PDA

View Full Version : Rookies step up, 10 rookies played in Jets game


baja
10-20-2010, 07:14 AM
Consider this past Sunday a big step for the Broncos' rookie class.
Denver's two touchdowns came from first-round draft picks quarterback Tim Tebow, on a 5-yard run, and receiver Demaryius Thomas, who caught his second career touchdown pass.
Three rookies, center J.D. Walton, right tackle Zane Beadles and cornerback Perrish Cox, started, and receiver Eric Decker and cornerback Syd'Quan Thompson played on special teams and in substitution packages. Thomp son also intercepted a pass.
Undrafted rookies Cassius Vaughn, Kyle McCarthy and Kevin Alexander played on special teams, meaning there were 10 first-year players on the field.
"We've got a lot of young guys stepping up, and we are trying every week as a rookie class to improve," Tebow said. "So, I think the longer it goes, the more experience that the young class will get and the more improvement you will see."
LB Briggs promoted.
The Broncos activated linebacker Diyral Briggs off the practice squad Tuesday. Briggs takes the roster spot of wide receiver Matt Willis, who was placed on injured reserve Monday because of a broken foot.
Briggs has been on the Broncos' practice squad since the second week of the season after he was released by San Francisco. Briggs played in four games for the 49ers last season and played in the 49ers' first game of this season.
The Broncos have only five receivers on the 53-man roster and two receivers on the practice squad Britt Davis and Eron Riley, who was added Tuesday. Denver still has two practice squad spots open. Riley was released from the Carolina Panthers' practice squad last week.
Beadles keeps spot.
Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said Monday that rookie Zane Beadles played well enough at right tackle Sunday against the Jets to keep his job in the starting lineup ahead of veteran Ryan Harris.
Beadles started in Harris' place for three games at the start of the season while Harris was injured. Harris started against Tennessee and Baltimore, but coaches opted for Beadles last week.
"It's a competitive situation," McDaniels said. "If it makes them both better, that's a great thing for our team. I think Zane didn't play perfect, but he held up in most instances."
Brown claimed.
Former Bronco running back Andre Brown was claimed off waivers Tuesday by Indianapolis. Denver released Brown last weekend.


Read more: Rookies make the most of their time against Jets - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16382017#ixzz12uNAEFvu

baja
10-20-2010, 07:16 AM
If you don't think Josh McDaniels is rebuilding the Denver Broncos at warp speed think again.

bowtown
10-20-2010, 07:16 AM
McRookies are tearing this team apart.

baja
10-20-2010, 07:20 AM
It is amazing to have 10 draft picks make you team and even more amazing they are playing and doing well. It shows how depleted we were.

BTW the 9 players on the field thing could be do to so many rookies on the team. A stupid mistake yes sign of bad coaching no.

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 07:31 AM
It is amazing to have 10 draft picks make you team and even more amazing they are playing and doing well. It shows how depleted we were.

BTW the 9 players on the field thing could be do to so many rookies on the team. A stupid mistake yes sign of bad coaching no.

insert Quinn, Smith, and Brandstarter anti-McD rant :D

strafen
10-20-2010, 07:32 AM
McRookies are tearing this team apart.Nice, very original :oyvey:
No, he already has torn this team apart.
The rebuilding word only comes up when we lose, as a way for the Mcdaniels supporters to cover for their beloved coach

Rulon Velvet Jones
10-20-2010, 07:42 AM
Nice, very original :oyvey:
No, he already has torn this team apart.
The rebuilding word only comes up when we lose, as a way for the Mcdaniels supporters to cover for their beloved coach

So they're NOT rebuilding? This team is a completed work?

Interesting.

baja
10-20-2010, 07:47 AM
Nice, very original :oyvey:
No, he already has torn this team apart.
The rebuilding word only comes up when we lose, as a way for the Mcdaniels supporters to cover for their beloved coach

Dude if you don't think that the fact that 32 of shanny's players (many were starters) were out of the NFL to moment Josh cut them from the Broncos roster than there is really not much to say to you.

Dedhed
10-20-2010, 07:52 AM
No, he already has torn this team apart.

Thank God.

Rascal
10-20-2010, 08:05 AM
Of course they have to rebuild. That's what happens when you trade your QB, WR, and TE.

jhns
10-20-2010, 08:07 AM
The rookies are playing well but they haven't stepped up that much. We are 2-4. This is still good experience for them.

baja
10-20-2010, 08:17 AM
Of course they have to rebuild. That's what happens when you trade your QB, WR, and TE.

You conveniently forgot to mention the 32 Shanahan players that are selling cell phones at their local Kiosk.

Rascal
10-20-2010, 08:19 AM
You conveniently forgot to mention the 32 Shanahan players that are selling cell phones at their local Kiosk.

all teams have roster turnover. didn't mediator pretty much remove that excuse a while back?

baja
10-20-2010, 08:22 AM
The rookies are playing well but they haven't stepped up that much. We are 2-4. This is still good experience for them.

When you have 10 rookies (three starting) seeing playing time what would you expect the record to be when you have played 4 very good teams

Rascal
10-20-2010, 08:22 AM
Why yes he did:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935071&postcount=79

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935105&postcount=93

baja
10-20-2010, 08:25 AM
all teams have roster turnover. didn't mediator pretty much remove that excuse a while back?

Maybe for you.

here's the part that he and you are missing;

They never played another down in the NFL after the were released from the Broncos - that's 32 guys and many were starters that were not good enough to make even Detroit or the Raiders

Swedish Extrovert
10-20-2010, 08:25 AM
Dude if you don't think that the fact that 32 of shanny's players (many were starters) were out of the NFL to moment Josh cut them from the Broncos roster than there is really not much to say to you.

Exactly

Dedhed
10-20-2010, 08:27 AM
Of course they have to rebuild. That's what happens when you trade your QB, WR, and TE.
It's also what needs to happen when your franchise has basically zero progress for a decade.

But hey, I get that some people just love the numbing comfort of familiar mediocrity.

jhns
10-20-2010, 08:34 AM
When you have 10 rookies (three starting) seeing playing time what would you expect the record to be when you have played 4 very good teams

What record do I expect? An improved one. The season is still young though. It is McDaniels choice to have almost a quarter of the active game day roster be rookies. Shanahan did the same in his last year here and that team improved by one game over the year before. That team also had the injury problems this one does. This is all I have to compare it to so I expect at least a one game improvement over last season.

jhns
10-20-2010, 08:38 AM
Maybe for you.

here's the part that he and you are missing;

They never played another down in the NFL after the were released from the Broncos - that's 32 guys and many were starters that were not good enough to make even Detroit or the Raiders

And you are missing the fact that this is normal. You are also missing the fact that the 32 number came from a bloated roster because lots of guys were injured that year. There were many players on that roster that Shanahan didn't even want, he had to go pick up guys like Tatum because of injuries. They didn't take those 32 from a 53 man roster...

baja
10-20-2010, 08:41 AM
Why yes he did:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935071&postcount=79

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935105&postcount=93

Sorry I will need more that a statement by Mediator (as knowledgeable as he is) to convince me that NFL teams routenely cut 32 out of 52 players every year and none of them ever play again.

Think about it, that's 3/5 of your team out of the league every year.

Sorry not buying it.

baja
10-20-2010, 08:42 AM
And you are missing the fact that this is normal. You are also missing the fact that the 32 number came from a bloated roster because lots of guys were injured that year. There were many players on that roster that Shanahan didn't even want, he had to go pick up guys like Tatum because of injuries. They didn't take those 32 from a 53 man roster...

Show me that is normal

jhns
10-20-2010, 08:45 AM
Sorry I will need more that a statement by Mediator (as knowledgeable as he is) to convince me that NFL teams routenely cut 32 out of 52 players every year and none of them ever play again.

Think about it, that's 3/5 of your team out of the league every year.

Sorry not buying it.

Well there is your problem. That 32 didn't come from a 53 man roster. It came from about a 73 man roster because we had so many on IR that year.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 08:47 AM
Why yes he did:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935071&postcount=79

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935105&postcount=93

With respect to med, there was nothing in those posts that would dispel anything. We have the turnover from our team, we need the rest of the league to declare anything either way. Med may very well be right, but there were no hard comparisons.

baja
10-20-2010, 08:49 AM
What record do I expect? An improved one. The season is still young though. It is McDaniels choice to have almost a quarter of the active game day roster be rookies. Shanahan did the same in his last year here and that team improved by one game over the year before. That team also had the injury problems this one does. This is all I have to compare it to so I expect at least a one game improvement over last season.

I'll put your demand another way;

You expect an improved record from a team that had a HOF coach, a franchise QB and a pro bowl receiver (in your world) all replaced with a new HC that never worked as a HC before, all new coaching staff with the DC new to the position too. A new defensive scheme and a new offensive scheme. A brand new roster with 10 rookies seeing time and three starting.

You really think your expectations are reasonable six games into the season?

strafen
10-20-2010, 08:59 AM
So they're NOT rebuilding? This team is a completed work?

Interesting.The rookies are starting because of the massive injuries we've had, not because we're rebuilding.
Mcdaniels has not used the "rebuilding" excuse yet, I don't think.

This team all it needed was defense.

We've let our DC from last year, our OL coach and RB coach go.
How's that working out for us so far?
Blaming our running game on injuries?

We're at 2-4 worse than we were last year. And surprisingly, I think this team may be a little better than last year's team, but worse coached (poorly), and it shows...

jhns
10-20-2010, 09:05 AM
This debate has made me curious what the actual lists of players in and out od the NFL are from that team. Is there an actual list with this 32 number? Here is what I have come up with for players that are still on NFL teams. This probably needs revised though. These are players that I know are on teams now, which means I'm not including guys that were on teams last season.

Cutler, Sheffler, Hillis, Marshall, Kuper, Clady, Harris, Graham, Larsen, DJ, Champ, Marcus Thomas, Torain, Polumbus, Weigman, Hamilton, Haggan, Prater, Woodyard, Moss, Dumervil, Royal, Paymah, Lichtensteiger, Stokley

That is 25 off the top of my head. This at least proves that the 32 number didn't come from a 53 man roster. That would be 57 already and I know I am missing guys.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 09:06 AM
The rookies are starting because of the massive injuries we've had, not because we're rebuilding.
Mcdaniels has not used the "rebuilding" excuse yet, I don't think.

This team all it needed was defense.

We've let our DC from last year, our OL coach and RB coach go.
How's that working out for us so far?
Blaming our running game on injuries?

We're at 2-4 worse than we were last year. And surprisingly, I think this team may be a little better than last year's team, but worse coached (poorly), and it shows...

My GOD let it go. And how many times has the great offensive myth of 2008 been debunked? We were 15th in scoring that year and if you take the first 4games out of that season (where we stacked up yardage and points on SD, NO, and OAK), i think our total yardage was very middle of the road. I'm not saying our offense now is great (though i strongly believe the potential is there), but we hardly dismantled the 94 49ers in favor of our current scheme.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:09 AM
My GOD let it go. And how many times has the great offensive myth of 2008 been debunked? We were 15th in scoring that year and if you take the first 4games out of that season (where we stacked up yardage and points on SD, NO, and OAK), i think our total yardage was very middle of the road. I'm not saying our offense now is great (though i strongly believe the potential is there), but we hardly dismantled the 94 49ers in favor of our current scheme.

We were actually top 10 in offensive points. Our D and special teams poor showing skewed us down in total scoring.

jhns
10-20-2010, 09:11 AM
I'll put your demand another way;

You expect an improved record from a team that had a HOF coach, a franchise QB and a pro bowl receiver (in your world) all replaced with a new HC that never worked as a HC before, all new coaching staff with the DC new to the position too. A new defensive scheme and a new offensive scheme. A brand new roster with 10 rookies seeing time and three starting.

You really think your expectations are reasonable six games into the season?

Qualifications of the coach are not an excuse. This is the NFL. This isn't were you go to learn how to be a coach....

I haven't called this team a failure. I don't have expectations for 6 games. I just laid out my expectations. They are for the season. Like I said in that post, the season is still young. Guys still have a chanve to step up and surpass my expectations.

SpringStein
10-20-2010, 09:16 AM
Dude if you don't think that the fact that 32 of shanny's players (many were starters) were out of the NFL to moment Josh cut them from the Broncos roster than there is really not much to say to you.

NM - I hadn't read all the posts before getting into the middle of this...

BroncoDoug
10-20-2010, 09:17 AM
We were actually top 10 in offensive points. Our D and special teams poor showing skewed us down in total scoring.

What? we were 16th in scoring points... where is this top 10 you speak of?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/year/2008

hell the kyle orton led bears scored more points then us that year

Beantown Bronco
10-20-2010, 09:19 AM
What? we were 16th in scoring points... where is this top 10 you speak of?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/year/2008

Pts scored vs Pts scored solely by a team's offense. "Pts scored" counts points scored by the defense and special teams whereas "Pts scored by a team's offense" doesn't....obviously. Teams that had defenses which didn't score pts on turnovers and special teams that didn't return a lot of kicks for scores had their "Pts scored" rankings suffer.

Two different metrics.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:19 AM
What? we were 16th in scoring points... where is this top 10 you speak of?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/year/2008

Yes, but there is a difference between points scored by the offense and points scored by the offense+ defense + special teams. I am speaking to the former.

outdoor_miner
10-20-2010, 09:20 AM
Of course they have to rebuild. That's what happens when you trade your QB, WR, and TE.

The hilarious part of this is that QB and WR are the least of our problems. So, he tore the team apart by raping Chicago in a trade and having one of the best WR cores in the league?

BroncoDoug
10-20-2010, 09:21 AM
Yes, but there is a difference between points scored by the offense and points scored by the offense+ defense + special teams. I am speaking to the former.

I would be interested in seeing that stat then. The just offense scored point stat or however you word it.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:25 AM
I would be interested in seeing that stat then. The just offense scored point stat or however you word it.

I put together a spread sheet on it recently, but I can't find it. Not that hard to do if you got 20 minutes.

jhns
10-20-2010, 09:27 AM
hell the kyle orton led bears scored more points then us that year

People are already explaining this but the Bears offense wasn't even close to this one. Take out the defensive and special teams scoring for both teams and you will see how ridiculous you are being. An easy way to do this is take out the return TDs from the scoring section on ESPNs team stats page.

baja
10-20-2010, 09:30 AM
It pisses me off every ****kking thread is hijacked to be about the same old song.


It was supposed to be a positive thread about how well the rookies are doing.

It's looking like we had one hell of a draft class.

Wanta talk about it ??? ???? ????

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 09:30 AM
It's depressing how a positive post by baja about some rookies to be pleased about went south so fast.

Usual suspects?


Apparently baja posted and feels the same way above.

Rascal
10-20-2010, 09:31 AM
zero progress huh...does the current 4-12 record, or hell 10-12 since he was coach, count as progress?

HILife
10-20-2010, 09:31 AM
Nice, very original :oyvey:
No, he already has torn this team apart.
The rebuilding word only comes up when we lose, as a way for the Mcdaniels supporters to cover for their beloved coach

The hate is strong in this one. Let the hate be with you.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8ouvkxcXt1qzqh3y.jpg

baja
10-20-2010, 09:33 AM
TJ too bad you don't see a few posters are driving away the guys that want to talk current Broncos football.

I'm sure you are aware you hit count is down because you are attempting to start several provocative threads.

jhns
10-20-2010, 09:34 AM
It pisses me off every *****king thread is hijacked to be about the same old song.


It was supposed to be a positive thread about how well the rookies are doing.

It's looking like we had one hell of a draft class.

Wanta talk about it ??? ???? ????

You are the one that brought up how horribel Shanahan was. As if you don't know that this instantly changes the subject of any thread. I do want to know what that 32 man list is but I will make my own thread so I don't hijack this further. You can all ignore the new thread since I doubt any of you that use that number know what they are talking about.

BigPlayShay
10-20-2010, 09:36 AM
I came up with 27 of the 32:

Boss Bailey
Tatum Bell
Cory Boyd
Nic Clemons
Keary Colbert
Ebenezer Ekuban
John Engelberger
Vernon Fox
Louis Green
Andre Hall
Chad Jackson
Darrell Jackson
Nate Jackson
Herana-Daze Jones
Calvin Lowry
Marquad Manuel
Marlon McCree
Chad Mustard
Michael Pittman
P. J. Pope
Jeb Putzier
Dewayne Robertson
Roderick Rogers
Cliff Russell
Josh Shaw
Nate Webster
Selvin Young

Rascal
10-20-2010, 09:36 AM
TJ too bad you don't see a few posters are driving away the guys that want to talk current Broncos football.

I'm sure you are aware you hit count is down because you are attempting to start several provocative threads.

Pretty sure TJ is smart enough to realize that board volume is tied to team performance. I'm sure he is also smart enough that a MB dynamic changes regularly as members leave/arrive. Hell, he has lost moderators due to the cyclical change.

bowtown
10-20-2010, 09:40 AM
It pisses me off every ******ing thread is hijacked to be about the same old song.


It was supposed to be a positive thread about how well the rookies are doing.

It's looking like we had one hell of a draft class.

Wanta talk about it ??? ???? ????

I'm partly to blame for that. I baited them early in the thread. My apolgies.

baja
10-20-2010, 09:40 AM
You are the one that brought up how horribel Shanahan was. As if you don't know that this instantly changes the subject of any thread. I do want to know what that 32 man list is but I will make my own thread so I don't hijack this further. You can all ignore the new thread since I doubt any of you that use that number know what they are talking about.

The mistake I make is trying to reason with a broken record.

insanity is trying the same action and expecting a different outcome. That is what I am doing when I try and point out some very telling truths about the Shanahan coached Broncos to some of you here.

Not that you care but your antics are killing a good discussion board.


Would you like to talk about the rookies (you know the implied purpose of this thread)? If not please do not quote me anymore.

HILife
10-20-2010, 09:41 AM
Sorry I will need more that a statement by Mediator (as knowledgeable as he is) to convince me that NFL teams routenely cut 32 out of 52 players every year and none of them ever play again.

Think about it, that's 3/5 of your team out of the league every year.

Sorry not buying it.

Teams like the:

Detroit Lions
Oakland Raiders
KC Chiefs
St. Louis Rams
etc.

dothis all the time. It's been working out well for them, always getting good draft picks.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:46 AM
Teams like the:

Detroit Lions
Oakland Raiders
KC Chiefs
St. Louis Rams
etc.

dothis all the time. It's been working out well for them, always getting good draft picks.

Conjecture and speculation.

HILife
10-20-2010, 09:47 AM
I came up with 27 of the 32:

Boss Bailey
Tatum Bell
Cory Boyd
Nic Clemons
Keary Colbert
Ebenezer Ekuban
John Engelberger
Vernon Fox
Louis Green
Andre Hall
Chad Jackson
Darrell Jackson
Nate Jackson
Herana-Daze Jones
Calvin Lowry
Marquad Manuel
Marlon McCree
Chad Mustard
Michael Pittman
P. J. Pope
Jeb Putzier
Dewayne Robertson
Roderick Rogers
Cliff Russell
Josh Shaw
Nate Webster
Selvin Young

Good times. I miss Chad Mustard, real team player. Always showed up for gameday.

HILife
10-20-2010, 09:49 AM
Conjecture and speculation.

Maybe so, but I know for a fact their coaching staff has a high turnover rate.

baja
10-20-2010, 09:49 AM
I am impressed with Quid's awareness and decisiveness on the field. He is playing and looking like an experienced player out there.

What was the trade we made to pick up the 2 7th round picks that brought us Thompson and ???

bowtown
10-20-2010, 09:50 AM
I am impressed with Quid's awareness and decisiveness on the field. He is playing and looking like an experienced player out there.

What was the trade we made to pick up the 2 7th round picks that brought us Thompson and ???

I could be wrong, but I think we traded next year's sixth and used the picks on Thompson and Kirlew. Kirlew was cut... maybe on the PS now?

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:50 AM
Maybe so, but I know for a fact their coaching staff has a high turnover rate.

I see no facts.

p.s. The Mrs. is hot.

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 09:52 AM
I see no facts.

p.s. The Mrs. is hot.

Alicia Keys

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 09:55 AM
people who complain about Josh "getting rid of talent" really have no leg to stand on

our team is better with those trades we made, he replaced whiney self absorbed talent with team players who are performing their roles just as well as the guys we got rid of

Hillis the lone exception

He can keep "getting rid of talent" if these are the kind of returns he can get as far as Im concerned


anywho I think this team is better than last years, but just havent put it together yet, hopefully some consistency will come as the year progresses

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 09:58 AM
I am impressed with Quid's awareness and decisiveness on the field. He is playing and looking like an experienced player out there.

What was the trade we made to pick up the 2 7th round picks that brought us Thompson and ???

Definitely impressed by the squid. The rooks on the oline have looked like rooks on the oline. Walton's looked both good and bad, so if he can fix the bad, he'll be good. Beadles has been moved around a lot, so to me he gets a pass until he has been somewhere awhile. DT has looked very good in limited action. We'll see.

I would have loved to have been 3-3 at this point in the schedule. That said, if we can handle our business against teams we 'should' beat the rest of the season, this could be a fun second half. The Baltimore game has me a bit worried, though.

55CrushEm
10-20-2010, 10:07 AM
Walton's looked both good and bad, so if he can fix the bad, he'll be good.

:rofl:

How insightful..........

outdoor_miner
10-20-2010, 10:10 AM
I am impressed with Quid's awareness and decisiveness on the field. He is playing and looking like an experienced player out there.

I agree. He looked real instinctual out there, and read Sanchez perfectly on the pick. He might be too short & slow to start, but he already looks better than Jones to me, and could be a perfect nickle back.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 10:11 AM
:rofl:

How insightful..........

You too. Thanks for the effort.

baja
10-20-2010, 10:15 AM
Ya that loss to the Jets was hard to take. Many of us felt we were still going to win after the Jets scored late with help from the PI call. This is a good sign when a good percentage of your fans think the team will win being behind by 4 points with a minute and fifteen seconds left. I haven't felt that way since #7 was behind center.

I expect to win the division this season.

jhns
10-20-2010, 10:19 AM
The mistake I make is trying to reason with a broken record.

insanity is trying the same action and expecting a different outcome. That is what I am doing when I try and point out some very telling truths about the Shanahan coached Broncos to some of you here.

Not that you care but your antics are killing a good discussion board.


Would you like to talk about the rookies (you know the implied purpose of this thread)? If not please do not quote me anymore.

How about you stop quoting me and derailing your thread. I was on topic until you took the thread off topic. I responded to your posts with posts about the subject of your posts.... Go ahead and read the thread again instead of acting like a child. You also have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Shanahan. It is the reason you stopped making dumb claims after it was being discussed with facts.

Also, I am not the reason people stop posting. I have had some of those posters rep me or talk on other boards with reasons for leaving. You want to know what it is every single time? The fact that they don't agree with everything McDaniels does so they get trolled until they leave. I know, it is so hard to fathom. That just never happens here!

So, about the rookies. Thomas looks like he could be a stud in the making and I hope Tebow can take the starting spot soon. The o linemen have been inconsistent but they are rookies. I love watching Cox play but he is also inconsistent. The other guys are special teams players and I haven't really watched them.

Rock Chalk
10-20-2010, 10:22 AM
Why yes he did:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935071&postcount=79

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2935105&postcount=93

32 out of 53.

Mediator talked about 30% roster turnover.

Denver just turned over TWICE that and NONE of them made another roster, not even for ONE offseason.

As for your retarded ****ing argument about the QB, WR and RB, get over it.

QB sucks balls, always has and always will. **** Cutler, he wanted out of town> You love him so much, go ****ing root for him.

WR was a disaster who was either A) Always in trouble or B) Causing problems on the team. And the RB, Hillis, was too stupid to pick up this offense AND always injured as he CURRENTLY is in Cleveland.

So **** off.

55CrushEm
10-20-2010, 10:27 AM
You too. Thanks for the effort.

Sorry, man. That just struck me as funny.

strafen
10-20-2010, 10:29 AM
It pisses me off every *****king thread is hijacked to be about the same old song.


It was supposed to be a positive thread about how well the rookies are doing.

It's looking like we had one hell of a draft class.

Wanta talk about it ??? ???? ????It was a "positive" post about the rookies UNTIL YOU put a plug in for Mcdaniels.
Have you had not been such a Mcdaniels shill, perhaps the thread wouldn't have gone off track.
Right?
You're so in love with Mcdaniels you can't wait for your next thread to idolize him and let people know how he's the best thing that ever happened to the Broncos...

Steve Prefontaine
10-20-2010, 10:30 AM
It pisses me off every *****king thread is hijacked to be about the same old song.


It was supposed to be a positive thread about how well the rookies are doing.

It's looking like we had one hell of a draft class.

Wanta talk about it ??? ???? ????

not sure whether to laugh or cry. i agree, but unfortunately you are one of the people that f*cked this thread up.

strafen
10-20-2010, 10:33 AM
The hate is strong in this one. Let the hate be with you.

How so?
Care to explain?
Let me know...

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 10:37 AM
not sure whether to laugh or cry. i agree, but unfortunately you are one of the people that ****ed this thread up.

He didn't deserve his thread to go off the rails for complimenting Josh for having what seems like a good draft class.

baja
10-20-2010, 10:37 AM
It was a "positive" post about the rookies UNTIL YOU put a plug in for Mcdaniels.
Have you had not been such a Mcdaniels shill, perhaps the thread wouldn't have gone off track.
Right?
You're so in love with Mcdaniels you can't wait for your next thread to idolize him and let people know how he's the best thing that ever happened to the Broncos...

So the fact we have ten rookies contributing on Sunday is not a reflection on McDaniels at all.

It would have been more relevant had I brought up Cutler or Hillis I see how your mind works. Buzz off

bowtown
10-20-2010, 10:38 AM
Also, I am not the reason people stop posting. I have had some of those posters rep me or talk on other boards with reasons for leaving.

The red rep means bad.

HILife
10-20-2010, 10:39 AM
I see no facts.

p.s. The Mrs. is hot.

She's mine, you can't have her! I love you baby. :)

baja
10-20-2010, 10:41 AM
not sure whether to laugh or cry. i agree, but unfortunately you are one of the people that ****ed this thread up.

Interesting. Could you show me how I did that.

HILife
10-20-2010, 10:44 AM
Sorry, man. That just struck me as funny.

Don't apologize. I thought John Madden made a funny too. LOL

HILife
10-20-2010, 10:46 AM
How so?
Care to explain?
Let me know...

I call them as I see them. Haters gonna hate.

Kaylore
10-20-2010, 10:49 AM
:rofl:

How insightful..........

:spit:

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 10:50 AM
Ya that loss to the Jets was hard to take. Many of us felt we were still going to win after the Jets scored late with help from the PI call. This is a good sign when a good percentage of your fans think the team will win being behind by 4 points with a minute and fifteen seconds left. I haven't felt that way since #7 was behind center.

I expect to win the division this season.

I had a feeling orton was going to choke......and laughed when he did

does that make me a bad fan?

BlaK-Argentina
10-20-2010, 10:51 AM
The Squid was really impressive. I have high hopes for the guy. (plus his nickname is awesome)

DT looked rusty to me, heck I don't even think his TD catch was a catch, but I'll take it. I'm sure he'll be a great WR someday. I have almost zero doubt. He looks like the complete package.

Tebow did ok. He looked like he had the better vision of any of our backs! Kinda slow though, but always seems to get positive yards which is exactly what this offense needs.

I love Cassius Vaughn on ST's, he always seems to make a play.

I didn't think Cox had a good game but I love his demeanor on the field. The guy plays with so much confidence that you can't help but like him. I'm sure he'll make a HUGE play for us sometime this year.

Drek
10-20-2010, 10:52 AM
I am impressed with Quid's awareness and decisiveness on the field. He is playing and looking like an experienced player out there.

What was the trade we made to pick up the 2 7th round picks that brought us Thompson and ???

2011 5th rounder.

It was a "positive" post about the rookies UNTIL YOU put a plug in for Mcdaniels.
Have you had not been such a Mcdaniels shill, perhaps the thread wouldn't have gone off track.
Right?
You're so in love with Mcdaniels you can't wait for your next thread to idolize him and let people know how he's the best thing that ever happened to the Broncos...

Who deserves credit for the solid class of rookies we added to the team this year then?

You claim when Baja idolizes McDaniels and looks for any reason to prop him up, but you're the one who came into a thread clearly focused on discussing something GOOD he's done and immediately started throwing up off-topic straw man arguments.

McDaniels didn't tear anything apart. He was dealt a raw deal from day one with a "franchise" QB who didn't want to be here, a pro-bowl WR who didn't want to be here, and the shadow of a future HOF head coach to work under.

Since then he's gone about taking a team with a defense and special teams competing for league worst honors and turned both units into solid to above average performers. He flushed a ton of veteran underachievers from the 2nd string which have been replaced by young, hungry talent.

Meanwhile he's constructed a top 5 passing offense despite significant injuries across the OL and in the backfield.

Oh, and one of our top 3 players is on IR.

We're 2-4 and the team needs to pick that up. But all the signs of being able to do so are there. McDaniels has the rest of this season to show that this won't be another Broncos team who can't win games in November and December. I'm expecting something between 6-4 and 8-2. How we finish this year, not how we played last year or how we've played to date this season, is what should ultimately decide the length of rope McDaniels gets for 2011. A strong finish this year and I'd be fine with just a playoff appearance in 2011. If we finish 8-8 then he needs to win the division to satisfy me. If he finishes below .500 then he better win at least one playoff game in 2011.

BlaK-Argentina
10-20-2010, 10:52 AM
I had a feeling orton was going to choke......and laughed when he did

does that make me a bad fan?

Wait... what?

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 10:53 AM
wait... What?

:d

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 10:56 AM
:d

Orton didn't choke.

BlaK-Argentina
10-20-2010, 10:59 AM
Orton didn't choke.

I have to believe he's kidding. Either that or he didn't watch the game.

Nice snap you MFing rookie!! :(

Man that still stings...

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 10:59 AM
bad snap, but fall on the ball you idiot!

DarkHorse30
10-20-2010, 11:02 AM
Definitely impressed by the squid. The rooks on the oline have looked like rooks on the oline. Walton's looked both good and bad, so if he can fix the bad, he'll be good. Beadles has been moved around a lot, so to me he gets a pass until he has been somewhere awhile. DT has looked very good in limited action. We'll see.

I would have loved to have been 3-3 at this point in the schedule. That said, if we can handle our business against teams we 'should' beat the rest of the season, this could be a fun second half. The Baltimore game has me a bit worried, though.

i like where we are at, especially after playing some of the best defenses in the league. I'm a little worried about facing great offenses, but Denver seems to be able to score a lot more easily this year compared to the tail end of last year.

I also like how Orton is never whining and always looks ready to heave it into the endzone. Maybe some of those deep throws are unnecessary when we are just trying to string a few first downs together. More dink and dunk please. I love those 8minute drives that end with a FB plowing into the endzone.

Bob's your Information Minister
10-20-2010, 11:03 AM
You guys are now where the Chiefs were two years ago.

Enjoy!

baja
10-20-2010, 11:11 AM
I had a feeling orton was going to choke......and laughed when he did

<b>does that make me a bad fan?

No. You used to be a good fan but now I don't think you are anymore than a troll on this board and not a very clever one at that. I think you are the possessor of a very mundane mind that is easily swayed by mildly manipulative people when they chose to work you. Patch for example, the Raiders fan that leads you around like his little puppy dog when he wants to play with you.

Time to run back to your little fish pond BB and gloat about how you slayed some Orange Mane punks.

Oh and tell the many good guys over there hi from baja fan.

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 11:13 AM
You guys are now where the Chiefs were two years ago.

Enjoy!

isn't a star trek convention you need to go dress up for?

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 11:30 AM
Urgh, people responding to Bob, listen, he's pathetic. There are Raiders fans who show up before and after the games for smack and then take their licks when they lose or gloat when they win. Bob shows up when the Chiefs are doing well (for them) and goes into hiding when they do badly. Look at the frequency of his posts. He's pathetic. A pathetic disease. He's Mono.

CEH
10-20-2010, 11:31 AM
You guys are now where the Chiefs were two years ago.

Enjoy!

Not even close

We have a QB and QBOTF, LT, CB, and pass rusher. Ayers is an up and comer as well. Cox looks to be the other CB opposite Champ

What I'd like is another RB, ILBEr,NT and play making safety.

We get get most of those with just this next draft having a 1st , 2 2nds plus adding one impact FA

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 11:31 AM
Urgh, people responding to Bob, listen, he's pathetic. There are Raiders fans who show up before and after the games for smack and then take their licks when they lose or gloat when they win. Bob shows up when the Chiefs are doing well (for them) and goes into hiding when they do badly. Look at the frequency of his posts. He's pathetic. A pathetic disease. He's Mono.

but it is fun :D

Cool Breeze
10-20-2010, 11:35 AM
Apparently there are those who think year 2 for Josh McDaniels should be Super Bowl bound... Patience!

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 11:37 AM
No. You used to be a good fan but now I don't think you are anymore than a troll on this board and not a very clever one at that. I think you are the possessor of a very mundane mind that is easily swayed by mildly manipulative people when they chose to work you. Patch for example, the Raiders fan that leads you around like his little puppy dog when he wants to play with you.

Time to run back to your little fish pond BB and gloat about how you slayed some Orange Mane punks.

Oh and tell the many good guys over there hi from baja fan.

LOL....now that was ****ing rich. Not only are you a liar, your ****ing clueless. You have absolutely no facts to back up one thing in this entire post

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 11:44 AM
:spit:

Both you two idiots knew what I meant. :peace:

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 11:45 AM
Urgh, people responding to Bob, listen, he's pathetic. There are Raiders fans who show up before and after the games for smack and then take their licks when they lose or gloat when they win. Bob shows up when the Chiefs are doing well (for them) and goes into hiding when they do badly. Look at the frequency of his posts. He's pathetic. A pathetic disease. He's Mono.

Hey dag, what do you think of the rookies?

Bob's your Information Minister
10-20-2010, 11:50 AM
Not even close

We have a QB and QBOTF

http://i52.tinypic.com/15rbac1.jpg

You either have one or none.

baja
10-20-2010, 11:52 AM
LOL....now that was ****ing rich. Not only are you a liar, your ****ing clueless. You have absolutely no facts to back up one thing in this entire post

All anyone has to do is go to your site a do a search of your posts.

As to the Patch thing any old timer that was witness to Patch and you around 9/11 will know what I am talking about.

Look you are who you are, doesn't bother me one bit. In fact I enjoy going around with you but your behavior is there for all to see. ;D

PS if you have no contribution to the thread topic, "Rookies playing well", than at least quit trolling K?

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 11:52 AM
http://i52.tinypic.com/15rbac1.jpg

You either have one or none.

the Chiefs have none and none

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 11:53 AM
http://i52.tinypic.com/15rbac1.jpg

You either have one or none.

One of the dumber cliches in football.

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 11:54 AM
All anyone has to do is go to your site a do a search of your posts.

As to the Patch thing any old timer that was witness to Patch and you around 9/11 will know what I am talking about.

Look you are who you are, doesn't bother me one bit. In fact I enjoy going around with you but your behavior is there for all to see. ;D

go ahead and do a search baja and bring the post's here on a separate thread in the off topics forum.

I guarantee you there isn't a single post over there from me that represents anything of which you claimed in the previous post.

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 12:01 PM
Hey dag, what do you think of the rookies?

Too early too tell. Cox has all the confidence on the planet but his performances haven't blown me away. DT looks good. Squid did well. Walton is having a rough time and wish he'd had a vet to learn behind for a year. Beadles looks great but that is coupled with the fear Harris is fading fast. Tebow is Jesus. Actually I thought it was weird hearing Tebow mention (via a couple of lindsay jones tweets on Monday) that not playing had been tough for him, I thought he'd be content to sit but reading those comments I believe he will start for us sooner than later to be honest.

baja
10-20-2010, 12:03 PM
go ahead and do a search baja and bring the post's here on a separate thread in the off topics forum.

I guarantee you there isn't a single post over there from me that represents anything of which you claimed in the previous post.

About you dissin this board on your board, I'm not going to play this game with you. If anyone is interested they can do their own search. It's easy to find.

The patch thing goes back awhile and is something I deduced after watching you be swayed to his will over a few pages of posts. Again no biggie some of us are easily swayed by more clever minds and you are one of them. IMO.

I said my piece and now I'm done with this.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 12:06 PM
Too early too tell. Cox has all the confidence on the planet but his performances haven't blown me away. DT looks good. Squid did well. Walton is having a rough time and wish he'd had a vet to learn behind for a year. Beadles looks great but that is coupled with the fear Harris is fading fast. Tebow is Jesus. Actually I thought it was weird hearing Tebow mention (via a couple of lindsay jones tweets on Monday) that not playing had been tough for him, I thought he'd be content to sit but reading those comments I believe he will start for us sooner than later to be honest.

I'm gonna have to see tebow throw a pass in a regular season game before I'll jump off the orton wagon. I don't know about 'great' for beadles, but like I said I'll give him a pass until they stop yanking him around.

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 12:06 PM
I said my piece and now I'm done with this.

LOL

you stepped on your dick and now you don't want to play anymore.

anyway, I still think Kyle Orton sucks ;D

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 12:07 PM
Well thats just ****ing retarded.

baja
10-20-2010, 12:08 PM
LOL

you stepped on your dick and now you don't want to play anymore.

anyway, I still think Kyle Orton sucks ;D

We can talk football.

How can you possibly think Orton sucks? I thought you were kidding

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 12:09 PM
I'm gonna have to see tebow throw a pass in a regular season game before I'll jump off the orton wagon. I don't know about 'great' for beadles, but like I said I'll give him a pass until they stop yanking him around.

I'm completely on the Neckbeard wagon. I just think in May we were all thinking Tebow after 2 years, from his comments, the fans reaction, McDaniels opinion of him and Ortons high value after this year will make us see him sooner.

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 12:10 PM
We can talk football.

How can you possibly think Orton sucks? I thought you were kidding

because hes a loser troll, u need to stop feeding him

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 12:11 PM
And I wonder if McD sees Harris' inability to stay healthy and is grooming Beadles for Tebows blindside?

bronco militia
10-20-2010, 12:12 PM
And I wonder if McD sees Harris' inability to stay healthy and is grooming Beadles for Tebows blindside?

maybe...Regardless, Beadles is playing better than Harris.

IMO, Harris came back too soon from the ankle injury

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 12:17 PM
my grades so far:
Tebow - I/N, havent seen enough to make a call
Thomas - B looks very good at times but has a long way to go, as with most rookie receivers
Beadles - C+, done some good things, but also made some mistakes as well, overall been pretty solid
Walton - F, been garbage but has time to improve so I havent given up on him
Cox - C+, like what I have seen for the most part but still has a lot to learn and improve on
Squid - B, hasnt played much but has done very well IMO when he has been in there
Vaughn - B+, very good special teams player, looks like a keeper

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 12:19 PM
And I wonder if McD sees Harris' inability to stay healthy and is grooming Beadles for Tebows blindside?

I am relatively sure that plays a part, Harris cannot be counted on, might as well get see what you got in Beadles

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 01:02 PM
my grades so far:
Tebow - I/N, havent seen enough to make a call
Thomas - B looks very good at times but has a long way to go, as with most rookie receivers
Beadles - C+, done some good things, but also made some mistakes as well, overall been pretty solid
Walton - F, been garbage but has time to improve so I havent given up on him
Cox - C+, like what I have seen for the most part but still has a lot to learn and improve on
Squid - B, hasnt played much but has done very well IMO when he has been in there
Vaughn - B+, very good special teams player, looks like a keeper

how does Cox get a C+ when he has started 3 games and Squid gets a B for an INT?

Popps
10-20-2010, 01:06 PM
Walton isn't an F.

He's struggled, but an F is way off. He's looked good at times. He's just got a long way to go. I think he's going to be a solid starter, eventually.

Rascal
10-20-2010, 01:09 PM
32 out of 53.

Mediator talked about 30% roster turnover.

Denver just turned over TWICE that and NONE of them made another roster, not even for ONE offseason.

As for your retarded ****ing argument about the QB, WR and RB, get over it.

QB sucks balls, always has and always will. **** Cutler, he wanted out of town> You love him so much, go ****ing root for him.

WR was a disaster who was either A) Always in trouble or B) Causing problems on the team. And the RB, Hillis, was too stupid to pick up this offense AND always injured as he CURRENTLY is in Cleveland.

So **** off.

lol...thanks for showing your maturity.

Drek
10-20-2010, 01:20 PM
my grades so far:
Tebow - I/N, havent seen enough to make a call
Thomas - B looks very good at times but has a long way to go, as with most rookie receivers
Beadles - C+, done some good things, but also made some mistakes as well, overall been pretty solid
Walton - F, been garbage but has time to improve so I havent given up on him
Cox - C+, like what I have seen for the most part but still has a lot to learn and improve on
Squid - B, hasnt played much but has done very well IMO when he has been in there
Vaughn - B+, very good special teams player, looks like a keeper

You really think giving a 3rd round rookie who has started every game an F makes sense?

It'll be interesting to see how Walton and Beadles are playing when the OL is in place and practicing together for more than just a week at a time. Until then its real hard to grade anyone on the OL.

Eldorado
10-20-2010, 01:22 PM
I give him an F just for the jets game. We should be 3-3. No, I am not overreacting.

baja
10-20-2010, 01:24 PM
my grades so far:
Tebow - I/N, havent seen enough to make a call
Thomas - B looks very good at times but has a long way to go, as with most rookie receivers
Beadles - C+, done some good things, but also made some mistakes as well, overall been pretty solid
Walton - F, been garbage but has time to improve so I havent given up on him
Cox - C+, like what I have seen for the most part but still has a lot to learn and improve on
Squid - B, hasnt played much but has done very well IMO when he has been in there
Vaughn - B+, very good special teams player, looks like a keeper

Tebow = B+ based on what he has been asked to do

Bay Bay = A based on being a rook that had no pre season and his play in the Seattle game

Beadles = B fact that he is starting over Harris

Walton = C+ based on the fact he has started every game and improved with every game he has played

Cox = B played great in spots played OK in spots had some rookie mistakes

Squid = C+ in limited play has looks like he belongs out there.

Vaughn = B for STs play

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 01:27 PM
maybe...Regardless, Beadles is playing better than Harris.

IMO, Harris came back too soon from the ankle injury

I think that and perhaps the toe injury is still effecting him. Same type of injury that ended Deon's career for the most part.

NYBronco
10-20-2010, 01:40 PM
The Walton F grade I don't agree with when you take into consideration the defenses the Broncos have played the past 4 games. Couple that with the offensive line musical chair routine the F grade is even less fair. I would say at minimum a C.

Rock Chalk
10-20-2010, 01:48 PM
Tebow = Incomplete. Too little time, has not had the chance to pass which ultimately is what a QB has to do in the NFL.

Bay Bay = B. Great potential here, and fantastic ability but he has run at least one wrong route that caused a pick and Im sure he has made other mistakes.

Beadles = A. Replacing harris, injured or not, has to give him an A.

Walton = D. I dont care what issues the line has faced, Walton has been flat out horrible in run blocking and has more penalties against him than any other lineman.

Cox = A-. Had a rough game against manning as a rookie, no surprise there but has been otherwise extremely reliable.

Squid = Incomplete. Not enough time to evaluate properly.

Vaughn = A. As a special teams player Vaughn is the BEST on the team in coverage units and its not even close.

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 01:55 PM
how does Cox get a C+ when he has started 3 games and Squid gets a B for an INT?

I am trying to incorporate draft position into the grade as well
Thompson hasnt played as much, but IMO has outplayed his draft position more so than Cox

I like them both, but the same principle applies for why I graded Vaughn so high
he doesnt play as much as Cox but he is a dynamo on special teams and so far is providing great value to where he was selected

perhaps its just me, but I really like what I have seen from the Squid even if it may not be that big of a sample

baja
10-20-2010, 02:06 PM
I am trying to incorporate draft position into the grade as well
Thompson hasnt played as much, but IMO has outplayed his draft position more so than Cox

I like them both, but the same principle applies for why I graded Vaughn so high
he doesnt play as much as Cox but he is a dynamo on special teams and so far is providing great value to where he was selected

perhaps its just me, but I really like what I have seen from the Squid even if it may not be that big of a sample

My grades don't reflect draft position.

I based my grades on their play on the field and took into consideration they were playing their first few games ever in the NFL. "C" being what you would expect them to play at.

Ray Finkle
10-20-2010, 02:06 PM
I am trying to incorporate draft position into the grade as well
Thompson hasnt played as much, but IMO has outplayed his draft position more so than Cox

I like them both, but the same principle applies for why I graded Vaughn so high
he doesnt play as much as Cox but he is a dynamo on special teams and so far is providing great value to where he was selected

perhaps its just me, but I really like what I have seen from the Squid even if it may not be that big of a sample

1 INT for a 7 rounder is worth more than 3 starts from a 5th? I understand your logic, just do not agree with it.

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 02:06 PM
You really think giving a 3rd round rookie who has started every game an F makes sense?

It'll be interesting to see how Walton and Beadles are playing when the OL is in place and practicing together for more than just a week at a time. Until then its real hard to grade anyone on the OL.

Im trying to find out what he does well
perhaps it may be a bit harsh to grade him as an F all facts considering, however if I were to put his play in a vacuum and judge his play alone I would give it an F

I do think he will improve though and did like the pick at the time, but he just doesnt look like he belongs out there IMO right now

CEH
10-20-2010, 02:09 PM
http://i52.tinypic.com/15rbac1.jpg

You either have one or none.

SD, Green Bay and Cinncy would beg to differ. Sitting for a year or two or four worked out well for them.

CEH
10-20-2010, 02:12 PM
Too early too tell. Cox has all the confidence on the planet but his performances haven't blown me away. DT looks good. Squid did well. Walton is having a rough time and wish he'd had a vet to learn behind for a year. Beadles looks great but that is coupled with the fear Harris is fading fast. Tebow is Jesus. Actually I thought it was weird hearing Tebow mention (via a couple of lindsay jones tweets on Monday) that not playing had been tough for him, I thought he'd be content to sit but reading those comments I believe he will start for us sooner than later to be honest.

I think Cox is the one rookie progressing with every game. First he wasn't getting his head turned around now in the last game the end zone shot to Holmes he played it well and he is usaully around the ball.

I for one am pleased with Cox to this point and only see him getting better

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 02:15 PM
1 INT for a 7 rounder is worth more than 3 starts from a 5th? I understand your logic, just do not agree with it.

Squid also hasnt had as much of an opportunity as Cox
I dont think Squid was drafted to be a starter though, and Cox does look like he can be a consistent starter in this league for a long time

I may be partial to the Squid, but I still was more impressed with what he did in his limited time than what Cox has done so far, and I am also taking into account special teams for the Squid

but regardless the difference between a C+ and B is pretty much immaterial, I dont have a strong conviction one way or the other

baja
10-20-2010, 02:28 PM
I'll tell you why you can't grade Walton at an "F".

If he were even a "D" we would have found someone viable to back him up in the least and more likely he would not be playing. An "F" grade is a great based on emotional reaction.

Truth is I doubt any of us are qualified to grade the O line.

baja
10-20-2010, 02:35 PM
It would be great if Kupe's dad would weight in on the progress of the O line.

Requiem
10-20-2010, 03:19 PM
Baja,

I know you are an optimist but anyone watching the games this year can see that Walton is playing like dog****.

baja
10-20-2010, 03:33 PM
Baja,

I know you are an optimist but anyone watching the games this year can see that Walton is playing like dog****.

I see lots of push up the middle and not many running lanes created but I also see very good pass protection.

Truth is I don't consider myself qualified enough to pin the woos of the offensive line on individual player/s.

I base my grade on Walton (C+) purely due to the fact he is still starting. I think if he had been playing at an 'D' or 'F' level he would have been benched and they would have found someone to replace him. They are not going to let a Rookie that grades an 'F' continue to start.

Popps
10-20-2010, 03:38 PM
Truth is I don't consider myself qualified enough to pin the woos of the offensive line on individual player/s..

None of us are really qualified. But, I do agree with your assessment that he's probably playing at around a C level, or McD would yank him.

Harris got benched, as I speculated he might a week or so back. I think if a guy is playing sloppy enough, McD is going to get him out of the lineup.

I think people will be pleasantly surprised with Walton, given time.

The line looked better as a whole last week. So, let's hope that's a sign of overall improvement.

Tombstone RJ
10-20-2010, 04:13 PM
It would be great if Kupe's dad would weight in on the progress of the O line.

I'll weigh in. The coaching staff is failing the offensive line... if you can't run block, you can't play football. Period.

errand
10-20-2010, 04:14 PM
Nice, very original :oyvey:
No, he already has torn this team apart.
The rebuilding word only comes up when we lose, as a way for the Mcdaniels supporters to cover for their beloved coach

...you know there are 31 other teams you could root for, ****ing:clown: .

errand
10-20-2010, 04:16 PM
Of course they have to rebuild. That's what happens when you trade your QB, WR, and TE.

...another way to look at it is "that's what happenes when you get rid of "me" first players and replace them with "team" first players

errand
10-20-2010, 04:18 PM
all teams have roster turnover. didn't mediator pretty much remove that excuse a while back?

i guess it never occurred to you clowns that perhaps McDaniels isn't looking for a "quick fix" solution to what has ailed the Broncos the past few years. He's looking at this team with a long term, big picture, dynasty building attitude. Anyone can be good a year or two...he wants us to be good for many seasons.

errand
10-20-2010, 04:26 PM
I put together a spread sheet on it recently, but I can't find it. Not that hard to do if you got 20 minutes.

all you have to do is subtract defensive and special teams scores from the total points scored. If your offense scores 350 points and had 3 int returns and 2 fumble returns and 1 KO return for TD's that's 350 minus 36 points...leaving a net of 314 offensive points right?

errand
10-20-2010, 04:32 PM
zero progress huh...does the current 4-12 record, or hell 10-12 since he was coach, count as progress?

What was Mike Shanahan's record after 22 games?

9-13

errand
10-20-2010, 04:43 PM
Maybe so, but I know for a fact their coaching staff has a high turnover rate.

Tom Landry hadn't enjoyed a winning season as Cowboys head coach until 1966....even enduring an initial 0-11-1 season. He was given a contract extension....and subsequently had 20 consecutive winning seasons, won 5 conference titles and 2 NFL titles.

doesn't mean McDaniels will have the same type of career...in fact few coaches do. But to start ripping him 22 games into it is pretty pathetic, when the guy you pine for in Washington had a worse record after 22 games as an NFL head coach with better all around talent

errand
10-20-2010, 04:52 PM
So the fact we have ten rookies contributing on Sunday is not a reflection on McDaniels at all.

It would have been more relevant had I brought up Cutler or Hillis I see how your mind works. Buzz off

...c'mon man! you know josh isn't why the rookies play good, he's only responsible for when they play bad. rookie forgets to go out on field for FG, "Josh needs to be fired" is all we hear fromm the usual clowns....rookie has good game, it's just pure luck to these clowns i guess

Reminds me of all those times when the Broncos struggled offensively, it was all "kubiak's an idiot", and when they scored at will it was all 'Mike's obviously calling the plays"

errand
10-20-2010, 04:59 PM
I had a feeling orton was going to choke......and laughed when he did

does that make me a bad fan?

why would you have a feeling he'd "choke"? and why would you laugh when he did?

...oh, and yes it does make you a bad fan.

Being a fan is like being a father....

you know your team isn't perfect, and has faults, but you love them anyways. Regardless....you hate it when they go thru struggles, and you love it when they're doing well. but you never ever think they're going to fail...and you certainly wouldn't laugh when they do.


I root for the Broncos regardless of who's the owner, coach, assistants, secretary, QB, RB, DT, ballboy, etc....then again, being the best Broncos fan ever ain't for everyone i guess

Dagmar
10-20-2010, 05:03 PM
What was Mike Shanahan's record after 22 games?

9-13

This is lies. I know it's not. But it is. The first 6 games of his career here didn't count! For some reason...

Drek
10-20-2010, 05:03 PM
And I wonder if McD sees Harris' inability to stay healthy and is grooming Beadles for Tebows blindside?

Beadles was drafted because Beadles could potentially play any of the five OL positions.

So he was brought in to groom as the starting LG or RT depending on need, possibly LT (if Clady wasn't healthy) or C (if we didn't get Walton in the 3rd).

He's exactly the kind of guy the Pats have been drafting in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds, coaching up across the line, and the plugging them in anywhere when a starter goes down.

Im trying to find out what he does well
perhaps it may be a bit harsh to grade him as an F all facts considering, however if I were to put his play in a vacuum and judge his play alone I would give it an F

I do think he will improve though and did like the pick at the time, but he just doesnt look like he belongs out there IMO right now

1. You can't grade OL in a vacuum, its simply rational, every OL's play depends on the guy next to him.

2. Even if you tried to grade Walton in a vacuum you can see that he hasn't been an abject failure. He's a below average starter to this point, sure, but he's not a complete failure which is what 'F' stands for.

Relative to draft position I don't see how Walton could be worse than a C. He's a 3rd rounder who has stepped in and started every game while literally every other OL spot has seen a musical chairs routine all through the pre-season and into the regular season.

errand
10-20-2010, 05:12 PM
This is lies. I know it's not. But it is. The first 6 games of his career here didn't count! For some reason...

Mike went 7-9 with Raiders in his first year...was 1-3 starting year two and summarily fired by Al Davis...his first two games in Denver he went 1-1. 8-12 with Raiders and 1-1 with Broncos in his first 22 games as an NFL head coach.

Br0nc0Buster
10-20-2010, 05:16 PM
Beadles was drafted because Beadles could potentially play any of the five OL positions.

So he was brought in to groom as the starting LG or RT depending on need, possibly LT (if Clady wasn't healthy) or C (if we didn't get Walton in the 3rd).

He's exactly the kind of guy the Pats have been drafting in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds, coaching up across the line, and the plugging them in anywhere when a starter goes down.



1. You can't grade OL in a vacuum, its simply rational, every OL's play depends on the guy next to him.

2. Even if you tried to grade Walton in a vacuum you can see that he hasn't been an abject failure. He's a below average starter to this point, sure, but he's not a complete failure which is what 'F' stands for.

Relative to draft position I don't see how Walton could be worse than a C. He's a 3rd rounder who has stepped in and started every game while literally every other OL spot has seen a musical chairs routine all through the pre-season and into the regular season.

Well perhaps it depends on the criteria for determining a grade on a player
I have seen more bad than good from Walton, and in some cases he has been really bad

He has been terrible in run blocking, and his pass pro is better, but he has also made mistakes in that department

How bad would a player have to play to warrant a D or F from you?
Is there something Walton is doing well that I have not mentioned?

quick example last year Tyson Jackson started most games for the Chiefs, but he was also god awful
by the reasoning of some here he should of received no grade lower than a C because he was a rookie who started a lot, etc... even though he was one of the worst starting defensive linemen in the league

I take into account Waltons disadvantages and look at those for why he will improve and why this isnt his ceiling, but because he might be the worst starting C in the league, I cant give him a favorable grade

RunSilentRunDeep
10-20-2010, 05:18 PM
Well there is your problem. That 32 didn't come from a 53 man roster. It came from about a 73 man roster because we had so many on IR that year.

Even 32 of 73 is ridiculous. There are 1696 active players in the NFL. Even if every draft pick (255 this year) and 60 undrafted free agents made it into the league, that would still represent only an 18% turnover. Promote every player from the practice squad the year before and you still fall short of the 44% turnover Denver had (and that's only factoring active guys, not IR).

Dedhed
10-20-2010, 05:23 PM
I came up with 27 of the 32:

Boss Bailey-Starter, and not qualified
Tatum Bell-Gross; 2nd rounder
Cory Boyd-"Crack is back"
Nic Clemons-Ugh
Keary Colbert-Seriously he would be twelth on the WR depth chart today, but "McDaniels destroyed the offense".
Ebenezer Ekuban-Old a$$ contributor, didn't have a place in the new scheme
John Engelberger-The fact that this guy started for the Broncos for years is just absurd.
Vernon Fox-GROSS
Louis Green-GROSSER
Andre Hall-Ahead of Hillis on the depth chart under Shanahan
Chad Jackson-Extra body
Darrell Jackson-Again, seriously?
Nate Jackson-See John Engelberger, only worse.
Herana-Daze Jones- WHO?
Calvin Lowry-Wouldn't make the roster at a top flight college school.
Marquad Manuel- shivers
Marlon McCree-heaves
Chad Mustard- Gotta give the mustard credit for being Shanny's little hooker
Michael Pittman-Servicable, but the fact that he was the starter by week 2 speaks volumes.
P. J. Pope-No words
Jeb Putzier- The Cowboy, no worse than Quinn, when did we draft him?
Dewayne Robertson- Another epic fail by Shanny in the DL department
Roderick Rogers-whatever
Cliff Russell-whatever
Josh Shaw-whatever
Nate Webster-Absolutley gross beyond words that this guy was a starter
Selvin Young-Meh

Niko Koutawhatever-Even worse than Webster if that is even possible, and given a huge paycheck.

crush17
10-20-2010, 05:25 PM
This errand fellow uses logic.

Head asplode!

;)

Dedhed
10-20-2010, 05:50 PM
I think Cox is the one rookie progressing with every game. First he wasn't getting his head turned around now in the last game the end zone shot to Holmes he played it well and he is usaully around the ball.

I for one am pleased with Cox to this point and only see him getting better

I noticed that too. He's been in great position on a lot of plays this year, but he has failed to find the football.

Sunday you could see that he started to trust that he was in position, and started looking for the football.

I expect two steps forward and one back for the rest of the year, but he's clearly got great skills and he is putting them to better use every week.

baja
10-20-2010, 05:51 PM
...c'mon man! you know josh isn't why the rookies play good, he's only responsible for when they play bad. rookie forgets to go out on field for FG, "Josh needs to be fired" is all we hear fromm the usual clowns....rookie has good game, it's just pure luck to these clowns i guess

Reminds me of all those times when the Broncos struggled offensively, it was all "kubiak's an idiot", and when they scored at will it was all 'Mike's obviously calling the plays"

Ya, guess the old adage is true, "The more things change the more they stay the same.

It just makes me realize how completely subjective our world really is.

One long time poster here said just this morning that Orton was a crappy quarterback.

Now granted he is helped by a great system that he knows how to use but I contend that (brains) has to come under the talent umbrella too. Orton is a smart quarterback with improving physical skills how can you 'see' that as ****ty?

Rascal
10-20-2010, 07:42 PM
i guess it never occurred to you clowns that perhaps McDaniels isn't looking for a "quick fix" solution to what has ailed the Broncos the past few years. He's looking at this team with a long term, big picture, dynasty building attitude. Anyone can be good a year or two...he wants us to be good for many seasons.

Can't make an argument without insulting somebody. Nice.

Rascal
10-20-2010, 07:51 PM
What was Mike Shanahan's record after 22 games?

9-13

lol...you want to use his record as a Raiders coach? Seriously? You also fail to recognize that the raiders had a 5-10 record the year before he was hired so he actually improved their record. Furthermore, who cares what his record was at another team. I don't care about them...I care about the Broncos (which by the way he immediately improved their record over the previous year). In case you forget...

1995 8-8
1996 13-3

surely you know the rest...

baja
10-20-2010, 08:33 PM
And you are missing the fact that this is normal. You are also missing the fact that the 32 number came from a bloated roster because lots of guys were injured that year. There were many players on that roster that Shanahan didn't even want, he had to go pick up guys like Tatum because of injuries. They didn't take those 32 from a 53 man roster...

That's a fair assessment. Did you ever make that thread listing all the players on Shanny's final roster that never played again in the NFL.

Drek
10-20-2010, 08:46 PM
How bad would a player have to play to warrant a D or F from you?
Is there something Walton is doing well that I have not mentioned?


Simple. Failure from a 3rd round pick is not making the team or being buried on the bench as a non-contributor.

Someone actually starting is obviously not as big a failure as that. In fact, he's provided more than a rookie OL who is just a backup.

A bad starter is still better than almost all the backups in the league at his position.

Now if you want to talk about someone like Tyson Jackson, well, you're expecting something different out of a top 10 pick versus a 3rd round pick. That said, I still wouldn't even give Jackson an 'F' for last year. Too many draft picks, including first rounders, never start to label those who do as failures.

HILife
10-20-2010, 09:11 PM
Tom Landry hadn't enjoyed a winning season as Cowboys head coach until 1966....even enduring an initial 0-11-1 season. He was given a contract extension....and subsequently had 20 consecutive winning seasons, won 5 conference titles and 2 NFL titles.

doesn't mean McDaniels will have the same type of career...in fact few coaches do. But to start ripping him 22 games into it is pretty pathetic, when the guy you pine for in Washington had a worse record after 22 games as an NFL head coach with better all around talent

what? Did you even read what I wrote. I never once ripped into McD. Not even talking about McD, I was talking about some other teams. When did I say anything about wanting Shanny back?

Br0nc0Buster
10-21-2010, 09:19 AM
Simple. Failure from a 3rd round pick is not making the team or being buried on the bench as a non-contributor.

Someone actually starting is obviously not as big a failure as that. In fact, he's provided more than a rookie OL who is just a backup.

A bad starter is still better than almost all the backups in the league at his position.

Now if you want to talk about someone like Tyson Jackson, well, you're expecting something different out of a top 10 pick versus a 3rd round pick. That said, I still wouldn't even give Jackson an 'F' for last year. Too many draft picks, including first rounders, never start to label those who do as failures.

Well the fact he starts seems to be a sticking point for you, but that does not really impress me or does not reflect positive on him for me and heres why:

His only hurdle to the starting spot was practice squad trash Dustin Frye, as you well know Hochstein was injured in TC.

As for right now, as bad as Walton has been, the alternatives are not that good either. Cant put Hoch in at C because he has to play LG. Bringing in someone who has been sitting on their butts for 6 weeks and teaching them our offense would not provide any significant immediate benefits either.

I think Josh screwed the pooch putting all his eggs seemingly in the Walton basket, because had we signed a veteran C who at the very least didnt suck for Walton to compete with, I think Walton right now would be on the bench where he belongs

SonOfLe-loLang
10-21-2010, 10:00 AM
Well the fact he starts seems to be a sticking point for you, but that does not really impress me or does not reflect positive on him for me and heres why:

His only hurdle to the starting spot was practice squad trash Dustin Frye, as you well know Hochstein was injured in TC.

As for right now, as bad as Walton has been, the alternatives are not that good either. Cant put Hoch in at C because he has to play LG. Bringing in someone who has been sitting on their butts for 6 weeks and teaching them our offense would not provide any significant immediate benefits either.

I think Josh screwed the pooch putting all his eggs seemingly in the Walton basket, because had we signed a veteran C who at the very least didnt suck for Walton to compete with, I think Walton right now would be on the bench where he belongs

They went hard after Hadnot, but his asking price was too high.

Drek
10-21-2010, 10:27 AM
Well the fact he starts seems to be a sticking point for you, but that does not really impress me or does not reflect positive on him for me and heres why:

His only hurdle to the starting spot was practice squad trash Dustin Frye, as you well know Hochstein was injured in TC.

As for right now, as bad as Walton has been, the alternatives are not that good either. Cant put Hoch in at C because he has to play LG. Bringing in someone who has been sitting on their butts for 6 weeks and teaching them our offense would not provide any significant immediate benefits either.

I think Josh screwed the pooch putting all his eggs seemingly in the Walton basket, because had we signed a veteran C who at the very least didnt suck for Walton to compete with, I think Walton right now would be on the bench where he belongs
Mawae has been sitting out for the entire season, we even brought him in briefly.

The fact is, they saw and are still seeing enough out of him to be willing to ride out these growing pains. We've been an incredibly active FO and shown a clear willingness to bring guys up to speed while pushing them into a job. We haven't even made a move to try someone else.

We even still have Eric Olsen on the roster who played center his senior year at ND and knows the system, but the coaching staff is still fine with Walton being out there.

You can't gauge Walton's performance entirely in a vacuum ignoring the OL struggles next to him. All you can go by is the facts. He's a 3rd rounder who has started every game for us and is showing constant improvement. If that is an 'F' on your scale then I'd love to know what a guy like Jarvis Moss grades out as.

Br0nc0Buster
10-21-2010, 12:08 PM
Mawae has been sitting out for the entire season, we even brought him in briefly.

The fact is, they saw and are still seeing enough out of him to be willing to ride out these growing pains. We've been an incredibly active FO and shown a clear willingness to bring guys up to speed while pushing them into a job. We haven't even made a move to try someone else.

We even still have Eric Olsen on the roster who played center his senior year at ND and knows the system, but the coaching staff is still fine with Walton being out there.

You can't gauge Walton's performance entirely in a vacuum ignoring the OL struggles next to him. All you can go by is the facts. He's a 3rd rounder who has started every game for us and is showing constant improvement. If that is an 'F' on your scale then I'd love to know what a guy like Jarvis Moss grades out as.

well the Jarvis Moss comment perhaps could point out that McD may keep a player on the roster who is absolutely terrible because he sees something in them. The only difference is that Moss has better verterans ahead of him(well did), so he didnt have to get on the field. Walton had really no one to compete with.

At this point in the season though there are no hidden gems to choose from, perhaps the fact no one has sniffed Mawae is because he isnt worth a roster spot anymore

If you prefer to group Walton because the Oline plas together that is fine, that is what I would normally do but in the spirit of this thread I tried to break down individual performances
Our interior line has been getting worked though, and I seem to notice Walton getting beat and screwing up more often than Kuper and Hochstein

Tombstone RJ
10-21-2010, 12:16 PM
lol...you want to use his record as a Raiders coach? Seriously? You also fail to recognize that the raiders had a 5-10 record the year before he was hired so he actually improved their record. Furthermore, who cares what his record was at another team. I don't care about them...I care about the Broncos (which by the way he immediately improved their record over the previous year). In case you forget...

1995 8-8
1996 13-3

surely you know the rest...

Shanny was epic his first 4 years as HC. If the Broncos would have won the playoff game against Jacksonville in 1996 and made it to the SB, that would have solidified his legacy as a HoF coach IMHO...

As for comparing McD to Shanny, you do have to admit that Elway was one of the main reasons Shanahan had so much success initially. Shanny and Elway had a great relationship and it was very fruitful. Unfortunately McD does not have Elway.

And, don't even think of comparing Frown Cannon to Elway. If you even slightly go there, you will have lost any and all of my respect for you as a poster.

Rascal
10-21-2010, 01:08 PM
Shanny was epic his first 4 years as HC. If the Broncos would have won the playoff game against Jacksonville in 1996 and made it to the SB, that would have solidified his legacy as a HoF coach IMHO...

As for comparing McD to Shanny, you do have to admit that Elway was one of the main reasons Shanahan had so much success initially. Shanny and Elway had a great relationship and it was very fruitful. Unfortunately McD does not have Elway.

And, don't even think of comparing Frown Cannon to Elway. If you even slightly go there, you will have lost any and all of my respect for you as a poster.

How many SBs did Elway win before Shanny? I didn't bring up Shanny. Errand brought him up. I said that those claiming McD has made progress are full of it as evidenced by the 4-12 record we have in the last 16 games.

"McD doesn't have Elway"...good grief...when will people stop making excuses for this guy? It's one thing after another.

Who is Frown Cannon? No offense, but I don't care in regards to your last sentence.

bronco militia
10-21-2010, 01:11 PM
Who is Frown Cannon? No offense, but I don't care in regards to your last sentence.

CUTLER****ER, THAT'S WHO!!!!

http://www.kcchiefsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/PhilipRivers.jpg

huh?!?! what??1?1

**** YOU!!

Ha!

Drek
10-21-2010, 01:49 PM
well the Jarvis Moss comment perhaps could point out that McD may keep a player on the roster who is absolutely terrible because he sees something in them. The only difference is that Moss has better verterans ahead of him(well did), so he didnt have to get on the field. Walton had really no one to compete with.

At this point in the season though there are no hidden gems to choose from, perhaps the fact no one has sniffed Mawae is because he isnt worth a roster spot anymore

If you prefer to group Walton because the Oline plas together that is fine, that is what I would normally do but in the spirit of this thread I tried to break down individual performances
Our interior line has been getting worked though, and I seem to notice Walton getting beat and screwing up more often than Kuper and Hochstein

Hochstein only just got in the starting lineup a couple games ago. Prior to that Daniels was screwing up the majority of his snaps and got benched.

And again, Walton does have competition. Eric Olsen.

Moss wasn't exactly facing bullish competition his first few years here and he still couldn't hang onto a starting job for any real length of time. A first round pick who's never sniffed a consistent starting job. That is an 'F' right there. A 3rd struggling as a starter? Definitely not an 'F'.

d bronx42
10-21-2010, 01:53 PM
What Perrish Cox is doing with one of the most embarrassing pass rush defenses that ive ever seen, is nothing short of amazing...

26 tackles, 10 pass deflections, 1 INT, 1 FF.

:strong:

CEH
10-21-2010, 02:25 PM
What Perrish Cox is doing with one of the most embarrassing pass rush defenses that ive ever seen, is nothing short of amazing...

26 tackles, 10 pass deflections, 1 INT, 1 FF.

:strong:

I agree he's a stud and a fixture for years to come.
Just ask Champ

Drek
10-21-2010, 03:18 PM
What Perrish Cox is doing with one of the most embarrassing pass rush defenses that ive ever seen, is nothing short of amazing...

26 tackles, 10 pass deflections, 1 INT, 1 FF.

:strong:

This defense will look massively different when we have Doom and Ayers back in 2011.

baja
10-21-2010, 03:22 PM
This defense will look massively different when we have Doom and Ayers back in 2011.

There should be a way to activate a IR player for the playoffs if he is ready.

This would make the game better.

I'm thinking of Doom here of course.

baja
10-21-2010, 03:59 PM
I just realized something Tebow is Hillis with a brain.

kmartin575
10-21-2010, 04:07 PM
If you don't think Josh McDaniels is rebuilding the Denver Broncos at warp speed think again.

Awesome, so they will be ready to step when 3/4 of your defense retires in a couple of years because they are all over 30.

Br0nc0Buster
10-21-2010, 04:07 PM
Hochstein only just got in the starting lineup a couple games ago. Prior to that Daniels was screwing up the majority of his snaps and got benched.

And again, Walton does have competition. Eric Olsen.

Moss wasn't exactly facing bullish competition his first few years here and he still couldn't hang onto a starting job for any real length of time. A first round pick who's never sniffed a consistent starting job. That is an 'F' right there. A 3rd struggling as a starter? Definitely not an 'F'.

well there is no way to know how good Olsen is, he could be OK or he could suck as well
I dont really consider the fact Walton has beaten out other mid round rookies and practice sqad fodder much of an accomplishment, and I dont think Walton has beaten legit competition, at leas the kind I would of preferred

well I guess if Jarvis is the measure for F, then Walton would get a higher grade from me
but Jarvis is one of the worst picks of our franchise history I would think given all that we gave up to get him, if he is the measure for F I doubt very many players would ever reach that level

baja
10-21-2010, 04:18 PM
Awesome, so they will be ready to step when 3/4 of your defense retires in a couple of years because they are all over 30.

On really!

Goodmen is being replaced by Cox now...

Dawkins has two guys behind him that have started games and look promising

Champ has a couple years most likely and then a few more years as a safety

We got a young guy coming on (Marcus Thomas) on the DL and we need one more good starter.

We need a LB too

We can fill all our D needs easily in the draft and / or FA.