PDA

View Full Version : Which would you prefer, to finish 7-9 or to have a TOP 5 pick?



Lonestar
03-22-2008, 11:49 AM
We took a poll last year in OCT and it was split on:

Which would you prefer, to finish 7-9 or to have the #1 pick?
here is last years poll:
http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3123


Now that we have finished the season and we all know who is in the draft and who finished ahead of us. Where we draft and the likely choices of those in front of us.

It may be time to revisit the question would you rather bite the bullet one year and get a chance to draft some real top talent or have a mediocre couple of years while we attempt to REBUILD via the draft..

Since Elam won 4 games last year with last second heroic FG's the question remains would you rather be 3-13 for one year getting the number 2 or 3 and 34 or 35 this year or 12 and 42?

shank
03-22-2008, 12:00 PM
in a purely retroactive sense, i would rather go 3-13. that's with the knowledge i have now of our needs, the probable draft order, player depth, FA signings...

when we finished the season knowing that we would be picking 12, i was very excited to be in position to grab a guy like ellis, and wouldn't have wanted to be any higher as it's a lot more money to pay for dorsey for perhaps a small increase in play and injury concerns...

but now that both are out of our reach, as is clady, i would obviously rather be sitting with a higher pick and all the options in the world, including trading down, which would be amazing from that high of a pick.

but never during the season, even in week 16-17 did i hope that we would lose to increase our draft status. would it have eased the pain of the loss? sure, it would, but i never hoped for it, and i cheered like i always do when we beat the vikings.

BOSSHOGG30
03-22-2008, 12:08 PM
going 7-9 sucked, I don't think I can manage too many more seasons like that one. I can't imagine actually being worse than that. I would have to think it would suck even more.

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 12:14 PM
What purpose does this serve? It doesn't change our record or our draft position.

MOtorboat
03-22-2008, 12:32 PM
What purpose does this serve? It doesn't change our record or our draft position.

With all due respect, nothing we discuss has any bearing on anything the Broncos actually do.

lex
03-22-2008, 12:41 PM
7-9 is as bad as it gets. Its the worst draft position while at the same time having a losing record. You might as well bite the bullet and cash in on losing. We would have been much better off losing to Minnesota that last game. It was a hollow win and the difference between 9 and 12 is the equivalent of a 3rd round pick. Shanahan should have used that game to evaluate personnel, Ryan Harris for example.

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 12:42 PM
With all due respect, nothing we discuss has any bearing on anything the Broncos actually do.


No kidding, however we've already gone down this road with this subject. Someone else brought it up months ago it's old hat.

Davii
03-22-2008, 12:43 PM
I would much rather 7-9 than 3-13. I want the Bronco's to win as many games as possible every year.

As was said earlier, a 7-9 season sucked bad enough, a 3-13 season would be a lot worse to watch.

Lonestar
03-22-2008, 12:55 PM
I would much rather 7-9 than 3-13. I want the Bronco's to win as many games as possible every year.

As was said earlier, a 7-9 season sucked bad enough, a 3-13 season would be a lot worse to watch.

Not even for the pay off of picking up TWO real potential studs that would/could help be the back bone of this team for along time.. DT,OLT or DE.

Either of the longs Dorsey or Ellis in the first. Or potentially being able to pick up 2 or 3 more first day choices..

4 hollow wins last year vs a stable of top draft choices for the future..

There is no doubt in my mind which way to go.. Take the choices and finally get some stability on this team..

Had our drafting been worth a damn in 2000-2005 we probably would not be having this conversation..

fcspikeit
03-22-2008, 01:05 PM
We took a poll last year in OCT and it was split on:

Which would you prefer, to finish 7-9 or to have the #1 pick?
here is last years poll:
http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3123


Now that we have finished the season and we all know who is in the draft and who finished ahead of us. Where we draft and the likely choices of those in front of us.

It may be time to revisit the question would you rather bite the bullet one year and get a chance to draft some real top talent or have a mediocre couple of years while we attempt to REBUILD via the draft..

Since Elam won 4 games last year with last second heroic FG's the question remains would you rather be 3-13 for one year getting the number 2 or 3 and 34 or 35 this year or 12 and 42?

Right now knowing how it all turned out I would say I want the better picks :D

If you asked me if we should tank next season I would say, HELL NO!!!

It's always easier after the fact to except a losing season. At the time I wanted us to win as many games as we could... If we would have lost to Min, we would be picking 9th. I was still rooting for us to win...


I wrote this in another thread, but it works a lot better here so I figured I would post it again..


If we were guaranteed 2 Studs in the draft It would be worth trading a 7-9 season with no playoffs for a 3-13, 4-12 season. But we both know it's not that simple..

First we would have to draft 2 studs, then we would have to over come beings losers. Look at all the perennial losers around the league.. Some just can't get out of it.. Your best players leave to play for a winning team, the only way you get FA to come play for you is if you over pay like the Raiders..

If we look at the contract life's in the NFL you just can't keep everyone. Even if your only 4 key players away, by the time it takes to fill the needs you start losing the first players you drafted..

I believe you can consistently build a good/great team through the draft in the later rounds. Just look at the Pats, Colts and Pitt, it isn't luck. You can find starters in every round. Granted the % drops in each round, Even we have hit it big in the 4th and came away with B.Marsh and Doom..

We don't need a top 5 RB to succeed like other teams do. What position to we really need a top 5 pick for? DT, OT... All our other needs can be met in the later rounds.. If we are drafting well, we can trade our picks or drafted players to move up in the top 10 to get the couple studs we need...

The problem is the same as it has always been, we just don't draft well.. If we could hit on 2 more Marshalls we could trade them for 2nd round picks.. Look at Atl, they drafted Schwab (SP) high, even though they didn't need a starting QB at the time. They got like 2 1st round picks for him... The best way to build value is to take the BVA (Best Value Available)...

In other wards, If we took Joe Flacco in the 2nd round, it could really pay off for us. Who here would come unglued with that pick? That is also another good reason we should take Stewart in the 2nd if he were there. It's hard to use your 1st pick to gain value, but you can do it by grabbing the top players that fall to the later rounds..

Understand what I'm saying? How many of the top WR's are worth a # 1 in trade compared to QB's, DT's, RB's, and DE? Even the top CB's like Hall go for 2nd round picks in trade.. If you take a WR, TE, CB, S, G, C, in the 2nd it is a good pick if your only trying to address a need. But if your trying to build value, you wont get anymore for them in trade even if they pan out.

Look at the Pats.. A lot of times they will take the highest Value on the board, People will wonder why they drafted at the position because they didn't have a need there. Then they will trade that player for high future 1st round picks.

All I'm saying is if you want to build up your draft value, you can do it without being a loser. First, you have to look at the draft as a way to build value instead of just trying to fill holes. Then you have to be able to draft well.

IMO, you use your 1st pick to feel a need and then if you have the chance to grab someone who fell to the 2nd and 3rd you take them... Just like what we have done in the past with our late round RB's... If you can draft a guy in the 5th then trade him for a 3rd you have gained value... That's what sucks about this years tenders. We are gaining no value. We're only getting back what we gave.

I am not trying to bash Mikey here, I'm just not sure he understands this? The better GM's in the league do and that's why they always have a lot of talent or at least the ability to trade their excess for players of need.

lex
03-22-2008, 01:12 PM
Right now knowing how it all turned out I would say I want the better picks :D

If you asked me if we should tank next season I would say, HELL NO!!!

It's always easier after the fact to except a losing season. At the time I wanted us to win as many games as we could... If we would have lost to Min, we would be picking 9th. I was still rooting for us to win...


I wrote this in another thread, but it works a lot better here so I figured I would post it again..


If we were guaranteed 2 Studs in the draft It would be worth trading a 7-9 season with no playoffs for a 3-13, 4-12 season. But we both know it's not that simple..

First we would have to draft 2 studs, then we would have to over come beings losers. Look at all the perennial losers around the league.. Some just can't get out of it.. Your best players leave to play for a winning team, the only way you get FA to come play for you is if you over pay like the Raiders..

If we look at the contract life's in the NFL you just can't keep everyone. Even if your only 4 key players away, by the time it takes to fill the needs you start losing the first players you drafted..

I believe you can consistently build a good/great team through the draft in the later rounds. Just look at the Pats, Colts and Pitt, it isn't luck. You can find starters in every round. Granted the % drops in each round, Even we have hit it big in the 4th and came away with B.Marsh and Doom..

We don't need a top 5 RB to succeed like other teams do. What position to we really need a top 5 pick for? DT, OT... All our other needs can be met in the later rounds.. If we are drafting well, we can trade our picks or drafted players to move up in the top 10 to get the couple studs we need...

The problem is the same as it has always been, we just don't draft well.. If we could hit on 2 more Marshalls we could trade them for 2nd round picks.. Look at Atl, they drafted Schwab (SP) high, even though they didn't need a starting QB at the time. They got like 2 1st round picks for him... The best way to build value is to take the BVA (Best Value Available)...

In other wards, If we took Joe Flacco in the 2nd round, it could really pay off for us. Who here would come unglued with that pick? That is also another good reason we should take Stewart in the 2nd if he were there. It's hard to use your 1st pick to gain value, but you can do it by grabbing the top players that fall to the later rounds..

Understand what I'm saying? How many of the top WR's are worth a # 1 in trade compared to QB's, DT's, RB's, and DE? Even the top CB's like Hall go for 2nd round picks in trade.. If you take a WR, TE, CB, S, G, C, in the 2nd it is a good pick if your only trying to address a need. But if your trying to build value, you wont get anymore for them in trade even if they pan out.

Look at the Pats.. A lot of times they will take the highest Value on the board, People will wonder why they drafted at the position because they didn't have a need there. Then they will trade that player for high future 1st round picks.

All I'm saying is if you want to build up your draft value, you can do it without being a loser. First, you have to look at the draft as a way to build value instead of just trying to fill holes. Then you have to be able to draft well.

IMO, you use your 1st pick to feel a need and then if you have the chance to grab someone who fell to the 2nd and 3rd you take them... Just like what we have done in the past with our late round RB's... If you can draft a guy in the 5th then trade him for a 3rd you have gained value... That's what sucks about this years tenders. We are gaining no value. We're only getting back what we gave.

I am not trying to bash Mikey here, I'm just not sure he understands this? The better GM's in the league do and that's why they always have a lot of talent or at least the ability to trade their excess for players of need.

The thread topic poses the question whether its better to finish 7-9 or, say, 3-13. Its not asking whether the team should tank it or not.

NameUsedBefore
03-22-2008, 01:21 PM
There's so much more to it, though. If you're 3-13 you are 3-13 for a reason: your team sucks. If you're 7-9 you are either on your way up or way down. I'll go glass half-full with 7-9. At 3-13 I'm not really sure if you 'have' a glass to begin with.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-22-2008, 01:36 PM
I don't think you people realize exactly how much I rock my Denver gear. I'm in Steeler/Browns country and I'm all Orange and Ble like 90% of the time. We were at an Easter Egg hunt this AM so my wife and kids could meet some of my coworkers familes. Noone had to guess who my kids belonged to bcuz of them having Broncos gear on. When people hear news about the Broncos, I ALWAYS get calls, emails etc telling me what happened or they thought of me. And this is from people from High School, college and my old jobs.

Top 5 pick? no thanx. I can't have that many people realizing how miserable I am.

Hoshdude7
03-22-2008, 01:36 PM
I hate when we lose to Div rivals, so I choose 7-9

fcspikeit
03-22-2008, 01:38 PM
The thread topic poses the question whether its better to finish 7-9 or, say, 3-13. Its not asking whether the team should tank it or not.

Well that's easy then... We don't have a 3 - 13 team, we have a 7 - 9 team, is that the answer you were looking for? :D


If we had the team we have now, of course I would rather have a top 5 pick... If we had to have a 3 - 13 team to get in the top 5 that's pretty easy too. Hell no!


I would rather be 7 - 9 and picking in the top 5. Who wouldn't? :confused:

You can't have it both ways... You can't be a middle of the pack team and get a top 5 pick. If we really were a 3 - 13 team we would need more then a top 5 pick would fix..

SmilinAssasSin27
03-22-2008, 01:40 PM
The only draft spot I am "happy" with is #32.

claymore
03-22-2008, 01:43 PM
The only draft spot I am "happy" with is #32.
Yeah, I cant take losing. I almost always call in sick if we lose cause it hurts so much. Last year played hell on me, I had to dig into my leave time. :tsk:

Lonestar
03-22-2008, 02:59 PM
So let me get this straight some of you would rather have losing season at 7-9 and get possible starters in the draft than have 3-13 losing season and almost be guaranteed two starters in the draft.. If not starters HIGH impact players for the next 4-15 years..

Let me add here losing close games is not a sin, losing blowouts is a problem and frankly guys and gals we got our asses kicked a few times last year. What I was talking about mostly are the 4 games we won with elams last second kicks..

There is no dishonor losing close games, as beat up as this team was last year IMHO.


A season very easily explained away with the massive amounts of injuries we had last year.

To me it is He who laughs best laughs last..

I understand having pride in your team, but what is worse going 3-13 or getting blowout out in nationally televised Playoff game or worse yet a Superbowl or three?

I have been a Bronco fan since I was given tickets to the season opener in SEP 1960. Went to every game that season using my buddies dad season tickets. I got an extra summer job JUST to buy them during that next summer bought my own..

Requiem / The Dagda
03-22-2008, 03:29 PM
Had the Broncos not drafted who they did in 2006; this would easily be one of the worst teams in football. We were lucky to be 7-9 this past year.

Higher picks, all the time.

lex
03-22-2008, 03:31 PM
Well that's easy then... We don't have a 3 - 13 team, we have a 7 - 9 team, is that the answer you were looking for? :D


If we had the team we have now, of course I would rather have a top 5 pick... If we had to have a 3 - 13 team to get in the top 5 that's pretty easy too. Hell no!


I would rather be 7 - 9 and picking in the top 5. Who wouldn't? :confused:

You can't have it both ways... You can't be a middle of the pack team and get a top 5 pick. If we really were a 3 - 13 team we would need more then a top 5 pick would fix..

No, apparently its not easy. The thread question is would you rather go 7-9 or, say, 3-13 and end up with a top 5 pick. Its not asking what our record was this past season.

turftoad
03-22-2008, 03:35 PM
Niether record is very respectable but I would have to say 7 - 9.

It's to tough watching us lose. If you're crappy enough to go 3 - 13 you pretty much know you're not going to win.
7-9 is pretty close to 500 so a least while watching the game you think you might have a fighting chance.

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 04:46 PM
So let me get this straight some of you would rather have losing season at 7-9 and get possible starters in the draft than have 3-13 losing season and almost be guaranteed two starters in the draft.. If not starters HIGH impact players for the next 4-15 years..

Let me add here losing close games is not a sin, losing blowouts is a problem and frankly guys and gals we got our asses kicked a few times last year. What I was talking about mostly are the 4 games we won with elams last second kicks..

There is no dishonor losing close games, as beat up as this team was last year IMHO.


A season very easily explained away with the massive amounts of injuries we had last year.

To me it is He who laughs best laughs last..

I understand having pride in your team, but what is worse going 3-13 or getting blowout out in nationally televised Playoff game or worse yet a Superbowl or three?

I have been a Bronco fan since I was given tickets to the season opener in SEP 1960. Went to every game that season using my buddies dad season tickets. I got an extra summer job JUST to buy them during that next summer bought my own..

Bottom most fans prefer that the team win games rather than lose them.

What kind of arguement is it to ask what's worse going 3-13 or getting blownout out in playoff games or the Super Bowl. It's all bad but even worse to go 3-13. If the team is 3-13 there more wrong with it that one draft can fix. Losing in the playoffs or even the Super Bowl you might be only one good draft away winning it all.

threefolddead
03-22-2008, 05:10 PM
7 and 9 for sure... What fan wants to see their team tank to get a draft prospect which may or may not pan our? They are usually overpaid and under preductive. If you seriously think you can live through a three win season, I hope your planning on being in a comma because thats where I'd want to be.

tripleoption
03-22-2008, 05:47 PM
I'd rather be 7-9 than 3-13 any day. If you're 7-9, you may not be that far off from 10-6 or better. At 3-13, you know you suck, and like TXBRONC pointed out, you've probably got more problems than the second pick in the draft will fix. Besides, there is no guarantee the 2nd pick in the draft will even work out for you. How many times have we seen high draft picks get injured or simply just not perform as expected? Of course, there is no guarantee a lower first round pick will work out either, but that's the way the draft is. When you're talking first round talent, everyone is pretty good anyways. I just hate the idea of tanking a season to get a first or second pick when it isn't guaranteed that first or second pick will even pan out.

Tned
03-22-2008, 05:50 PM
So let me get this straight some of you would rather have losing season at 7-9 and get possible starters in the draft than have 3-13 losing season and almost be guaranteed two starters in the draft.. If not starters HIGH impact players for the next 4-15 years..


Yep, I would rather be .500ish every year than have the 2-3 win seasons that 'might' result in a stockpile of talent and a short run at the top. Look at all the teams that spend multiple years in that 2-4 win range and STILL don't go all the way. Having a 3 win season guarantees nothing except the guarantee of that 3 win season being very disapointing to the fans.

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 06:03 PM
Yep, I would rather be .500ish every year than have the 2-3 win seasons that 'might' result in a stockpile of talent and a short run at the top. Look at all the teams that spend multiple years in that 2-4 win range and STILL don't go all the way. Having a 3 win season guarantees nothing except the guarantee of that 3 win season being very disapointing to the fans.

Exactly. The Bengals spent 10 years in the top ten and all it netted them was one winning season. How many top ten number one picks did they have that didn't work out?

BeefStew25
03-22-2008, 06:07 PM
If we had a team that wanted to lose games for draft position, they would all be losers.


You never lay down. Never.

Bronco9798
03-22-2008, 06:10 PM
I just want to win and have a chance at the end.

shank
03-22-2008, 07:00 PM
how does no one understand what jr is asking?

he's not asking if you wished that we tanked games to get a higher draft pick.

and anyone who says that if you go 3-13 then it MEANS you are a terrible team, so you'd rather be 7-9 because it MEANS you're not all that bad:

jr is asking, "what if jason elam had missed the 4 kicks that won us games this season?" because that's HOW CLOSE we actually came to being a 3-13 team this year... we didn't go 7-9 because we are a good team. yes we found ways to win games, but we truly were 4 field goals away from being a bottom-of-the-barrel team with a top 5 pick.

those 4 kicks obviously made a couple of you guys feel like we aren't a bad football team, but those 4 kicks also left us as a nearly 3-13 team with a draft pick out of reach of the players that will help us the most.

aberdien
03-22-2008, 07:24 PM
3-13

Because it would be due to Cutler, Marshall, Bailey, Scheffler, and Lynch being injured the whole season.

Lonestar
03-22-2008, 07:43 PM
how does no one understand what jr is asking?

he's not asking if you wished that we tanked games to get a higher draft pick.

and anyone who says that if you go 3-13 then it MEANS you are a terrible team, so you'd rather be 7-9 because it MEANS you're not all that bad:

jr is asking, "what if jason elam had missed the 4 kicks that won us games this season?" because that's HOW CLOSE we actually came to being a 3-13 team this year... we didn't go 7-9 because we are a good team. yes we found ways to win games, but we truly were 4 field goals away from being a bottom-of-the-barrel team with a top 5 pick.

those 4 kicks obviously made a couple of you guys feel like we aren't a bad football team, but those 4 kicks also left us as a nearly 3-13 team with a draft pick out of reach of the players that will help us the most.


Finally some one gets it..

At no time in this thread have I suggested we tank a game..

Had mikey played a mixture of players that last game and to find out what kind of talent we had to go after and we lost the game. We would have been picking 8 instead of 12.

Did that last win fulfill your season? Did it make up for the getting our asses handed to us by several teams?
To me all it did was push us back farther in the draft.. I had no glee after that win.. Nor in the other games that Jason saved our asses with a last second FG.

We all saw how bad this team was.. for lots of reasons:
Lepsis was a shadow of his former self.
Nalen went down mid season.
Hamilton had concussion issues.
Pears may never be RT.
Javon was hurt.
Thenry had his mind on everything but football.
Our redzone offense sucks for lots of reasons.

OUR DLINE sucked we were almost last in Run defense.
DJ was learning a new position AGAIN.
gold what can I say about his play.
We had safety issues last year.

Special teams sucked so bad, they cut Hixon who turned out to be special.

We had two bright spots last year Marshal and Jays development. PERIOD

This team has alot of young talent that mixed in with 3-4 top talent players this year could be the bed rock of this team for the next decade.

Picking at 3 though 6 certainly opens up options that we have never HAD.

Options on great can't miss players that other teams have been getting for decades.

Now it is true that CIN, CLE, DET, CHI, PHX, SFO, OAK and other teams have wasted talent in the top ten.. But mostly was because their head coaches sucked OR they had really lousy front offices or owners..

Does anyone think that Mikey is not a great HEAD coach or Pat Bowlen is not one of the best owners? NOW I do not like what has happened over the past decade in the draft, but ALMOST everyone believes that the Broncos have turned that around.

Why would anyone think that we would blow a #3 and 35 pick on a stiff . Or what make you think we could not have traded the 3 through 6 to someone for a boatload of picks this years.And with whatever picks we have could turn this franchise around in one year instead of 3-4 that it may take to get back to super bowl years most are thinking right now.

Last but not least, #1 draft choices can get hurt and no matter if they were picked at #3 or 16 like last year crap happens those are rolls of the dice..

Now rethink your positions is there anyone here that would rather pick at 12 this year rather where we probably really should be between 3 and 6.

If Y'all will just admit that this team did really not deserve most of those games you will let the anger go..

fcspikeit
03-22-2008, 07:51 PM
No, apparently its not easy. The thread question is would you rather go 7-9 or, say, 3-13 and end up with a top 5 pick. Its not asking what our record was this past season.

Do you really not get it? :confused:

The only way we could have went 3-13 last year with this team and the players we have is if we tanked games.. History tells us we were a lot better then 3-13 last year.

If we're not talking about tanking games, then the only other way is if we had even worse players then we have now. So no. I don't wish we had a 3-13 football team. If we could have the same team we have now, with the same players, I of course would rather have a top 5 pick.. The only way that happens is if a 7-9 calibur team got a top 5 pick..


It's a ripple affect, we can't just be 3-13 with a 7-9 calibur team. Unless there are consequences.. I am not willing to except the consequences

shank
03-22-2008, 07:54 PM
Do you really not get it? :confused:

The only way we could have went 3-13 last year with this team and the players we have is if we tanked games.. History tells us we were a lot better then 3-13 last year.

If we're not talking about tanking games, then the only other way is if we had even worse players then we have now. So no. I don't wish we had a 3-13 football team. If we could have the same team we have now, with the same players, I of course would rather have a top 5 pick.. The only way that happens is if a 7-9 calibur team got a top 5 pick..


It's a ripple affect, we can't just be 3-13 with a 7-9 calibur team. Unless there are consequences.. I am not willing to except the consequences

4 field goals.

Lonestar
03-22-2008, 08:05 PM
Do you really not get it? :confused:

The only way we could have went 3-13 last year with this team and the players we have is if we tanked games.. History tells us we were a lot better then 3-13 last year.

If we're not talking about tanking games, then the only other way is if we had even worse players then we have now. So no. I don't wish we had a 3-13 football team. If we could have the same team we have now, with the same players, I of course would rather have a top 5 pick.. The only way that happens is if a 7-9 calibur team got a top 5 pick..


It's a ripple affect, we can't just be 3-13 with a 7-9 calibur team. Unless there are consequences.. I am not willing to except the consequences


We were not a 7-9 team. OUR defense sucked ST sucked, the only thing remotely positive was Marshall and Jay. they got experience and we found out who we wanted to keep and get rid of..

Beyond that really was a pathetic season.. sure we won a few that snatched defeat out of now where but that really gets us nowhere but limbo land. where we are today not good enough to stand toe to toe with SAN to duke it out. They laughed at us in the last game.. they taunted us from their sidelines. because they are that much more talented team than we were..

DET kicked our ass comeone call a spade a spade..

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 08:48 PM
If we had a team that wanted to lose games for draft position, they would all be losers.


You never lay down. Never.

It's totally unprofessional.

fcspikeit
03-22-2008, 10:06 PM
4 field goals.


Why stop there? If Cutler threw a couple more INT's and Young had a few more fumbles, maybe we could have lost every game.. How awesome would that have been? :elefant: :elefant: We would have had the 1st overall pick


The kicks Elam made in OT, even if missed didn't mean we would have lost the game...




We were not a 7-9 team. OUR defense sucked ST sucked, the only thing remotely positive was Marshall and Jay. they got experience and we found out who we wanted to keep and get rid of..

Beyond that really was a pathetic season.. sure we won a few that snatched defeat out of now where but that really gets us nowhere but limbo land. where we are today not good enough to stand toe to toe with SAN to duke it out. They laughed at us in the last game.. they taunted us from their sidelines. because they are that much more talented team than we were..

DET kicked our ass comeone call a spade a spade..

Chalk it up any way you want Jr but we were a 7-9 team and guess what... 100 years from now, we will still have been a 7-9 team in 2007.. That's like saying Pitt didn't really beat the Seahawks because the refs helped them, guess what, they are waring their rings and the have the trophy..


We got our asses handed to us in the Superbowl 3 times with Elway... Most didn't even have us ranked as the best team in the AFC, Let alone the 2nd best team in the NFL. What did those 3 loses get us? I remember being laughed at for sticking up for the Broncos and Elway.. It would have been easier for us never to have gone... If you take back all those last minute drives by Elway we never would have went. Would that have been better? They are all for nothing right?

Except for this, if Elway wasn't the King of the comeback, he wouldn't have been Elway. That's why you try your hardest to win every game! Because your a freaking winner! Losers want to lose, Elway wanted to win as many games as he could, Cutler wants to win as many games as he can. If he didn't I wouldn't want him on my team.

Elway was asked what he wants to be remembered for, He said, I want to be remembered as a winner! Of everything he had done, he was the most proud of holding the most Carrier wins of any QB.. Their supposed to want to be winners! Fans are supposed to want their team to win!

You can feel however you want, But I am glad Cutler and the rest of our Broncos got 7 wins last year instead of 4...

TXBRONC
03-22-2008, 10:39 PM
Chalk it up any way you want Jr but we were a 7-9 team and guess what... 100 years from now, we will still have been a 7-9 team in 2007.. That's like saying Pitt didn't really beat the Seahawks because the refs helped them, guess what, they are waring their rings and the have the trophy..

It's ridiculous for anyone to say were were not a 7-9. The record book says we were 7-9 not 3-13.

shank
03-23-2008, 12:16 AM
it's an effing hypothetical!!!

we are ONLY 7-9 because elam kicked 4 field goals through. without those field goals we are a 3-13 team which HAS to make you realize that we have a LOT of holes in our roster.

jr is asking if you would prefer to have just lost those close games so that we would currently be in a situation where we can better fill the many holes that we have.

it's not a complicated question, no one is implying that we will be remembered as a 3-13 team, we aren't saying that we should have tanked games for a better draft spot.. stop putting words in other people's mouths.

if you prefer a 7-9 record from a team that was lucky to have achieved it, and a #12 overall pick, then please feel free to say so and provide backing reasoning. that's what jr is asking for.

Retired_Member_001
03-23-2008, 09:23 AM
3-13 in my opinion.

Unless we have an amazing draft (which we most likely won't), then we are bound to win only 5,6 games and that really doesn't mean anything. I would prefer to have the #2 pick. It also looks like Bowlen is going to hire a real GM next year (this year is Shanahan's last chance) so we may actually draft some real talent at the #2 next year.

This is a dreadful post to have to make but I'd prefer to go 3-13 than 6-10, 5-11.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-23-2008, 09:37 AM
our schedule next year consists of:

The faders and chiefs twice each
the jets
the dolphins
the bills
the panthers
the buccaneers
the saints
the falcons

The major problem games will be vs the patriots, browns, SD twice and jax.

So that is only 5 games vs teams who are clearly better than us, a few who are likely our equals (currently), and a good number vs bad teams. We CAN win next year. We're not winning the SB, but we can go 10-6, 9-7. The O will be improved assuming the health is there and the D can't get any worse.

Tned
03-23-2008, 09:55 AM
During the football season, I more or less live and die by the Broncos. Every once in a while life deals a big enough blow to realize the above statement is ridiculous, but in between those body blows of life, the Broncos are my focus.

When they win, I am happy and get online to listen to the KOA postgame locker room interviews, watch the press conferences, record and watch all the FSRM shows and get pumped up for the next game. Grumble about how long the gap is when the Broncos are on a bye week. When I am on vacation or traveling for work, I 'figure out' a way to watch the game. It has been at a Hooters, a Fridays sports bar in Orlando, staying up until the equivalent of 3 am central time on the first day of our honeymoon in Hawaii to watch the time delayed broadcast of the Broncos playing the Redskins (and losing).

When they lose, I do most of those same things, but I mope through the week, cringe when reading the articles or watching the shows if it was a bad loss, but always look forward to the "any given Sunday" and the fact that Broncos could, or hopefully should, win that next Sunday (or Monday, Saturday or Thursday).

Intellectually, I get the concept of "let the Broncos have a 3 win season, so we can get a great player and become great again". The problem is that just as many teams spend years or even decades as bottom dwellers then there are that have one down season, restock and become world beaters.

So, I look at it this way. Since the number of teams that have 'one' bad season and take that draft and make themselves into worldbeaters is 'tiny' and that the reality is that teams that go through rebuilding phases typically have multiple (2, 3, 10) low, single digit win seasons and still often don't get good enough to go all the way, before they start the rebuilding process once again, I would rather cherish every Broncos win I can, while I can rather than hoping for 3 win seasons in the 'hope' that it might lead to 13 win seasons down the road.

Day1BroncoFan
03-23-2008, 01:15 PM
I didn't see an option for how I would like it so I voted for other.

I would always like to win the most games possible. I cannot pick a comfort level between 3-7 games.

Just play to win this week is all (whatever week it happens to be).

fcspikeit
03-23-2008, 03:49 PM
it's an effing hypothetical!!!

we are ONLY 7-9 because elam kicked 4 field goals through. without those field goals we are a 3-13 team which HAS to make you realize that we have a LOT of holes in our roster.

jr is asking if you would prefer to have just lost those close games so that we would currently be in a situation where we can better fill the many holes that we have.

it's not a complicated question, no one is implying that we will be remembered as a 3-13 team, we aren't saying that we should have tanked games for a better draft spot.. stop putting words in other people's mouths.

if you prefer a 7-9 record from a team that was lucky to have achieved it, and a #12 overall pick, then please feel free to say so and provide backing reasoning. that's what jr is asking for.


Why are you getting so bent out of shape? :confused:

Of course its an "effing hypothetical!!!" Whats wrong with giving a hypothetical answer? I more then answered the question...



"Their supposed to want to be winners! Fans are supposed to want their team to win!

You can feel however you want, But I am glad Cutler and the rest of our Broncos got 7 wins last year instead of 4..."

dogfish
03-24-2008, 02:43 AM
i'll take drosey or gholston for 1,000 please, alex. . . .


7 wins is nothing to beat your chest about. . .

lex
03-24-2008, 09:23 AM
how does no one understand what jr is asking?

he's not asking if you wished that we tanked games to get a higher draft pick.

and anyone who says that if you go 3-13 then it MEANS you are a terrible team, so you'd rather be 7-9 because it MEANS you're not all that bad:

jr is asking, "what if jason elam had missed the 4 kicks that won us games this season?" because that's HOW CLOSE we actually came to being a 3-13 team this year... we didn't go 7-9 because we are a good team. yes we found ways to win games, but we truly were 4 field goals away from being a bottom-of-the-barrel team with a top 5 pick.

those 4 kicks obviously made a couple of you guys feel like we aren't a bad football team, but those 4 kicks also left us as a nearly 3-13 team with a draft pick out of reach of the players that will help us the most.

Or, what if Denver hadnt scrapped Bates system during the bye week before the Pittsburgh game? Or what if Jay would have been out for a long period of time as was initially reported when he was injured in the Detroit game? Or what if KC would have played in a less pathetic division...we are picking at 12 and we actually have 2 division teams picking in front of us.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 09:25 AM
Or, what if Denver hadnt scrapped Bates system during the bye week before the Pittsburgh game? Or what if Jay would have been out for a long period of time as was initially reported when he was injured in the Detroit game?

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:28 AM
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? :confused:

Of course its an "effing hypothetical!!!" Whats wrong with giving a hypothetical answer? I more then answered the question...

Were those answers to the original question or the ones youve made up?

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 09:28 AM
I can't believe that we have 13 people who would rather lose more games just so they can get a higher draft pick. How retarded! I hope they are all votes from other than Broncos fans.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:31 AM
If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.


Thats great. No one wants to hear about your aunt's balls. Someone said the only way to go 3-13 would be to tank it. We werent THAT far away from 3-13 without tanking it. I know we didnt finish 3-13, so its inane to point that out.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:33 AM
I can't believe that we have 13 people who would rather lose more games just so they can get a higher draft pick. How retarded! I hope they are all votes from other than Broncos fans.

Its more about SBs and losing is losing. If youre going to lose, you might as well get somethign out of it. The more you get out of it, the more your chances of SBs are enhanced.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 09:34 AM
Thats great. No one wants to hear about your aunt's balls. Someone said the only way to go 3-13 would be to tank it. We werent THAT far away from 3-13 without tanking it. I know we didnt finish 3-13, so its inane to point that out.

We were 7-9. If that makes you bitter, I am sorry.

frauschieze
03-24-2008, 09:35 AM
I get something out of losses.......heartache and indigestion.

No thanks. Give me 7-9. And I was happy as hell to go out with that 'meaningless' win over the Vikings.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 09:35 AM
Its more about SBs and losing is losing. If youre going to lose, you might as well get somethign out of it. The more you get out of it, the more your chances of SBs are enhanced.

Yeah, I mean Arizona generally picks high every year, and their Super Bowl rings look great!

lex
03-24-2008, 09:36 AM
We were 7-9. If that makes you bitter, I am sorry.

I knew you would say that and thats why I said I know we were 7-9. Again, an inane point to make.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 09:37 AM
Its more about SBs and losing is losing. If youre going to lose, you might as well get somethign out of it. The more you get out of it, the more your chances of SBs are enhanced.

Lex are you really Tracy Porter?

lex
03-24-2008, 09:41 AM
Yeah, I mean Arizona generally picks high every year, and their Super Bowl rings look great!

San Diego became good by picking high. Carolina went from being dreadful to being in the SB two years later. In 2006 Tampa Bay sucked but last year they were good. And besides that, if Cutler is as good as everyone hopes, that right there it a major distinction between us and a lot of teams that habitually pick high. Nice try though.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 09:45 AM
San Diego became good by picking high. Carolina went from being dreadful to being in the SB two years later. In 2006 Tampa Bay sucked but last year they were good. And besides that, if Cutler is as good as everyone hopes, that right there it a major distinction between us and a lot of teams that habitually pick high. Nice try though.

I think it has nothing to do with draft picks, but the parity of the league. That is the great part. Even though you are menstrating because of our 7-9 season, we still have the chance to make a run next year.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 09:50 AM
San Diego became good by picking high. Carolina went from being dreadful to being in the SB two years later. In 2006 Tampa Bay sucked but last year they were good. And besides that, if Cutler is as good as everyone hopes, that right there it a major distinction between us and a lot of teams that habitually pick high. Nice try though.

How many Super Bowls do those teams have in the salary cap era?

lex
03-24-2008, 09:51 AM
I think it has nothing to do with draft picks, but the parity of the league. That is the great part. Even though you are menstrating because of our 7-9 season, we still have the chance to make a run next year.

Interesting. Ive always kind of thought that Carolina has benefited substantially by having Julius Peppers on the team. Besides, doesnt parity undermine your own argument that finishing with a top 5 pick is a death sentence? Good work. I love it when people torpedo their own argument, inflammatory posturing aside.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:53 AM
How many Super Bowls do those teams have in the salary cap era?

Carolina went to a SB, TB won a SB, and SD is currently a contender to go to the SB. Plus I like our chances if Shanahan is armed with talent.

frauschieze
03-24-2008, 09:55 AM
Carolina went to a SB, TB won a SB, and SD is currently a contender to go to the SB.

And Denver has won two Super Bowls.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 09:55 AM
Carolina went to a SB, TB won a SB, and SD is currently a contender to go to the SB. Plus I like our chances if Shanahan is armed with talent.

So you goal is to get to the Super Bowl... not win it... Good plan.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:56 AM
So you goal is to get to the Super Bowl... not win it... Good plan.


No, Id rather win it.

lex
03-24-2008, 09:57 AM
And Denver has won two Super Bowls.

Indeed they have...which is why Id like our chances if you gave Shanahan top shelf talent.

frauschieze
03-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Indeed they have...which is why Id like our chances if you gave Shanahan top shelf talent.

Let's see here.....of perennial top 5 pickers....we have one SB winner, one trip to the SB and a SB contender.

Or we have a two time SB winner who is a perennial contender and doesn't draft well.

Yeah...that's pretty clear. I'll go with scenario number two please, bad drafting and all.

lex
03-24-2008, 10:09 AM
Let's see here.....of perennial top 5 pickers....we have one SB winner, one trip to the SB and a SB contender.

Or we have a two time SB winner who is a perennial contender and doesn't draft well.

Yeah...that's pretty clear. I'll go with scenario number two please, bad drafting and all.

If Denver is such a perennial contender, why is cashing in on one bad season so bad? The more talent we get as a result of that one bad season, the more we become a contender, no?

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 10:13 AM
If Denver is such a perennial contender, why is cashing in on one bad season so bad? The more talent we get as a result of that one bad season, the more we become a contender, no?

Telling your team to lay down will nuture nothing but losers.

frauschieze
03-24-2008, 10:15 AM
If Denver is such a perennial contender, why is cashing in on one bad season so bad? The more talent we get as a result of that one bad season, the more we become a contender, no?

I want a team who wins, who strives to win as much as possible, every game, every year. Packing it in is not acceptable.

lex
03-24-2008, 10:18 AM
Not really. I think we all see you dish it out underhanded every day. You are big boy.


And I also get admonished for it too. You should see the maelstrom of mod activity I create. Do you really want to go down that path? And I know they dont keep me around for making inane posts. Would you be able to say the same thing if you went down that road?

lex
03-24-2008, 10:19 AM
Telling your team to lay down will nuture nothing but losers.


I want a team who wins, who strives to win as much as possible, every game, every year. Packing it in is not acceptable.

No one is saying that.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 10:23 AM
And I also get admonished for it too. You should see the maelstrom of mod activity I create. Do you really want to go down that path? And I know they dont keep me around for making inane posts. Would you be able to say the same thing if you went down that road?

yeah, obviously you have a line into Dove Valley...please don't leave.

lex
03-24-2008, 10:26 AM
yeah, obviously you have a line into Dove Valley...please don't leave.

That response really had nothing to do with the post you quoted. I see your content of your posts has de-evolved from inane to ad hominem attacks and finally to sarcasm.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 10:29 AM
If the Broncos organization ever becomes one that is known for tanking games just so they can get a better draft pick, they will have one less fan. I for one have pride in the Broncos commitment to excellence and for their desire to play hard and win as many games as they can each year regardless of what their playoff chances really are.

lex
03-24-2008, 10:40 AM
If the Broncos organization ever becomes one that is known for tanking games just so they can get a better draft pick, they will have one less fan. I for one have pride in the Broncos commitment to excellence and for their desire to play hard and win as many games as they can each year regardless of what their playoff chances really are.

Thats great but they still would have been better off going 3-13 than 7-9. And that could be said without saying they should have tanked games.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Thats great but they still would have been better off going 3-13 than 7-9. And that could be said without saying they should have tanked games.

As long as Denver has Shanahan and the organizational structure they currently have, they would have to tank games to be 3-13.

HolyDiver
03-24-2008, 11:35 AM
I'd rather go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl.

frauschieze
03-24-2008, 11:37 AM
I'd rather go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl.

Dear HD,

19-0.

Love,
Cheese

HolyDiver
03-24-2008, 11:48 AM
Dear HD,

19-0.

Love,
Cheese


right.

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 11:56 AM
I'd rather go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl.


So would everyone but we all know that with the existing talent on this team that is really unlikely to happen after struggling to a 7-9 record.

I love to see all the posts on never laying down because it is a bad thing.. Winning at all costs is a good thing..

HolyDiver
03-24-2008, 12:03 PM
So would everyone but we all know that with the existing talent on this team that is really unlikely to happen after struggling to a 7-9 record.

I love to see all the posts on never laying down because it is a bad thing.. Winning at all costs is a good thing..

I would atleast like to do better than last season by a game or two........so, 8-8- or 9-7..............The hell with losing games to get high picks.............Now, if this season goes like last year, and it comes down to the last game of the season.........like last season against Minnesota. I will probably hope for a loss. If the Vikings had beaten us, we would be drafting 9th instead of 12th.

Rex
03-24-2008, 12:04 PM
If 7-9 means the Broncos finish ahead of the Chiefs.....I am for that.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 12:09 PM
If you have a top 5 pick that means you have a lot more problems to fix than adding a top 5 talent to the team. The teams that have improved because of having a top 1st round pick have also done the necassary additions and subtractions to the the team in the later rounds and in free agency to improve. Many teams that have the #1 or #2 pick look to trade back because they don't want to pay a player the type of money it usually takes after you draft such an elite draft prospect. Also, the teams understand they need to add additional picks to fill all the weaknesses the team may have.

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 12:14 PM
Dear Fans:

The draft is highly overrated. Especially high draft choices.

Sincerely,

Mike Shanahan

HolyDiver
03-24-2008, 12:16 PM
Well, Vernon Davis hasn't lite the world on fire yet. We seem to draft better in the later rounds anyway. Actually, having a top 12 pick somewhat concerns me.

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 12:24 PM
If you have a top 5 pick that means you have a lot more problems to fix than adding a top 5 talent to the team. The teams that have improved because of having a top 1st round pick have also done the necassary additions and subtractions to the the team in the later rounds and in free agency to improve. Many teams that have the #1 or #2 pick look to trade back because they don't want to pay a player the type of money it usually takes after you draft such an elite draft prospect. Also, the teams understand they need to add additional picks to fill all the weaknesses the team may have.

We were realistically 4 plays away from 7-9 to 3-13.. That is what I have been trying to get across to this forum..

While we made those 4 plays, are you all really that proud of this team of last year.. Of the coaching, of the talent acquisitions we have had since mikey has taken over?

I for one am not and frankly have very little faith that mikey will have a third great draft in a row.. Unless Pat intervenes or this "new" scouting department has more influence than in the past, it is still mikey making the call.

While he is/was a great offensive mind, his being in charge the past 15 or so years has driven this team, for whatever excuses the mikey lovers can conjure up, from a Superbowl winner ten years ago to being 4 plays away from a 3-13 season..

He has been totally responsible for it demise.. Actually Pat is, but he has placed up to this years all his faith in mikey to run his team..

HolyDiver
03-24-2008, 12:25 PM
We were realistically 4 plays away from 7-9 to 3-13.. That is what I have been trying to get across to this forum..

While we made those 4 plays, are you all really that proud of this team of last year.. Of the coaching, of the talent acquisitions we have had since mikey has taken over?

I for one am not and frankly have very little faith that mikey will have a third great draft in a row.. Unless Pat intervenes or this "new" scouting department has more influence than in the past, it is still mikey making the call.

While he is/was a great offensive mind, his being in charge the past 15 or so years has driven this team, for whatever excuses the mikey lovers can conjure up, from a Superbowl winner ten years ago to being 4 plays away from a 3-13 season..

He has been totally responsible for it demise.. Actually Pat is, but he has placed up to this years all his faith in mikey to run his team..

4 plays.or 4 playERS?

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 12:28 PM
4 plays.or 4 playERS?


maybe both, but 4 last second heroic FG's from Jason (whom BTW is not longer here), gave us the chance for a 7-9 season..

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 12:29 PM
maybe both, but 4 last second heroic FG's from Jason (whom BTW is not longer here), gave us the chance for a 7-9 season..

We lost a couple of close ones, so can we maybe say we were close to being 9-7?

Its parity. Three really good teams, three really shitty teams, and the rest are in a bunch.

LordTrychon
03-24-2008, 12:35 PM
We were realistically 4 plays away from 7-9 to 3-13.. That is what I have been trying to get across to this forum..

While we made those 4 plays, are you all really that proud of this team of last year.. Of the coaching, of the talent acquisitions we have had since mikey has taken over?

I for one am not and frankly have very little faith that mikey will have a third great draft in a row.. Unless Pat intervenes or this "new" scouting department has more influence than in the past, it is still mikey making the call.

While he is/was a great offensive mind, his being in charge the past 15 or so years has driven this team, for whatever excuses the mikey lovers can conjure up, from a Superbowl winner ten years ago to being 4 plays away from a 3-13 season..

He has been totally responsible for it demise.. Actually Pat is, but he has placed up to this years all his faith in mikey to run his team..

The coaching and the players put us in the position for those wins... If you want to play the what if game, we should've won against GB and Chicago, too... and we could have been 9-7....

*shrug*

MOtorboat
03-24-2008, 12:38 PM
Unless Pat intervenes or this "new" scouting department has more influence than in the past, it is still mikey making the call.

Zam :confused: is that you?

:cool:

TXBRONC
03-24-2008, 12:38 PM
The coaching and the players put us in the position for those wins... If you want to play the what if game, we should've won against GB and Chicago, too... and we could have been 9-7....

*shrug*

That makes too much sense.

lex
03-24-2008, 12:42 PM
The coaching and the players put us in the position for those wins... If you want to play the what if game, we should've won against GB and Chicago, too... and we could have been 9-7....

*shrug*

But be that as it may, you still have a range from 3-13 to 9-7 that the team could have easily been without tanking. But if you reverse the outcome of all the close games we'd be 5-11, which is closer to 3-13 than 9-7. I think a lot of people who watched this past season dont really think of it as a .500 caliber team.

LordTrychon
03-24-2008, 12:49 PM
But be that as it may, you still have a range from 3-13 to 9-7 that the team could have easily been without tanking.

True... I'm just not a fan of the what if game.

The same logic says that Bellichick sucks... and should've never won any of those superbowls, because he was just damn lucky and his kicker bailed him out all the time.


That's not true... he's not lucky... he cheats. lol.

TXBRONC
03-24-2008, 12:50 PM
True... I'm just not a fan of the what if game.

The same logic says that Bellichick suck... and should've never won any of those superbowls, because he was just damn lucky and his kicker bailed him out all the time.


That's not true... he's not lucky... he cheats. lol.

I was just thinking the same thing. :lol:

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 12:53 PM
The coaching and the players put us in the position for those wins... If you want to play the what if game, we should've won against GB and Chicago, too... and we could have been 9-7....

*shrug*


And had we not got our ass kick by DET and SAN twice we could have been 16-0..

Maybe You all were not watching the same games I saw last years but this team was not a good team.

Maybe my Direct TV games were different here in El Paso than they were in DEN or where ever you all live.. *

The only good things that came out of last year:
Jay's continued improvement
Marshall's break out year
a connection between Scheffler and Jay got better
Javon the team killer is gone
Stokely was resigned
gold is gone
Lynch was re signed for locker room leadership if nothing else
Crowder showed he was not a bust
Thomas got valuable playing time
Moss seemed to have some upside before being injured
Dumervil had a great year sacking the QB
DJ was a decent mike
Dinger is gone as well as bates (for you bates haters)
fill in the blanks from this point on
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------

last but not least a 12 pick.

*Let me add I did miss seeing 2 games last year one of the OAK game so that one may have been great play that I missed..

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 12:58 PM
I think a lot of people who watched this past season dont really think of it as a .500 caliber team.

We weren't. We were 7-9. We were a .4375 team.

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 12:58 PM
I think we should have expected last year. A very young team at the skilled positions. We were going to have ups and downs, based on youth. We were ranked 11th in offensive yards, 21st in scoring. Blame Shanahan's playcalling if you want in the red zone, I'll point at the youngsters as well.

That said, I would take a 7-9 year any time over 3-13. Just because it's a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee anything except a huge outlay of cash.

TXBRONC
03-24-2008, 01:00 PM
As Bill Parcell's says "You are what your record says you are."

lex
03-24-2008, 01:01 PM
We weren't. We were 7-9. We were a .4375 team.

Uh yeah, I was addressing the prospect that on the higher end of the range,which I spoke of, that we could have been a 9-7 team had all the breaks gone our way. You can try selling that we could have been 9-7 but you will have few buyers, I think.

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 01:02 PM
I think we should have expected last year. A very young team at the skilled positions. We were going to have ups and downs, based on youth. We were ranked 11th in offensive yards, 21st in scoring. Blame Shanahan's playcalling if you want, I'll point at the youngsters as well.

That said, I would take a 7-9 year any time over 3-13. Just because it's a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee anything except a huge outlay of cash.

AS does the #12 pick does not guarantee anything but a second tier player that will still be expensive.. Someone that may not have an impact till next year 2009.

Where as a top five pick guarantees you a chance at a top position choice..

Whether we are smart enough not to reach for a second tier guy at that spot that is a another story in itself..

lex
03-24-2008, 01:02 PM
I think we should have expected last year. A very young team at the skilled positions. We were going to have ups and downs, based on youth. We were ranked 11th in offensive yards, 21st in scoring. Blame Shanahan's playcalling if you want in the red zone, I'll point at the youngsters as well.

That said, I would take a 7-9 year any time over 3-13. Just because it's a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee anything except a huge outlay of cash.

By that logic, why not trade down until we have every pick in the 7th round?

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Just because it's a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee anything except a huge outlay of cash.

And a huge miss in the draft. If you think Shanny sucks in the draft, why would you want him to have a higher draft pick when a) he will get the next George Foster that b) costs us twice the money.

Top 7 pick is no promise of success by any means. Especially with Shanny drafting. Go look at the 04 draft for example.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 01:05 PM
How many top 5 picks did the Broncos have on their two super bowl teams?

LordTrychon
03-24-2008, 01:06 PM
AS does the #12 pick does not guarantee anything but a second tier player that will still be expensive.. Someone that may not have an impact till next year 2009.

Where as a top five pick guarantees you a chance at a top position choice..

Whether we are smart enough not to reach for a second tier guy at that spot that is a another story in itself..

That's the only thing that worries me... I hope that if we don't have anybody we love at that spot, we find a suitable trade partner before it's too late and we screw up.

As for wanting a top 5 pick... the teams that are successful in this league usually do so without drafting in the top spots. Would I love to get Dorsey or Ellis? Yes... but wishing for a top pick really isn't the solution... it just happens to be what we could really use this year. :laugh:

TXBRONC
03-24-2008, 01:06 PM
How many top 5 picks did the Broncos have on their two super bowl teams?

One.

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 01:11 PM
And a huge miss in the draft. If you think Shanny sucks in the draft, why would you want him to have a higher draft pick when a) he will get the next George Foster that b) costs us twice the money.

Top 7 pick is no promise of success by any means. Especially with Shanny drafting. Go look at the 04 draft for example.


With this logic maybe we should trade them all way for veterans..

Time for mikey to either shit or get off the pot.

We either whiff or we get good talent if we whiff we get a real GM for the future..

WIN WIN

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 01:47 PM
By that logic, why not trade down until we have every pick in the 7th round?

That statement is the exact opposite of logic.

lex
03-24-2008, 01:51 PM
I think we should have expected last year. A very young team at the skilled positions. We were going to have ups and downs, based on youth. We were ranked 11th in offensive yards, 21st in scoring. Blame Shanahan's playcalling if you want in the red zone, I'll point at the youngsters as well.

That said, I would take a 7-9 year any time over 3-13. Just because it's a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee anything except a huge outlay of cash.


That statement is the exact opposite of logic.

If you think top 5 has no guarantees, you can certainly say that up and down the draft.

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 01:53 PM
If you think top 5 has no guarantees, you can certainly say that up and down the draft.

The cost isn't worth the risk. JMO. I'll also say the amount of money given to these kids before they prove anything on an NFL field is ludicrous.

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 01:55 PM
The cost isn't worth the risk. JMO. I'll also say the amount of money given to these kids before they prove anything on an NFL field is ludicrous.

Brandon Marshall is a great example of great drafting. Doesn't happen often, but he is now ready to get paid. And he has earned.

Lonestar
03-24-2008, 01:56 PM
The cost isn't worth the risk. JMO. I'll also say the amount of money given to these kids before they prove anything on an NFL field is ludicrous.


While you are totally correct on the second comment the first one just means that someone else is getting the talent. Someone that we will play some day..

Pay my now or pay me later it is your choice.. (old fram commercial)

lex
03-24-2008, 02:04 PM
The cost isn't worth the risk. JMO. I'll also say the amount of money given to these kids before they prove anything on an NFL field is ludicrous.

I dont agree with this. I mean, you can arbitrarily decide at any point up and down the draft that its too expensive. But at the same time, you make a sensible argument that in terms of scale, the top 5 is less forgiving if youre wrong.

And regarding the second part, thats the system we have, good or bad. And overpaying in FA isnt ideal either...at least with a top 5 pick, were not in a bidding war.

Tned
03-24-2008, 02:16 PM
And I also get admonished for it too. You should see the maelstrom of mod activity I create. Do you really want to go down that path? And I know they dont keep me around for making inane posts. Would you be able to say the same thing if you went down that road?

I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but I will say this:

Right now we have a handful of posters accounting for the VAST majority of reported posts and mod workload.

If these posters don't get their shit together soon and give the mods a break, they will no longer be welcome here and can spend their days on Mania or Mane. I'm getting real tired of the selfish, self centered behavior of a few posters and the constant crap the mods are having to deal with as a result of that behavior.

Capiche?

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 02:17 PM
I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but I will say this:

Right now we have a handful of posters accounting for the VAST majority of reported posts and mod workload.

If these posters don't get their shit together soon and give the mods a break, they will no longer be welcome here and can spend their days on Mania or Mane. I'm getting real tired of the selfish, self centered behavior of a few posters and the constant crap the mods are having to deal with as a result of that behavior.

Capiche?

Capiche. I'll start behaving, Tned.

lex
03-24-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but I will say this:

Right now we have a handful of posters accounting for the VAST majority of reported posts and mod workload.

If these posters don't get their shit together soon and give the mods a break, they will no longer be welcome here and can spend their days on Mania or Mane. I'm getting real tired of the selfish, self centered behavior of a few posters and the constant crap the mods are having to deal with as a result of that behavior.

Capiche?

I wasnt trying to make anything.

topscribe
03-24-2008, 02:23 PM
I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but I will say this:

Right now we have a handful of posters accounting for the VAST majority of reported posts and mod workload.

If these posters don't get their shit together soon and give the mods a break, they will no longer be welcome here and can spend their days on Mania or Mane. I'm getting real tired of the selfish, self centered behavior of a few posters and the constant crap the mods are having to deal with as a result of that behavior.

Capiche?

Especially Lex and Beef. Now, you have both received warnings, and you
have both been advised to side-step each other.

We did not do that for typing practice, if you get my drift.

I advise you put each other in Ignore and go on your way.

-----

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 02:29 PM
So does a public no-no mean more than a private already been handled no-no? I am just wondering. TIA.

Tned
03-24-2008, 02:32 PM
So does a public no-no mean more than a private already been handled no-no? I am just wondering. TIA.

I don't think we have that defined.

Most of us are just trying to enjoy the message board, but right now the mods are getting swamped by the backlash of a small number of posters that like to stir crap up.

It really isn't fair to the mods.

BOSSHOGG30
03-24-2008, 02:34 PM
I don't think we have that defined.

Most of us are just trying to enjoy the message board, but right now the mods are getting swamped by the backlash of a small number of posters that like to stir crap up.

It really isn't fair to the mods.

As the site grows you will probably have more poster that like to stir up crap... I vote that Broncosjoe be inducted in as a mod for the Broncos forums website. More mods mean less work for other mods, therefor they will no longer be swamped.:beer:

BeefStew25
03-24-2008, 02:40 PM
I don't think we have that defined.

Most of us are just trying to enjoy the message board, but right now the mods are getting swamped by the backlash of a small number of posters that like to stir crap up.

It really isn't fair to the mods.

Well, I guess look at the history. Whatever. Duly noted.

Tned
03-24-2008, 02:51 PM
As the site grows you will probably have more poster that like to stir up crap... I vote that Broncosjoe be inducted in as a mod for the Broncos forums website. More mods mean less work for other mods, therefor they will no longer be swamped.:beer:

Also, please don't misunderstand what I was saying.

I should note that about 295 of our 300 active members rarely create much of a problem. Yes, some of them have a rare occaissions when they get a little carried away in a post. However, that's to be expected and nobody has a problem with that.

It's the fact that a tiny number of posters are in the middle of the vast majority of reported posts that is becoming an issue. Adding more mods would 'partially' mask the problem, but not fix it.

Tned
03-24-2008, 02:51 PM
Anyway, back to discussing losing seasons as a Broncos fan. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but felt the nead to respond to the content of a couple posts.

topscribe
03-24-2008, 02:55 PM
As the site grows you will probably have more poster that like to stir up crap... I vote that Broncosjoe be inducted in as a mod for the Broncos forums website. More mods mean less work for other mods, therefor they will no longer be swamped.:beer:

The Freak had, I believe, five Mods with more members than we have. The
Mane has five Mods with 9,000 members. Mania has seven Mods with 9,000
members. We have six Mods with 485 members.

What we need is not more Mods for what is going on now. What we need is
less of what is going on now with the Mods we have.

It may have been a bit unfair for me to single out a couple members
because more than they have been involved in such spats.

Best everyone just stick to the issues and leave each other personally alone.
We are not all going to like each other. That is just impossible. But we can
all make an effort to be adults and get along.

-----

topscribe
03-24-2008, 02:56 PM
Anyway, back to discussing losing seasons as a Broncos fan. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but felt the nead to respond to the content of a couple posts.
Oops, sorry . . . didn't see this post, Tned.

:focus:

-----

Tned
03-24-2008, 02:58 PM
Oops, sorry . . . didn't see this post, Tned.

:focus:

-----

No problem, I forgot to raise the flag :focus: :D

lex
03-24-2008, 03:00 PM
Anyway, back to discussing losing seasons as a Broncos fan. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but felt the nead to respond to the content of a couple posts.

FWIW, I know Im tightly wound. I was more bothered at the suggestion that my post was ambiguous.

BroncoJoe
03-24-2008, 03:08 PM
As the site grows you will probably have more poster that like to stir up crap... I vote that Broncosjoe be inducted in as a mod for the Broncos forums website. More mods mean less work for other mods, therefor they will no longer be swamped.:beer:

Thanks Boss, but my AssMod duties have me quite busy as it is.

champbronc2
03-24-2008, 04:43 PM
I’d rather go 7-9 than get the #12 and 42 picks.

Huh?

I chose 3-13

broncosfanscott
03-24-2008, 08:19 PM
I chose 7-9 because that is the worst I want us to be. I can't even imagine what it would feel like to be worse and I don't want to find out. Personally I don't want any of the choices.........would rather be in the playoffs.

NavinJohnson
04-17-2008, 07:11 PM
A top 5-pick is still a crap-shoot. I'd rather build upon a 7-9 season.

omac
04-18-2008, 09:47 PM
7-9 definitely. I have no respect for teams that intentionaly tank in order to get better draft spots. If the coming draft had the best nfl prospect coming out of the draft in decades, and I were to choose whether the Broncos went 1-15 or 2-15, I'd still choose 2-15, even if that means losing the chance at that player. And more than the amount of wins, it's not just about winning and losing, it's also about how you win or lose. There are teams that play their best and still lose, like the Broncos last season, and there are teams that lose because they weren't even really trying, like the Raiders 2 seasons ago. Big difference.

Joel
04-19-2008, 12:52 AM
We took a poll last year in OCT and it was split on:

Which would you prefer, to finish 7-9 or to have the #1 pick?
here is last years poll:
http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3123


Now that we have finished the season and we all know who is in the draft and who finished ahead of us. Where we draft and the likely choices of those in front of us.

It may be time to revisit the question would you rather bite the bullet one year and get a chance to draft some real top talent or have a mediocre couple of years while we attempt to REBUILD via the draft..

Since Elam won 4 games last year with last second heroic FG's the question remains would you rather be 3-13 for one year getting the number 2 or 3 and 34 or 35 this year or 12 and 42?
The point about who's actually IN the draft is a good one, and one I hadn't considered till now, mainly because I don't follow (or trust... ) college ball so the draft seems even more like a crap shoot to me than it does to most. The careers of Heismann winners are NOT strong arguments in favor of buying into draft hype....

All of that said, at the end of the day a losing season is a losing season, and if you know that's where you're headed the practical course is to make the loss as bad as possible and thereby improve your chances of going all the way in the next couple of years thanks to draft picks. It's usually not what the fans, media or players want, which is how teams like the Lions and Cardinals get locked into seemingly perpetual 7-9 seasons where neither their record nor their draft position ever seems to change much. Setting aside the ethical considerations of tanking games after week 10 just to get a better draft slot, it's hard to find a coach with the balls to take the kind of heat that generates, as well as an owner with the faith in him to support him while the whole town is screaming for his incompetent head.

For me (and I know I'm in the minority) I don't feel any better about a 7-9 losing season than I do about a 3-13 one. In fact, I feel worse, for reasons just stated; there's less cause for optimism about the near future, because unless there's lots of of cap room and talented free agents with several quality years left, not much is going to change soon. Which is also why I'm inclined to class what I've seen of your 2008 prognostication as "realistic" rather than "pessimistic". If you're in rebuild mode, embrace it and get all you can out of it; that's the best way to get out of rebuild mode and back into championship mode as quickly as possible. Otherwise you're just kidding yourself that "there's always next year" despite no evidence to believe next year will be any better.

In that respect, I HAVE to hope we won't be hit as hard by injuries next year as in the last two, but I thought the same in '07. All the more reason to take every possible opportunity to build a team that's solid at every position (if we'd gone after quality depth at LB and DT like I wanted to after '05 I honestly don't think we'd even be discussing this topic.... )

The bottom line is a Roman numeral game, and with regard to that there's no difference between 7-9 and 3-13. They're both losers.

EDIT: I'd forgotten how close that poll was; 23-22 is TIGHT...!

Colorado4Life
04-21-2008, 10:36 AM
19-0