PDA

View Full Version : McDaniels cleans up Shanahan’s cap mess


oubronco
08-12-2010, 02:01 PM
McDaniels cleans up Shanahan’s cap mess

Posted Thu Aug 12th by Kyle

Mike Shanahan has moved on to Washington, but he left quite a financial mess for Josh McDaniels and company in Dove Valley (AP Photo/Nick Wass)
Josh McDaniels inherited a number of messes when he became Denver Broncos head coach, but perhaps none were as dramatic as the amount of “dead money” on the Broncos salary cap. Denver led the league — by a number of degrees — with $29.5 million in dead cap money in 2009.

One year later, consider Mike Shanahan’s multi-million dollar mess cleaned up. From Woody Paige’s latest mailbag in the Denver Post –

Actually, the Broncos have about $1.5 million in dead money this season. Last year they led the league only in dead money — approximately $29.5 million. That amount cut deeply in the Broncos’ ability to sign free agents last year because it counted as almost a quarter of the $128 million salary cap for the team.

As Hardy used to say to Laurel (way before your father’s time, Jason): “This is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” Thank you, Mike Shanahan.

We were as big of Shanahan fans as anybody, but there’s no denying “The Mastermind” hadn’t quite “mastered” professional football economics. Josh and GM Brian Xanders cleaned up the Broncos’ cap while still bringing in the likes of Brian Dawkins, Jabar Gaffney, and Jamal Williams through free agency. Job well done, fellas.


http://broncotalk.net/2010/08/16845/broncos-buzz/mcdaniels-cleans-up-shanahans-cap-mess/

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 02:04 PM
LOL...there is no cap this year. Does Mike Kliss write for these guys too?

NYBronco
08-12-2010, 02:05 PM
Thank you Pat Bowlen.

TonyR
08-12-2010, 02:07 PM
LOL...there is no cap this year. Does Mike Kliss write for these guys too?

This doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of the Broncos cap last year was dead money, and that now the team has very little dead money.

Lev Vyvanse
08-12-2010, 02:14 PM
This doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of the Broncos cap last year was dead money, and that now the team has very little dead money.

How can you have dead money with no cap?

jhns
08-12-2010, 02:14 PM
This doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of the Broncos cap last year was dead money, and that now the team has very little dead money.

While Shanahan did have this problem, some of last years problem was likely from all the cuts and trades McDaniels did. Shanahan does have a lot of work to do on the GM side of things though.

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 02:15 PM
This doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of the Broncos cap last year was dead money, and that now the team has very little dead money.

very little dead money with no salary cap...LOL

OBF1
08-12-2010, 02:16 PM
I am so happy with the new (proper) direction the team has adopted.



This message is hidden because jhns is on your ignore list.

TonyR
08-12-2010, 02:19 PM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

There was a cap last year, and nearly a quarter of it was dead money. That is terrible cap management no matter how you slice it. Your point stands for this year.

TonyR
08-12-2010, 02:20 PM
very little dead money with no salary cap...

Again, there was a cap last year and it hurt the team. And there will probably be one again next year and we'll be in much, much better shape.

Dr. Broncenstein
08-12-2010, 02:21 PM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.

gyldenlove
08-12-2010, 02:24 PM
There was a cap last year, and nearly a quarter of it was dead money. That is terrible cap management no matter how you slice it. Your point stands for this year.

Absolutely, however quite a big part of the dead money last year came from trading Jay Cutler, so one could argue that Mcdaniels wasn't just a miracle worker fixing a problem left him by someone else, one could in fact argue that he was a significant part in creating the problem. Food for thought.

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 02:24 PM
Again, there was a cap last year and it hurt the team. And there will probably be one again next year and we'll be in much, much better shape.

I'll argue that Mr.s X's 2009 draft hurt the team more than Shanny's dead money

BroncoLifer
08-12-2010, 02:27 PM
The list is here:
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13664610

Bly and Boss make 1/2 the total.

DenverBroncosJM
08-12-2010, 02:28 PM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.


And God love him for finally getting a championship to Denver but..Its like an ex girlfriend sure you had some really good times but there is a reason she is your ex girlfriend.

Shannon is not the vilified persona some make him out to be but it is understandable to disagree with some of the decisions *cough* Niko Kouvitudes.

TonyR
08-12-2010, 02:37 PM
The list is here:


11 of the 16 listed weren't even on NFL rosters. That is a list of fail.

Los Broncos
08-12-2010, 02:37 PM
Thank you Pat Bowlen.

Ban Pat Bowlen.

jhns
08-12-2010, 02:42 PM
The list is here:
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13664610

Bly and Boss make 1/2 the total.

See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

Tombstone RJ
08-12-2010, 02:47 PM
The list is here:
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13664610

Bly and Boss make 1/2 the total.

Interesting to say the least...

Beantown Bronco
08-12-2010, 02:48 PM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

There's dead money just the same, it just doesn't go against the cap. It goes against the company books.....that's what I'm assuming they mean anyway.

Br0nc0Buster
08-12-2010, 02:50 PM
Absolutely, however quite a big part of the dead money last year came from trading Jay Cutler, so one could argue that Mcdaniels wasn't just a miracle worker fixing a problem left him by someone else, one could in fact argue that he was a significant part in creating the problem. Food for thought.

quite a big part came from Cutler?
If you take out Cutler's money you are still left with 25 million in dead money instead of 29 million
that still would of put us in the top 5

so no Cutler's dead money was not "significant", it only took a team in terrible cap shape and made them slightly worse

Tombstone RJ
08-12-2010, 02:51 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

All these players pretty much suck:

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2706782

Aside from Cutler, the talent on this list speaks for itself.

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 02:51 PM
quite a big part came from Cutler?
If you take out Cutler's money you are still left with 25 million in dead money instead of 29 million
that still would of put us in the top 5

so no Cutler's dead money was not "significant", it only took a team in terrible cap shape and made them slightly worse

shanny didn't cut bly and bailey

Drunk Monkey
08-12-2010, 02:52 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

Having said that, Boss is still to crappy to make a team and Bly isn't good enough to stay on the same one. The cuts were necessary.

Beantown Bronco
08-12-2010, 02:55 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

From the article:

Most of the Broncos' dead money is allocated to players who essentially are dead to the NFL — 11 of the 16 most expensive players on their "dead money" payroll are no longer in the league.

Yup, clearly McD brought this on himself. That's why every other coach in the league (INCLUDING SHANNY) were just tripping all over themselves to add this garbage to their rosters......Buy a clue.

jhns
08-12-2010, 02:55 PM
You guys talk talent but we did the same after McDaniels brought in his guys. To add to that, we had a pretty healthy team last year and about 3/4 of the team was injured the year before. I would say there is no proof we got better in the talent department by making all those cuts and trades.

Br0nc0Buster
08-12-2010, 02:55 PM
shanny didn't cut bly and bailey

no but he gave them a bunch of money and they sucked

Kaylore
08-12-2010, 02:57 PM
This is a pretty stupid article.

1. No cap this year.

I could stop here but I won't.

2. A lot of the dead money was created when McDaniels cut Shanahan's players. Now granted, a ton of those players sucked, and it was on Shanahan for paying marginal players like Boss Bailey, Dre Bly, Niko Koutovides, Nate Jackson and Marquand Manuel big contracts, so that's definitely his part, but any big transition year creates a lot of dead money due to turnover.

Shanahan wasn't very good at finding free agents. He tended to overpay for under-performance and it definitely hurt the cap. However the large cap and subsequent small cap is a result of the new system putting new players in and no cap this year.

jhns
08-12-2010, 02:59 PM
From the article:

Most of the Broncos' dead money is allocated to players who essentially are dead to the NFL — 11 of the 16 most expensive players on their "dead money" payroll are no longer in the league.

Yup, clearly McD brought this on himself. That's why every other coach in the league (INCLUDING SHANNY) were just tripping all over themselves to add this garbage to their rosters......Buy a clue.

Please, show the cap penalties that we had when Shanahan left. Do it. Prove that we iherited all of this dead money from him.

We really got better, huh? I mean, doing the same as Shanahans second worst season and all... I see now why we all should love McDaniels and hate on Shanahan. McDaniels has done so much for this organization....

NYBronco
08-12-2010, 02:59 PM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.

Thank you John Elway.

OABB
08-12-2010, 03:01 PM
This message is blocked because Doucheblocker 4.0 has detected severe douchiness in user:"jhns" post.

detected8/12/10_1400hours:douche/block/exml/user:JHNS_isagiantdouche_seriouslywhatadouchebagp* **Y.exe

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 03:02 PM
From the article:

Most of the Broncos' dead money is allocated to players who essentially are dead to the NFL — 11 of the 16 most expensive players on their "dead money" payroll are no longer in the league.

Yup, clearly McD brought this on himself. That's why every other coach in the league (INCLUDING SHANNY) were just tripping all over themselves to add this garbage to their rosters......Buy a clue.

of course the cuts were necessary, but I'll argue that the dead money didn't keep the broncos from getting other free agents in 2009. The New Broncos imposed a budget on themselves and shifted team building towards the draft. The Broncos have aproached this offfseason the same way.

jhns
08-12-2010, 03:05 PM
This message is blocked because Doucheblocker 4.0 has detected severe douchiness in user:"jhns" post.

detected8/12/10_1400hours:douche/block/exml/user:JHNS_isagiantdouche_seriouslywhatadouchebagp* **Y.exe

Why do you drama queens still cry about my posts as you claim you can't see them? Don't you get embarrassed when showing everyone you're a little bitch?

crush17
08-12-2010, 03:07 PM
Here we go again...

OABB
08-12-2010, 03:08 PM
Why do you drama queens still cry about my posts as you claim you can't see them? Don't you get embarrassed when showing everyone you're a little b****?

it's the software man. don't get mad at me.

jhns
08-12-2010, 03:10 PM
it's the software man. don't get mad at me.

Why would I be mad?

bronclvr
08-12-2010, 03:28 PM
jhns,

I don't get it-Shanahan's NEVER coming back, so why keep on complaining about it? It wasn't anyone's decision except Bowlen's, and he made it-why do you keep living in the past? I liked Shanny too, but geez man, move on-

If you absolutely can't live life without him, have you considered joining here?

http://www.extremeskins.com/

mwill07
08-12-2010, 03:30 PM
would the 2009 team have been better or worse with Bly and Boss?

Based on what they did (or didn't do) on other teams, cutting them was the right move, IMO. Shanahan probably would have done it, McD did do it. The mere fact that these guys counted against the cap as much as they did falls squarely on the Shanahan regime, there can be no debate about that.

jhns
08-12-2010, 03:32 PM
jhns,

I don't get it-Shanahan's NEVER coming back, so why keep on complaining about it? It wasn't anyone's decision except Bowlen's, and he made it-why do you keep living in the past? I liked Shanny too, but geez man, move on-

If you absolutely can't live life without him, have you considered joining here?

http://www.extremeskins.com/

I'm not trying to bring him back. I am just confused why Bronco fans feel the need to hate on him when he did so much for this organization. In fact, I never had a problem with him being fired. I even liked McDaniels being hired at the time. Granted, that changed pretty fast.

Josh gets more respect by Bronco fans and he has done nothing for this organization. Nothing. I would have the same reaction if Orton was being shown more respect than Elway. It just doesn't make sense.

bronclvr
08-12-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm not trying to bring him back. I am just confused why Bronco fans feel the need to hate on him when he did so much for this organization. In fact, I never had a problem with him being fired. I even liked McDaniels being hired at the time. Granted, that changed pretty fast.

OK, fair enough, but if you don't like McDaniels why are you here? I think we are all aware of your unhappiness-

I think it's human nature ( a way to cope) when something you don't like happens (like Shanny's firing)-I miss Mike too, but facts are facts-we pretty much sucked by the time he left-I was in denial for a long time (did this also when Cutler left, but I'm waaaaay over that now)-move on-

I don't think that Josh gets any more (in fact, I'd argue that he still gets less) respect than Shanahan-hell, I'm STILL gettting used to him, but i think everyone is trying to be TEAM players-

broncosteven
08-12-2010, 03:45 PM
Woody said Hi to us in "the Bronco section" at Canton.

orangemonkey
08-12-2010, 03:57 PM
OK, fair enough, but if you don't like McDaniels why are you here? I think we are all aware of your unhappiness-

I think it's human nature ( a way to cope) when something you don't like happens (like Shanny's firing)-I miss Mike too, but facts are facts-we pretty much sucked by the time he left-I was in denial for a long time (did this also when Cutler left, but I'm waaaaay over that now)-move on-

I don't think that Josh gets any more (in fact, I'd argue that he still gets less) respect than Shanahan-hell, I'm STILL gettting used to him, but i think everyone is trying to be TEAM players-

So you have to like McDaniels to be here? Dude led the worst collapse in Broncos history in his first year as head coach and doesn't deal with talented "problem" athlete's very well.

According to the orangemane demigod super fans, McD has assembled a stable of team-first players who are "much" tougher than Shanny's past 5 Broncos teams and Kyle Orton is probowl bound. If they are right, we should put togther 10 wins this season and make the playoffs.

We'll see.

broncosteven
08-12-2010, 04:02 PM
So you have to like McDaniels to be here? Dude led the worst collapse in Broncos history in his first year as head coach and doesn't deal with talented "problem" athlete's very well.

According to the orangemane demigod super fans, McD has assembled a stable of team-first players who are "much" tougher than Shanny's past 5 Broncos teams and Kyle Orton is probowl bound. If they are right, we should put togther 10 wins this season and make the playoffs.

We'll see.

I take it you are not sporting a TeBONER...?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-12-2010, 04:04 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

So we should have kept Bly and Bailey?

Spin.

eddie mac
08-12-2010, 04:08 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

McDaniels moves to get rid of Shanahan's **** ups.

bronclvr
08-12-2010, 04:09 PM
So you have to like McDaniels to be here? Dude led the worst collapse in Broncos history in his first year as head coach and doesn't deal with talented "problem" athlete's very well.

According to the orangemane demigod super fans, McD has assembled a stable of team-first players who are "much" tougher than Shanny's past 5 Broncos teams and Kyle Orton is probowl bound. If they are right, we should put togther 10 wins this season and make the playoffs.

We'll see.


I sure think it makes sense to support a Team instead of constant complaining, yes-if there is an issue that I can't control, and I can't handle the situation as it is and have a choice, I change-

There are other Teams to follow-

eddie mac
08-12-2010, 04:11 PM
So you have to like McDaniels to be here? Dude led the worst collapse in Broncos history in his first year as head coach and doesn't deal with talented "problem" athlete's very well.

According to the orangemane demigod super fans, McD has assembled a stable of team-first players who are "much" tougher than Shanny's past 5 Broncos teams and Kyle Orton is probowl bound. If they are right, we should put togther 10 wins this season and make the playoffs.

We'll see.

Maybe I'm wrong but judging by your tone I'd reckon you'd rather the Broncos fail just so you'll be proved right???

BroncosCanada
08-12-2010, 04:14 PM
This message is blocked because Doucheblocker 4.0 has detected severe douchiness in user:"jhns" post.

detected8/12/10_1400hours:douche/block/exml/user:JHNS_isagiantdouche_seriouslywhatadouchebagp* **Y.exe

hahahahahahaha

orangemonkey
08-12-2010, 04:38 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but judging by your tone I'd reckon you'd rather the Broncos fail just so you'll be proved right???

Absolutely not. I was born a Broncos fan in Denver and would never wish them to fail. But I will not sit back and bash Shanahan to support a 2nd year Broncos coach who failed his only year here. So far, McD has not proven that he is winner. He has proven some other things but not that.

And, yes, I have a TeBowner. I wish he was starting.

Chris
08-12-2010, 04:59 PM
It don't matter if you're black or white jhns.

colonelbeef
08-12-2010, 06:03 PM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.

+1

Shanahan'd

montrose
08-12-2010, 06:36 PM
I cringe everytime I see a thread regarding Shanahan. One half of the board defending him to the death, the man who once brought two Super Bowl trophies to this team. The other ripping him for the mistakes he made in the decade afterword. Ugh...

TonyR
08-12-2010, 06:42 PM
One half of the board defending him to the death, the man who once brought two Super Bowl trophies to this team. The other ripping him for the mistakes he made in the decade afterword.

I hear what you're saying but I don't see it that way. I loved Shanahan but I'd probably be catergorized as one of those ripping him. What I'm doing is more defending the current regime against the "Shanahan does no wrong and McDaniels does no right" crowd by pointing out the flaws of the Shanahan regime. I suspect that's the motivation of most of the "Shanahan bashers".

broncosteven
08-12-2010, 06:52 PM
I hear what you're saying but I don't see it that way. I loved Shanahan but I'd probably be catergorized as one of those ripping him. What I'm doing is more defending the current regime against the "Shanahan does no wrong and McDaniels does no right" crowd by pointing out the flaws of the Shanahan regime. I suspect that's the motivation of most of the "Shanahan bashers".

If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 07:12 PM
shanny didn't cut bly and bailey

You're right, signing them is much worse.

Mogulseeker
08-12-2010, 07:37 PM
The dead cash still hurts a team even in a non-cap year because the cap is based on the average revenue for a team.

I, for one, am glad... it's good to have all the contracts shored up... Shanahan's contract, too. It's more money to be focused on team building.

tsiguy96
08-12-2010, 07:42 PM
a recent denver post article talked about how the new extensions given by the team were very backloaded, we gonna have issues in a few years?

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 07:45 PM
I hear what you're saying but I don't see it that way. I loved Shanahan but I'd probably be catergorized as one of those ripping him. What I'm doing is more defending the current regime against the "Shanahan does no wrong and McDaniels does no right" crowd by pointing out the flaws of the Shanahan regime. I suspect that's the motivation of most of the "Shanahan bashers".

That's pretty much how I feel. Shanahan was the mastermind, but there's a reason they call the NFL an acronym for Not For Long. The league caught up and left Shanny in the dust.

misturanderson
08-12-2010, 07:46 PM
a recent denver post article talked about how the new extensions given by the team were very backloaded, we gonna have issues in a few years?

I guess we'll see. The new CBA that comes out may make a huge mess of all of the contracts that are on the books anyway.

We have been giving a ton of guaranteed money this year though, so I think the actual salaries aren't as big as usual.

Mogulseeker
08-12-2010, 07:49 PM
a recent denver post article talked about how the new extensions given by the team were very backloaded, we gonna have issues in a few years?

Only if those players with backloaded contracts are cut. There might be some cap issues if they don't restructure.

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 08:00 PM
a recent denver post article talked about how the new extensions given by the team were very backloaded, we gonna have issues in a few years?

Backloaded salaries rarely come into play. Shanny had a penchant for huge signing bonuses. Nothing you can do with those.

Hamrob
08-12-2010, 08:13 PM
Shanny is a gambler. He'd try anything to win. That's why he's averaged 10 wins a season as a head coach in the NFL. He swung for the fences and wiffed quite a bit. I'm a Shanny fan and will always be a Shanny fan. The guy is a HOF'er in my book.

I didn't like the way JM started off in Denver. I won't rehash that crap again.

I do however like JM and think he's a good coach and coulld be a great one if he gets the chance. I'm rooting for him!

lostknight
08-12-2010, 08:20 PM
I'm sorry, but this article is a farce. Dre Bly and Boss, cut by McDaniels was the largest portion of that cap hit.

This is nothing more then a suck up article. Theyve always had problems, and they will continue to, but blaming Mike for not only his own mistakes (of which there are plenty) but also McDaniels mistakes (of which there are plenty) is pointless.

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 08:25 PM
I'm sorry, but this article is a farce. Dre Bly and Boss, cut by McDaniels was the largest portion of that cap hit.


So there's no accountability for signing dead beats in your eyes?

lostknight
08-12-2010, 08:29 PM
So there's no accountability for signing dead beats in your eyes?

That's not the point, idiotic decisions happen - Alphonso Smith with a first round pick comes to mind - but blaming the dead cap space on Shanahan, when it was McDaniels, not Shanahan, who decided to eat the cap space is stupid and inane.

It's like Obama blaming Bush for the 3+ trillion Obama has spent since becoming president. Were their stupid mistakes in the past? Yes. Does that mean you get off scott free by blaming your mistakes on your predecessor? Nope.

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 08:33 PM
That's not the point, idiotic decisions happen - Alphonso Smith with a first round pick comes to mind - but blaming the dead cap space on Shanahan, when it was McDaniels, not Shanahan, who decided to eat the cap space is stupid and inane.

It's like Obama blaming Bush for the 3+ trillion Obama has spent since becoming president. Were their stupid mistakes in the past? Yes. Does that mean you get off scott free by blaming your mistakes on your predecessor? Nope.

I wouldn't blame anyone for shedding dead weight.



Alphonso Smith looks great

dsmoot
08-12-2010, 08:35 PM
[QUOTE=Kaylore;2897711]This is a pretty stupid article.

1. No cap this year.

I could stop here but I won't.

2. A lot of the dead money was created when McDaniels cut Shanahan's players. Now granted, a ton of those players sucked, and it was on Shanahan for paying marginal players like Boss Bailey, Dre Bly, Niko Koutovides, Nate Jackson and Marquand Manuel big contracts, so that's definitely his part, but any big transition year creates a lot of dead money due to turnover.

Shanahan wasn't very good at finding free agents. He tended to overpay for under-performance and it definitely hurt the cap. However the large cap and subsequent small cap is a result of the new system putting new players in and no cap this year.[/QUOTE


Regardless of the cap year, if these players aren't in the league any longer, they were dead money on the roster or off it. Look at every name, they are not better than those on the roster now. If I can give any kudos to Mike in the last 4 years, it is the fact that the team finished as high as it did with the talent we had. Those late season finishes were a real indication we just didn't have it. Mike had to go based totally on performance.

Dedhed
08-12-2010, 08:39 PM
Do people realize that "dead money" is completely independent from the cap?

lostknight
08-12-2010, 08:43 PM
I wouldn't blame anyone for shedding dead weight.

Yep, and he took a huge nose dive after the first practice. To be fair, if you are going to quote my old articles, you might also quote the portion where I mention that the play he looked good on, was in a situation where he already got beat then came back.

He did the exact same thing today - if he could stop shooting himself in the foot, then he wouldn't have to do such a good job stitching it up.

watermock
08-12-2010, 08:45 PM
quite a big part came from Cutler?
If you take out Cutler's money you are still left with 25 million in dead money instead of 29 million
that still would of put us in the top 5

so no Cutler's dead money was not "significant", it only took a team in terrible cap shape and made them slightly worse

The only one hurt is Bowlen.

Shanahan helped build the stadium on the backs of taxpayers, and managed to get a light rail right on Meck's lot, by smudging the property line.

**** Bowlen, he basically stole the team from Kaiser, who built the liberty boats that WW2.

As far as dead money, alot of that Shanahan knew would be wiped ouit in 2011.

He sucked at FA deals and drafting till Jim Goodman.

Now we are worse off than ever with that cripple pencil pusher Exanders. Sorry, this isn't golf.

Three 5 best players from the Goodman drafts are gone, or injured.

Doom, Marshall, Clady, Hillis is going to make the team, and Torrain.

Harris and Kuper are Goodman/Shanny choices.

Shanny big fail was FA D and Slowick, yet we let Nolan leave and promote an existing LB coach.

lostknight
08-12-2010, 08:50 PM
Remember that Xander's isn't all that new to the front office - he was there with the Goodman's making a lot of the same deal. And yes, the situation where we have a lot of backloaded contracts is a issue. We spent a lot of money this offseason - and it's all targeted at winning now whatever the cost.

Josh McDaniels and Xanders have the team they want. If they win, they look good. If they loose, they look like Jackasses.

Steve Sewell
08-12-2010, 08:52 PM
I cringe everytime I see a thread regarding Shanahan. One half of the board defending him to the death, the man who once brought two Super Bowl trophies to this team. The other ripping him for the mistakes he made in the decade afterword. Ugh...

It's mainly just trolls. Most Bronco fans love and respect Mike Shanahan, but realized that a change of scenery was needed for both parties. These kind of articles are written to sell papers and are posted on message boards as troll-bait, nothing more, nothing less.

watermock
08-12-2010, 08:54 PM
Having said that, Boss is still to crappy to make a team and Bly isn't good enough to stay on the same one. The cuts were necessary.

Idiot.

We traded Portis under contract for a franchise player in Champ and now pay 14.5 million this year.

BTW, that's more than Brady, Manning, Rivers or Favre.

This 14.5 million player convinced Shanny to sign his brother for 25 million. STFU.

Boss promptly tore up his knee a 3rd time is resting comfortably.

He was a gamble, Shanny toolk gambles, Beavis takes yes morons.

watermock
08-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Remember that Xander's isn't all that new to the front office - he was there with the Goodman's making a lot of the same deal. And yes, the situation where we have a lot of backloaded contracts is a issue. We spent a lot of money this offseason - and it's all targeted at winning now whatever the cost.

Josh McDaniels and Xanders have the team they want. If they win, they look good. If they loose, they look like Jackasses.

Xanders had NOTHING to do with drafting or actual GM duties.

He was the contract man, under shanny.

God, this board has become short memory.

What's funny, or sad, is how the sheep accept the new coach.

Missouribronc
08-12-2010, 09:16 PM
I'm sorry, but this article is a farce. Dre Bly and Boss, cut by McDaniels was the largest portion of that cap hit.

This is nothing more then a suck up article. Theyve always had problems, and they will continue to, but blaming Mike for not only his own mistakes (of which there are plenty) but also McDaniels mistakes (of which there are plenty) is pointless.

Wow. Just wow.

Cutting Bly and Boss Bailey were mistakes? Are you utterly clueless?

Broncos_OTM
08-12-2010, 09:26 PM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

Dead money as in paying players who are no longer here. Guys who are still in prison etc.etc.

Lev Vyvanse
08-12-2010, 09:29 PM
Do people realize that "dead money" is completely independent from the cap?

Dead money is prorated signing bonus money, that has already been paid, that becomes accelerated to automatically count toward the current years cap in the case of a player being cut or traded. It is 100% dependent on a cap.

Broncos_OTM
08-12-2010, 09:37 PM
:welcome:See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

If we are gonna blame MCD for these Cuts then i sure am fing glad they were cut. what a list of crap.

You think that was a good set of players that were cut? And no i am not refering to cutler.its been hashed out way to much.
It really amazes me sometimes how jaded you are.

Broncos_OTM
08-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Dead money is prorated signing bonus money, that has already been paid, that becomes accelerated to automatically count toward the current years cap in the case of a player being cut or traded. It is 100% dependent on a cap.

Point taken but it still means we were paying players that are no longer with the team.... Being in the red as a buisness man for to long affects your companys viability.

Lev Vyvanse
08-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Dead money as in paying players who are no longer here. Guys who are still in prison etc.etc.

Contracts are mostly made up of four things:

1. Signing bonus (paid upfront)
2. Base salary (paid per game)
3. Roster bonus (paid if the player is on the roster on a specific date)
4. workout or performance bonuses (paid when the requirement is met)

How would a player get paid in jail?

watermock
08-12-2010, 09:40 PM
Remember that Xander's isn't all that new to the front office - he was there with the Goodman's making a lot of the same deal. And yes, the situation where we have a lot of backloaded contracts is a issue. We spent a lot of money this offseason - and it's all targeted at winning now whatever the cost.

Josh McDaniels and Xanders have the team they want. If they win, they look good. If they loose, they look like Jackasses.

Xanders had NOTHING to do with drafting.

Shanahan told him to jump, and he did.

Why do you think Beavis does the same thing?

Bowlen did the exact thing he said he would not do, allow a coach to be GM.

What left was the real challenge, the Goodmans.

So now is a crap team with high prices and club seats they can't sell.

AND people biatch because some former player says he may play hardball

This board has become a bunch of apologists than realists.

As far as the salary cap, The owners will eliminate it.

Watch.

Half the
"stars" of the NFL will be in prison or on ESPN.

Broncos_OTM
08-12-2010, 09:53 PM
Contracts are mostly made up of four things:

1. Signing bonus (paid upfront)
2. Base salary (paid per game)
3. Roster bonus (paid if the player is on the roster on a specific date)
4. workout or performance bonuses (paid when the requirement is met)

How would a player get paid in jail?Travis Henry.

I am not exactly sure on the Travis Henery Time Line but after he was cut we owed him money i cant recall if he was arrested before or after he decided to be the money man ina drug operation

Broncos_OTM
08-12-2010, 09:54 PM
Xanders had NOTHING to do with drafting.

Shanahan told him to jump, and he did.

Why do you think Beavis does the same thing?

Bowlen did the exact thing he said he would not do, allow a coach to be GM.

What left was the real challenge, the Goodmans.

So now is a crap team with high prices and club seats they can't sell.

AND people biatch because some former player says he may play hardball

This board has become a bunch of apologists than realists.

As far as the salary cap, The owners will eliminate it.

Watch.

Half the
"stars" of the NFL will be in prison or on ESPN.Bro i think you must be tired.. Time for a nap?

Requiem
08-12-2010, 09:55 PM
Mock doesn't take naps, naps take mocks.

Lev Vyvanse
08-12-2010, 10:01 PM
Travis Henry.

I am not exactly sure on the Travis Henery Time Line but after he was cut we owed him money i cant recall if he was arrested before or after he decided to be the money man ina drug operation

Link?

Los Broncos
08-12-2010, 11:20 PM
Maybe Mock needs a nap in Tebow's chamber.

listopencil
08-13-2010, 12:13 AM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.

Worth repeating.

listopencil
08-13-2010, 12:14 AM
Xanders had NOTHING to do with drafting.

Shanahan told him to jump, and he did.

Why do you think Beavis does the same thing?

Bowlen did the exact thing he said he would not do, allow a coach to be GM.

What left was the real challenge, the Goodmans.

So now is a crap team with high prices and club seats they can't sell.

AND people biatch because some former player says he may play hardball

This board has become a bunch of apologists than realists.

As far as the salary cap, The owners will eliminate it.

Watch.

Half the
"stars" of the NFL will be in prison or on ESPN.

Holy ****, my man. You have taken Mock haiku back to its former glory.

azbroncfan
08-13-2010, 06:17 AM
Xanders had NOTHING to do with drafting.

Shanahan told him to jump, and he did.

Why do you think Beavis does the same thing?

Bowlen did the exact thing he said he would not do, allow a coach to be GM.

What left was the real challenge, the Goodmans.

So now is a crap team with high prices and club seats they can't sell.

AND people biatch because some former player says he may play hardball

This board has become a bunch of apologists than realists.

As far as the salary cap, The owners will eliminate it.

Watch.

Half the
"stars" of the NFL will be in prison or on ESPN.

Booze is definately working.

Rock Chalk
08-13-2010, 06:24 AM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

Because its money that isnt going to anyone that currently PLAYS for the Broncos. Cap or not, its still dead money.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:04 AM
:welcome:

If we are gonna blame MCD for these Cuts then i sure am fing glad they were cut. what a list of crap.

You think that was a good set of players that were cut? And no i am not refering to cutler.its been hashed out way to much.
It really amazes me sometimes how jaded you are.

McDaniels gets hired and we have about 5 mil in dead money. McDaniels makes cuts and we end up with 30 mil in dead money. This leads to the conclusion that McDaniels came to a team with 30 mil in dead money.

Sure, I'm jaded but most of you don't even make sense.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:14 AM
So we should have kept Bly and Bailey?

Spin.

Maybe. Did we get better? Did we get more talented with these moves? Do you have any evidence that we got better?

I would say we didn't. We were older and way less injured last season. We had one of the worst d coordinators in the league in Shanahans last year. We had a much better one last season. We finished with the same record. Try finding any evidence we were more talented with those cuts and maybe you guys will have a point. It seems to me we replaced Shanahans scrubs with McDaniels scrubs. McDaniels created the cap problem to get his guys. That is understandable as it happens with a lot of coaching changes. There is no way this was created by Shanahan though. He left this team with hardly any dead money.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 07:31 AM
Maybe. Did we get better? Did we get more talented with these moves? Do you have any evidence that we got better?

I would say we didn't. We were older and way less injured last season. We finished the same. Try finding any evidence we were more talented with those cuts. It seems to me we replaced Shanahans scrubs with McDaniels scrubs. McDaniels created the cap problem to get his guys. That is understandable as it happens with a lot of coaching changes. There is no way this was created by Shanahan though. He left this team with hardly any dead money.

sure, here you go

2008

http://www.tailgate365.com/images/2008d.jpg

2009

http://www.tailgate365.com/images/2009d.jpg

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:37 AM
sure, here you go

2008

http://www.tailgate365.com/images/2008d.jpg

2009

http://www.tailgate365.com/images/2009d.jpg

I can't see that. Can you tell me what you are showing me?

Rabb
08-13-2010, 07:38 AM
it's the defensive rankings from NFL.com for 2008 and 2009

2008: 29th
2009: 7th

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:39 AM
Maybe. Did we get better? Did we get more talented with these moves? Do you have any evidence that we got better?

I would say we didn't. We were older and way less injured last season. We had one of the worst d coordinators in the league in Shanahans last year. We had a much better one last season. We finished with the same record. Try finding any evidence we were more talented with those cuts and maybe you guys will have a point. It seems to me we replaced Shanahans scrubs with McDaniels scrubs. McDaniels created the cap problem to get his guys. That is understandable as it happens with a lot of coaching changes. There is no way this was created by Shanahan though. He left this team with hardly any dead money.

Yes. Yes we did. Significantly better.

Observe: Our defense improved as the stats above show.
Observe: Bailey -- who was a STARTER for us -- can't even get a job in the league as a BACKUP.
Observe: There's a long list of other players who are in the same boat as Bailey. They suck.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in the NFL, if you can't play because you suck, you won't have a job, and if you can play because you don't suck, you will have a job. Period.

You're trying your contrarian idiot bull**** again, and while it's very funny, it makes zero sense to anyone outside of the voices in your head.

azbroncfan
08-13-2010, 07:41 AM
McDaniels gets hired and we have about 5 mil in dead money. McDaniels makes cuts and we end up with 30 mil in dead money. This leads to the conclusion that McDaniels came to a team with 30 mil in dead money.

Sure, I'm jaded but most of you don't even make sense.

It's called sacrificing last year to get out from under the contracts that shanny had signed. It's not just last year shanny always had the cap full of dead money from Grease monkey to IHOP to Davis there was a lot of dead money.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:41 AM
it's the defensive rankings from NFL.com for 2008 and 2009

2008: 29th
2009: 7th

A better defensive ranking is proof of a more talented team? I don't agree but if that is your way of measuring I guess I can see why you are happy with this front office.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:42 AM
It's called sacrificing last year to get out from under the contracts that shanny had signed. It's not just last year shanny always had the cap full of dead money from Grease monkey to IHOP to Davis there was a lot of dead money.

There wasn't when he left...

Rabb
08-13-2010, 07:44 AM
A better defensive ranking is proof of a more talented team? I don't agree but if that is your way of measuring I guess I can see why you are happy with this front office.

you asked if we improved or got better with letting Bly and Bailey go...both of whom play defense

I think that it's fairly clear, we did...and it's not my opinion, it's a statistical fact

I would have liked a better final record, but to say our defense didn't improve is incorrect

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:44 AM
A better defensive ranking is proof of a more talented team? I don't agree but if that is your way of measuring I guess I can see why you are happy with this front office.

Holy ****, you really are retarded.

Again, I once thought it was just a brilliant comedy routine. But you really are this ****ing stupid.

What is a better defensive ranking with a defense full of new players evidence of, if not that there's more talent on that side of the ball?

you think we would have been as successful defensively last year if guys who were cut -- who have yet to find a job in the league even as backups -- had still been starting?

Hilarious!

You're a funny guy, jhizz.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:44 AM
Yes. Yes we did. Significantly better.

Observe: Our defense improved as the stats above show.
Observe: Bailey -- who was a STARTER for us -- can't even get a job in the league as a BACKUP.
Observe: There's a long list of other players who are in the same boat as Bailey. They suck.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in the NFL, if you can't play because you suck, you won't have a job, and if you can play because you don't suck, you will have a job. Period.

You're trying your contrarian idiot bull**** again, and while it's very funny, it makes zero sense to anyone outside of the voices in your head.

So you don't have proof that we got more talented? Don't worry, I already knew this.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:45 AM
There wasn't when he left...

Because he had ****ty players on the roster. How do you not get this?

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:46 AM
Holy ****, you really are retarded.

Again, I once thought it was just a brilliant comedy routine. But you really are this ****ing stupid.

What is a better defensive ranking with a defense full of new players evidence of, if not that there's more talent on that side of the ball?

you think we would have been as successful defensively last year if guys who were cut -- who have yet to find a job in the league even as backups -- had still been starting?

Hilarious!

You're a funny guy, jhizz.

With a worse offense it seems we just went from the majority of the scrubs being on the defense to the majority of the scrubs being on the offense.... This isn't complicated.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:46 AM
So you don't have proof that we got more talented? Don't worry, I already knew this.

You have proof that we didn't? The numbers tend to side with me. Shocking.

How would one prove "more talent" other than a better defensive ranking AND the cut players being unemployed? Do you want a pie chart? A graph? Do I need to make a powerpoint presentation for your stupid ass?

Go make me a sandwich. You are irrelevant, and I'm curious if you have any skill whatsoever.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 07:47 AM
So you don't have proof that we got more talented? Don't worry, I already knew this.

by that logic, we were more talented in 2008...it just didn't equate to a good defense

am I reading that right?

I guess then, pencil me in as a fan of less talent

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:48 AM
Because he had ****ty players on the roster. How do you not get this?

Spin. Spin. Spin. It must be hard walking straight after all that spinning. We sure got better with McDaniels players. Right? 8-8 is better than 8-8!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:48 AM
With a worse offense it seems we just went from the majority of the scrubs being on the defense to the majority of the scrubs being on the offense.... This isn't complicated.

Introducing the meaningless argument, having nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand! A jhiz special.

Remember how we were talking about the defense? And how those players sucked ass, got cut, and now can't find jobs? Remember that? It has nothing to do with the offense.

Stop arguing like a child.

Jhiz: We didn't get better on defense!
everyone else: Yes we did. Look at the stats. Look at the fact that the players we cut no longer have jobs.
Jhiz: But we didn't get better on offense! /self satisfied

Rabb
08-13-2010, 07:50 AM
yeah, I am not going to argue with him anymore on this...pointless

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:51 AM
You have proof that we didn't? The numbers tend to side with me. Shocking.

How would one prove "more talent" other than a better defensive ranking AND the cut players being unemployed? Do you want a pie chart? A graph? Do I need to make a powerpoint presentation for your stupid ass?

Go make me a sandwich. You are irrelevant, and I'm curious if you have any skill whatsoever.

I can easily prove we weren't more talented. Same record with less injuries and a more veteran team. Are you claiming McDaniels is that much worse of a coach than Shanahan? He can't get a more talented team a better record? Why do you support him so much then?

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:54 AM
Introducing the meaningless argument, having nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand! A jhiz special.

Remember how we were talking about the defense? And how those players sucked ass, got cut, and now can't find jobs? Remember that? It has nothing to do with the offense.

Stop arguing like a child.

Jhiz: We didn't get better on defense!
everyone else: Yes we did. Look at the stats. Look at the fact that the players we cut no longer have jobs.
Jhiz: But we didn't get better on offense! /self satisfied

What are you saying? McDaniels only changed players on the defense? He can't fire defensive scrubs and hire offensive scrubs in their place? I don't get it.... How is it that only defense dictates team talent? How is it that defensive ranking is a better guage than team record? You are ducking these questions with your childish act. It's all good though, I never expected anything more from you.

I never once said we didn't get more talented on defense. I said there is no proof this team is more talented. You making up arguments in your had doesn't change this fact. The thread isn't long, go prove me wrong.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 07:55 AM
/rolleyes

Sorry, jhiz. I know it's your entertainment to act like a ****ing moron, but you'll have to do it with something else. Your posts in this thread are just far too ****ing stupid.

jhns
08-13-2010, 07:58 AM
/rolleyes

Sorry, jhiz. I know it's your entertainment to act like a ****ing moron, but you'll have to do it with something else. Your posts in this thread are just far too ****ing stupid.

Says the guy that claims McDaniels is only responsible for defense... A defense that failed...

I just read this stuff again and I must say, you are horrible at arguing. You had nothing. I guess I see why you want to stop now. You knew you had nothing and had to just start claiming my argument was completely different than it was with some stuff I never said. You act like a 2 year old. Oh well, at least it is easy for everyone to see that you got schooled.

orange&blue87
08-13-2010, 08:29 AM
Spin. Spin. Spin. It must be hard walking straight after all that spinning. We sure got better with McDaniels players. Right? 8-8 is better than 8-8!

8-8 is 8-8 but a team can go 8-8 in consecutive years and still be considered better, especially when the 2nd 8-8 season was against better teams.

2008... +65 in wins, -143 in losses... Opponents record that Denver beat 56-72, Opp rec that Denver lost to 61-67, combined wins & losses, -78 and opp rec were 117-139.

2009... +118 in wins, -116 in losses... Opp rec that Den beat 66-62, Opp rec that Den lost to 69-59, combined +2, opp rec 135-121.

That's +80 in scoring differential from 2008 to 2009 against teams that were 18 wins better.

For additional measure, in 08, best win was +27, worst loss was -34, in 09 it was +31 and -29.

8-8 is still in fact 8-8, there is no question there. But one 8-8 season (2008) was obtained vs much weaker competition and done so less competitively.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 08:32 AM
8-8 is 8-8 but a team can go 8-8 in consecutive years and still be considered better, especially when the 2nd 8-8 season was against better teams.

2008... +65 in wins, -143 in losses... Opponents record that Denver beat 56-72, Opp rec that Denver lost to 61-67, combined wins & losses, -78 and opp rec were 117-139.

2009... +118 in wins, -116 in losses... Opp rec that Den beat 66-62, Opp rec that Den lost to 69-59, combined +2, opp rec 135-121.

That's +80 in scoring differential from 2008 to 2009 against teams that were 18 wins better.

For additional measure, in 08, best win was +27, worst loss was -34, in 09 it was +31 and -29.

8-8 is still in fact 8-8, there is no question there. But one 8-8 season (2008) was obtained vs much weaker competition and done so less competitively.

:~ohyah!:

Eldorado
08-13-2010, 08:40 AM
Spin. Spin. Spin. It must be hard walking straight after all that spinning. We sure got better with McDaniels players. Right? 8-8 is better than 8-8!


8-8 is 8-8 but a team can go 8-8 in consecutive years and still be considered better, especially when the 2nd 8-8 season was against better teams.

2008... +65 in wins, -143 in losses... Opponents record that Denver beat 56-72, Opp rec that Denver lost to 61-67, combined wins & losses, -78 and opp rec were 117-139.

2009... +118 in wins, -116 in losses... Opp rec that Den beat 66-62, Opp rec that Den lost to 69-59, combined +2, opp rec 135-121.

That's +80 in scoring differential from 2008 to 2009 against teams that were 18 wins better.

For additional measure, in 08, best win was +27, worst loss was -34, in 09 it was +31 and -29.

8-8 is still in fact 8-8, there is no question there. But one 8-8 season (2008) was obtained vs much weaker competition and done so less competitively.

http://funnypics.free.fr/explorer/public/gifs/slap.gif

jhns
08-13-2010, 08:47 AM
8-8 is 8-8 but a team can go 8-8 in consecutive years and still be considered better, especially when the 2nd 8-8 season was against better teams.

2008... +65 in wins, -143 in losses... Opponents record that Denver beat 56-72, Opp rec that Denver lost to 61-67, combined wins & losses, -78 and opp rec were 117-139.

2009... +118 in wins, -116 in losses... Opp rec that Den beat 66-62, Opp rec that Den lost to 69-59, combined +2, opp rec 135-121.

That's +80 in scoring differential from 2008 to 2009 against teams that were 18 wins better.

For additional measure, in 08, best win was +27, worst loss was -34, in 09 it was +31 and -29.

8-8 is still in fact 8-8, there is no question there. But one 8-8 season (2008) was obtained vs much weaker competition and done so less competitively.

Wow, you need to post more. You actually argued the point and came with an intelligent post. I think injuries and youth was what made the 2008 team more inconsitent but I don't really have much to argue with in this post. I will say that the entire league was far better at scoring, by a lot, in 2008 when our bad side of the ball was defense and that also contributed to some of those scoring differences. To prove this, our team scoring total in 2008 ranked 16th and that same total would have been top 10 this past season. Other than that, good stuff.

bronclvr
08-13-2010, 09:01 AM
Wow, you need to post more. You actually argued the point and came with an intelligent post. I think injuries and youth was what made the 2008 team more inconsitent but I don't really have much to argue with in this post. I will say that the entire league was far better at scoring, by a lot, in 2008 when our bad side of the ball was defense and that also contributed to some of those scoring differences. To prove this, our team scoring total in 2008 ranked 16th and that same total would have been top 10 this past season. Other than that, good stuff.

So, in other words, you were wrong?

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:04 AM
So, in other words, you were wrong?

Come on now, let's not get carried away.

orange&blue87
08-13-2010, 09:07 AM
Wow, you need to post more. You actually argued the point and came with an intelligent post. I think injuries and youth was what made the 2008 team more inconsitent but I don't really have much to argue with in this post. I will say that the entire league was far better at scoring, by a lot, in 2008 when our bad side of the ball was defense and that also contributed to some of those scoring differences. To prove this, our team scoring total in 2008 ranked 16th and that same total would have been top 10 this past season. Other than that, good stuff.

Not sure where you are getting your scoring numbers from, the data I have shows differently, (I'm too apathetic to check more sites to confirm the data I'm using is legit either), but 2008 the league scored 11279 points (22.0 avg) and in 2009 it was 11597 (22.7). Denver's 16th ranked 2008 total of 370 would be 17th in 2009 (they had 350 and finished 18th).

Here is where I got those numbers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2008/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/

Again, not saying you are wrong because when it comes to stats, the numbers can be extrapolated in many different ways. Just want to see where you are coming from since I don't fully understand what you are saying.

I'll agree that the youth/injuries has a lot to do with things. Personally, I feel that Orton, while not as prolific as Cutler in most areas, was far better at protecting the ball. In saying that, I fully understand that it might be somewhat true that a heaved 60 yard pass that is intercepted is no different than a punt after a 3 and out. I'd rather have the offense sputter at times than turn it over. Turnovers to me, are the biggest difference in the change from 08 (-17) to 09 (+7).

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 09:18 AM
Because its money that isnt going to anyone that currently PLAYS for the Broncos. Cap or not, its still dead money.

I'll say it again it’s money that has already been paid.

OABB
08-13-2010, 09:24 AM
Pownage is fun. The other thing to consider is system changes and huge player turnover on both sides of the ball. But to factor all these things in would require logic, patience and a lack of reactionary and emotional bias and butthurt.Jhiz and mocktypes are not man enough to wait and see. They cry like little girls because things have changed and troll to soften the blow.

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:24 AM
Not sure where you are getting your scoring numbers from, the data I have shows differently, (I'm too apathetic to check more sites to confirm the data I'm using is legit either), but 2008 the league scored 11279 points (22.0 avg) and in 2009 it was 11597 (22.7). Denver's 16th ranked 2008 total of 370 would be 17th in 2009 (they had 350 and finished 18th).

Here is where I got those numbers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2008/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/

Again, not saying you are wrong because when it comes to stats, the numbers can be extrapolated in many different ways. Just want to see where you are coming from since I don't fully understand what you are saying.

I'll agree that the youth/injuries has a lot to do with things. Personally, I feel that Orton, while not as prolific as Cutler in most areas, was far better at protecting the ball. In saying that, I fully understand that it might be somewhat true that a heaved 60 yard pass that is intercepted is no different than a punt after a 3 and out. I'd rather have the offense sputter at times than turn it over. Turnovers to me, are the biggest difference in the change from 08 (-17) to 09 (+7).

I'm sorry, the 2008 team scoring total would be 12th this last year. The 11th team only had 375 points. I think I was thinking of offensive scoring but you have to actually do the work for that, so I can't show it until I get home. The scoring totals that I just said would be 12th are on NFL.com but I can't link with my phone.

Also, the turnover differential wasn't all Cutler. That had a lot to do with the defense only creating 13 turnovers that season. Not that this really changes the turnover argument.

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:31 AM
Pownage is fun. The other thing to consider is system changes and huge player turnover on both sides of the ball. But to factor all these things in would require logic, patience and a lack of reactionary and emotional bias and butthurt.Jhiz and mocktypes are not man enough to wait and see. They cry like little girls because things have changed and troll to soften the blow.

Like you have ever brought an argument that pwned someone. A logical person would also see that the 2008 team had over half the starters injured. A logical person would see that the 2008 team also had a new defensive system and an offense made up of rookie to third year guys that were still learning the NFL.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 09:37 AM
Like you have ever brought an argument that pwned someone. A logical person would also see that the 2008 team had over half the starters injured. A logical person would see that the 2008 team also had a new defensive system and an offense made up of rookie to third year guys that were still learning the NFL.

so, pretty much the same as 2009 then, no?

I'd also argue that the injury to Harris in 2009 was about as devastating to the team as the running back debacle of 2008

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 09:37 AM
Like you have ever brought an argument that pwned someone. A logical person would also see that the 2008 team had over half the starters injured. A logical person would see that the 2008 team also had a new defensive system and an offense made up of rookie to third year guys that were still learning the NFL.

A logical person would also see there was a new defensive system and offensive system, new coaching staff, and a host of new players at important positions in '09.

A logical person would see that and consider it.

You are not a logical person.

jhns with the predictable "well whose fault is it that those players were new?!" argument in 3... 2... 1...

OABB
08-13-2010, 09:39 AM
Like you have ever brought an argument that pwned someone. A logical person would also see that the 2008 team had over half the starters injured. A logical person would see that the 2008 team also has a new defensive system and an offense made up of rookie to third year guys that were still learning the NFL.

Troll, this can go on forever(which you would love being a troll) but second in yards doesn't equate to points or wins. We were 16th in scoring. Most of our problems can be attributed to small dl and ol players.

Mcd in less than two years has brought in bigger and better players on the cline and bigger on the ol( The ol is young and so I will wait( I'm not a butthurt troll so I use my adult male patience and logic to not freak out about this) and our d has significantly improved.

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:43 AM
A logical person would also see there was a new defensive system and offensive system, new coaching staff, and a host of new players at important positions in '09.

A logical person would see that and consider it.

You are not a logical person.

jhns with the predictable "well whose fault is it that those players were new?!" argument in 3... 2... 1...

I thought you were done arguing in this thread? Anyways, you just repeated what I responded to... Way to go.

There were new coaches, systems, and players in 2008. You fail. A logical person would also see that we had the worst defensive coach in team history in 2008 and he had an extremely injured unit. I guess you could argue that coaching doesn't mean anything though. In that case, why do you guys cling to McDaniels?

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:45 AM
Excuses, excuses-let me try-the 2009 Team had completely new Offensive AND Defensive schemes, new Coaches, many new Players, the Cutler fiasco and more-a "logical" person can see that the uphill battles were much more difficult than an existing regime, scheme and Coaches-try again-

Gee, this is kinda fun-all you have to do is spew nonsense-

Wait, so now the Cutler fiasco and problems McDaniels created for himself were a problem for the team? Look, I agree.

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:47 AM
Troll, this can go on forever(which you would love being a troll) but second in yards doesn't equate to points or wins. We were 16th in scoring. Most of our problems can be attributed to small dl and ol players.

Mcd in less than two years has brought in bigger and better players on the cline and bigger on the ol( The ol is young and so I will wait( I'm not a butthurt troll so I use my adult male patience and logic to not freak out about this) and our d has significantly improved.

Who said anything about yards? Why are you using a non-offensive stat to try dogging the offense? Oh, right, you have nothing.

Who is freaking out about the lines? You make no sense. I get that my posts hurt your feelings but you need to gain some control.

bronclvr
08-13-2010, 09:48 AM
Wait, so now the Cutler fiasco and problems McDaniels created for himself were a problem for the team? Look, I agree.

Well, I deleted my response because ThatOneDenverMooseGuy beat me, but I'll respond-have you ever considered a career in Politics? You keep trying to spin everything, and, like most Politicos you talk a lot without much substance (and are generally incorrect)-I'm being nice here-

oubronco
08-13-2010, 09:52 AM
Well, I deleted my response because ThatOneDenverMooseGuy beat me, but I'll respond-have you ever considered a career in Politics? You keep trying to spin everything, and, like most Politicos you talk a lot without much substance (and are generally incorrect)-I'm being nice here-

The things I would do the babe in your avy ;D

jhns
08-13-2010, 09:52 AM
Well, I deleted my response because ThatOneDenverMooseGuy beat me, but I'll respond-have you ever considered a career in Politics? You keep trying to spin everything, and, like most Politicos you talk a lot without much substance (and are generally incorrect)-I'm being nice here-

Maybe you guys should look at yourselves then. I am only responding with the same crap you guys are bringing. I don't get why you guys think you doing this same thing is so great when this is how you feel about me doing it back.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 09:55 AM
I thought you were done arguing in this thread? Anyways, you just repeated what I responded to... Way to go.

There were new coaches, systems, and players in 2008. You fail. A logical person would also see that we had the worst defensive coach in team history in 2008 and he had an extremely injured unit. I guess you could argue that coaching doesn't mean anything though. In that case, why do you guys cling to McDaniels?

Why do I 'cling to' McDaniels? I root for him because he's the coach of my favorite team. Why do you hate the coach of your favorite team? Isn't that a better question?

Sorry jhiz. You don't get off that easily. I thought you were going to argue the actual points of the thread instead of getting off on tangents like usual.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 09:56 AM
jhns with the predictable "well whose fault is it that those players were new?!" argument in 3... 2... 1...

Wait, so now the Cutler fiasco and problems McDaniels created for himself were a problem for the team? Look, I agree.

Man, I love being right.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 09:57 AM
Why do I 'cling to' McDaniels? I root for him because he's the coach of my favorite team. Why do you hate the coach of your favorite team? Isn't that a better question?

Sorry jhiz. You don't get off that easily. I thought you were going to argue the actual points of the thread instead of getting off on tangents like usual.

Hilarious!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 09:57 AM
Who said anything about yards? Why are you using a non-offensive stat to try dogging the offense? Oh, right, you have nothing.

Who is freaking out about the lines? You make no sense. I get that my posts hurt your feelings but you need to gain some control.

Now yards aren't an offensive stat?

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 09:59 AM
hilarious!
+1

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:00 AM
Why do I 'cling to' McDaniels? I root for him because he's the coach of my favorite team. Why do you hate the coach of your favorite team? Isn't that a better question?

Sorry jhiz. You don't get off that easily. I thought you were going to argue the actual points of the thread instead of getting off on tangents like usual.

You thought I was going to argue actual points as you came with crap? Why would you think that? I argued the same thing as you but in favor of the 2008 team. It is funny that you think you are actually bringing a good argument.

bronclvr
08-13-2010, 10:00 AM
Maybe you guys should look at yourselves then. I am only responding with the same crap you guys are bringing. I don't get why you guys think you doing this same thing is so great when this is how you feel about me doing it back.

Gawd, why do I debate with you? I am just an idiot-:oyvey:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:02 AM
You thought I was going to argue actual points as you came with crap? Why would you think that? I argued the same thing as you but in favor of the 2008 team. It is funny that you think you are actually bringing a good argument.

Hilarious!

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:02 AM
Now yards aren't an offensive stat?

Wow, you just aren't that smart... When did I say that? I responded to a post whining that 2nd in yards means nothing.... I asked who said that it did mean something. Why are you asking this question based on that conversation?

oubronco
08-13-2010, 10:04 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D60xnL33mvQ/SJpOjH8CwcI/AAAAAAAAADc/JcTvNBkxd20/s320/troll.gif

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:04 AM
Man, I love being right.

You do realize that response had nothing to do with what you posted, right? You really do have to reach to try keeping up with me. Pretty funny stuff.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:05 AM
Who said anything about yards? Why are you using a non-offensive stat to try dogging the offense? Oh, right, you have nothing.

Who is freaking out about the lines? You make no sense. I get that my posts hurt your feelings but you need to gain some control.

Jhiz: means what he says and says what he means. Just can't say what he said.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:07 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D60xnL33mvQ/SJpOjH8CwcI/AAAAAAAAADc/JcTvNBkxd20/s320/troll.gif

But the stupidity... it's so... stupid...

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:08 AM
I am just an idiot-:oyvey:

You said it.

I would love for you and moose to go back and show these brilliant arguments that you are bringing though. I want to see how they are so much better than my responses. Point out the facts, numbers, and proof that you provided that this past years team is more talented then the 2008 team. I have only seen one poster bring anything that could even start to be mistaken for a good argument. You have brought nothing.

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:10 AM
Jhiz: means what he says and says what he means. Just can't say what he said.

Ahh, I see. You just aren't smart enough to keep up. The non-offensive stat that he was using was the team scoring total. Those were two different points. You can tell by the period seperating them.

Do you not have basic reading skills? At what point did he dog the offense with the yards ranking?

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 10:11 AM
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/Thread-Hijack/1/Hijack-Car.jpg

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:18 AM
Ahh, I see. You just aren't smart enough to keep up. The non-offensive stat that he was using was the team scoring total. Those were two different points. You can tell by the period seperating them.

Generally, when adults have a conversation or debate, they use more than a period to separate their "points." Bullet points are a good way to do this, or just a hard return to give you a new line to type on.

Periods tend to separate sentences, which are generally grouped into paragraphs, all of which can (and usually do) represent one "point" of argument or debate.

This way, your "points" are organized in an easy-to-read-and-comprehend fashion, helping to move the debate forward and make a better experience for everyone. Except for you, because you're a retard.

http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:23 AM
Generally, when adults have a conversation or debate, they use more than a period to separate their "points." Bullet points are a good way to do this, or just a hard return to give you a new line to type on.

Periods tend to separate sentences, which are generally grouped into paragraphs, all of which can (and usually do) represent one "point" of argument or debate.

This way, your "points" are organized in an easy-to-read-and-comprehend fashion, helping to move the debate forward and make a better experience for everyone. Except for you, because you're a retard.

http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

What are you? 40? Yet you still lack basic reading skills? That is sad.

At what point did he dog the offense with the yards total? He gave two stats. He said one shouldn't be used and then used the other to say the offense wasn't that good. When I say he is dogging the offense with a stat, even an infant can figure out which one I am talking about.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:27 AM
What are you? 40? Yet you still lack basic reading skills? That is sad.

At what point did he dog the offense with the yards total? He gave two stats. He said one shouldn't be used and then used the other to say the offense wasn't that good. When I say you are dogging the offense with a stat, even an infant can figure out which one I am talking about.

[jhns arguing technique ON]
Prove that an infant could figure out which one you're talking about. You have no proof. Therefore I win. I am WINNAR.
[jhns arguing technique OFF]

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:29 AM
[jhns arguing technique ON]
Prove that an infant could figure out which one you're talking about. You have no proof. Therefore I win. I am WINNAR.
[jhns arguing technique OFF]

I just called my nephew and he figured it out. Sorry, don't know how to post audio. Maybe I will figure it out and do so later.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 10:30 AM
[jhns arguing technique on]
prove that an infant could figure out which one you're talking about. You have no proof. Therefore i win. I am winnar.
[jhns arguing technique off]

our infants in 2008 could have!!!!!!

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:35 AM
our infants in 2008 could have!!!!!!

You guys whine a lot and yet none of you bring anything to the table. This is why I find this place funny.

Br0nc0Buster
08-13-2010, 10:38 AM
Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

just thought I would throw that out there, take from it what you will

Rabb
08-13-2010, 10:42 AM
You guys whine a lot and yet none of you bring anything to the table. This is why I find this place funny.

:flower:

http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1199853047676.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jp g

jhns
08-13-2010, 10:43 AM
Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

just thought I would throw that out there, take from it what you will

Well he sure failed with that one. There would be far fewer star athletes if they just gave up the first time they missed a shot, pitch, goal, or pass. Repetition is needed in many areas of life. Maybe this isn't one of them but there are many examples of that line being false.

Rabb
08-13-2010, 10:45 AM
Well he sure failed with that one. There would be far fewer star athletes if they just gave up the first time they missed a shot, pitch, goal, or pass. Repetition is needed in many areas of life. Maybe this isn't one of them but there are many examples of that line being false.

I really thought I had seen it all with you...

arguing with Einstein, that is ****ing classic

Hilarious!

seriously, don't ever change

TonyR
08-13-2010, 10:47 AM
I'll say it again it’s money that has already been paid.

This is true. But in 2009 there was a cap and the dead money represented dollars that couldn't be spent in 2009. This year it doesn't matter because there isn't a cap, but it did matter last year.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 10:53 AM
Well he sure failed with that one. There would be far fewer star athletes if they just gave up the first time they missed a shot, pitch, goal, or pass. Repetition is needed in many areas of life. Maybe this isn't one of them but there are many examples of that line being false.

Hilarious!

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 10:53 AM
This is true. But in 2009 there was a cap and the dead money represented dollars that couldn't be spent in 2009. This year it doesn't matter because there isn't a cap, but it did matter last year.

Yep.

jhns
08-13-2010, 11:26 AM
I really thought I had seen it all with you...

arguing with Einstein, that is ****ing classic

Hilarious!

seriously, don't ever change

Well Einstein has been proven wrong in many things. This isn't the only one. He argued for a long time that the universe was static and that there was some unknown force keeping it from expanding. That was proven wrong.

I use the same golf swing every time. I expect to hit the ball better after a year of repeating this swing and even better after three years. I don't change a thing in my swing but that has turned out to be true. I do hit the ball better after all that repetition. These are different results from doing the same thing over and over. Can any of you even try to refute that?

It is tough on me being smarter than Einstein but I get through the days.

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 11:30 AM
It is tough on me being smarter than Einstein but I get through the days.

Hilarious!

oubronco
08-13-2010, 11:33 AM
Oh My

Kaylore
08-13-2010, 12:50 PM
8-8 is 8-8 but a team can go 8-8 in consecutive years and still be considered better, especially when the 2nd 8-8 season was against better teams.

2008... +65 in wins, -143 in losses... Opponents record that Denver beat 56-72, Opp rec that Denver lost to 61-67, combined wins & losses, -78 and opp rec were 117-139.

2009... +118 in wins, -116 in losses... Opp rec that Den beat 66-62, Opp rec that Den lost to 69-59, combined +2, opp rec 135-121.

That's +80 in scoring differential from 2008 to 2009 against teams that were 18 wins better.

For additional measure, in 08, best win was +27, worst loss was -34, in 09 it was +31 and -29.

8-8 is still in fact 8-8, there is no question there. But one 8-8 season (2008) was obtained vs much weaker competition and done so less competitively.

Beat me to it. I was going to say that our strength of schedule in 2008 was toward the bottom of the league. I think we played something like four playoff teams. And in 2009 we played four teams that weren't playoff teams. Also the quality of defenses we faced were far superior in 2009 than in '08.

So when you consider the strength of schedule, given the new system for everyone here, our offense actually probably broke even between the two years, we just faced better teams - Except for one major factor: turnovers. Our defense got way more and our offense gave away far fewer in 2009 than in 2008. This alone helped account for the closer margins in our loses are larger margins in our victories. In fact if you believe nothing else, no one can deny that the turnover differential is the one area the definitively improved from one year to the next.

Also, when you consider the scoring stats from '08 are bloated from the crappy defenses we played in the first four games, we might have even improved. I think the latter three fourths of the '08 season our offense was 23rd in scoring. I consider 12 games enough to be considered a trend. That's 23rd to 20th against much better defenses. You can technically argue it was at the very worst a lateral move.

Obviously that's not good enough, but something to think about.

jhns
08-13-2010, 01:41 PM
If you use this team stat, take out these games, move this number around, and divide it all by 329, you can clearly see the offense was the same!

That logic never gets old.

Fine 12 games is a trend and the first games don't count. 10 games is also a trend and 2-8 was last years trend. Looks like we got a lot worse overall!

And you guys claim I am bad at arguing when this is what is brought to the table....

ZONA
08-13-2010, 01:49 PM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

I get it, you don't read much do you. Last year, there was a cap. Last year we had about 30 million in dead money. That affected who we could sign. What exactly don't you f'n get? It could not be more clear.

jhns
08-13-2010, 01:54 PM
I get it, you don't read much do you. Last year, there was a cap. Last year we had about 30 million in dead money. That affected who we could sign. What exactly don't you f'n get? It could not be more clear.

There was a lot of talk in this thread about dead money this year. That argument came about after people made this claim. You don't read much do you?

broncocalijohn
08-13-2010, 02:01 PM
See? What did I say? The majority of the cap hits were from McDaniels moves. You guys will find anything to hate on Shanahan. The guy that got this team its two SBs.... You will even make crap up to do so. What a pathetic group of "fans".

Shanahan didn't create this problem. It is a common thing that happens when a new coach comes in and redoes the roster to get his players....

That is your comeback? Boss was a horrible move to give him that much money and now he isnt even a player. The dead money issue shows me that money was given to players that didnt deserve half of that salary. Proof is in the pudding when many on that list arent even in the NFL. Shanahan created the mess of having some really ****ty players on this team. Most might not have seen it like that 2 years ago, but looking back now, it was a mess.

CEH
08-13-2010, 02:03 PM
While we have stats that say we were more competive in '09 and if that make ppl feel better about 8-8 more power to them but we also lost to all three AFCW teams at home and the last 4 games of the year with the season on the line we reverted back to old form against powerhouse teams OAK and KC at home. The run defense was a seive and a late season collapse going 1-4 the last five games

One thing you can say about McD is he will field a competive team but so did Mike. Josh was brough in to better the team so '10 will be a critical season in turns of moving forward.

All these competive stats mean nothing if the team does not improve on the 8-8 season. Try to walk into Bowlens office and use stats to sell him on 4 consective 8-8 or worst seasons.

Lev Vyvanse
08-13-2010, 02:14 PM
Actually, the Broncos have about $1.5 million in dead money this season. Last year they led the league only in dead money — approximately $29.5 million. That amount cut deeply in the Broncos’ ability to sign free agents last year because it counted as almost a quarter of the $128 million salary cap for the team.


Dead money as in paying players who are no longer here. Guys who are still in prison etc.etc.

This doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of the Broncos cap last year was dead money, and that now the team has very little dead money.

Do people realize that "dead money" is completely independent from the cap?

Because its money that isnt going to anyone that currently PLAYS for the Broncos. Cap or not, its still dead money.

^^^Zona did you read these posts?^^^




I get it, you don't read much do you. Last year, there was a cap. Last year we had about 30 million in dead money. That affected who we could sign. What exactly don't you f'n get? It could not be more clear.

Are you ****ing stupid or what?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-13-2010, 02:15 PM
It is tough on me being smarter than Einstein but I get through the days.

http://i29.tinypic.com/34ss8ow.jpg

Missouribronc
08-14-2010, 12:39 AM
Dear Jhns,

Do you want Jay Cutler back?

Sincerely,
Life before you were a Bears fan.

Missouribronc
08-14-2010, 12:44 AM
I've been banned from two places for telling it like it is.

Jhns is the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. And that includes OaklandRaider, a favorite son of the forums.

The MVPlaya
08-14-2010, 01:23 AM
If you use this team stat, take out these games, move this number around, and divide it all by 329, you can clearly see the offense was the same!

That logic never gets old.

Fine 12 games is a trend and the first games don't count. 10 games is also a trend and 2-8 was last years trend. Looks like we got a lot worse overall!

And you guys claim I am bad at arguing when this is what is brought to the table....

No one is taking out any games. You're the only one getting desperate and reaching for Uranus with your logic of, dividing up the season and taking games out, not letting them count, etc.

We're talking about a full season worth of stats.

You lost... again.

DivineLegion
08-14-2010, 01:59 AM
Heres a realistic approach to last season...

McDaniels came into a complete mess and honestly for the short term made it worse. I agree with the moves that he made because its what every coach does when they take over a team and install a new system. He put together a patch work defense that under a good coach, and some exceptional play from carrier proffesionals started out increadibly (almost historicly) Strong. The only problem is down the stretch we started to see the major defeciancy in McDaniels rebuilding effort...Depth.

As the season progressed and our exceptional situational players started to wear down so did our defensive production. There is a reason Ron Fields, and Ryan McBean are still on this team and Ryan is still starting. Ryan was great against the run last season...only problem is he couldn't last 16 games as a full time starter, and wore down. Ron Fields same story. So what did we do? We went out and got more depth and GOOD rotational players. You see rebuilding is a long term effort it dosent happen in one season. As far as im concerned last season was a wash for us. McDaniels got a good gauge of the strenghts and weaknesses of his team last season and made the proper adjustments moving into this season. We adressed all of our needs in the Draft and free agency hints drafting 3 offensive linemen.

You can argue with the Tebow and Thomas picks all you want but both of them were luxury picks that were aimed at building toward the long term success of the team. Drafting all three of those linemen was an imediate statement as to the direction of this football team. That was a characteristic Parcells move, and thats what makes me think McDaniels is moving in the right direction.

To sum all of this mindless bable up, losing out the second half of the season sucks but its not as big of a deal as jhns is making it out to be. I know Josh is a Winner and he wanted nothing more than to win in the playoffs in his first year, but its obvious the coaching staff took a step back and looked at all of our defeciencies and made the correct adjustments. Thats whats important. You can take our first season under a new regime however you want but sometimes it takes a nutral realistic approach to really see what was going on. jhns is obviously bitter. The point in the matter is we are about to witness the true coaching potential of Josh McDaniels, and if we are fortunate hes going to be a damn good coach. This wont be a make or break season but it will be a good gauge as to how well he can build a team.

TomServo
08-14-2010, 02:47 AM
I know Josh is a Winner

so what are saturdays powerball numbers too?
nobody knew shanny could coax a superbowl or two out of a tired QB either but we saw what he could do with elway after reeves sent him packing and he came back home.
besides destroying a good offense and showing he doesnt have the maturity to deal with grown men, what faith in Mcd does this come from? running around the field pumping his fist after he beat his mentor? did shanny run around looking like a total idiot after he beat the raiders the first time?
i told my kids tebow might be our saviour or he might be out of the league in two years. Mcd had No right to gamble the bronco future on a QB that cant even throw a footbal properly.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-14-2010, 07:12 AM
so what are saturdays powerball numbers too?
nobody knew shanny could coax a superbowl or two out of a tired QB either but we saw what he could do with elway after reeves sent him packing and he came back home.
besides destroying a good offense and showing he doesnt have the maturity to deal with grown men, what faith in Mcd does this come from? running around the field pumping his fist after he beat his mentor? did shanny run around looking like a total idiot after he beat the raiders the first time?
i told my kids tebow might be our saviour or he might be out of the league in two years. Mcd had No right to gamble the bronco future on a QB that cant even throw a footbal properly.

Um, he did have the right. See, he's the head coach.

I'm not sure how being the head coach and leader of this football team means he "doesn't have the right" to do anything, but then I'm sure you've got some logic behind that. Probably.

elsid13
08-14-2010, 07:27 AM
I haven't read the last 8 pages but this was discussed last off season. Shanahan left the team in pretty good cap condition, but cutting of Bly (who would have been off the books this last off season), and moving of Cutler were the major impact on the "cap". To say McDaniels is cleaning up Shanahan's mess isn't correct. McDaniels/Xanders decided to change the Roster which would have caused a problem if there was salary cap this season. Overall this is non-issue.

WolfpackGuy
08-14-2010, 07:41 AM
The Broncos have been busy enough in free agency the last two years considering they are "hamstrung" by lot of dead money.

I haven't liked many things about the current leadership, but I like their "volume" approach to free agency.

vancejohnson82
08-14-2010, 07:47 AM
Um, he did have the right. See, he's the head coach.

I'm not sure how being the head coach and leader of this football team means he "doesn't have the right" to do anything, but then I'm sure you've got some logic behind that. Probably.

No...he didnt have the right Moose....what he should have done was polled this board on every move he made...didnt you know that NFL teams are run by the fans?

TonyR
08-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Heres a realistic approach to last season...


Great post. Agree with most everything except perhaps the "luxury picks" part.

The MVPlaya
08-14-2010, 08:21 AM
Heres a realistic approach to last season...

McDaniels came into a complete mess and honestly for the short term made it worse. I agree with the moves that he made because its what every coach does when they take over a team and install a new system. He put together a patch work defense that under a good coach, and some exceptional play from carrier proffesionals started out increadibly (almost historicly) Strong. The only problem is down the stretch we started to see the major defeciancy in McDaniels rebuilding effort...Depth.

As the season progressed and our exceptional situational players started to wear down so did our defensive production. There is a reason Ron Fields, and Ryan McBean are still on this team and Ryan is still starting. Ryan was great against the run last season...only problem is he couldn't last 16 games as a full time starter, and wore down. Ron Fields same story. So what did we do? We went out and got more depth and GOOD rotational players. You see rebuilding is a long term effort it dosent happen in one season. As far as im concerned last season was a wash for us. McDaniels got a good gauge of the strenghts and weaknesses of his team last season and made the proper adjustments moving into this season. We adressed all of our needs in the Draft and free agency hints drafting 3 offensive linemen.

You can argue with the Tebow and Thomas picks all you want but both of them were luxury picks that were aimed at building toward the long term success of the team. Drafting all three of those linemen was an imediate statement as to the direction of this football team. That was a characteristic Parcells move, and thats what makes me think McDaniels is moving in the right direction.

To sum all of this mindless bable up, losing out the second half of the season sucks but its not as big of a deal as jhns is making it out to be. I know Josh is a Winner and he wanted nothing more than to win in the playoffs in his first year, but its obvious the coaching staff took a step back and looked at all of our defeciencies and made the correct adjustments. Thats whats important. You can take our first season under a new regime however you want but sometimes it takes a nutral realistic approach to really see what was going on. jhns is obviously bitter. The point in the matter is we are about to witness the true coaching potential of Josh McDaniels, and if we are fortunate hes going to be a damn good coach. This wont be a make or break season but it will be a good gauge as to how well he can build a team.

Thomas and Tebow are far from a luxury pick.

That Tebow pick may have set off the analysts on the wrong side of their chair a bit, but that pick might be THE pick we'll all be talking about later.

The negativity around Josh has decreased, the Broncos PR has increase, the Broncos fan base has increase, and Bowlen's pockets have grown a size larger. That's the immediate effects.

Demaryius Thomas is the type of player the Broncos have been missing for a long time... a true deep threat.

He is the WR we need to get this offense running at a dominate level.

TonyR
08-14-2010, 08:24 AM
Shanahan left the team in pretty good cap condition, but cutting of Bly (who would have been off the books this last off season), and moving of Cutler were the major impact on the "cap". To say McDaniels is cleaning up Shanahan's mess isn't correct.

That's fair, but you're leaving Boss Bailey, Travis Henry, Keary Colbert, and Niko Koutouvides, among others, who accounted for more than $12 million in dead money, out of the equation here. Those were all horrible Shanahan mistakes that you can't pin on McD/X. But I agree that this is no longer an issue.

dsmoot
08-14-2010, 08:26 AM
McDaniels gets hired and we have about 5 mil in dead money. McDaniels makes cuts and we end up with 30 mil in dead money. This leads to the conclusion that McDaniels came to a team with 30 mil in dead money.

Sure, I'm jaded but most of you don't even make sense.

If they were worth cutting to improve the team and give them the best opportunity to win ...... it was DEAD money anyway. It is about winning and I bet these decisions were all approved by Bowlen, not you, not me. You don't make sense to me.

Dagmar
08-14-2010, 10:34 AM
I've been banned from two places for telling it like it is.

Jhns is the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. And that includes OaklandRaider, a favorite son of the forums.

He's not dumb he's a troll who gets threads that were going to be three pages long by arguing a point, getting pwned, changing the argument to something old and tired, luring enough passionate fans into the argument and making them ten pagers. It surely is the only reason he isn't banned because he makes threads miserable to read for most of us. And before you mention the "ignore" feature try sifting through this thread with ignore on.

dsmoot
08-14-2010, 11:37 AM
Heres a realistic approach to last season...

McDaniels came into a complete mess and honestly for the short term made it worse. I agree with the moves that he made because its what every coach does when they take over a team and install a new system. He put together a patch work defense that under a good coach, and some exceptional play from carrier proffesionals started out increadibly (almost historicly) Strong. The only problem is down the stretch we started to see the major defeciancy in McDaniels rebuilding effort...Depth.

As the season progressed and our exceptional situational players started to wear down so did our defensive production. There is a reason Ron Fields, and Ryan McBean are still on this team and Ryan is still starting. Ryan was great against the run last season...only problem is he couldn't last 16 games as a full time starter, and wore down. Ron Fields same story. So what did we do? We went out and got more depth and GOOD rotational players. You see rebuilding is a long term effort it dosent happen in one season. As far as im concerned last season was a wash for us. McDaniels got a good gauge of the strenghts and weaknesses of his team last season and made the proper adjustments moving into this season. We adressed all of our needs in the Draft and free agency hints drafting 3 offensive linemen.

You can argue with the Tebow and Thomas picks all you want but both of them were luxury picks that were aimed at building toward the long term success of the team. Drafting all three of those linemen was an imediate statement as to the direction of this football team. That was a characteristic Parcells move, and thats what makes me think McDaniels is moving in the right direction.

To sum all of this mindless bable up, losing out the second half of the season sucks but its not as big of a deal as jhns is making it out to be. I know Josh is a Winner and he wanted nothing more than to win in the playoffs in his first year, but its obvious the coaching staff took a step back and looked at all of our defeciencies and made the correct adjustments. Thats whats important. You can take our first season under a new regime however you want but sometimes it takes a nutral realistic approach to really see what was going on. jhns is obviously bitter. The point in the matter is we are about to witness the true coaching potential of Josh McDaniels, and if we are fortunate hes going to be a damn good coach. This wont be a make or break season but it will be a good gauge as to how well he can build a team.

I know you made a good analysis of the moves made last year. However, I disagree with the statement of going backwards last year. McDaniels made the moves last year to take a step in the direction of where he wanted to take this football team. The coaching change was not a name change but a philosophy change. He knew he could not do it in one year, maybe not two. Any compromise of those moves takes us another year away. What on the surface seems like a step backwards was a calculated step FORWARD to get this football team where it needed to go. There was not change happening under Shanahan, therein lies the problem that Pat Bowlen corrected.

dsmoot
08-14-2010, 11:39 AM
so what are saturdays powerball numbers too?
nobody knew shanny could coax a superbowl or two out of a tired QB either but we saw what he could do with elway after reeves sent him packing and he came back home.
besides destroying a good offense and showing he doesnt have the maturity to deal with grown men, what faith in Mcd does this come from? running around the field pumping his fist after he beat his mentor? did shanny run around looking like a total idiot after he beat the raiders the first time?
i told my kids tebow might be our saviour or he might be out of the league in two years. Mcd had No right to gamble the bronco future on a QB that cant even throw a footbal properly.

I think the two years Elway had immediately under Fassell was revealing that if the Broncos could surround him with some talent that another Superbowl was possible. He became unleashed to a great degree.

oubronco
08-14-2010, 12:02 PM
Thomas and Tebow are far from a luxury pick.

That Tebow pick may have set off the analysts on the wrong side of their chair a bit, but that pick might be THE pick we'll all be talking about later.

The negativity around Josh has decreased, the Broncos PR has increase, the Broncos fan base has increase, and Bowlen's pockets have grown a size larger. That's the immediate effects.

Demaryius Thomas is the type of player the Broncos have been missing for a long time... a true deep threat.

He is the WR we need to get this offense running at a dominate level.

Yes and very easily MIGHT be the worst pick we made as well, who knows

lostknight
08-14-2010, 12:15 PM
That Tebow pick may have set off the analysts on the wrong side of their chair a bit, but that pick might be THE pick we'll all be talking about later.

The negativity around Josh has decreased, the Broncos PR has increase, the Broncos fan base has increase, and Bowlen's pockets have grown a size larger. That's the immediate effects.


There is no question in my mind that the offense badly underperformed last year. Watching last night's Redskins game was a eye-opener in that respect. IF that's on McDaniels, or if it's on Orton, I don't really care. McDaniels clearly was bettering that it was Orton. You don't go spend four draft picks on competition at that position otherwise.

The Tebow pick is a no-brainer from a commercial point of view, and everyone knew that before hand - his marketability metrics were blowing everyone elses out of the water - that includes Brady and Manning at the time. As far as the skill portion of the decision, hmm. All time most decorated college player? Probably worth a gamble, especially when that gamble costaa third of what the Rams gambled on their first pick in the draft. Part of the reason bad teams stay bad teams in the NFL, is that they pretend and strut and act like there is a science to the draft - there isn't, and bad teams stay bad teams because they invest in bad picks.

DT is looking like a enormous talent. Tebow we got for free for waiting on DT, more or less in draft picks, and for a investment in money that will easily be paid off in the form of national attention to the franchise, jerseys, media coverage, etc.

I was a critic of the draft last year - I remain skeptical of it today. But this draft has been more or less brilliant.

Kaylore
08-14-2010, 04:12 PM
By the way, over the last ten games of last season the offense got better.

BroncoMan4ever
08-14-2010, 09:13 PM
How can you have dead money with no cap?

call it wasted useless money being paid to guys who contribute nothing to the organization if you have to complain about the dead money issue.

The MVPlaya
08-14-2010, 09:24 PM
By the way, over the last ten games of last season the offense got better.

Yeah, you really didn't need stats to see that. The whole execution just got better, Orton was running the offense a lot better.

I'm excited to see what Willis can bring to this offense tomorrow.

tsiguy96
08-14-2010, 09:38 PM
He's not dumb he's a troll who gets threads that were going to be three pages long by arguing a point, getting pwned, changing the argument to something old and tired, luring enough passionate fans into the argument and making them ten pagers. It surely is the only reason he isn't banned because he makes threads miserable to read for most of us. And before you mention the "ignore" feature try sifting through this thread with ignore on.

whats even more amazing is that jhns has been told this 100 times: "he's a troll who gets threads that were going to be three pages long by arguing a point, getting pwned, changing the argument to something old and tired, luring enough passionate fans into the argument and making them ten pagers" by 100 different people, yet he still doesnt believe it. if i had 100 different people telling me somehting, id think something is up.

jhns
08-15-2010, 12:16 AM
No one is taking out any games. You're the only one getting desperate and reaching for Uranus with your logic of, dividing up the season and taking games out, not letting them count, etc.

We're talking about a full season worth of stats.

You lost... again.

From the post right before the one you quoted:

"Also, when you consider the scoring stats from '08 are bloated from the crappy defenses we played in the first four games, we might have even improved. I think the latter three fourths of the '08 season our offense was 23rd in scoring. I consider 12 games enough to be considered a trend. That's 23rd to 20th against much better defenses. You can technically argue it was at the very worst a lateral move."

You can claim this stuff about me losing all you want. The fact that you are completely wrong every time you post just doesn't back it.

jhns
08-15-2010, 12:17 AM
whats even more amazing is that jhns has been told this 100 times: "he's a troll who gets threads that were going to be three pages long by arguing a point, getting pwned, changing the argument to something old and tired, luring enough passionate fans into the argument and making them ten pagers" by 100 different people, yet he still doesnt believe it. if i had 100 different people telling me somehting, id think something is up.

So why don't you guys just not read the threads then? I don't post in many. If they would have only been 3 pages, why do you have to read the extra 6 that I add on? You don't even have to have me on ignore to skip the thread. Why whine about it?

Pseudofool
08-15-2010, 12:47 AM
So why don't you guys just not read the threads then? I don't post in many. If they would have only been 3 pages, why do you have to read the extra 6 that I add on? You don't even have to have me on ignore to skip the thread. Why whine about it?It's not simply a matter of ignoring you (which I do). In every thread you enter, you change the discussion's shape and direction. You stifle discussion. You make this place less amiable to intellectual discourse. I don't care that you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, I simply wish you'd be more thoughtful about the battles you pick to fight, and only post in threads where you really have a horse in the race.

elsid13
08-15-2010, 08:22 AM
I've been banned from two places for telling it like it is.

Jhns is the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. And that includes OaklandRaider, a favorite son of the forums.

Mo, as long as you don't post porn or wish death on someone's family, the mane is little more wild west then other message board.

Eldorado
08-15-2010, 09:05 AM
It's not simply a matter of ignoring you (which I do). In every thread you enter, you change the discussion's shape and direction. You stifle discussion. You make this place less amiable to intellectual discourse. I don't care that you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, I simply wish you'd be more thoughtful about the battles you pick to fight, and only post in threads where you really have a horse in the race.

'intellectual discourse'.

Yeah. That's why I come to the mane.

Pseudofool
08-15-2010, 12:37 PM
'intellectual discourse'.

Yeah. That's why I come to the mane.Heck, I learn stuff all the time from a select few posters. It just stinks that I have to muddle through the never-ending troll muck.

Dagmar
08-15-2010, 12:55 PM
Heck, I learn stuff all the time from a select few posters. It just stinks that I have to muddle through the never-ending troll muck.


I joined this site with very little knowledge to the ins and outs of the NFL having moved here from the UK, when in social company I am now known as an NFL "geek" I have so much knowledge now. Even when I hang with season ticket holders. It's a shame now we have to sift through the muck to read the good stuff from Kaylore/Drek/Florida/montrose et al. Still a great site.

orangemonkey
08-15-2010, 01:18 PM
[/B]

I joined this site with very little knowledge to the ins and outs of the NFL having moved here from the UK, when in social company I am now known as an NFL "geek" I have so much knowledge now. Even when I hang with season ticket holders. It's a shame now we have to sift through the muck to read the good stuff from Kaylore/Drek/Florida/montrose et al. Still a great site.

Whatever. Ok Tom Waits. Trade personal email addresses with the above folks. This way you can lend each other your signed Kyle Orton memorabilia and tweet jokes about Jhns (oh sorry Jhiz) and all of the other muck slingers.

PS. Go Kyle Orton! I mean you led the worst Broncos slide in history but - damn - You never throw interceptions!

Dagmar
08-15-2010, 01:34 PM
Whatever. Ok Tom Waits. Trade personal email addresses with the above folks. This way you can lend each other your signed Kyle Orton memorabilia and tweet jokes about Jhns (oh sorry Jhiz) and all of the other muck slingers.

PS. Go Kyle Orton! I mean you led the worst Broncos slide in history but - damn - You never throw interceptions!

Aren't you precious.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-15-2010, 02:18 PM
Aren't you precious.

Just. Adorable.

SoCalBronco
08-15-2010, 02:27 PM
'intellectual discourse'.

Yeah. That's why I come to the mane.

Yeah...that's kind of the point of the website. Real, detailed and reflective discussion of in-depth Broncos issues, not just stupid pom-pom waving crap. If you want to just slobber over the team's dick the whole day, you can go to Broncomania, here's the link:


http://forums.denverbroncos.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

errand
08-15-2010, 03:34 PM
http://www.bobrosato.com/content/photos/USPW_1002454-01.jpg

Just in case anyone forgot, I'll leave this here. Now back to the regularly scheduled circle jerk.

How many Mike Shanahan fans does it take to change a light bulb?

TEN..one to change the bulb while the other 9 sit around and talk about how great the burned out light bulb use to be

errand
08-15-2010, 03:46 PM
PS. Go Kyle Orton! I mean you led the worst Broncos slide in history but - damn - You never throw interceptions!

Really? I love it when one legged guys show up to ass kicking contests.

Since 1983 the worst Broncos slide was in 1990 when the John Elway led Broncos finished 5-11...losing 10 of the last 13 games, including a 3 game and a 6 game losing streak

TheElusiveKyleOrton
08-15-2010, 03:48 PM
really? I love it when one legged guys show up to ass kicking contests.

Since 1983 the worst broncos slide was in 1990 when the john elway led broncos finished 5-11...losing 10 of the last 13 games, including a 3 game and a 6 game losing streak

boosh.

broncosteven
08-15-2010, 04:16 PM
How many Mike Shanahan fans does it take to change a light bulb?

TEN..one to change the bulb while the other 9 sit around and talk about how great the burned out light bulb use to be

At least we have 2 SB trophies to look at while talking about past greatness.