go!!!

So you are also arguing that a team in the AFCCG is not a competitive team?

Wow, you guys will go a long ways out there to hate on the single greatest thing to ever happen to the Broncos.

TonyR
11-11-2009, 01:50 PM
A bunch of playoff appearances and a trip to the AFCCG and you guys are all arguing that he didn't field any competitive teams.

LOL ..... Riiiiight.

To be fair, we weren't very competitive in the loss to the Ravens in the 2000 playoffs or the Colts in the 2003 or 2004 playoffs. And then after winning one game in the 2005 playoffs we weren't very competitive in the AFCCG against the Steelers.

chex
11-11-2009, 01:50 PM
A bunch of playoff appearances and a trip to the AFCCG and you guys are all arguing that he didn't field any competitive teams.

LOL ..... Riiiiight.

One playoff win in 10 years, and you act like we've been the 80's 49ers.

I guess you're happy with just being competitive. I guess 24-24 over the past 3 years is acceptable to you. I guess your selective memory on Shanahan is clouding your judgement. How come when it comes to drafts we only hear about '06 & '08? What about all the other years? How come when it comes to real success, we only talk about the days when Bill Clinton was still President?

1-4 in playoff games the last 10 years. It's funny how you'll point to the Super Bowl wins as the ultimate achievement, yet are just happy to be competitive with 1 playoff win since.

jhns
11-11-2009, 01:56 PM
One playoff win in 10 years, and you act like we've been the 80's 49ers.

I guess you're happy with just being competitive. I guess 24-24 over the past 3 years is acceptable to you. I guess your selective memory on Shanahan is clouding your judgement. How come when it comes to drafts we only hear about '06 & '08? What about all the other years? How come when it comes to real success, we only talk about the days when Bill Clinton was still President?

1-4 in playoff games the last 10 years. It's funny how you'll point to the Super Bowl wins as the ultimate achievement, yet are just happy to be competitive with 1 playoff win since.

Did you even read the conversation? For one, what are you going on about the drafts for. I didn't mention a single draft, that includes the 06 and 08 ones. Secondly, I said I understand getting rid of him from his last three years performance. Why then would .500 be acceptable to me? What?

I disputed a claim that Shanny couldn't make a competitive team over ten years. Your little world of AFCCG teams not being competitive is a weird one. That same team was in the playoffs a couple times before that. What an uncompetitive team that can't beat anyone.

You guys act like we have been the raiders the last 10 years.

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:00 PM
To be fair, we weren't very competitive in the loss to the Ravens in the 2000 playoffs or the Colts in the 2003 or 2004 playoffs. And then after winning one game in the 2005 playoffs we weren't very competitive in the AFCCG against the Steelers.

Well that would be why they didn't win the SB. They had bad games at horrible times or went against teams they didn't match up well against. That doesn't mean we never had a competitive team after the SBs. If that is the case, we have only had three competitve teams in this teams history.

DarkHorse
11-11-2009, 02:04 PM
I think we have a better shot at 10-6

HAT
11-11-2009, 02:06 PM
Wow, you guys will go a long ways out there to hate on the single greatest thing to ever happen to the Broncos.

I don't see anyone hating on John Elway?

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't see anyone hating on John Elway?

Shanahan brought us SBs, not Elway. Elway was herr forever without them. What was the difference when he finally won? Shanahan.... Elway can be co-greatest thing to ever happen to the Broncos.

chex
11-11-2009, 02:11 PM
Shanahan brought us SBs, not Elway. Elway was herr forever without them. What was the difference when he finally won? Shanahan.... Elway can be co-greatest thing to ever happen to the Broncos.

Yes, because Shanahan brought us so many without him too.

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:16 PM
Yes, because Shanahan brought us so many without him too.

That would be why the last sentence is they are co-best thing to happen. Since you don't seem to be very smart, I will spell this out for you. I think they are both the best thing to happen.

chex
11-11-2009, 02:25 PM
That would be why the last sentence is they are co-best thing to happen. Since you don't seem to be very smart, I will spell this out for you. I think they are both the best thing to happen.

By saying that Shanahan brought us SB's and not Elway, you are implying Shanahan was the sole factor. There's no misinterpretation with that statement. You flat out said Elway did not bring home the SB's, Shanahan did. My statement to you points out how incorrect that is, since Shanahan could only win one playoff game since, and that was with Jake Plummer, who for some reason gets alot of crap here despite winning alot of games.

Beantown Bronco
11-11-2009, 02:27 PM
Bill Belichick has yet to win a SB without Eric Mangini.....just sayin.

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:33 PM
By saying that Shanahan brought us SB's and not Elway, you are implying Shanahan was the sole factor. There's no misinterpretation with that statement. You flat out said Elway did not bring home the SB's, Shanahan did. My statement to you points out how incorrect that is, since Shanahan could only win one playoff game since, and that was with Jake Plummer, who for some reason gets alot of crap here despite winning alot of games.

He didn't just lose Elway after the SB years. We also lost TD soon after and a lot of the great defense we had. You are right that he never built up another team like that. We won SBs because Shanny came in, cleaned out the garbage, brought in everything else we needed, and installed his systems. This team would not have won a single SB without Shanahan. That makes him the greatest thing to happen to the Broncos no matter how much you hate on him.

You may be right that he needed Elway. I would argue he needed Elway, TD, Sharpe, Smith, Atwater, etc..... Shanahan was the difference. Him and him alone. Elway was crucial as were many others. Shanahan was the deciding factor though. There is no arguing this.

rastaman
11-11-2009, 02:35 PM
What is a team that can compete to you? He went to the playoffs multiple times and got to the AFCCG. Is it only the two teams in the SB that are competetive to you? Is this how you are going to treat McD?

You are being very disrespectful of the greatest thing to ever happen to this team. I don't think changing the head coach now was a bad move but that is strictly from the last 3 years and the fact that he wanted to keep Slowik. You talking bad about all of his other years is a joke. Since the SB, we have like the 4th most wins in the league. That is bad to you?

Good points! Shanny leading the team to 2 consecutive SB titles were monumental achievements. Especially when you look at the suffering and disappointment the franchise and fans enudred lossing 4 SBs. Shanny will forever be a legend in Colorado and rightfully so.

There are no gurantees....not even for McDaniels in terms to leading Denver back to the SB, let alone any SB victories.

As present and future QB's will be compared to Elway and live in his shadows. So to is true about the new HC's that take over for Shanny...they will find themselves compared to Shanny and living in Shanny's shadow.

chex
11-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Good points! Shanny leading the team to 2 consecutive SB titles were monumental achievements. Especially when you look at the suffering and disappointment the franchise and fans enudred lossing 4 SBs. Shanny will forever be a legend in Colorado and rightfully so.

There are no gurantees....not even for McDaniels in terms to leading Denver back to the SB, let alone any SB victories.

As present and future QB's will be compared to Elway and live in his shadows. So to is true about the new HC's that take over for Shanny...they will find themselves compared to Shanny and living in Shanny's shadow.

Shanahan couldn't win without other people's players.

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:47 PM
Shanahan couldn't win without other people's players.

Really? Why is it we didn't have a SB win before Shanahan then? I mean, he just used other peoples players right?

By the way, you should do some research on our SB teams. A big percentage of key players were Shanahan. you don't know much about Bronco football.

chex
11-11-2009, 02:49 PM
Really? Why is it we didn't have a SB win before Shanahan then? I mean, he just used other peoples players right?

By the way, you should do some research on our SB teams. A big percentage of key players were Shanahan. you don't know much about Bronco football.

Yes, Hall of Famers like Elway, Sharpe, Smith, Zimmerman, Atwater, Elam, etc were all Shanahan recruits. Gotcha.

Beantown Bronco
11-11-2009, 02:49 PM
Shanahan couldn't win without other people's players.

I'd argue that no SB winning coach in modern NFL history ever had a roster 100% full of players acquired under their watch. There's always a handful of guys at a minimum that are carried over from someone else.

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:53 PM
Yes, Hall of Famers like Elway, Sharpe, Smith, Zimmerman, Atwater, Elam, etc were all Shanahan recruits. Gotcha.

Smith got his shot under Shanahan. You named a few players that weren't brought in by him. You do know the only other HOF player other than Elway was brought in by Shanny, right?

Also, it is good to know you think McDaniels is only winning with Shanahans players.

Also, did you know we won the most games ever over a three year span after Shanny showed up? Why wasn't this team he inherited winning before him?

jhns
11-11-2009, 02:56 PM
I'd argue that no SB winning coach in modern NFL history ever had a roster 100% full of players acquired under their watch. There's always a handful of guys at a minimum that are carried over from someone else.

The majority of this years starting roster was starting last season. That isn't even taking into account guys like Haggan that were already on the team but playing backup. McDaniels can only win with Shanahans players....

rastaman
11-11-2009, 02:57 PM
I'd argue that no SB winning coach in modern NFL history ever had a roster 100% full of players acquired under their watch. There's always a handful of guys at a minimum that are carried over from someone else.

No arguments here. Any comments Chex?;D

azbroncfan
11-11-2009, 03:05 PM
Smith got his shot under Shanahan. You named a few players that weren't brought in by him. You do know the only other HOF player other than Elway was brought in by Shanny, right??

Who was that?

jhns
11-11-2009, 03:13 PM
Who was that?

No one considering he named the only other one. He doesn't know that though so shhhh.

Actually I was thinking Zimmerman came with Shanny for some reason. I was wrong.

Br0nc0Buster
11-11-2009, 03:47 PM
So you are also arguing that a team in the AFCCG is not a competitive team?

Wow, you guys will go a long ways out there to hate on the single greatest thing to ever happen to the Broncos.

we didnt go to the AFCCG every year artard, we did ONCE in this decade and got our butts kicked

Perhaps you were satisfied with all those super awesome regular season wins, but with ZERO playoff success save one game against the Pats, whats the point?

and it got to the point where we werent even getting those awesome regular season wins, his last three years were not that impressive

and I like Shanahan, if you actually pulled your head out of his rectum you would see I never said he was a bad coach, that there is a difference between Shanny in 98 and the guy that was patrolling the sidelines the past few years

jhns
11-12-2009, 06:58 AM
we didnt go to the AFCCG every year artard, we did ONCE in this decade and got our butts kicked

Perhaps you were satisfied with all those super awesome regular season wins, but with ZERO playoff success save one game against the Pats, whats the point?

and it got to the point where we werent even getting those awesome regular season wins, his last three years were not that impressive

and I like Shanahan, if you actually pulled your head out of his rectum you would see I never said he was a bad coach, that there is a difference between Shanny in 98 and the guy that was patrolling the sidelines the past few years

A team that goes to the playoffs 3 straight years and makes an AFCCG is a competitive team no matter what your spin is. Shanahan was only bad the last 3 years, as I said. You said the last decade. Explain to me how that team wasn't competitive... Are you calling for mcdaniels head if he doesn't win a SB in the next couple years, even if we are in the playoffs?

Br0nc0Buster
11-12-2009, 07:04 AM
A team that goes to the playoffs 3 straight years and makes an AFCCG is a competitive team no matter what your spin is. Shanahan was only bad the last 3 years, as I said. You said the last decade. Explain to me how that team wasn't competitive... Are you calling for mcdaniels head if he doesn't win a SB in the next couple years, even if we are in the playoffs?

no I never said he was bad, I said we had ZERO playoff success the past decade with one exception, which is correct

Again getting to the playoffs and losing is not the ultimate goal, and with the direction the team and defense was going just losing in the playoffs was becoming a pipe dream

It was obvious he had no clue what he was doing on the defensive side of the ball

chex
11-12-2009, 07:06 AM
I'd argue that no SB winning coach in modern NFL history ever had a roster 100% full of players acquired under their watch. There's always a handful of guys at a minimum that are carried over from someone else.

Of course.

However, there's some turd that has been running around here all season claiming our good start was all on Shanahan. Turns out though that argument doesn't sit well with them when it's used against them. Toying with people like this gets me through the workday.

chex
11-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Smith got his shot under Shanahan. You named a few players that weren't brought in by him. You do know the only other HOF player other than Elway was brought in by Shanny, right?

Also, did you know we won the most games ever over a three year span after Shanny showed up? Why wasn't this team he inherited winning before him?

Why wasn't this team, supposedly loaded with Shanny players, able to average more than 8 wins a year the past three years, when we already have 6 in half a season under McDaniels?

jhns
11-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Of course.

However, there's some turd that has been running around here all season claiming our good start was all on Shanahan. Turns out though that argument doesn't sit well with them when it's used against them. Toying with people like this gets me through the workday.

I have never claimed that. You aren't toying with me, you are. Just sounding dumb.

jhns
11-12-2009, 07:12 AM
I have never claimed that. You aren't toying with me, you are. Just sounding dumb.

My edit won't work but that was my phone that inserted a period and capitalized Just. That is supposed to be one sentence.

jhns
11-12-2009, 07:13 AM
Why wasn't this team, supposedly loaded with Shanny players, able to average more than 8 wins a year the past three years, when we already have 6 in half a season under McDaniels?

Again, I think he needed to be fired for the last 3 years. What are you not getting about this?

jhns
11-12-2009, 07:18 AM
no I never said he was bad, I said we had ZERO playoff success the past decade with one exception, which is correct

Again getting to the playoffs and losing is not the ultimate goal, and with the direction the team and defense was going just losing in the playoffs was becoming a pipe dream

It was obvious he had no clue what he was doing on the defensive side of the ball

I disputed a post that said he hasn't fielded a single competitive team in the past 10 years. You argued with that. How are you not saying he was bad the last 10 years if your arguing that he hasn't fielded a competitive team in 10 years? How is a team that makes the playoffs 3 straight years, with an AFCCG appearance, not competitive? That doesn't make sense. Only one team a year gets that ultimate goal, 31 coaches shouldn't be fired every year. That also doesn't mean 31 teams weren't competitive.

jhns
11-12-2009, 07:42 AM
You guys should just start calling yourselves McDaniels fans instead of Bronco fans. I don't get how you can claim to be a fan of this team and then disrespect its history so much. Bowlen would laugh at your arguments. I laugh at your arguments. How can you all hate the man that brought us so many wins and the only two SBs this team has? Just because he had a bad 3 years, which he got fired for? That takes away everything he has done for this team?

He took an average team and got them to win the most games ever over a 3 season span. How can you claim he wasn't the difference? He has 2 losing seasons in all his time here. He is top 5 in wins since being here. He is going to the HOF for what he did for this team.

I have never claimed someone wasn't a fan before so you guys can be the first. McDaniels is not above the Broncos and hasn't done anything for this franchise yet. Why does he get more respect? Right, because you are McDaniel fans and not Bronco fans.

CEH
11-12-2009, 07:51 AM
I'd argue mediocre not bad but not really competive in the sense of a real chance to do damage in the playoffs.

One season of over .500 the last 3/4 (12 games) of any season since '00 does not reallly scream competive teams. Competive for me would be teams that got better not worst in crunch time Nov, Dec and Jan. His record over this decade suggests to me just the opposite Start fast and fade making the playoffs but getting crushed.

JMO

Ramathorn
11-12-2009, 08:03 AM
all I gotta say is that if denver loses to washington this weekend, then my wife better hide the sharp objects from me and take my shoelaces out of all my shoes. Just sayin.

jhns
11-12-2009, 08:06 AM
I'd argue mediocre not bad but not really competive in the sense of a real chance to do damage in the playoffs.

One season of over .500 the last 3/4 (12 games) of any season since '00 does not reallly scream competive teams. Competive for me would be teams that got better not worst in crunch time Nov, Dec and Jan. His record over this decade suggests to me just the opposite Start fast and fade making the playoffs but getting crushed.

JMO

How is 3 straight years of playoffs with an AFCCG appearance not competitive? Why does the last 3 seasons make the last 10 bad? I bet none of you claimed he wasn't making competitive teams in 2006. Yet, you claim that now? Why is that?

chex
11-12-2009, 08:22 AM
How is 3 straight years of playoffs with an AFCCG appearance not competitive? Why does the last 3 seasons make the last 10 bad? I bet none of you claimed he wasn't making competitive teams in 2006. Yet, you claim that now? Why is that?

Who cares? You're not a Broncos fan, you're a Shanahan fan.

CEH
11-12-2009, 08:24 AM
How is 3 straight years of playoffs with an AFCCG appearance not competitive? Why does the last 3 seasons make the last 10 bad? I bet none of you claimed he wasn't making competitive teams in 2006. Yet, you claim that now? Why is that?

I never said bad I said mediorce or average.
I showed a stat that spanned the whole decade not just the last 3 years.

You're definiton of competive is different than mine so here in a nutshell is my premise on why we were average over the last decade

I'd say there were 4 or 5 teams in the last decade that were 5-3 4-4 at the half way mark that went on to win the super bowl. The first game of the year is basically another preseasn game and teams only game plan the last 4 games of any opponent so I put alot more weight on what happens the last 12 games of the year than the first 4 games. Thats why I say he's not been that competitive. .500 ball is average or partiy .

How did those 3 or 4 playoff games go. Were they competive?
Blown out by Balt, Indy twice , nice 5 turnover game by NE, blown out by Pitts.

Sure compared to KC or OAK or many other teams Denver was competive but really never as close as Shanny wanted us to believe to winning the SB

jhns
11-12-2009, 08:33 AM
I never said bad I said mediorce or average.
I showed a stat that spanned the whole decade not just the last 3 years.

You're definiton of competive is different than mine so here in a nutshell is my premise on why we were average over the last decade

I'd say there were 4 or 5 teams in the last decade that were 5-3 4-4 at the half way mark that went on to win the super bowl. The first game of the year is basically another preseasn game and teams only game plan the last 4 games of any opponent so I put alot more weight on what happens the last 12 games of the year than the first 4 games. Thats why I say he's not been that competitive. .500 ball is average or partiy .

How did those 3 or 4 playoff games go. Were they competive?
Blown out by Balt, Indy twice , nice 5 turnover game by NE, blown out by Pitts.

Sure compared to KC or OAK or many other teams Denver was competive but really never as close as Shanny wanted us to believe to winning the SB

So you think this team has had 3 competitive years in its history then?

jhns
11-12-2009, 08:36 AM
Who cares? You're not a Broncos fan, you're a Shanahan fan.

Good one. Did you think of that yourself? Stop acting like you like the Broncos. I see you post. Defend everything McDaniels, who has done nothing for this team, and bash Shanahan, who made this team relevant in the NFL. It is pretty easy to see you don't like the Broncos nearly ad much as you like McDaniels. Me, I don't have a problem with any of the 3. I don't need to bash everything McDaniels to like Shanahan.

CEH
11-12-2009, 08:44 AM
So you think this team has had 3 competitive years in its history then?

Wow Not sure where you are going with this argument? How did we go from this decade '00 to '08 under Mike Shanahan to the 60 year history of the Denver Broncos? Where did I state anything about the Denver Broncos from '60 - '99

'll stick with my original premise and damning stat. Feel free to blow it up if you want but to me starting 4-0 and finishing 2-2 and getting into the playoffs is not the same as starting 2-2 and finishing 4-0 and getting into the playoffs.

Last 12 games of the SB years

'86 7-5
'87 10-4
'89 8-4
'97 8-4
'98 10-2

Meets my premise that we were playing well not .500

chex
11-12-2009, 08:48 AM
Good one. Did you think of that yourself? Stop acting like you like the Broncos. I see you post. Defend everything McDaniels, who has done nothing for this team, and bash Shanahan, who made this team relevant in the NFL. It is pretty easy to see you don't like the Broncos nearly ad much as you like McDaniels. Me, I don't have a problem with any of the 3. I don't need to bash everything McDaniels to like Shanahan.

From a guy who defends everything Shanahan.

jhns
11-12-2009, 08:54 AM
Wow Not sure where you are going with this argument? How did we go from this decade '00 to '08 under Mike Shanahan to the 60 year history of the Denver Broncos? Where did I state anything about the Denver Broncos from '60 - '99

'll stick with my original premise and damning stat. Feel free to blow it up if you want but to me starting 4-0 and finishing 2-2 and getting into the playoffs is not the same as starting 2-2 and finishing 4-0 and getting into the playoffs.

We have only had 3 years of not getting completely blown out in the playoffs. The 2 years we won the SB and when we lost the 92 AFCCG. How are you not saying we have only had 3 competitive years with that argument? Also, this isn't a question of the collectuve 10 years. This is if he had a competitive team in that time. You are saying we have only had 3 competitive years in this franchises history. Shanahan gave us 2 of them. I wonder if you all are going to be saying this same stuff about McDaniels if he doesn't win a SB in the next couple years.

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:01 AM
From a guy who defends everything Shanahan.

This is a bad thing to you? Do I bash everything McDaniels just to like Shanahan? Shanahan made this team relevant in the NFL. If you don't respect him, you aren't a fan of this team. Bowlen and Elway would tell you the same thing and they will argue exactly what I have been saying un this thread.

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:03 AM
Wow Not sure where you are going with this argument? How did we go from this decade '00 to '08 under Mike Shanahan to the 60 year history of the Denver Broncos? Where did I state anything about the Denver Broncos from '60 - '99

'll stick with my original premise and damning stat. Feel free to blow it up if you want but to me starting 4-0 and finishing 2-2 and getting into the playoffs is not the same as starting 2-2 and finishing 4-0 and getting into the playoffs.

Last 12 games of the SB years

'86 7-5
'87 10-4
'89 8-4
'97 8-4
'98 10-2

Meets my premise that we were playing well not .500

So you go off only the last 4 of the one year but the last 12 of the others? You don't see the flawed logic? Why not show the last 4 of those SB years?

chex
11-12-2009, 09:04 AM
This is a bad thing to you? Do I bash everything McDaniels just to like Shanahan? Shanahan made this team relevant in the NFL. If you don't respect him, you aren't a fan of this team. Bowlen and Elway would tell you the same thing and they will argue exactly what I have been saying un this thread.

Cool. Have them give me a call.

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:09 AM
Cool. Have them give me a call.

I tried, they said they don't like bandwagoners that follow certain coaches/players around. They also don't want to talk to someone claiming to be a fan of the team as they bash its history.

chex
11-12-2009, 09:21 AM
I tried, they said they don't like bandwagoners that follow certain coaches/players around. They also don't want to talk to someone claiming to be a fan of the team as they bash its history.

Are you sure? Damn.

So then why would they talk to a Shanahan bandwagoner?

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:24 AM
Are you sure? Damn.

So then why would they talk to a Shanahan bandwagoner?

Because I am better than you in every way. Was that a serious question? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

chex
11-12-2009, 09:30 AM
Because I am better than you in every way. Was that a serious question? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

If defending all things Shanahan and being a Shanahan bandwagoner makes you better, then I guess you are! Congratulations!

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:34 AM
If defending all things Shanahan and being a Shanahan bandwagoner makes you better, then I guess you are! Congratulations!

No, me being smarter, funnier, better looking, and more successful make me better than you. Again, this stuff is pretty obvious. I don't know why I expected you to get the obvious though. You just don't have the brain power for that.

chex
11-12-2009, 09:40 AM
No, me being smarter, funnier, better looking, and more successful make me better than you. Again, this stuff is pretty obvious. I don't know why I expected you to get the obvious though. You just don't have the brain power for that.

Well, as a Shanahan bandwagoner, you've definitely successfully made yourself look funny.

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Well, as a Shanahan bandwagoner, you've definitely successfully made yourself look funny.

And all of you arguing against me have made yourselves look real dumb. It is fun to keep it going so it shows even more.

So explain one more time how a team that was 13-3 and in the AFCCG isn't competitive. I can't get enough of you guys trying so hard to dog the best thing to ever happen to this team with such stupidity. So really, try explaining how that makes any sense at all.

chex
11-12-2009, 09:52 AM
And all of you arguing against me have made yourselves look real dumb. It is fun to keep it going so it shows even more.

So explain one more time how a team that was 13-3 and in the AFCCG isn't competitive. I can't get enough of you guys trying so hard to dog the best thing to ever happen to this team with such stupidity. So really, try explaining how that makes any sense at all.

Easy, Jake Plummer. It's obvious Shanahan couldn't win games without Plummer making up for his coaching deficiencies.

jhns
11-12-2009, 09:55 AM
Easy, Jake Plummer. It's obvious Shanahan couldn't win games without Plummer making up for his coaching deficiencies.

So the team was competitve with Plummer but not competitve a single time over the last 10 years? Wow, you really do get dumber as this goes, just as I said.

chex
11-12-2009, 09:57 AM
So the team was competitve with Plummer but not competitve a single time over the last 10 years? Wow, you really do get dumber as this goes, just as I said.

Wrong. Plummer was around during the 10 year period you bring up to cover up for Shanahan.

jhns
11-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Wrong. Plummer was around during the 10 year period you bring up to cover up for Shanahan.

Ummm, duh he was here in the last 10 years. So if he was here in the last 10 years and we had a competitive team when he was here, that means we haven't had a competitve team in those 10 years. What kind of school did you go to? I know 5 year olds that can come to better conclusions than that.

chex
11-12-2009, 10:15 AM
So if he was here in the last 10 years and we had a competitive team when he was here, that means we haven't had a competitve team in those 10 years.

Hilarious!

jhns
11-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Hilarious!

Yup, that is exactly how I have reacted to everyone arguing against me in this thread. Some of the dumbest stiff I have ever heard. I'm not sure if it is funny or sad though. This country really needs to work on the education system.

Br0nc0Buster
11-12-2009, 11:26 AM
I disputed a post that said he hasn't fielded a single competitive team in the past 10 years. You argued with that. How are you not saying he was bad the last 10 years if your arguing that he hasn't fielded a competitive team in 10 years? How is a team that makes the playoffs 3 straight years, with an AFCCG appearance, not competitive? That doesn't make sense. Only one team a year gets that ultimate goal, 31 coaches shouldn't be fired every year. That also doesn't mean 31 teams weren't competitive.

I never said he failed to field competitive teams, I said he had virtually no playoff success.
Losing in the playoffs badly to the Colts doesnt mean anything, it doesnt make you a great coach to go to the playoffs and get stomped
Even Herm Edwards has made it to the playoffs

He wasnt winning in the playoffs period, I dont care how competitive you thought we were in the regular season, this team failed when it got to the post season except for one game

And with the team regressing every year the past few years, Shanahan looked more like a mediocre coach than a "mastermind"

jhns
11-12-2009, 11:36 AM
I never said he failed to field competitive teams, I said he had virtually no playoff success.
Losing in the playoffs badly to the Colts doesnt mean anything, it doesnt make you a great coach to go to the playoffs and get stomped
Even Herm Edwards has made it to the playoffs

He wasnt winning in the playoffs period, I dont care how competitive you thought we were in the regular season, this team failed when it got to the post season except for one game

And with the team regressing every year the past few years, Shanahan looked more like a mediocre coach than a "mastermind"

You argued with a post of mine that was only arguing he had fielded competitive teams. How is that in turn saying we have fielded competitive teams? Also, how does the last 3 years mean that the years before it couldn't have been good? I'm not here arguing that he shouldn't have been fired. Maybe you should learn to read before jumping in, just like the others here....

So a team that was 13-3 and went to the AFCCG wasn't competitive huh? Good to know you think this franchise has only fielded 3 competitive teams in its history. Every other time we have been in the playoffs, we have been blown out bad at some point. We have had 3 times that it didn't happen that way. You guys are not fans of this team if you hate the past so much. You are McDaniel fans. I'm not sure how you can claim to be a fan and call the team junk all but 3 years in its history. What a joke.

SJ Bronco
11-12-2009, 11:39 AM
CRAP! I can't believe the Stupid I see here after losses!

http://tykesontrikes.com/images/ill_blow_my_brains_out3.jpg

rastaman
11-21-2009, 06:51 AM
Worse case scenario should the offense not improve and the defense wears down b/c the offense can't sustain drives and score enough points we could see the Broncos season end as follows:


8. Sun Nov _1 @ BAL..1:00 PM............. LOSS
9. Mon Nov _9 V PIT..8:30 PM.............. LOSS
10 Sun Nov 15 @ WAS..1:00 PM........... LOSS
11 Sun Nov 22 V SDG..4:15 PM............ LOSS
12 Thu Nov 26 V NYG..8:20 PM............ LOSS
13 Sun Dec _6 @ KAN..1:00 PM........... WIN
14 Sun Dec 13 @ IND..1:00 PM............ LOSS
15 Sun Dec 20 V OAK..4:05 PM............ WIN
16 Sun Dec 27 @ PHI..1:00 PM............ LOSS
17 Sun Jan _3 V KAN..4:15 PM............. WIN

Right now the Skins are a dangerous team for us to face. They're offensive line is big enough to blow our DL of the ball in the 4th qtr especially if the Def. is already worn down.

Watch out with the NYG suddenly playing to their potential against us and they win. Key here is Denvers Offense showing up.

Indy and Philly will be tough losses b/c they have too much talent. Should our Defense wear down by the 4th qtr both teams could dump over 30 points on us.

Also, although not picked....at this stage KC and Oak will be challenging to sweep b/c of the significance of the rivalry. So if Denver splits with KC and Oak, the Broncos could go 8-8 or 9-7.

Well folks after last weeks upset at the hands of the inferior Skins, it obvious that Denver needs to find a way to protect its strongest asset and thats the DEFENSE!

If our Offense can't sustain drives and score points when the opportunities presents itself, our Defense will once again find itself defending poor field position and getting worn down. Over the last 3 games, this has been the scenario.

Point is, if the Offense with our w/o Orton must find away to sustain drives and score when the opportunity presents itself or the Defense will wear out/down and by the end of the 3rd qtr and all the 4th qtr SD will run the ball down our throats.

Last week Denver lost to Wash. due mainly to our Defense wearing down in the 3rd and 4th qtrs. Ledell Betts and the Skins O line ran on Denvers worn down front 7.

The offense must rise to the occasion tomorrow and help the defense and defeat the Chargers. The Defense can no longer carry the offense like it did for the first 6 weeks of the season.

And the question may need to ask, has the Defense lost confidence in the Offense????

UberBroncoMan
11-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Well folks after last weeks upset at the hands of the inferior Skins, it obvious that Denver needs to find a way to protect its strongest asset and thats the DEFENSE!

If our Offense can't sustain drives and score points when the opportunities presents itself, our Defense will once again find itself defending poor field position and getting worn down. Over the last 3 games, this has been the scenario.

Point is, if the Offense with our w/o Orton must find away to sustain drives and score when the opportunity presents itself or the Defense will wear out/down and by the end of the 3rd qtr and all the 4th qtr SD will run the ball down our throats.

Last week Denver lost to Wash. due mainly to our Defense wearing down in the 3rd and 4th qtrs. Ledell Betts and the Skins O line ran on Denvers worn down front 7.

The offense must rise to the occasion tomorrow and help the defense and defeat the Chargers. The Defense can no longer carry the offense like it did for the first 6 weeks of the season.

And the question may need to ask, has the Defense lost confidence in the Offense????

I hate you for being right about the Skins.

errand
11-22-2009, 02:12 AM
Really? How many times did Shanahan lose 5 in a row?

Why do you hate the only Hall of Fame coach in Broncos history, moron?

He didn't say that mike had lost 5 games in a row...he said it's possible.
...and here you are posting under the belief that rasta's theory is correct, which means you believe that McDaniels will lose 5 in a row. so tell me how many times has Josh McDaniels lost 5 in a row?

errand
11-22-2009, 02:16 AM
Good thing our former HOF coach never did...

...which would lead one to wonder why he's our former HOF coach, huh?

errand
11-22-2009, 02:31 AM
Shanahan made this team relevant in the NFL. .

Well, looks like two can play this game....

Really...so you're saying the Broncos weren't relevant prior to Mike being named our head coach?

I'm not even gonna bring up the fact that John Ralston went 9-5 in '76 or that Red miller went 42-25 in 4 seasons that included two AFC west titles, one AFC championship, and a Super Bowl appearance...or that Wade Phillips made the playoffs as well as our head coach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Reeves#Head_coaching_record

Seems to me that the NFL knew all about the Denver Broncos prior to '95.

errand
11-22-2009, 02:48 AM
A bunch of playoff appearances and a trip to the AFCCG and you guys are all arguing that he didn't field any competitive teams.

LOL ..... Riiiiight.

Peyton Manning, Tony Dungy, and the Colts have a bunch of playoff appearances this past decade...we do not.

We made the playoffs in '00....one and done.

We made the playoffs in '03, '04...two more one and done seasons.

We made the playoffs again in '05, beat the Patriots and lost to the Steelers...at home

That's 4 playoff seasons in 10 years....which is a 40% success rate. Which also means we finish at or around .500 in 6 seasons...or 60% of the last 10 years.

We all think highly of Mike, and we all thank him for his accomplishments while our head coach...but just like Dan Reeve's 25-25 record over the last 3 seasons cost him his job...Mike's 24-24 record over the last 3 cost him his job.

errand
11-22-2009, 02:55 AM
You guys act like we have been the raiders the last 10 years.

You realize the Raiders have made it to the Super bowl in the last 10 years....and, ugh! have more playoff wins than we do in that time span as well.

errand
11-22-2009, 03:58 AM
Really? Why is it we didn't have a SB win before Shanahan then? I mean, he just used other peoples players right?

By the way, you should do some research on our SB teams. A big percentage of key players were Shanahan. you don't know much about Bronco football.

The starting line-up of SB XXXII.

Elway - QB
Davis* - RB
Griffith* - FB
Smith - WR
McCaffrey* - WR
Sharpe - TE
Habib, Nalen, Schlereth*, Jones*, Zimmerman on the Oline
Elam - PK

On defense we had

Tanuvasa* - DT
Traylor* - DT (originally drafted by Reeves was in his 2nd tour with Broncos)
Smith* - DE
Williams* - DE
Mobley* - OLB
Romanowski* -OLB
Aldridge - MLB
Crockett - CB
Gordon* - CB
Atwater - S
Braxton* - S (originally drafted by Reeves and was already on roster when Mike took over as HC, spent one year in miami and returned to Denver)
Rouen - P

...Mike signed or drafted 13 of the 24 starting players from SBXXXII...two of whom were originally drafted by Reeves.

errand
11-22-2009, 04:03 AM
Why not show the last 4 of those SB years?

We went 2-2 in our last 4 games in both of the '97 and '98 seasons

Bronxfan
11-22-2009, 10:20 AM
8-8

CEH
11-22-2009, 10:51 AM
"It's all about winning Super Bowls" - Mike Shanahan speaking through Shannon SHarpe who spoke to Mike this morning 11/22/2009

Big difference between winning Super Bowls and being competative

Mike might have been competative but he himself did not live up to his own standards over the last decade.

If those are the expectations of the HC, then they will be mine as well

rastaman
11-22-2009, 10:58 AM
He didn't say that mike had lost 5 games in a row...he said it's possible.
...and here you are posting under the belief that rasta's theory is correct, which means you believe that McDaniels will lose 5 in a row. so tell me how many times has Josh McDaniels lost 5 in a row?

Errand, the 5 consecutive losses I have forcasted all steams from the question on whether or not our Offense can play consistent enough to move the ball and score when the opportunities present itself.

The offense must step up to the occasion and actually protect the Defense from getting worn down b/c the D finds itself defending lousy field position due to the offense's inability to move the ball and avoid 3 downs and punting the ball.

Lets hope Simms can turn this trend around. Point is, the biggest concern should be that if our Defense is out on the field too much in the 1st, 2nd, and half the 3rd qtr. The results will be the Defense will begin to show signs of tiring and by the remainder of the 3rd and 4th Qtr the Chargers and La Damian and Sproles will start ripping of big chunks of yardage.

Should this scenario happen to the Defense and SD converts 3rd downs with their running game, now an already tired Bronco Defense will be required to stay on the field even more. Then SD manages to score btwn 10-17 points btwn the 3rd and 4th qtr while eating up valuable clock time in the process; thus freezing out Denver's Offense.

That in a nutshell is my main concern. Lets hope Hillis and Simms can provide just enough impact (punch) and coupled with some Mile High magic to get a hard fought win against the Chargers. :strong:

broncocalijohn
12-07-2009, 10:19 PM
Still think we are going 8-8 or 9-7?

azbroncfan
12-07-2009, 10:21 PM
Yeah this JackA## just throws crap out and hopes it sticks so he can say he is a genius.

Rock Chalk
12-07-2009, 10:26 PM
Errand, the 5 consecutive losses I have forcasted all steams from the question on whether or not our Offense can play consistent enough to move the ball and score when the opportunities present itself.

Great prediction, douchebag.

The offense must step up to the occasion and actually protect the Defense from getting worn down b/c the D finds itself defending lousy field position due to the offense's inability to move the ball and avoid 3 downs and punting the ball.

I think the defense needed to come back as well. Back to complimentary football.

Lets hope Simms can turn this trend around. Point is, the biggest concern should be that if our Defense is out on the field too much in the 1st, 2nd, and half the 3rd qtr. The results will be the Defense will begin to show signs of tiring and by the remainder of the 3rd and 4th Qtr the Chargers and La Damian and Sproles will start ripping of big chunks of yardage.

Man you suck at this. Lets hope SIMMS can turn this around? Its obvious whose team this is, and its Ortons and its obvious Orton is 10 times greater than Simms. You suck at predictions, and apparently life as well.

Should this scenario happen to the Defense and SD converts 3rd downs with their running game, now an already tired Bronco Defense will be required to stay on the field even more. Then SD manages to score btwn 10-17 points btwn the 3rd and 4th qtr while eating up valuable clock time in the process; thus freezing out Denver's Offense.

Wow, really genius? Did Madden tell you that on one of his bumbling tirades on MNF one year?

That in a nutshell is my main concern. Lets hope Hillis and Simms can provide just enough impact (punch) and coupled with some Mile High magic to get a hard fought win against the Chargers. :strong:

Hillis and Simms....HAHAHA epic fail.

bombay
12-07-2009, 10:30 PM
Many of us here refer to 'Denver' as 'The Broncos' because we're 'fans'.

broncocalijohn
12-08-2009, 12:50 AM
Many of us here refer to 'Denver' as 'The Broncos' because we're 'fans'.

i refer them as "we" because I am part of the Broncos fan base. Worse is those that say "we" then use "them" when Broncos are losing. Bandwagon! Almost as bad as calling your team the Donks or Donkeys. No true Broncos fan would ever call their team a deragatory name. I will call them Rastaman's damn team if I want to get pissed at "them".

rastaman
12-08-2009, 09:25 AM
Yeah this JackA## just throws crap out and hopes it sticks so he can say he is a genius.

Sure AZ I hear ya! Whats your prediction on the Broncos last four games and your scenarios/reasons to bring you to your predictioins! Or are you a cowardly wait and see type of puzzy???

rastaman
12-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Many of us here refer to 'Denver' as 'The Broncos' because we're 'fans'.

Looks like many of you piss ant Bronco Robots have a freedom of choice to call the Denver Broncos what you want and not be attacked for your choice of words. Gotta luv Group Think and Mob Rule! ;D

rastaman
12-08-2009, 09:29 AM
Still think we are going 8-8 or 9-7?

Whats you're prediction on the Broncos win-lose record with 4 games remaining???

Pick Six
12-08-2009, 09:42 AM
Still think we are going 8-8 or 9-7?

Well, he did call the Washington game, if that's any consolation...;)

Doggcow
12-08-2009, 09:48 AM
Whats you're prediction on the Broncos win-lose record with 4 games remaining???

Don't be mad that you made a totally outrageous claim and got nailed on it.

OABB
12-08-2009, 09:49 AM
I think we need a new rule here on the mane... When someone is sooo wrong and self owns them selves with a lame ass statement. They should serve a weeklong ban.

Just think what no bob,lex, or rasta would mean for even a week. These guys always bring it on themselves but don't have any pride to feel ashamed, which they should.

It is ruining this site for me and not enough people ignore these bafoons.

End rant

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-08-2009, 10:02 AM
I think we need a new rule here on the mane... When someone is sooo wrong and self owns them selves with a lame ass statement. They should serve a weeklong ban.

Just think what no bob,lex, or rasta would mean for even a week. These guys always bring it on themselves but don't have any pride to feel ashamed, which they should.

It is ruining this site for me and not enough people ignore these bafoons.

End rant

Second.

For the record, we'll go 4-1 the rest of the way. If we beat Indy (and I think we can), we'll lose to Philly, and if we lose to Indy, I think we'll beat Philly.

But I'm more than happy to look one game at a time. Indy, here we come.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 10:17 AM
Don't be mad that you made a totally outrageous claim and got nailed on it.

Not mad at all. I made a prediction based on what I saw as an open minded fan and gave the reason why I believed so.

I saw inconsistencies at the QB position and the running attack and noted that the defense was getting worn down as a result. Was I wrong about the Giants game on Thanksgiving yep! But the Giants of last week were not the Giants that showed up against the Cowboys last Sunday.

Point is, against the Giants the Broncos got their act together on both sides of the ball against a Giants team that wanted to be home eating turkey. I called the KC's game. I've also, given my prediction why we will lose to Indy and how we can beat Indy. Thats good enough for me.

By the way Dog! Whats your scenario on how we beat or lose to Indy? You're not one of those meek-biatches that sit back and have a wait and see outlook and then comeback to the board and say "I told you So".....Are you?

Pick Six
12-08-2009, 10:17 AM
I think we need a new rule here on the mane... When someone is sooo wrong and self owns them selves with a lame ass statement. They should serve a weeklong ban.

Just think what no bob,lex, or rasta would mean for even a week. These guys always bring it on themselves but don't have any pride to feel ashamed, which they should.

It is ruining this site for me and not enough people ignore these bafoons.

End rant

I understand the frustration, but can you imagine how boring it would be around here if it was just a bunch of homers?

vancejohnson82
12-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Not mad at all. I made a prediction based on what I saw as an open minded fan and gave the reason why I believed so.

I saw inconsistencies at the QB position and the running attack and noted that the defense was getting worn down as a result. Was I wrong about the Giants game on Thanksgiving yep! But the Giants of last week were not the Giants that showed up against the Cowboys last Sunday.

Point is, against the Giants the Broncos got their act together on both sides of the ball against a Giants team that wanted to be home eating turkey. I called the KC's game. I've also, given my prediction why we will lose to Indy and how we can beat Indy. Thats good enough for me.

By the way Dog! Whats your scenario on how we beat or lose to Indy? You're not one of those meek-biatches that sit back and have a wait and see outlook and then comeback to the board and say "I told you So".....Are you?

the problem is that you ignored everything leading up to the Giants game....such as the Giants basically going out on record and saying that they didnt like that they had to go out west to play ball on Thanksgiving...an "open-minded fan" would have taken that into account

you also mention our inconsistincies at QB....perhaps thats because our starting QB was down for basically two of the games we lost....

chex
12-08-2009, 10:30 AM
Not mad at all. I made a prediction based on what I saw as an open minded fan and gave the reason why I believed so.

I saw inconsistencies at the QB position and the running attack and noted that the defense was getting worn down as a result. Was I wrong about the Giants game on Thanksgiving yep! But the Giants of last week were not the Giants that showed up against the Cowboys last Sunday.

Point is, against the Giants the Broncos got their act together on both sides of the ball against a Giants team that wanted to be home eating turkey. I called the KC's game. I've also, given my prediction why we will lose to Indy and how we can beat Indy. Thats good enough for me.

By the way Dog! Whats your scenario on how we beat or lose to Indy? You're not one of those meek-biatches that sit back and have a wait and see outlook and then comeback to the board and say "I told you So".....Are you?

So basically, what you really mean is that if you're proven wrong, it's because the team exceeded YOUR expectations, as in, 9 out of 10 times you would be right. That it's a major surprise that the team or QB played well enough to win, since your astute analysis is usually so spot on.

But if anyone else predicts a win or someone playing well, it's because they're homers who are blinded by their love for Mcd/Orton.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 10:30 AM
Great prediction, douchebag.

Thanks Dong Sucker!

I think the defense needed to come back as well. Back to complimentary football.

Agreed!:thumbsup:

Man you suck at this. Lets hope SIMMS can turn this around? Its obvious whose team this is, and its Ortons and its obvious Orton is 10 times greater than Simms. You suck at predictions, and apparently life as well.

Take it easy Sarah and loosen your skirt! Hoping for Simms to have a great game was based on Kyles ankle injury and not knowing if he would play or how bad he would play due to his injury.

Wow, really genius? Did Madden tell you that on one of his bumbling tirades on MNF one year?

Nope not at all! Just my prediction and opinion. Which by the way thats all you bring to the forum along with everyone else. Just b/c you have wait n see persona doesn't mean everyone else you take your lead. Besides do you ever get tired of "Fence Straddling"....must get kinda painful.:thumbsup:
Hillis and Simms....HAHAHA epic fail.

You are one of the "Meek-week-by-week" cowards on this forum anyway. If you don't predict anything....you can't FAIL can you! ROCK FOR BRAINS.

cutthemdown
12-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Broncos going to win out. 4 in a row and take division from Chargers.

cutthemdown
12-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Not mad at all. I made a prediction based on what I saw as an open minded fan and gave the reason why I believed so.

I saw inconsistencies at the QB position and the running attack and noted that the defense was getting worn down as a result. Was I wrong about the Giants game on Thanksgiving yep! But the Giants of last week were not the Giants that showed up against the Cowboys last Sunday.

Point is, against the Giants the Broncos got their act together on both sides of the ball against a Giants team that wanted to be home eating turkey. I called the KC's game. I've also, given my prediction why we will lose to Indy and how we can beat Indy. Thats good enough for me.

By the way Dog! Whats your scenario on how we beat or lose to Indy? You're not one of those meek-biatches that sit back and have a wait and see outlook and then comeback to the board and say "I told you So".....Are you?


to beat Indy

1- We have to run the ball well and right at there small dends and OLB.

2- We have to attack the middle of the field and take advantage of no Bob Sanders. Scheff, we need you baby!!

3-When we get inside 20 we need tds and not fgs

4-Probably need to get a turnover somehow from manning

5-Ty Law on Austin Collie

6-Can we get pressure on 3rd downs

oubronco
12-08-2009, 10:38 AM
to beat Indy

1- We have to run the ball well and right at there small dends and OLB.

2- We have to attack the middle of the field and take advantage of no Bob Sanders. Scheff, we need you baby!!

3-When we get inside 20 we need tds and not fgs

4-Probably need to get a turnover somehow from manning

5-Ty Law on Austin Collie

6-Can we get pressure on 3rd downs

I don't like this at all Collie is pretty damn fast and Law has lost a few steps

Durango
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
A terrible vulnerability was exposed when Kyle Orton was hurt. We have no other answer at QB. Take out Orton, we lose, well, except to the Kansas City Chiefs of the NFL.

If Orton can remain standing, 11-5 isn't unreasonable. If he's hurt again, one more win, or 9-7 seems probable.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 10:49 AM
So basically, what you really mean is that if you're proven wrong, it's because the team exceeded YOUR expectations, as in, 9 out of 10 times you would be right. That it's a major surprise that the team or QB played well enough to win, since your astute analysis is usually so spot on.

Look smart azz my prediction was based on the Broncos 4 consecutive loses after starting out with 6 consecutive wins. Tell me Dumb Billy what were your expectations while witnessing those 4 consecutive loses. Were you Fence Straddling and hoping the nightmare would end? Don't bother answering we all know what you were doing. You were keeping it boring b/c you were afraid of being wrong and you were waiting to jump back on the bandwagon once the losing stopped. Typical hack-----aren't you!

But if anyone else predicts a win or someone playing well, it's because they're homers who are blinded by their love for Mcd/Orton.

Come on "Homee The Coward" make your predictions-opininions and stand by them for once in your miserable life. Can you provide your predictions of how the last remaining 4 games will turn out and state why you believe it will happen that way? Or will you stick with your cowardly MO and straddle the fence---play it safe and when the smoke all clears.......you come out with "I TOLD YOU SO"!!! :~ohyah!:

rastaman
12-08-2009, 11:03 AM
I think we need a new rule here on the mane... When someone is sooo wrong and self owns them selves with a lame ass statement. They should serve a weeklong ban.

Just think what no bob,lex, or rasta would mean for even a week. These guys always bring it on themselves but don't have any pride to feel ashamed, which they should.

It is ruining this site for me and not enough people ignore these bafoons.

End rant

Bring It on you Contol Freak Punk! I ain't afraid of Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal's like you and your Ilk!

If Group Think says ignore.....then ignore!:pimp:

Rabb
12-08-2009, 11:08 AM
Broncos going to win out. 4 in a row and take division from Chargers.

how sweet would that be after last season?

rastaman
12-08-2009, 11:13 AM
the problem is that you ignored everything leading up to the Giants game....such as the Giants basically going out on record and saying that they didnt like that they had to go out west to play ball on Thanksgiving...an "open-minded fan" would have taken that into account

you also mention our inconsistincies at QB....perhaps thats because our starting QB was down for basically two of the games we lost....

Open minded fans can still go out there and make their predictions and provide their opinions...can they not? The problem is, you don't know which team in the NFL is going to show up and play based on their talent level on both sides of the ball.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-08-2009, 11:16 AM
Open minded fans can still go out there and make their predictions and provide their opinions...can they not? The problem is, you don't know which team in the NFL is going to show up and play based on their talent level on both sides of the ball.

But you do know?

Then why are you wrong so often?

Dagmar
12-08-2009, 11:16 AM
http://i50.tinypic.com/162061k.gif

Sassy
12-08-2009, 11:21 AM
how sweet would that be after last season?

Stranger things have happened...Hey we kicked ass in Arrowhead...things are a changin':yayaya:

rastaman
12-08-2009, 11:24 AM
But you do know?

But why do you do hang back and wait until the coast is clear: Why is that "Girlie Man"

Then why are you wrong so often?

I don't mind being wrong based on a prediction or opinions. But tell me this, why do you partake in blind loyal Group think all the time? Why are you and your ilk so afraid to think outside the box? Why are you afraid to think outside your Group of Neanderthals. Are you afraid of what you might have coming your way as a result? Are you afraid your Band of Knuckle Draggers you follow like the orphaned puppy you are will suddenly turn on you and hurt your feelings!

OABB
12-08-2009, 11:24 AM
Bring It on you Contol Freak Punk! I ain't afraid of Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal's like you and your Ilk!

If Group Think says ignore.....then ignore!:pimp:

Ignoring feels kind of pussy imo. and arguing with a retarded attention whore is no fun either.

I wish you would just go away, or better yet, be more entertaining at the least. YOu're not very good at this my man. sorry.

But seeing as how you get a kick out of yourself and that you suck, the only option is to take away your ability to be lame.

I wish so so so deeply that I had mod powers, I would abuse them but only for good.


god you suck.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Ignoring feels kind of p***Y imo. and arguing with a retarded attention whore is no fun either.

Feelings are mutual you self appointed self righteous JACK AZZ!

I wish you would just go away, or better yet, be more entertaining at the least. YOu're not very good at this my man. sorry.

Spit in one hand and wish in the other hand.....and see which one you get first. You wishful thinking PUNK!

But seeing as how you get a kick out of yourself and that you suck, the only option is to take away your ability to be lame.

There isn't anyone as insulting and bung hole licking as yourself. You are nothing w/o hiding behind your band of Group Think Neanderthals.

I wish so so so deeply that I had mod powers, I would abuse them but only for good.

Whats wrong Nim Rod.....are you pissed that not all posters aren't apart of the Brown Shirt fanatics like you. Do you want complete control and group think or you'll take your toys and go home!


god you suck.

God you're an idiot! Its utterly amazing you can even cross the street by yourself! Is there anyway I can interest you in flying a kite out on I-25 during rush hour traffic?

vancejohnson82
12-08-2009, 11:38 AM
I don't mind being wrong based on a prediction or opinions. But tell me this, why do you partake in blind loyal Group think all the time? Why are you and your ilk so afraid to think outside the box? Why are you afraid to think outside your Group of Neanderthals. Are you afraid of what you might have coming your way as a result? Are you afraid your Band of Knuckle Draggers you follow like the orphaned puppy you are will suddenly turn on you and hurt your feelings!

actually....Moose and I were in the minority in the offseason when we thought the team could compete for the division this year....we were also in the minority as we argued that McDaniels knew what he was doing and cutting ties with Cutler was a smart move

unfortunately for you and your "ilk" (a word you like to use at a ridiculously abundant level...makes me think you just took the SATs) we were right and are now basking in the light of a great Denver Broncos season....

so we have made predictions in the past, and some of them went against the "group thought"....but they were more on the money than yours....

OABB
12-08-2009, 11:42 AM
God you're an idiot! Its utterly amazing you can even cross the street by yourself! Is there anyway I can interest you in flying a kite out on I-25 during rush hour traffic?

Yawn. Did I mention that you suck at this?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-08-2009, 11:52 AM
I don't mind being wrong based on a prediction or opinions. But tell me this, why do you partake in blind loyal Group think all the time? Why are you and your ilk so afraid to think outside the box? Why are you afraid to think outside your Group of Neanderthals. Are you afraid of what you might have coming your way as a result? Are you afraid your Band of Knuckle Draggers you follow like the orphaned puppy you are will suddenly turn on you and hurt your feelings!

I'm not afraid to think outside the box, and I don't participate in group-think. The reason you think other people participate in "group think" is because so many people simply disagree with you. It can't possibly be because we feel differently; it's because we're just following some greater trend?

You chastise others for not knowing what a team will do so they don't make predictions, but when you do it you're frequently wrong. I guess you're trying to show us the honor in being horribly, miserably misinformed 90% of the time.

Personally, I have no interest in "predictions" and certainly don't put my neck out like "I guarantee we're going to x y and z before the season is out!" Know why? Because more often than not, it makes the person with the guarantee look like a moronic hack.

I prefer not to look like a moronic hack. You tend to run towards that at every opportunity. Bully for you, I guess.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Yawn. Did I mention that you suck at this?

Yawn. Did I mention that feelings were mutual?

SJ Bronco
12-08-2009, 11:54 AM
http://i50.tinypic.com/162061k.gif

seriously, where do you guys find these things?:rofl:

TailgateNut
12-08-2009, 11:55 AM
This thread is approaching a detour. Please exit to the right and follow the path to the BUTT.

rastaman
12-08-2009, 12:09 PM
I'm not afraid to think outside the box, and I don't participate in group-think. The reason you think other people participate in "group think" is because so many people simply disagree with you. It can't possibly be because we feel differently; it's because we're just following some greater trend?

MooseGuy you are following the Greater Herd!....I don't care if you and the herd of die hard fans disagree with me or our opinions vary or are way off base etc. Why do folks like you believe to your dying breath that everyone must AGREE? Whats with all the Robotism! First you get pissed b/c someone isn't a diehard fan and you label them a non fan....okay fine! Thats your right/opinion, but of course you're wrong. But in any event should our difference of opinions turn into an ideological struggle? Ah....I think not.

You chastise others for not knowing what a team will do so they don't make predictions, but when you do it you're frequently wrong. I guess you're trying to show us the honor in being horribly, miserably misinformed 90% of the time.

I don't chastise other members for making the predictions they do. All I do is provide a counter prediction or opinion......and suddenly the gates of hell break open from all the "Die Hard" fanatics on this board. Simply put, fans that are in this group haven't learned how to play well with others. I could really careless whether they learn how to respect other posters opinions w/o reverting to attack dog tactics anyway. You are who you Are at this stage in your life.

Personally, I have no interest in "predictions" and certainly don't put my neck out like "I guarantee we're going to x y and z before the season is out!" Know why? Because more often than not, it makes the person with the guarantee look like a moronic hack.

Well thats your opinion! But thats all it is "An opinioin". However, at the expense of "Group Think" and Mob Rule mentality, why should every poster behave the way you do? Sorry dude it ain't going to happen. You need to come to terms and grip with this reality. No everyone is like you and your group or herd you belong too. But we are still Bronco fans.

I prefer not to look like a moronic hack. You tend to run towards that at every opportunity. Bully for you, I guess.

Too you and your pack followers and herd mentallity it appears moronic. However, have you ever stopped to look and see what you and your ilk look like or appear to behave. Believe me, it leaves a lot to be desired. And just think you guys use as an excuse and cover for your behavior, attitudes, hate, and insults, with "I'M A DIE HARD BRONCO FAN"! Sorry man that won't work.

vancejohnson82
12-08-2009, 12:16 PM
there's that word "ilk" again...

what a strange person

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Too you and your pack followers and herd mentallity it appears moronic. However, have you ever stopped to look and see what you and your ilk look like or appear to behave. Believe me, it leaves a lot to be desired. And just think you guys use as an excuse and cover for your behavior, attitudes, hate, and insults, with "I'M A DIE HARD BRONCO FAN"! Sorry man that won't work.

Dumbest. Argument. Ever.

IF I agreed with you, if I "followed the herd," you'd appreciate what I had to say. But since I choose not to follow the words of someone who is obviously an ill-informed, un-educated know-nothing, I'm using group-think and yadda yadda yadda.

The only group think in this forum is thinking you're a moron, but you've proven it over and over again, so much so that it's not a trend. Trends die out. No, thinking you a dip**** and a moron is now a staple of the Mane, and why? Because NOBODY is using group think. We've all seen it for ourselves.

broncocalijohn
12-08-2009, 12:30 PM
Whats you're prediction on the Broncos win-lose record with 4 games remaining???

we only need 2 victories so I will say minimum 2 wins with a good chance at 3 wins. Dont care who the one comes from as long as we beat Raiders and CHiefs at home.

Well, he did call the Washington game, if that's any consolation...;)

Yes, but that prediction was before the game. How was that prediction looking when we were up 17-7? Only Simms ruined it for us and I am sure he is (or was) a Simms fan over Orton. That game was going "epic fail" for him until Simms ruined it for us.

TailgateNut
12-08-2009, 12:32 PM
we only need 2 victories so I will say minimum 2 wins with a good chance at 3 wins. Dont care who the one comes from as long as we beat Raiders and CHiefs at home.


^this works for me!

rastaman
12-08-2009, 02:05 PM
we only need 2 victories so I will say minimum 2 wins with a good chance at 3 wins. Dont care who the one comes from as long as we beat Raiders and CHiefs at home.



Yes, but that prediction was before the game. How was that prediction looking when we were up 17-7? Only Simms ruined it for us and I am sure he is (or was) a Simms fan over Orton. That game was going "epic fail" for him until Simms ruined it for us.

Hmmmmmmmmm.....shouldn't you make predictions before the game(s) start? Or should I do what some OMers do and make predictions after the game was over??

By the way when we were up 17-7.....I still stood by my prediction. I didn't run from it! I stood by my prediction and didn't change my opinion on why I believed the Skins would win nor did I change in my opinion on how we could win against Washington. You didn't hear any excuses from me.

Also, injuries are a part of the game and you can't complain when the injuries hit when it doesn't suit you. And what do you mean the game was an Epic Fail for "Him" you're not referring to Orton are you? or did you mis-type?

rastaman
12-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Well, he did call the Washington game, if that's any consolation...;)

I called the SD and the 1st of 2 KC game as well! :giggle:

rastaman
12-08-2009, 02:13 PM
there's that word "ilk" again...

what a strange person

Oh Ilk-BILK-MILK......you'd complain that water wasn't WET! :sunshine:

vancejohnson82
12-08-2009, 02:19 PM
Oh Ilk-BILK-MILK......you'd complain that water wasn't WET! :sunshine:

you talk about predictions....

you predicted 3 wins...

you predicted that McDaniels would be gone in 3 years...

you predicted that Cutler would shine in Chicago...

you predicted Orton would fail here...

you predicted Simms was a better option for us....

you predicted we would lose the Giants game....

I could go further but you have demonstrated your psychic abilities enough...

TailgateNut
12-08-2009, 02:31 PM
you talk about predictions....

you predicted 3 wins...

you predicted that McDaniels would be gone in 3 years...

you predicted that Cutler would shine in Chicago...

you predicted Orton would fail here...

you predicted Simms was a better option for us....

you predicted we would lose the Giants game....

I could go further but you have demonstrated your psychic abilities enough...


ChaChing!

broncocalijohn
12-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm.....shouldn't you make predictions before the game(s) start? Or should I do what some OMers do and make predictions after the game was over??

By the way when we were up 17-7.....I still stood by my prediction. I didn't run from it! I stood by my prediction and didn't change my opinion on why I believed the Skins would win nor did I change in my opinion on how we could win against Washington. You didn't hear any excuses from me.
Also, injuries are a part of the game and you can't complain when the injuries hit when it doesn't suit you. And what do you mean the game was an Epic Fail for "Him" you're not referring to Orton are you? or did you mis-type?

I didnt expect you to jump on the computer and say, "Maybe I screwed up. Broncos looking pretty good to win it." On injuries, it happened after we had a good lead. It wasnt just one guy, it was our main guy, Orton. It is one thing to think you are going to win a game 3 games out, but then before the game is played, you have massive injuries to big time players ie QB from the game before. Your opinion might change at that moment. Many of us had Denver beating SD but once Simms was the starting QB, many changed the game to a loss. Yes, "Epic Fail" was coming to you on the Redskins game until Orton's injury. You never stated how the Redskins were going to win. I am certain you never said that we would dominate then a major injury was going to happen. You NEVER could have predicted that. You based your win on Washington being a better team. Can you even post, with your hatred of Orton, that we would have won that game most likely if Orton had not been injured? You cant because I have already seen you post that Orton lost 4 games in a row even though he came out of the Washington game ahead and didnt even start the SD game and came in losing 13-0. So in Rastaman's math, you lose a game you start (regardless if you are winning) and also lose a game that you dont start and replace the QB that is currently losing the game. Great way to pin stats on someone where you see fit to continue the hate on a player. We were winning that Redskins game plan and simple.

Paladin
12-08-2009, 02:52 PM
What I dont understand is: If our opinions don't matter to you, then why the F are you here blasting the people who say they don't agree with you? Why are you even here posting? None of this matters to you, so Eff off and take your ilk with you..........

colonelbeef
12-08-2009, 02:57 PM
He didn't say that mike had lost 5 games in a row...he said it's possible.
...and here you are posting under the belief that rasta's theory is correct, which means you believe that McDaniels will lose 5 in a row. so tell me how many times has Josh McDaniels lost 5 in a row?

That is a ludicrous leap of faith to have made- can't believe I missed it. Never once did I infer that McDaniels had done any such thing- in fact, I never mentioned him at all. I was defending Shanahan, as is clear to anyone with half a brain. Take your high school debate team logic elsewhere.

sisterhellfyre
12-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Oh Ilk-BILK-MILK......you'd complain that water wasn't WET! :sunshine:

Hey, Mock, long time no see! How's Beezer doing?

Er... sorry. Could have fooled me...