PDA

View Full Version : No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis



T.K.O.
07-02-2010, 11:13 AM
Posted June 30, 2010, 1:29 pm MT No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis


The defensive line. It’s about time the Broncos seriously addressed the Curse of Trevor Pryce. Yes, there is some age alongside the names of Jamal Williams (34), Justin Bannan (31) and Jarvis Green (31).

But there are also 12 combined playoff appearances from the trio — Green (six), Williams (four) and Bannan (two).

Since Mike Shanahan dumped Pryce after the 2005 season, the Broncos have gone a relatively respectable 32-32 despite having arguably the NFL’s worst collection of defensive fronts.

In 2009, after a sensational six-game start, the Broncos’ defense allowed 158.1 yards rushing in their last 10 games. How bad is 158.1 rushing yards allowed per game? Consider Tampa Bay ranked 32nd in the 32-team NFL by allowing 158.2 rushing yards a game.

In 2008, only 0-16 Detroit and 2-14 Kansas City gave up more than the 5.0 yards per carry surrendered by Denver’s D.

In 2007, the Broncos ranked 30th in the NFL by allowing 142.6 yards per game.

And after a record-setting, six-game start in 2006, the Broncos’ defense fell apart. Injuries to defensive linemen Gerard Warren and Courtney Brown, and the departure of Pryce _ arguably the most talented defensive lineman in Broncos history _ caused the Broncos to allow 26.1 points in their last 10 games. How bad is 26.1 points per game? San Francisco ranked 32nd in points allowed that year with 25.8 points.

Meanwhile, Pryce is going on his fifth season with the defensive-minded Baltimore Ravens. Letting him go was clearly one of the biggest mistakes of the Shanahan era. In Williams, Bannan and Green, the Broncos may finally have the kind of playoff-caliber defensive front to overcome the Trevor Curse.

weazel
07-02-2010, 11:19 AM
Trevor Pryce for President!


this advertisement brought to you by Mike Klis and the Trevor Pryce for President Organization

Northman
07-02-2010, 11:23 AM
Yea, the defense has been bad. But the offense was even worse last year which did zero favors. Im surprised Klis totally ignored that aspect of the downfall of last season. Well, im not really surprised.

Tempus Fugit
07-02-2010, 11:46 AM
Yea, the defense has been bad. But the offense was even worse last year which did zero favors. Im surprised Klis totally ignored that aspect of the downfall of last season. Well, im not really surprised.

Nor should you be, given that the offense is irrelevant to the man's article.:coffee:

Northman
07-02-2010, 11:56 AM
Nor should you be, given that the offense is irrelevant to the man's article.:coffee:

Which is why i pointed out the flaw in his article. The offense was relevant to the problems last year even more so than the defensive woes.

SOCALORADO.
07-02-2010, 12:13 PM
Which is why i pointed out the flaw in his article. The offense was relevant to the problems last year even more so than the defensive woes.

YES. The defense began struggling when opposing teams defenses figured out how to shut down Capt. Noodle Arms. Once the Capt. couldnt throw his little 3 yard outs, because they stacked the box and dared him to throw deep, which we all know he cant do, the offense was constantly going 3 and out, leaving the DEN defense constantly on the field.

Northman
07-02-2010, 12:24 PM
YES. The defense began struggling when opposing teams defenses figured out how to shut down Capt. Noodle Arms. Once the Capt. couldnt throw his little 3 yard outs, because they stacked the box and dared him to throw deep, which we all know he cant do, the offense was constantly going 3 and out, leaving the DEN defense constantly on the field.

Capt. Noodle Arms? :lol:

silkamilkamonico
07-02-2010, 12:47 PM
LMAO

The offense was more efficient last year in more games than not, in comparison to the 2008 season with the "vaunted Cutler led offense"....

Northman
07-02-2010, 12:51 PM
LMAO

The offense was more efficient last year in more games than not, in comparison to the 2008 season with the "vaunted Cutler led offense"....


I wouldnt call going from 16th in scoring to 20th, and 3rd in 3rd down conversions to 22nd as efficient. :lol:

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 01:04 PM
Yea all of those 3rd down conversions between the 20's equated to wins.

The love shown for the turnover machine is unbeleiveable.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

silkamilkamonico
07-02-2010, 01:04 PM
I wouldnt call going from 16th in scoring to 20th, and 3rd in 3rd down conversions to 22nd as efficient. :lol:

Good point.

That's as bad as calling our 2008 offense, 16th in scoring, "vaunted" and "explosive".

Or the fact that our 6-0 start last year was due only to our defense, which is completely wrong in work of statistics, which show our offense was actually better iin 2009 (than 2008) through that 6 game stretch, then the 2008 5-1 start.

Or the fact that our collapse last year, was really due to our offense, regardless of our terrible defense, and then actually trying to fault the 2008 downfall to only the defense, when statistics really show the offense in 2008 was worse down the stretch (especially Jay Cutler) than the 2009 stretch.

Kyle Orton was better than Jay Ctuler in comparison of the 2008-2009 seasons, and more importantly, was much better than Jay Cutler in playoff deciding games. The problem is the run game, which can be attributed to the porous oline play, which can also be attributed to injuries.

Then again, Denver has won 1 playoff game since 1998. Maybe the problem is the entire organization.

Northman
07-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Good point.

That's as bad as calling our 2008 offense, 16th in scoring, "vaunted" and "explosive".

Or the fact that our 6-0 start last year was due only to our defense, which is completely wrong in work of statistics, which show our offense was actually better iin 2009 (than 2008) through that 6 game stretch, then the 2008 5-1 start.

Or the fact that our collapse last year, was really due to our offense, regardless of our terrible defense, and then actually trying to fault the 2008 downfall to only the defense, when statistics really show the offense in 2008 was worse down the stretch (especially Jay Cutler) than the 2009 stretch.

Kyle Orton was better than Jay Ctuler in comparison of the 2008-2009 seasons, and more importantly, was much better than Jay Cutler in playoff deciding games. The problem is the run game, which can be attributed to the porous dline play, which can also be attributed to injuries.

Then again, Denver has won 1 playoff game since 1998. Maybe the problem is the entire organization.


Of course its the organization, thats not in debate. But for those who think we actually improved on offense are delusional at best. Had the defense not shown up at all last year this team would of been even worse because it normally took the offense forever to finally get something going. As far as turnovers via the QB, of course Orton will have less because he is in a ball control offense. We saw something similiar in 05' when Plummer was at the helm and asked not to make the bad play. Problem for Jake was he couldnt even do that part very well but still managed to put up one of his best seasons as a pro. Not too hard to do when you only have to concentrate on a short field. Jay was asked to do a lot more and despite some of his struggles was able to move the ball pretty much at free will. But his defense to work with was much worse and his RB core was much worse with all the injuries. But i wouldnt disagree that the grand scheme of things is organizational. But in this article the author tries to point at one aspect of the team which is incorrect to the woes of 2009. There was a lot more too it than just the collapse down the stretch.

silkamilkamonico
07-02-2010, 01:23 PM
Of course its the organization, thats not in debate. But for those who think we actually improved on offense are delusional at best. Had the defense not shown up at all last year this team would of been even worse because it normally took the offense forever to finally get something going. As far as turnovers via the QB, of course Orton will have less because he is in a ball control offense. We saw something similiar in 05' when Plummer was at the helm and asked not to make the bad play. Problem for Jake was he couldnt even do that part very well but still managed to put up one of his best seasons as a pro. Not too hard to do when you only have to concentrate on a short field. Jay was asked to do a lot more and despite some of his struggles was able to move the ball pretty much at free will. But his defense to work with was much worse and his RB core was much worse with all the injuries. But i wouldnt disagree that the grand scheme of things is organizational. But in this article the author tries to point at one aspect of the team which is incorrect to the woes of 2009. There was a lot more too it than just the collapse down the stretch.


I don't think anyone thinks we improved on offense as a whole. It was very good at times. Scoring was down, and yards were down, but so were possessions, because unlike the 2008 season, Devner was running clock almost the entire second half for a good handful of games, which resulted in less scoring chances, less aggressive plays, and less possessions.

The 2009 offense was terrible at third downs, just like the 2008 offense was terrible at scoring in the red zone.

The 2009 offense needs to be better, but any rational knowledgeable fan could see last year, that without injuries, the offense wasn't completely terrible. There was more than enough to see that with a formidable defense that offense can compete. Yes it needs to be better, but every offense has areas that need to be better. McDaniels addressed the one issue we had on offense, and that was the oline, hopefully the address of that works.

The losses on offense? Peyton Hillis and Tony Scheffler weren't losses. Hillis did nothing so we didn't lose anything. Scheffler had a couple big plays that anyone could have made, maybe for not as many yards, but still for the first downs which were most important.

Marshall is a loss, but anyone watching the games can see when the system is working, somebody is going to get the ball. Someone will have to step up in his place, but he isn't irreplaceable in the least.

IMHO, the collapse down the stretch, equated to what we were. We weren't a playoff team. Our dline was lousy, and finally did cave in at the end. Our oline was depleted by injuries, and killing our offense. Orton isn't going to win any games. When the offense is intact, he can move the ball when the play allows him too, but when the offense is depleted he's garbage. He will have to eventually be replaced for Denver to take that next step, IMHO.

Northman
07-02-2010, 01:28 PM
I don't think anyone thinks we improved on offense as a whole. It was very good at times. Scoring was down, and yards were down, but so were possessions, because unlike the 2008 season, Devner was running clock almost the entire second half for a good handful of games, which resulted in less scoring chances, less aggressive plays, and less possessions.

The 2009 offense was terrible at third downs, just like the 2008 offense was terrible at scoring in the red zone.

The 2009 offense needs to be better, but any rational knowledgeable fan could see last year, that without injuries, the offense wasn't completely terrible. There was more than enough to see that with a formidable defense that offense can compete. Yes it needs to be better, but every offense has areas that need to be better. McDaniels addressed the one issue we had on offense, and that was the oline, hopefully the address of that works.

The losses on offense? Peyton Hillis and Tony Scheffler weren't losses. Hillis did nothing so we didn't lose anything. Scheffler had a couple big plays that anyone could have made, maybe for not as many yards, but still for the first downs which were most important.

Marshall is a loss, but anyone watching the games can see when the system is working, somebody is going to get the ball. Someone will have to step up in his place, but he isn't irreplaceable in the least.

IMHO, the collapse down the stretch, equated to what we were. We weren't a playoff team. Our dline was lousy, and finally did cave in at the end. Our oline was depleted by injuries, and killing our offense. Orton isn't going to win any games. When the offense is intact, he can move the ball when the play allows him too, but when the offense is depleted he's garbage. He will have to eventually be replaced for Denver to take that next step, IMHO.

Absolutely agree.

dogfish
07-02-2010, 02:28 PM
tebow!!

T.K.O.
07-02-2010, 02:55 PM
Which is why i pointed out the flaw in his article. The offense was relevant to the problems last year even more so than the defensive woes.

the article also failed to point out anything about the housing market in denver.....oh wait.....it was about looking forward to a better defensive line.
;)

Northman
07-02-2010, 03:21 PM
the article also failed to point out anything about the housing market in denver.....oh wait.....it was about looking forward to a better defensive line.
;)

And the housing market in Denver has what to do with the football team?

T.K.O.
07-02-2010, 03:33 PM
And the housing market in Denver has what to do with the football team?

and the article was about " No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis "
a positive look at our new Dline...just because the author did'nt include how much the offense sucks does'nt mean the "article was flawed" as you say.
there are many articles that only speak about one part of the team.
it does,nt have to include viewpoints about other specific area's....does it?
otherwise every article would have to include tidbits on the team without BM,the teams rookies and what they ate for breakfast:laugh:

Northman
07-02-2010, 03:46 PM
and the article was about " No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis "
a positive look at our new Dline...just because the author did'nt include how much the offense sucks does'nt mean the "article was flawed" as you say.
there are many articles that only speak about one part of the team.
it does,nt have to include viewpoints about other specific area's....does it?


Sure, he brought up some nice tidbits about out offseason pickups which is great. We did improve the Dline which has been sorely needed. But, his article then goes on about how the defense collapsed last year which again is true but it doesnt take everything in consideration. Especially when talking about optimism for next year.

The other problem is he says its the #1 thing to be optimistic about. Again, his article would lead one to believe that the defense was the main problem last year which would be false. The defense showed up for at least half the year while the offense struggled all year long. And no offense, but why would or should we be that optimistic about signing guys who although on paper are improvements i wouldnt say those signings are "mind blowing". Throw in the fact that we lost Nolan who was greatly responsible for our great start last year and now are relying on Martindale who is taking his first go as DC.

Sure, the players are buying into Marty but again they bought into Slowik, Bates, and Nolan as well. So what does that really mean? Not much in the grand scheme of things until the results prove much better on the field. Bottom line, Klis while trying to be very positive about our new signings kind of made is seem like those were the only areas that needed help. Especially considering the major setback offensively that happened last year when defensively we actually improved. This is why i brought it up and it is relevant to this discussion. You may not agree but when Klis opened up the door with his criticism of the defensive side of the ball i simply pointed out there is more that needs work and more that needs to be fixed besides the defensive line. ;)

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 04:21 PM
and the article was about " No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis "
a positive look at our new Dline...just because the author did'nt include how much the offense sucks does'nt mean the "article was flawed" as you say.
there are many articles that only speak about one part of the team.
it does,nt have to include viewpoints about other specific area's....does it?
otherwise every article would have to include tidbits on the team without BM,the teams rookies and what they ate for breakfast:laugh:


Good POsts all of them.

I too have been waiting forever to get a real DL in a good design.

For that matter good OLINE that is not finese but then that is off topic.

:focus:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 04:33 PM
Sure, he brought up some nice tidbits about out offseason pickups which is great. We did improve the Dline which has been sorely needed. But, his article then goes on about how the defense collapsed last year which again is true but it doesnt take everything in consideration. Especially when talking about optimism for next year.

The other problem is he says its the #1 thing to be optimistic about. Again, his article would lead one to believe that the defense was the main problem last year which would be false. The defense showed up for at least half the year while the offense struggled all year long. And no offense, but why would or should we be that optimistic about signing guys who although on paper are improvements i wouldnt say those signings are "mind blowing". Throw in the fact that we lost Nolan who was greatly responsible for our great start last year and now are relying on Martindale who is taking his first go as DC.

Sure, the players are buying into Marty but again they bought into Slowik, Bates, and Nolan as well. So what does that really mean? Not much in the grand scheme of things until the results prove much better on the field. Bottom line, Klis while trying to be very positive about our new signings kind of made is seem like those were the only areas that needed help. Especially considering the major setback offensively that happened last year when defensively we actually improved. This is why i brought it up and it is relevant to this discussion. You may not agree but when Klis opened up the door with his criticism of the defensive side of the ball i simply pointed out there is more that needs work and more that needs to be fixed besides the defensive line. ;)

Just can't get past there are lots of issues with this club. And will not allow just plain old folks to enjoy an article that was well written about THE biggest reason to hope for improvement, without denigrating the rest of the team.

Can He, myself and TKO can be optomistic without your approval,please?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
07-02-2010, 04:40 PM
Just can't get past there are lots of issues with this club. And will not allow just plain old folks to enjoy an article that was well written about THE biggest reason to hope for improvement, without denigrating the rest of the team.

Can He, myself and TKO can be optomistic without your approval,please?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I havent stopped anyone from being optimistic about anything. The article was put up for discussion and im discussing it the way i see fit. And i can do it without bringing up Jay being gone or Shanny sucking so bad as you often claim in every thread imaginable. Maybe you should take your own advice for a change and just try concentrating at the topic at hand. If you simply dont like what i have to say put me on ignore.

T.K.O.
07-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Sure, he brought up some nice tidbits about out offseason pickups which is great. We did improve the Dline which has been sorely needed. But, his article then goes on about how the defense collapsed last year which again is true but it doesnt take everything in consideration. Especially when talking about optimism for next year.

The other problem is he says its the #1 thing to be optimistic about. Again, his article would lead one to believe that the defense was the main problem last year which would be false. The defense showed up for at least half the year while the offense struggled all year long. And no offense, but why would or should we be that optimistic about signing guys who although on paper are improvements i wouldnt say those signings are "mind blowing". Throw in the fact that we lost Nolan who was greatly responsible for our great start last year and now are relying on Martindale who is taking his first go as DC.

Sure, the players are buying into Marty but again they bought into Slowik, Bates, and Nolan as well. So what does that really mean? Not much in the grand scheme of things until the results prove much better on the field. Bottom line, Klis while trying to be very positive about our new signings kind of made is seem like those were the only areas that needed help. Especially considering the major setback offensively that happened last year when defensively we actually improved. This is why i brought it up and it is relevant to this discussion. You may not agree but when Klis opened up the door with his criticism of the defensive side of the ball i simply pointed out there is more that needs work and more that needs to be fixed besides the defensive line. ;)

or maybe he thinks the offense sucked and will continue to do so......so there is no reason to "optomistic" about it ?
and the article was what we had to be optomistic about....not why we should be bummed that the O still had issues:confused:

Northman
07-02-2010, 04:52 PM
or maybe he thinks the offense sucked and will continue to do so......so there is no reason to "optomistic" about it ?
and the article was what we had to be optomistic about....not why we should be bummed that the O still had issues:confused:

:lol:

Sorry. Im not just concerned with one aspect of this team. My optimism will change when the team proves it has improved. Until then, my skepticism will continue and thank god for america there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 05:08 PM
I havent stopped anyone from being optimistic about anything. The article was put up for discussion and im discussing it the way i see fit. And i can do it without bringing up Jay being gone or Shanny sucking so bad as you often claim in every thread imaginable. Maybe you should take your own advice for a change and just try concentrating at the topic at hand. If you simply dont like what i have to say put me on ignore.



Just because you and several others do not actually say the word jay or mike does not mean that they the not so sublte slam on Josh abd orton is heard loud and clear.

Just because I continue actually say those hallowed names with less respect than some feel they deserve. Does not make me the villian just calling a spade a spade.

Most of us have moved past them and are givibg the TEAM a chance or benefit of the doubt. But some are always comparing that hallowed #2 offense of 08 to a fledging new scheme with everyone but one backup OG new to it including the coaches teaching it.

Not to mention all the issues with the oline last year.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

spikerman
07-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Most of us have moved past them ......
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Sorry Jr, but the one thing that's incredibly obvious is that you have not "moved past them".

Me? I'm a Shanahan fan and I wish him good luck in Washington, but McDaniels is the coach of my favorite team, for better or worse, and I'm much more interested in the job he does. I think most of us who don't fall lockstep into what McDaniels is doing feel that way. Personally, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong about McDaniels - well, except maybe being able to read through an entire thread without hearing about how anyone who questions the coach is just bitter that Mikey and Jay are gone.

Northman
07-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Just because you and several others do not actually say the word jay or mike does not mean that they the not so sublte slam on Josh abd orton is heard loud and clear.

Just because we think Josh and Orton have more to prove does not mean its a slam. You are totally incorrect there and have been for a while now. Some of us feel they have more to prove before we call them successes.


Just because I continue actually say those hallowed names with less respect than some feel they deserve. Does not make me the villian just calling a spade a spade.Actually, it does make you the villian. You continue to bring them up when they are not part of the discussion at hand.


Most of us have moved past them and are givibg the TEAM a chance or benefit of the doubt.But your the only one who hasnt moved on Jr. In many of the threads ive been in your the only one who brings them up. Most of us who are skeptic are concentrating on the new regime and that regime only. When we point to the past it isnt about wanting those individuals back (at least in my case) but to show the setback in certain areas on this team. Despite my concerns im still giving the team a chance but it wont stop me or anyone else from stating their minds on any given subject. No one fan here controls McD's job security so in the long run if he succeeds or fails its up to Pat in the end. You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and some of us choose to hold skepticism until they prove they have actually improved on any level. We are not poor fans because we choose to wait for christening Josh's tenure a success. You may not like the skepticism but we are entitled to state our mind just like you.


But some are always comparing that hallowed #2 offense of 08 to a fledging new scheme with everyone but one backup OG new to it including the coaches teaching it.Of course they will. The 3rd down conversions that plagued us during the Plummer era improved under Cutler. The scoring although still middle of the pack was much better than what we trolled out there last year. Was there some scheme changes and personnel changes? Sure. But that also happened on defense and we saw improvements there. And for a HC who's history is offense i think a good portion of us expected much more from him in that regard. There's nothing that says we have to automatically believe this team will improve. Shanahan went 3 straight years of mediocrity and so far in Josh's tenure it is the same. He will have his time to clean it up, nothing has changed that. But i will continue to question some of his motives, moves, or behaviors until i see the differences on the field. When the team is playing better football my optimism will improve. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Softskull
07-02-2010, 05:29 PM
I don't think anyone thinks we improved on offense as a whole. It was very good at times. Scoring was down, and yards were down, but so were possessions, because unlike the 2008 season, Devner was running clock almost the entire second half for a good handful of games, which resulted in less scoring chances, less aggressive plays, and less possessions.


No

In 2009 we had 185 offensive possessions, scoring 1.62 points per possession, 21st in the league.

In 2008 we had 164 possessions, scoring 2.16 points per possession, ninth in the league.

In 2008, the defense only got off the field when the other team scored, usually by running the ball down our throat, burning the clock, making less opportunities for the O.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

FanInAZ
07-02-2010, 05:40 PM
and the article was about " No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis "
a positive look at our new Dline...just because the author did'nt include how much the offense sucks does'nt mean the "article was flawed" as you say.
there are many articles that only speak about one part of the team.
it does,nt have to include viewpoints about other specific area's....does it?
otherwise every article would have to include tidbits on the team without BM,the teams rookies and what they ate for breakfast:laugh:

We don't need another article elaborating on our team's struggles. With all of their glaring problems being the focal point of so much attention, it is nice to see someone pointing out that we do have a few things going for us. It gives us reason to hope that if our weakness are not quite as bad as we think they are, we might get that extra win or 2 to get us into the play-offs next year.

silkamilkamonico
07-02-2010, 06:41 PM
No

In 2009 we had 185 offensive possessions, scoring 1.62 points per possession, 21st in the league.

In 2008 we had 164 possessions, scoring 2.16 points per possession, ninth in the league.

In 2008, the defense only got off the field when the other team scored, usually by running the ball down our throat, burning the clock, making less opportunities for the O.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

We had an average of 174.5 possessions through the first 6 games of the last 2 seasons? Holy $#!+!!

Softskull
07-02-2010, 07:44 PM
Just because you and several others do not actually say the word jay or mike does not mean that they the not so sublte slam on Josh abd orton is heard loud and clear.

Actually, I'm comparing them to Red Miller and Craig Morton, Dan Reeves and John Elway, Mike Shanahan and John Elway. Hell, I'd even compare them to Barrel Man and the lady that rides the horse after scores if they'd just win. Get over it Jr. We all remember better Broncos football than last year.

Bosco
07-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Yea, the defense has been bad. But the offense was even worse last year which did zero favors. Im surprised Klis totally ignored that aspect of the downfall of last season. Well, im not really surprised.

He probably figured the unit that went from literally first in the league to last over 16 weeks was a bigger story than the underachieving but stable offense.

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Just because we think Josh and Orton have more to prove does not mean its a slam. You are totally incorrect there and have been for a while now. Some of us feel they have more to prove before we call them successes.

Actually, it does make you the villian. You continue to bring them up when they are not part of the discussion at hand.

But your the only one who hasnt moved on Jr. In many of the threads ive been in your the only one who brings them up. Most of us who are skeptic are concentrating on the new regime and that regime only. When we point to the past it isnt about wanting those individuals back (at least in my case) but to show the setback in certain areas on this team. Despite my concerns im still giving the team a chance but it wont stop me or anyone else from stating their minds on any given subject. No one fan here controls McD's job security so in the long run if he succeeds or fails its up to Pat in the end. You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and some of us choose to hold skepticism until they prove they have actually improved on any level. We are not poor fans because we choose to wait for christening Josh's tenure a success. You may not like the skepticism but we are entitled to state our mind just like you.

Of course they will. The 3rd down conversions that plagued us during the Plummer era improved under Cutler. The scoring although still middle of the pack was much better than what we trolled out there last year. Was there some scheme changes and personnel changes? Sure. But that also happened on defense and we saw improvements there.

Really hard to reply on the mobile site but I'll try.
Hard to type on a small keyboard at 80.

Just saw this after driving the past couple of hours.

Show me a post of mine where I have said that the TEAM does not hav e room for improvement.

The only posts I hav e made have usuaully said "time will tell" "I'll wait till I have seen more" give them a chance before curcfiying them.

I remain an optomist about the future.

Because for the first time in a long while the draftr is paying attemtion to the LOS upgrades.

I have always maintained that you win and lose games on the LOS.

I do not feel you have to have a rocket arm to win games. But you do have to have time to let any play develop which most of our QB's since John have not had.

And the sa$e applies to the D asking your Lbs to consistently take on blockers that out weigh them by 30-80 pounds will never win games.

Some of Y'all act like mikey could do no wrong and Josh can do no right.

I have to wonder what this message board would have been like if it had been operational when mikey was hired.

I'll bet there would have been many pining to bring back danny boy. Ahahahahahahaha

Now that all said because some of you are constantly bashing Josh for not having the same records as mikey had gets as old as us me adding mike and jay to the equation.

Give the guy a chance to see what he cab do before singing the blues. I'm going to and if he does not perfporm after a decent toime frame I'll bne all o ver him like I ha ve been with mikey, jay, bm et al
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Softskull
07-02-2010, 08:57 PM
We had an average of 174.5 possessions through the first 6 games of the last 2 seasons? Holy $#!+!!

Damn Silk, maybe if you said somewhere in your message I quoted that you only meant the first six games, it would have been much easier to add up.

And your still wrong.;)

Lonestar
07-02-2010, 09:07 PM
Actually, I'm comparing them to Red Miller and Craig Morton, Dan Reeves and John Elway, Mike Shanahan and John Elway. Hell, I'd even compare them to Barrel Man and the lady that rides the horse after scores if they'd just win. Get over it Jr. We all remember better Broncos football than last year.

Actually I go back farther than that filcock IIRC was the first HC but could be wrong.
I have no issue with them playing poorly last year. Because I realize that having 35 of 53 players new on the team in itself would be enough to screw up consistentcy but add in new schemes on both sides of the LOS not tometipon none of the coaches other than Josh knew the schemes and just getting the tram to the airport all on time together would have been an ordeal.

Expecting them to be a well oiled clock all year with 40% of the oline new to each other. In fact the only two layers that played next to each other all year was casey and Kuper.

Expecting better anything out of them was nuts.

Yer we saw somepersonal. Records set. With a year under belts and not ha ing toi introduce each other in the lockeroom day one will be a huge step forward

Now that has to be more positive than all the naysayers have to talk about. Imho
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

silkamilkamonico
07-02-2010, 09:37 PM
Damn Silk, maybe if you said somewhere in your message I quoted that you only meant the first six games, it would have been much easier to add up.

And your still wrong.;)

C'mon ma'an. You quoted one paragraph of my mine and Northman's debate. I wasn't going to reply and quote the previous history of our other 5 posts in our debate each time I'm adding to it.

And I don't know.....the stats on offense are pretty solid the first 6 games.

Through the first 6 games, our passing game was 124-194, 9TD/1INT, 1465 yards. Our running game was 149-708, 4.8 ypc, and 2 TD's.

The only thing we weren't doing was scoring rushing TD's (also 3rd down conversions), which was something we we're bad at under the Shanahan/Cutler era . We were also running the clock out the entire 4th quarter for 3 of the 6 games.

Not only we were incredibly more efficient on offense through the first 6 games this year in comparison to last year under Shanahan with the "vaunted explosive offense", but we had considerably less drives with scoring intentions, and averaged 22.2 points per game compared to 27.7 points per game last year. That could also be a reason why points per drive was down than the previous year. Surely not to the point where it would have been better than 2008, but much, much closer.

Softskull
07-03-2010, 09:14 AM
C'mon ma'an. You quoted one paragraph of my mine and Northman's debate. I wasn't going to reply and quote the previous history of our other 5 posts in our debate each time I'm adding to it.


Yeah, sorry about that. I'm trying to keep up, just not always successful.

Lonestar
07-03-2010, 09:45 AM
C'mon ma'an. You quoted one paragraph of my mine and Northman's debate. I wasn't going to reply and quote the previous history of our other 5 posts in our debate each time I'm adding to it.

And I don't know.....the stats on offense are pretty solid the first 6 games.

Through the first 6 games, our passing game was 124-194, 9TD/1INT, 1465 yards. Our running game was 149-708, 4.8 ypc, and 2 TD's.

The only thing we weren't doing was scoring rushing TD's (also 3rd down conversions), which was something we we're bad at under the Shanahan/Cutler era . We were also running the clock out the entire 4th quarter for 3 of the 6 games.

Not only we were incredibly more efficient on offense through the first 6 games this year in comparison to last year under Shanahan with the "vaunted explosive offense", but we had considerably less drives with scoring intentions, and averaged 22.2 points per game compared to 27.7 points per game last year. That could also be a reason why points per drive was down than the previous year. Surely not to the point where it would have been better than 2008, but much, much closer.

Pretty good rebuttal IMO if your numbers are correct and I have NO reason to doubt them, not sure how they or IF they can.

:salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
07-03-2010, 09:47 AM
C'mon ma'an. You quoted one paragraph of my mine and Northman's debate. I wasn't going to reply and quote the previous history of our other 5 posts in our debate each time I'm adding to it.

And I don't know.....the stats on offense are pretty solid the first 6 games.

Through the first 6 games, our passing game was 124-194, 9TD/1INT, 1465 yards. Our running game was 149-708, 4.8 ypc, and 2 TD's.

The only thing we weren't doing was scoring rushing TD's (also 3rd down conversions), which was something we we're bad at under the Shanahan/Cutler era . We were also running the clock out the entire 4th quarter for 3 of the 6 games.

Not only we were incredibly more efficient on offense through the first 6 games this year in comparison to last year under Shanahan with the "vaunted explosive offense", but we had considerably less drives with scoring intentions, and averaged 22.2 points per game compared to 27.7 points per game last year. That could also be a reason why points per drive was down than the previous year. Surely not to the point where it would have been better than 2008, but much, much closer.

Let me also add not bad for a brand new scheme, with mostly new players, new coaches and a four fingered QB.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

turftoad
07-03-2010, 11:42 AM
Sorry Jr, but the one thing that's incredibly obvious is that you have not "moved past them".

Me? I'm a Shanahan fan and I wish him good luck in Washington, but McDaniels is the coach of my favorite team, for better or worse, and I'm much more interested in the job he does. I think most of us who don't fall lockstep into what McDaniels is doing feel that way. Personally, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong about McDaniels - well, except maybe being able to read through an entire thread without hearing about how anyone who questions the coach is just bitter that Mikey and Jay are gone.

This is a great post. :salute:

Lonestar
07-03-2010, 04:32 PM
Sorry Jr, but the one thing that's incredibly obvious is that you have not "moved past them".

Me? I'm a Shanahan fan and I wish him good luck in Washington, but McDaniels is the coach of my favorite team, for better or worse, and I'm much more interested in the job he does. I think most of us who don't fall lockstep into what McDaniels is doing feel that way. Personally, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong about McDaniels - well, except maybe being able to read through an entire thread without hearing about how anyone who questions the coach is just bitter that Mikey and Jay are gone.

just saw this post as I got on a plane in ATL to fly home after 30+ hours trip to OKC via car and flight home from ATL have had about 3 hours consecutive sleep in the past 48 hours. I must have missed this in my drive to OKC while on my blackberry.


Actually I have moved past them just not going to let a bunch of folks that have not and think he/they were the greatest thing since sliced bread, crap on Josh.

If anyone remembers the Jake wars, well I'm back for round two if need be.

The subtle and not so subtle aspersions about "how poor they played last year could not improve on their great #2 ranking in 08" won't fly because we all know that comparing apples and bananas is a lousy way to denigrate someone.

My suggestion is IF you do not want to see my defense of the new guy/guys then place me on iggy. Because the crap stops here.

Many of those same guys that hated Jake because of the new rocket armed guy will hate anyone that replaced him. just because they are butt hurt or have such a case of man love for them they can't see the forest for the trees.

Just how many times did I here in the past from the mikey lovers . If Pat takes away the GM part of the job he will leave and be snapped up in 15 minutes by some other club?


Well folks it happened and guess what he is not the de-facto GM in Washington. They have a real Professional GM that he is required to work with. And he was not hired in 15 minutes after getting fired.

So tuck your man parts back in the 501s and move on.

We have a new coach that Pat brought in the change the image, and style of the TEAM. I for one will support him until such time as he is not doing that.

16 games is not a fair base to make decisions on him. Although many had their minds made up because he was not a Defensive guy (OMG we had the #2 offense do not screw with that) or most importantly he came from NE.

God forbid we would want to emulate the team that took the Broncos spot for almost a decade now with being the best consistent TEAM in the NFL over that time frame.

It does not matter one iota what some of us want it is what Pat wants this TEAM to be. So get on the band wagon and give him a fair chance. Do not judge him against your past idols and allow him some time to rebuild this TEAM whether you want to realize it or NOT (in most cases) IT needed to be rebuilt.

So read my posts or NOT, until such time as I'm banned for stating the obvious, I'll be preaching give the man a chance and forget the past as it is OVER so over..

jhildebrand
07-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Sorry Jr, but the one thing that's incredibly obvious is that you have not "moved past them".

Me? I'm a Shanahan fan and I wish him good luck in Washington, but McDaniels is the coach of my favorite team, for better or worse, and I'm much more interested in the job he does. I think most of us who don't fall lockstep into what McDaniels is doing feel that way. Personally, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong about McDaniels - well, except maybe being able to read through an entire thread without hearing about how anyone who questions the coach is just bitter that Mikey and Jay are gone.

I think this should be seen again. :cool:

spikerman
07-03-2010, 04:44 PM
just saw this post as I got on a plane in ATL to fly home after 30+ hours trip to OKC via car and flight home from ATL have had about 3 hours consecutive sleep in the past 48 hours. I must have missed this in my drive to OKC while on my blackberry.


Actually I have moved past them just not going to let a bunch of folks that have not and think he/they were the greatest thing since sliced bread crap on Josh.

If anyone remembers the Jake wars, well I'm back for round two if need be.

The subtle and not so subtle aspersions about "how poor they played last year could not improve on their great #2 ranking in 08" won't fly because we all know that comparing apples and bananas is a lousy way to denigrate someone.

My suggestion is IF you do not want to see my defense of the new guy/guys then place me on iggy. Because the crap stops here.

Many of those same guys that hated Jake because of the new rocket armed guy will hate anyone that replaced him. just because they are butt hurt or have such a case of man love for them they can't see the forest for the trees.

Just how many times did I here in the past from the mikey lovers . If Pat takes away the GM part of the job he will leave and be snapped up in 15 minutes by some other club?


Well folks it happened and guess what he is not the de-facto GM in Washington. They have a real Professional GM that he is required to work with. And he was not hired in 15 minutes after getting fired.

So tuck your man parts back in the 501s and move on.

We have a new coach that Pat brought in the change the image, and style of the TEAM. I for one will support him until such time as he is not doing that.

16 games is not a fair base to make decisions on him. Although many had their minds made up because he was not a Defensive guy (OMG we had the #2 offense do not screw with that) or most importantly he came from NE.

God forbid we would want to emulate the team that took the Broncos spot for almost a decade now with being the best consistent TEAM in the NFL over that time frame.

It does not matter one iota what some of us want it is what Pat wants this TEAM to be. So get on the band wagon and give him a fair chance. Do not judge him against your past idols and allow him some time to rebuild this TEAM whether you want to realize it or NOT (in most cases) IT needed to be rebuilt.

So read my posts or not until such time as I'm banned for stating the obvious, I'll be preaching give the man a chance.

Your entire post just proved my point. Thank you. You automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with the current coach or any decisions he makes can only be because Shanahan is no longer here. Speaking just for me, I can disagree with someone simply based on the decisions they make with no regard to his predecessor. If McDaniels makes a boneheaded move (like some of the draft picks last year, imo), I think that those poor decisions (again, my opinion only) merit disagreement no matter who the coach was before. I disagreed with Shanahan on a lot of his player personnel moves too, but believe me, I didn't do it because I missed Wade Phillips.

As for putting you on ignore - nope. Like I have said before, I don't have anybody on ignore. I would like to think that I'm mature enough to hear or see a person's opinion who disagrees with me. It's just a forum and it's just football - It's not life and death.

As for your line, "So tuck your man parts back in the 501s and move on" - I honestly have no idea what this means.

jhildebrand
07-03-2010, 04:50 PM
Actually I have moved past them

Could have fooled me. You are always the one to drop their name. :coffee:



The subtle and not so subtle aspersions about "how poor they played last year could not improve on their great #2 ranking in 08" won't fly because we all know that comparing apples and bananas is a lousy way to denigrate someone.

The comparisons are only "apples to bananas" in your world. Even apples to apples, the McDaniels 09 team, with far fewer injuries, declined statistically in every offensive category!




Just how many times did I here in the past from the mikey lovers . If Pat takes away the GM part of the job he will leave and be snapped up in 15 minutes by some other club?


Well folks it happened and guess what he is not the de-facto GM in Washington. They have a real Professional GM that he is required to work with. And he was not hired in 15 minutes after getting fired.

Shanahan was wanted immediately the minute he was fired. I recall Mortenson saying it would be hours before he was announced in KC.

Shanahan chose to sit a year out not the other way around. Oh, and as far as the GM in Washington he is akin to what Sundquist was here for Shanahan. Don't think for one minute Shanahan doesn't have final say so there.



God forbid we would want to emulate the team that took the Broncos spot for almost a decade now with being the best consistent TEAM in the NFL over that time frame.

The very team caught for CHEATING. The very team that preaches character, and preached it when they were CHEATING, is the team we are emulating.

Oh, by the way, NE hasn't been the same since losing their MVC (most valuable camcorder) :lol:



It does not matter one iota what some of us want it is what Pat wants this TEAM to be. So get on the band wagon and give him a fair chance. Do not judge him against your past idols and allow him some time to rebuild this TEAM whether you want to realize it or NOT (in most cases) IT needed to be rebuilt.

From my vantage point, many have. I have judged McDaniels for his decisions or lack thereof. We had the highest roster turnover last year. This was his team last year. It will really be his team this year, too. It's time for him to put up or shut up. I certainly hope he can deliver.



forget the past as it is OVER so over..

People might just do that if you gave them the chance.

Lonestar
07-03-2010, 05:06 PM
Your entire post just proved my point. Thank you. You automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with the current coach or any decisions he makes can only be because Shanahan is no longer here. Speaking just for me, I can disagree with someone simply based on the decisions they make with no regard to his predecessor. If McDaniels makes a boneheaded move (like some of the draft picks last year, imo), I think that those poor decisions (again, my opinion only) merit disagreement no matter who the coach was before. I disagreed with Shanahan on a lot of his player personnel moves too, but believe me, I didn't do it because I missed Wade Phillips.

As for putting you on ignore - nope. Like I have said before, I don't have anybody on ignore. I would like to think that I'm mature enough to hear or see a person's opinion who disagrees with me. It's just a forum and it's just football - It's not life and death.

As for your line, "So tuck your man parts back in the 501s and move on" - I honestly have no idea what this means.


that is a fair response from someone that is rational and logical about it. I have no issues with that style.

But if you go back to when mikey was fired and Josh was hired those same folks whining then are still whining and throwing out mikeys/jays stats to compare with a totally different scenario with different players.

Has the guy made mistake absolutely but many that have whined about it, are stanch mikey supporters back from day one. They are indeed sore about the firings and trades. Yet they will not man up about it.

How many posts were there about him being inarticulate in pressers smacking his lips. What a petty way to judge a guy. Many of the same guys that comment today about how bad it is in broncoville.

All im asking is for folks to be objective give the guy more that 16 games to prove that it works.
IS it 32 games or 40 I do not know but I do know that Pat would not have made such a drastic move if he and the rest of the brain trust did not think it were necessary.

This past draft I though was a home run. the other one well could have been better but since they are still with the team and seem to be improving I do not have an issue with it yet.

I look at it this way draft 09 was still with mikeys guys that did not have a clue with what the new guy wanted the entire time they were scouting they were looking for finesse guys, when Josh came in and said OK where are the brawlers they had very little to show him and it was back to the drawing boards.

this past draft well it was creative at the worst and brilliant if it all turns out.

Josh if nothing else brings excitement to watching the draft as it has never been before .

Before it was "WHo the hell was that guy" and you heard the papers rustling while they looked up the stats on this guy we just took.

This past year it was I'm afraid to take a leak because Josh is wheeling and dealing.

I like the guy for what he is trying to do, right the ship after floundering for almost a decade+.

Will he succeed not sure but I'll wait to pronounce him a failure after he does.

Lets see 501's well those were jeans made by levi strauss that button up.

nothing fancy no holes in them, not stone washed, just man jeans.

I guess I do not have to explain the other part of that comment right?

spikerman
07-03-2010, 05:13 PM
that is a fair response from someone that is rational and logical about it. I have no issues with that style.

But if you go back to when mikey was fired and Josh was hired those same folks whining then are still whining and throwing out mikeys/jays stats to compare with a totally different scenario with different players.

Has the guy made mistake absolutely but many that have whined about it, are stanch mikey supporters back from day one. They are indeed sore about the firings and trades. Yet they will not man up about it.

How many posts were there about him being inarticulate in pressers smacking his lips. What a petty way to judge a guy. Many of the same guys that comment today about how bad it is in broncoville.

All im asking is for folks to be objective give the guy more that 16 games to prove that it works.
IS it 32 games or 40 I do not know but I do know that Pat would not have made such a drastic move if he and the rest of the brain trust did not think it were necessary.

This past draft I though was a home run. the other one well could have been better but since they are still with the team and seem to be improving I do not have an issue with it yet.

I look at it this way draft 09 was still with mikeys guys that did not have a clue with what the new guy wanted the entire time they were scouting they were looking for finesse guys, when Josh came in and said OK where are the brawlers they had very little to show him and it was back to the drawing boards.

this past draft well it was creative at the worst and brilliant if it all turns out.

Josh if nothing else brings excitement to watching the draft as it has never been before .

Before it was "WHo the hell was that guy" and you heard the papers rustling while they looked up the stats on this guy we just took.

This past year it was I'm afraid to take a leak because Josh is wheeling and dealing.

I like the guy for what he is trying to do, right the ship after floundering for almost a decade+.

Will he succeed not sure but I'll wait to pronounce him a failure after he does.

Lets see 501's well those were jeans made by levi strauss that button up.

nothing fancy no holes in them, not stone washed, just man jeans.

I guess I do not have to explain the other part of that comment right? I think that was a well thought-out post. Personally, I would never begrudge a person for being a McDaniels' fan. Hell, if he turns this thing around I'll be leading the cheers. Where you state, "All im asking is for folks to be objective give the guy more that 16 games to prove that it works" - I think that is a very fair thing to ask, but I would also ask that you be objective and understand that most people's disagreements with McDaniels have nothing to do with people who aren't here anymore. There may be some of that, but I honestly think that it's minimal.

Oh, sorry. I did understand the 501 jeans thing (I'm old :)), I just wasn't sure of the context at that point in the post. :beer:

Lonestar
07-03-2010, 05:20 PM
Could have fooled me. You are always the one to drop their name. :coffee:



The comparisons are only "apples to bananas" in your world. Even apples to apples, the McDaniels 09 team, with far fewer injuries, declined statistically in every offensive category!




Shanahan was wanted immediately the minute he was fired. I recall Mortenson saying it would be hours before he was announced in KC.

Shanahan chose to sit a year out not the other way around. Oh, and as far as the GM in Washington he is akin to what Sundquist was here for Shanahan. Don't think for one minute Shanahan doesn't have final say so there.



The very team caught for CHEATING. The very team that preaches character, and preached it when they were CHEATING, is the team we are emulating.

Oh, by the way, NE hasn't been the same since losing their MVC (most valuable camcorder) :lol:



From my vantage point, many have. I have judged McDaniels for his decisions or lack thereof. We had the highest roster turnover last year. This was his team last year. It will really be his team this year, too. It's time for him to put up or shut up. I certainly hope he can deliver.



People might just do that if you gave them the chance.

Just because I actually use their name instead of weaseling around by "the McDaniels 09 team, with far fewer injuries, declined statistically in every offensive category!"

it is the same thing only I've manned up about it.

so I guess that just because they were caught cheating that we never did?

fudging the cap comes to mind DURING the superbowl years no less.

so lets call a spade a spade huh.

I'm not sure that Josh had anything to do with the "MVC" but I suspect that their decline over the past few years IF 18-1 is considered a losing season provably has more to do with brain drain and talent drain than the "MVC" as you wish to see it.

they have consistently won games by growing their own talent in the base ares that any other team. and imprting some players to fill in the spots Moss welker and some of their DB come to mind.

Opposed to NOT building through that draft and fillingg all the holes with UFA expensive ones at that.

Now you say look at our DL this coming year, yep imported but then the poor ******* was left with not much in the tank here either and changing the scheme to a 3-4 could be the reasoning behind that also.

I am willing to give him the time to do a rebuild and IF and when he has shown to be incompetent at it have no fear I will also jump on the wagon next to you asking for his head.. (remember how I loved mikey)

So as I told Spikerman read my posts do not read my posts I'll be here defending his right to build the team in the manner it needs to be done.

and frankly I doubt that Pat give a rats rectum about how you and I feel anyway.

Tned
07-03-2010, 06:39 PM
So read my posts or NOT, until such time as I'm banned for stating the obvious, I'll be preaching give the man a chance and forget the past as it is OVER so over..

Nobody has ever been banned from BroncosForums for stating their opinion or for holding any particular opinion -- popular or unpopular. You will not be the first person to ever get banned for their 'opinion'.

Since you were a mod for a long time you know very well it takes a LOT to get banned on BF, and it only happens if a person both violates the forum rules and repeatedly disregards moderator directives to cease those violations.

Tned
07-03-2010, 06:47 PM
I think that is a very fair thing to ask, but I would also ask that you be objective and understand that most people's disagreements with McDaniels have nothing to do with people who aren't here anymore. There may be some of that, but I honestly think that it's minimal.


It's clear to anyone that reads the posts in Broncos talk that except for a couple zealot-like posters on each side of the discussions that spew love or hate 'just because', the vast majority of posts are by people that hold opinions on the current players and staff, not based on love or hate of Jay, Jake, Shanahan, Marshall, Henry, Portis, Kay, V. Johnson, Morton, or anyone else.

Discussing/debating doesn't get much weaker than saying "errr, you're just a hater....." or "Wade Phillips is gone and isn't coming back, get over it...." :laugh:

T.K.O.
07-03-2010, 06:59 PM
WHAT ? wade phillips is gone :confused:

spikerman
07-03-2010, 07:26 PM
WHAT ? wade phillips is gone :confused:

In my heart, he'll always be in Denver.

Lonestar
07-04-2010, 05:05 PM
Nobody has ever been banned from BroncosForums for stating their opinion or for holding any particular opinion -- popular or unpopular. You will not be the first person to ever get banned for their 'opinion'.

Since you were a mod for a long time you know very well it takes a LOT to get banned on BF, and it only happens if a person both violates the forum rules and repeatedly disregards moderator directives to cease those violations.


a freudian slip there?

yes I KNOW what it takes to get banned here.

that is not to say special circumstances can happen, is there.

Tned
07-04-2010, 05:10 PM
a freudian slip there?

yes I KNOW what it takes to get banned here.

that is not to say special circumstances can happen, is there.

Not sure what you are talking about.

My point, which you full well understand, is that while you keep spouting your "until they take the gun from my cold dead hands" version of "I will keep posting my opinion until they ban me for it" is nothing more than a backhanded slam on BroncosForums. When you, of all people, know that nobody gets banned from this place for posting their opinion.

Lonestar
07-04-2010, 09:11 PM
Not sure what you are talking about.

My point, which you full well understand, is that while you keep spouting your "until they take the gun from my cold dead hands" version of "I will keep posting my opinion until they ban me for it" is nothing more than a backhanded slam on BroncosForums. When you, of all people, know that nobody gets banned from this place for posting their opinion.

No just from reported posts by you.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Tned
07-04-2010, 10:10 PM
No just from reported posts by you.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I'm not going to hash out your grievance here in public. You know that's a bald faced lie, the mods know it's a bald faced lie. As to everyone else? It pains me that you would lie like that, but your recent posting behavior speaks volumes about your credibility.

As told before, take any future complaints, discussions of bans, rules, etc. to Town Hall. Any future posts of ths nature posted outside of a Town Hall thread will be deleted, as they are not only false, but more importantly off topic.

rcsodak
07-06-2010, 10:46 PM
Yea, the defense has been bad. But the offense was even worse last year which did zero favors. Im surprised Klis totally ignored that aspect of the downfall of last season. Well, im not really surprised.

Well, it's pretty obvious, if by nothing more than the title, that he's addressing areas of the team, one at a time. In this case, a possibly POSITIVE one.

Not about the team as a whole.

In another thread, his other article, he aimed at the Oline. That should have been much more to your negative liking, I would think? :tsk:

rcsodak
07-06-2010, 11:13 PM
And this bears repeating....



So tuck your man parts back in the 501s and move on.

We have a new coach that Pat brought in the change the image, and style of the TEAM. I for one will support him until such time as he is not doing that.

16 games is not a fair base to make decisions on him. Although many had their minds made up because he was not a Defensive guy (OMG we had the #2 offense do not screw with that) or most importantly he came from NE.

God forbid we would want to emulate the team that took the Broncos spot for almost a decade now with being the best consistent TEAM in the NFL over that time frame.

It does not matter one iota what some of us want it is what Pat wants this TEAM to be. So get on the band wagon and give him a fair chance. Do not judge him against your past idols and allow him some time to rebuild this TEAM whether you want to realize it or NOT (in most cases) IT needed to be rebuilt.

:elefant:

arapaho2
07-07-2010, 11:27 AM
C'mon ma'an. You quoted one paragraph of my mine and Northman's debate. I wasn't going to reply and quote the previous history of our other 5 posts in our debate each time I'm adding to it.

And I don't know.....the stats on offense are pretty solid the first 6 games.

Through the first 6 games, our passing game was 124-194, 9TD/1INT, 1465 yards. Our running game was 149-708, 4.8 ypc, and 2 TD's.

The only thing we weren't doing was scoring rushing TD's (also 3rd down conversions), which was something we we're bad at under the Shanahan/Cutler era . We were also running the clock out the entire 4th quarter for 3 of the 6 games.

Not only we were incredibly more efficient on offense through the first 6 games this year in comparison to last year under Shanahan with the "vaunted explosive offense", but we had considerably less drives with scoring intentions, and averaged 22.2 points per game compared to 27.7 points per game last year. That could also be a reason why points per drive was down than the previous year. Surely not to the point where it would have been better than 2008, but much, much closer.

i call bullshit!!!

there are no drives without the intent of scoreing...the only exception is the kneel down...it doesnt matter if your running out the clock...you are still trying to move the ball and score

second...we were still more efficient in the first six games on 08:coffee:

08...64 possesions ....166 points scored...2.5 ppp
09...67 possesions.....133 points scored...1.9 ppg

im pretty sure 2.5 > 1.9

jhildebrand
07-07-2010, 11:34 AM
^^ I would be curious to see how many of the 67 possessions were a result of the D giving the O the ball. I would think the 09 O had so many more possessions because of the D.

silkamilkamonico
07-07-2010, 12:38 PM
i call bullshit!!!

there are no drives without the intent of scoreing...the only exception is the kneel down...it doesnt matter if your running out the clock...you are still trying to move the ball and score

second...we were still more efficient in the first six games on 08:coffee:

08...64 possesions ....166 points scored...2.5 ppp
09...67 possesions.....133 points scored...1.9 ppg

im pretty sure 2.5 > 1.9

I call bullshit right back.

When you're trying to pass downfield, because it's a niptuck game and you have to score to win, you're being more aggressive, thus, more points are going to happen.

When you're running run plays right up the middle, play after play after play, you're being far less aggressive, because you've basically already won the game and are getting it over with.

If you're honestly going to sit here and try and argue that Team A, who has already controlled and won the game and is trying to "run out the clock" (key phrase) is playing just as aggressive as Team B, who can't keep the lead and has to score to win, I honestly don't know what to tell you. If you actually believe in that, there are Football 101 manuals for people like you.

And obviously we scored more points per possession in 08 then 09. We had to to win!

silkamilkamonico
07-07-2010, 12:40 PM
^^ I would be curious to see how many of the 67 possessions were a result of the D giving the O the ball. I would think the 09 O had so many more possessions because of the D.

I think the 09 team had more possessions because they had so many 3 and outs, creating more possessions throughout the game. Our offense was dreadful at avoiding those last year.

arapaho2
07-07-2010, 06:06 PM
I call bullshit right back.

When you're trying to pass downfield, because it's a niptuck game and you have to score to win, you're being more aggressive, thus, more points are going to happen.

When you're running run plays right up the middle, play after play after play, you're being far less aggressive, because you've basically already won the game and are getting it over with.

If you're honestly going to sit here and try and argue that Team A, who has already controlled and won the game and is trying to "run out the clock" (key phrase) is playing just as aggressive as Team B, who can't keep the lead and has to score to win, I honestly don't know what to tell you. If you actually believe in that, there are Football 101 manuals for people like you.

And obviously we scored more points per possession in 08 then 09. We had to to win!

BS again...in 09 the first six games we only had control of two games in the forth...in one we scored two tds in the forth..talk about letting off the gass:lol:


their is also another rule of thumb...it is much harder to score when behind..when the other team knows you have to pass to keep up...as we needed to do in 08...yet we still scored more???

you can twist it any way you want...but you stated the 09 offense was more effiecent...and were wrong...you changed it to the 09 offense was more effient in the first six games and again was wrong

sometimes your just wrong and got to admit it:coffee:

arapaho2
07-07-2010, 06:09 PM
I think the 09 team had more possessions because they had so many 3 and outs, creating more possessions throughout the game. Our offense was dreadful at avoiding those last year.


our defense also gave the offense the ball 31 times on turnovers compared to 13 in 08

silkamilkamonico
07-07-2010, 07:38 PM
BS again...in 09 the first six games we only had control of two games in the forth...in one we scored two tds in the forth..talk about letting off the gass:lol:

LMAO

We were running the clock out during the entire second half of the Cleveland and Oakland games. We could have scored another 3-4 TD's easily if we continued to throw the ball. Our offense was so efficient last year during the first 6 games in general we were scoring while running out the clock. Imagine not running out the clock. We could have probably scored 60 points those games. Thanks for proving my point further.





you can twist it any way you want...but you stated the 09 offense was more effiecent...and were wrong...you changed it to the 09 offense was more effient in the first six games and again was wrong

First of all, I didn't say anything about the entire season. Unfortunately for your argument your reading comprehension hasn't seemed to change 1 bit. Second of all, please don't twist the facts:

through the first 6 games...

08' season...
passing 141-229, 12TD/5INT 1694 yds, running game was 153-722, 5.0ypc, 5 TD's
09' season...
passing 124-194, 9TD/1INT, 1465 yds, running game was 149-708, 4.8 ypc, and 2 TD's

Are you seriously trying to argue that a TD to interception ratio of 2.4:1 and a difference of 0.2 ypc rushing is more efficient than a TD to interception ratio of 9:1?

LMAO



sometimes your just wrong and got to admit it:coffee:

Sometimes you're just wrong like you are now arapho, and instead of trying to twist the argument by distorting the other persons point, you're much better off admitting it.

:coffee:

silkamilkamonico
07-07-2010, 07:40 PM
our defense also gave the offense the ball 31 times on turnovers compared to 13 in 08

Yes, and on the flip side our offense wasn't giving the ball over on our side of the field all the time like the 08' offense, which led directly to a good majority of other teams points. See the Miami game for that one, where Cutler single handidly gave Miami half of their points, which was why we lost that game.

Lonestar
07-08-2010, 01:31 AM
Silk do not let facts get in your way.

When you can obiscate till the cows come home.


Good posts.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
07-08-2010, 06:03 AM
I think the 09 team had more possessions because they had so many 3 and outs, creating more possessions throughout the game. Our offense was dreadful at avoiding those last year.

And with good reason. New offense. New players. Honestly, I don't know why anybody would want to hang their hat on a comparison between a veteran team and a 1st yr team. That'd be like comparing PManning's offense to TTebow's. Not quite fair.

claymore
07-08-2010, 06:30 AM
And with good reason. New offense. New players. Honestly, I don't know why anybody would want to hang their hat on a comparison between a veteran team and a 1st yr team. That'd be like comparing PManning's offense to TTebow's. Not quite fair.

:laugh:

Lonestar
07-08-2010, 08:41 AM
And with good reason. New offense. New players. Honestly, I don't know why anybody would want to hang their hat on a comparison between a veteran team and a 1st yr team. That'd be like comparing PManning's offense to TTebow's. Not quite fair.

Well there you go being logical once again.

Amazing just how good they were considering just how NEW veryon was to the scheme.

Only players that were not new IIRC hockstine and gaffeny neither of them starters for most of the season.

I don't understand why anyone had huge expectations for last year considering the new scheme, 35 of 53 players were new to the team. All of the coaches except Josh were new to it.

Guess most folks hand a handful of E tickets and were stuck in fantasy land.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

spikerman
07-08-2010, 04:15 PM
I don't understand why anyone had huge expectations for last year considering the new scheme, 35 of 53 players were new to the team. All of the coaches except Josh were new to it.

Guess most folks hand a handful of E tickets and were stuck in fantasy land.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I don't know of anybody, though I'm sure there were some people, who expected much from the Broncos last year. My disappointment comes not from the overall record, which was better than I thought it would be, but for the way the season ended. 8-8 sounds good until you realize the team started 6-0. I'm sorry, but nobody should be happy with a 2-8 10 game stretch.

Also, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see where this team got much better in the offseason on the offensive side of the ball. I see another year with the offense struggling.

T.K.O.
07-08-2010, 04:24 PM
I don't know of anybody, though I'm sure there were some people, who expected much from the Broncos last year. My disappointment comes not from the overall record, which was better than I thought it would be, but for the way the season ended. 8-8 sounds good until you realize the team started 6-0. I'm sorry, but nobody should be happy with a 2-8 10 game stretch.

Also, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see where this team got much better in the offseason on the offensive side of the ball. I see another year with the offense struggling.

i predicted 10-6.....then i thought i was off by 2 games at mid season (12-4 ?)....then as it turned out i was right....about the 2 games thing:mad:

Lonestar
07-08-2010, 05:14 PM
I don't know of anybody, though I'm sure there were some people, who expected much from the Broncos last year. My disappointment comes not from the overall record, which was better than I thought it would be, but for the way the season ended. 8-8 sounds good until you realize the team started 6-0. I'm sorry, but nobody should be happy with a 2-8 10 game stretch.

Also, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see where this team got much better in the offseason on the offensive side of the ball. I see another year with the offense struggling.
and I'm not happy with 2-8 but there are reasons for that mainly on the LOS .

Anyone that thought that fields was a real NT was nuts and for the long haul of a 16+ game season was a real fruit cake.

The injuries and total ineffectiveness on the oline was the other part.

HAmilton should have been replace two years ago, he has been the weak link in this OLINE since we converted to the pocket passing part and even before that. I remember him getting his ass handed to him in the PIT AFFCG, hell his man was in the back field waiting fro Jake when he got to the 5 step drops.

Great in the ZBS when he had good men surrounding him but one on one he was on roller skates going back ward most of the time.

When Harris went down in the 6-7th game the was the death nell of the offense after that what little continuity they had went into the toilet with two starters out of the line up.

then with Orton be even less mobile than before with the high ankle sprain, well that doomed the O.

those are reasons on top of a new scheme and 35 new players to the squad, and every coach that was new they all had to learn the scheme from ONE guy Josh.

Even if you learn it and know it that split second hesitation at the pro level will kill you.

I used to play ORG and having a new guy next to me on either side caused havoc in KNOWING and reacting instinctively to a situation. That split second or wondering if the guy next to you was going to drop a block and that I may have to take that one on also. Caused major issues. So believe that or not the LOS wins and loses games and last year it was BIG TIME.

fields would have worn down by the end of the year anyway whether the O would have been even good. at less than 340 NT are going to struggle in keeping themselves anchored. those are facts of life giving up 20+ pounds of muscle each play is going to drain you.


LEt me add just another year int eh scheme is going to make a lot of people better not thinking about each play.

Orton should have more time to make decisions and allow some longer plays to develop. will he be P manning no but he was not chopped liver last year considering all of the issues on that field.

Will the O be the Super bowl model we had a decade+ ago no but couple with a better D getting the ball back in a better position on the field should help out also.

not saying Playoffs this year but watch out in 2011, if SAN trips up it could be this year.

arapaho2
07-08-2010, 05:53 PM
Well there you go being logical once again.

Amazing just how good they were considering just how NEW veryon was to the scheme.

Only players that were not new IIRC hockstine and gaffeny neither of them starters for most of the season.

I don't understand why anyone had huge expectations for last year considering the new scheme, 35 of 53 players were new to the team. All of the coaches except Josh were new to it.

Guess most folks hand a handful of E tickets and were stuck in fantasy land.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

weird how you condemm doom in his...ENTIRELY NEW SCHEME AND POSITION...while giveing the offense a pass, because its new players and scheme :lol::lol:

hypocrite much:coffee:

Ravage!!!
07-08-2010, 06:28 PM
weird how you condemm doom in his...ENTIRELY NEW SCHEME AND POSITION...while giveing the offense a pass, because its new players and scheme :lol::lol:

hypocrite much:coffee:

That "new scheme" thing is such a load of crock. Thats the most over used, and over exaggerated excuse I"ve seen on this message board. Sure didn't seem to bother the Jets.... rookie QB or not.

T.K.O.
07-08-2010, 07:30 PM
the J.....E.......T......S............U..........C.... ........K !:laugh:

Bosco
07-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Sure didn't seem to bother the Jets.... rookie QB or not.

That's because they didn't change offensive schemes. Rex Ryan kept Brian Schottenheimer, who has been running that offense since 2006.

TXBRONC
07-08-2010, 09:03 PM
That's because they didn't change offensive schemes. Rex Ryan kept Brian Schottenheimer, who has been running that offense since 2006.

It's still a rookie quarterback going into a new system.

Bosco
07-08-2010, 11:10 PM
It's still a rookie quarterback going into a new system. A rookie quarterback, yes, but the system had been in place for years and Schottenheimer's version of the WCO isn't all that much different than Carroll's.

Either way it's moot as Ravage was getting on someone for the "new system excuse" and attempted to prove it with a team that didn't actually change systems, which is what I was pointing out.

Lonestar
07-08-2010, 11:30 PM
A rookie quarterback, yes, but the system had been in place for years and Schottenheimer's version of the WCO isn't all that much different than Carroll's.

Either way it's moot as Ravage was getting on someone for the "new system excuse" and attempted to prove it with a team that didn't actually change systems, which is what I was pointing out.


Anyone that does not think a the advent of a new scheme does not matter is full of something. I do not want to smell. I suspect everyone knows that.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
07-08-2010, 11:38 PM
That's because they didn't change offensive schemes. Rex Ryan kept Brian Schottenheimer, who has been running that offense since 2006.

Fine, I will argue the Atlanta Falcons and Baltimore Ravens with rookie QB's and rookie head coaches and new systems had no problems making the playoffs. Baltimore probably should have won the AFCCG!

Let's also not forget that ATL had far more drama in the offseason leading up to that season due to the Vick scenario.

Now how's it going to get twisted? :confused:

Ravage!!!
07-09-2010, 09:40 AM
That's because they didn't change offensive schemes. Rex Ryan kept Brian Schottenheimer, who has been running that offense since 2006.

Ahh.. but new to the rookie QB. The NFL was new to the rookie. EVERYTHING was new to the rookie, so whats the difference? none.

We want to make excuses for Orton because he was "learning a new system." Wasn't the rookie learning a new system? Wasn't he learning an entire different game compared to college at the same time? As pointed out just one post up, what about Ryan in Atlanta? New system, rookie QB... should have the same problems and excuses as we are trying to give McD and Orton.

The "new system" excuse is lame. Old systems fail just as new systems succeed. This "it didn't work because its a new system" junk is just that... junk. Its LOOKING for excuses, and then you and Wiz want to completely close your eyes if that same excuse can be applied to other parts of the team, or ex-Bronco players. It only works when you want to use it in your small lil box.

TXBRONC
07-09-2010, 09:50 AM
A rookie quarterback, yes, but the system had been in place for years and Schottenheimer's version of the WCO isn't all that much different than Carroll's.

Either way it's moot as Ravage was getting on someone for the "new system excuse" and attempted to prove it with a team that didn't actually change systems, which is what I was pointing out.

But Sanchez had learn the system regardless of how long it had been in place.

I know what you were trying to point out nevertheless my point is right in line with Ravage's point.

Northman
07-09-2010, 09:54 AM
Ahh.. but new to the rookie QB. The NFL was new to the rookie. EVERYTHING was new to the rookie, so whats the difference? none.

We want to make excuses for Orton because he was "learning a new system." Wasn't the rookie learning a new system? Wasn't he learning an entire different game compared to college at the same time? As pointed out just one post up, what about Ryan in Atlanta? New system, rookie QB... should have the same problems and excuses as we are trying to give McD and Orton.

The "new system" excuse is lame. Old systems fail just as new systems succeed. This "it didn't work because its a new system" junk is just that... junk. Its LOOKING for excuses, and then you and Wiz want to completely close your eyes if that same excuse can be applied to other parts of the team, or ex-Bronco players. It only works when you want to use it in your small lil box.


:beer:

TXBRONC
07-09-2010, 09:56 AM
:beer:

It's a little early to be drinking beer isn't North? But then again there is song that says it 5 o'clock somewhere. :D

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 10:06 AM
Ahh.. but new to the rookie QB. The NFL was new to the rookie. EVERYTHING was new to the rookie, so whats the difference? none.

We want to make excuses for Orton because he was "learning a new system." Wasn't the rookie learning a new system? Wasn't he learning an entire different game compared to college at the same time? As pointed out just one post up, what about Ryan in Atlanta? New system, rookie QB... should have the same problems and excuses as we are trying to give McD and Orton.

The "new system" excuse is lame. Old systems fail just as new systems succeed. This "it didn't work because its a new system" junk is just that... junk. Its LOOKING for excuses, and then you and Wiz want to completely close your eyes if that same excuse can be applied to other parts of the team, or ex-Bronco players. It only works when you want to use it in your small lil box.

ah...but that rookie qb had little to nothing to do with them "making the playoffs" he had a pretty bad year ,it was the rest of the team(defense and running game) that got them there...not to mention the colts and bengals resting their starters

TXBRONC
07-09-2010, 10:17 AM
ah...but that rookie qb had little to nothing to do with them "making the playoffs" he had a pretty bad year ,it was the rest of the team(defense and running game) that got them there...not to mention the colts and bengals resting their starters

He made a lot of rookie mistakes but to say that he had little to nothing to do with Jets making the playoffs is true either.

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 10:26 AM
He made a lot of rookie mistakes but to say that he had little to nothing to do with Jets making the playoffs is true either.

i think you could take any qb that played last year and put him on the jets and the results would have been the same or better,therefore it was the rest of the team that got them there not his putrid
12 td's 20 int's and a 63.0 qb rating
if he did help the team it only shows that orton helped the broncos even more .....his #'s look like manning compared to what sanchez did:laugh:

jhildebrand
07-09-2010, 10:28 AM
ah...but that rookie qb had little to nothing to do with them "making the playoffs" he had a pretty bad year ,it was the rest of the team(defense and running game) that got them there...not to mention the colts and bengals resting their starters

He had has little to do as Orton did with the 6-0 mark. Orton wasn't asked to do everything. The Jets started 5-0 and the Broncos 6-0. The Jets were in a MUCH TOUGHER division and still made the playoffs. The Broncos were in an easier division with an easy remainder to their schedule-Washington, OAK, KC twice. That should have been far easier than the Colts resting their players.

Also, speaking of the D, doesn't this then highlight the fact that maybe McDaniels shouldn't tinker with the D seeing how that is how the Jets got into the playoffs? :confused: Why tinker with the one unit that actually improved? :confused:

Ravage!!!
07-09-2010, 10:34 AM
ah...but that rookie qb had little to nothing to do with them "making the playoffs" he had a pretty bad year ,it was the rest of the team(defense and running game) that got them there...not to mention the colts and bengals resting their starters

What about when they beat the Bengals IN the playoffs, did Cinci sit their starters then, too??? :confused:

Quit fooling yourself. He played great in the playoffs, and well during the season. Quit just focusing on the small stuff. He ABSOLUTELY had to do with them getting there. Quit trying to run another guy down and minimize his role simply to BOOST up another point.

What about Ryan in Atlanta, and Flacco for Baltimore? These guys play the most important position on the field. Don't tell me they had "little to do" with the team's success.

Point being. When a veteran QB learns a "new system".. everyone knows that it mainly comes down to learning new terminology. Reading the defense from one offensive system to the next, is the same. You still have to identify the same things. Who is zone, who is man up, who is blitzing, who is not.. where is the safety? That doesn't change. Every team in the NFL runs the same patterns with their WRs. Now obviously not all the same combinations at the same time. But the routes are the same. SO the veteran learning a "new system" is learning how to call the plays. He has a MUCH bigger advantage over the rookie who is not only learning the offense, but learning the speed of the NFL and reading NFL defenses (something Orton has had 5 years head start on learning).

Its just a lame excuse. As I said before. Old systems fail in the NFL. New systems succeed. That excuse just holds no water.

TXBRONC
07-09-2010, 10:35 AM
i think you could take any qb that played last year and put him on the jets and the results would have been the same or better,therefore it was the rest of the team that got them there not his putrid
12 td's 20 int's and a 63.0 qb rating
if he did help the team it only shows that orton helped the broncos even more .....his #'s look like manning compared to what sanchez did:laugh:

Maybe but apparantely the Jets didn't thinks so their opinion of their means more than yours.

Your last statement makes no sense Jets got to the playoffs with a rookie quarterback that made a lot rookie mistakes Orton did what??? 2-8 down the stretch 12 tds and 11 ints in the same stretch. That really helped alright. :lol:

TXBRONC
07-09-2010, 10:37 AM
What about when they beat the Bengals IN the playoffs, did Cinci sit their starters then, too??? :confused:

Quit fooling yourself. He played great in the playoffs, and well during the season. Quit just focusing on the small stuff. He ABSOLUTELY had to do with them getting there. Quit trying to run another guy down and minimize his role simply to BOOST up another point.

What about Ryan in Atlanta, and Flacco for Baltimore? These guys play the most important position on the field. Don't tell me they had "little to do" with the team's success.

Point being. When a veteran QB learns a "new system".. everyone knows that it mainly comes down to learning new terminology. Reading the defense from one offensive system to the next, is the same. You still have to identify the same things. Who is zone, who is man up, who is blitzing, who is not.. where is the safety? That doesn't change. Every team in the NFL runs the same patterns with their WRs. Now obviously not all the same combinations at the same time. But the routes are the same. SO the veteran learning a "new system" is learning how to call the plays. He has a MUCH bigger advantage over the rookie who is not only learning the offense, but learning the speed of the NFL and reading NFL defenses (something Orton has had 5 years head start on learning).

Its just a lame excuse. As I said before. Old systems fail in the NFL. New systems succeed. That excuse just holds no water.

Obviously they must have sat their starters otherwise the Jets would have lost Rav. :lol:

But hey we had Orton and that show just how much he helped the Broncos. :rofl:

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 10:40 AM
He had has little to do as Orton did with the 6-0 mark. Orton wasn't asked to do everything. The Jets started 5-0 and the Broncos 6-0. The Jets were in a MUCH TOUGHER division and still made the playoffs. The Broncos were in an easier division with an easy remainder to their schedule-Washington, OAK, KC twice. That should have been far easier than the Colts resting their players.

Also, speaking of the D, doesn't this then highlight the fact that maybe McDaniels shouldn't tinker with the D seeing how that is how the Jets got into the playoffs? :confused: Why tinker with the one unit that actually improved? :confused:

orton was an early candidate for the probowl,he was maybe the most efficient qb in the league through those 6 wins,and the broncos d was one of the worst in the league through the last 10 games.....how do you figure that the d should be left alone ?
i'm not saying orton was "elite" by any means ,but it is laughable to say that sanchez helped his team more.
and the broncos had what was considered the toughest 8 game stretch in the league last year.....the schedule was far from easy.
should we have been able to beat kc and oak at home yes.....did the d do their part.....NO. they got ran through like a wet paper towell to the tune of 244 yds avg down the stretch.
did the offense "light it up"......no but as ive said before both sides stunk when the chips were down.
and the jets got a free pass to the playoffs by both the colts and bengals.

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 10:43 AM
What about when they beat the Bengals IN the playoffs, did Cinci sit their starters then, too??? :confused:

Quit fooling yourself. He played great in the playoffs, and well during the season. Quit just focusing on the small stuff. He ABSOLUTELY had to do with them getting there. Quit trying to run another guy down and minimize his role simply to BOOST up another point.

What about Ryan in Atlanta, and Flacco for Baltimore? These guys play the most important position on the field. Don't tell me they had "little to do" with the team's success.

Point being. When a veteran QB learns a "new system".. everyone knows that it mainly comes down to learning new terminology. Reading the defense from one offensive system to the next, is the same. You still have to identify the same things. Who is zone, who is man up, who is blitzing, who is not.. where is the safety? That doesn't change. Every team in the NFL runs the same patterns with their WRs. Now obviously not all the same combinations at the same time. But the routes are the same. SO the veteran learning a "new system" is learning how to call the plays. He has a MUCH bigger advantage over the rookie who is not only learning the offense, but learning the speed of the NFL and reading NFL defenses (something Orton has had 5 years head start on learning).

Its just a lame excuse. As I said before. Old systems fail in the NFL. New systems succeed. That excuse just holds no water.

so if sanchez played well with 12 td's and 20 picks
how is it that orton sucked with 21 td's and 12 int's
is this another "opinion " debate ?:laugh:

and the jets had the #1 scoring defense in the league allowing 236 points while the broncos D was 20th allowing 324
would we have made the playoffs if we had allowed almost 100 fewer points ?
oh wait i'll get it for ya'
it's ortons fault for all the 3 and outs......got it !
and yet sanchez gave the ball up 8 more times and threw 1/2 the td's.....i can't figure out how he was better....but i'm sure someone can

Lonestar
07-09-2010, 11:51 AM
i think you could take any qb that played last year and put him on the jets and the results would have been the same or better,therefore it was the rest of the team that got them there not his putrid
12 td's 20 int's and a 63.0 qb rating
if he did help the team it only shows that orton helped the broncos even more .....his #'s look like manning compared to what sanchez did:laugh:

Well hells bells there you go being logical again.

While I probably. Not see the orton haters circling the wagons they surely will.

Using every excuse in the book except the actual facts.

Anyone new to a scheme/program/team is going to struggle.

But wow it is funny how thse rookie QB's were the only thing new to the team that had other VEteran players and good defenses in the Jets case top 5 IIRC.

Yet DEN had 35 new players to th team, every coach except turner and rick were new to the team and all were new to the schemes. Anyone that does not get that is beyond help.

Teaching one guy a limited playbook with everyone else around him already knowing it is a hell of a lot different than teaching everyone.

Not even to mention execution of the 11 on the field.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
07-09-2010, 12:05 PM
so if sanchez played well with 12 td's and 20 picks
how is it that orton sucked with 21 td's and 12 int's
is this another "opinion " debate ?:laugh:

and the jets had the #1 scoring defense in the league allowing 236 points while the broncos D was 20th allowing 324
would we have made the playoffs if we had allowed almost 100 fewer points ?
oh wait i'll get it for ya'
it's ortons fault for all the 3 and outs......got it !
and yet sanchez gave the ball up 8 more times and threw 1/2 the td's.....i can't figure out how he was better....but i'm sure someone can

Your beating a dead horse on this. rav has been a jay lover since he was drafted. So anyone having to do with his leaving or being his replacement will never be worth a crap.
IMO do not waste your time trying to be logical I will fall on deaf ears.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Tned
07-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Well hells bells there you go being logical again.

While I probably. Not see the orton haters circling the wagons they surely will.

Using every excuse in the book except the actual facts.

Anyone new to a scheme/program/team is going to struggle.

But wow it is funny how thse rookie QB's were the only thing new to the team that had other VEteran players and good defenses in the Jets case top 5 IIRC.

Yet DEN had 35 new players to th team, every coach except turner and rick were new to the team and all were new to the schemes. Anyone that does not get that is beyond help.

Teaching one guy a limited playbook with everyone else around him already knowing it is a hell of a lot different than teaching everyone.

Not even to mention execution of the 11 on the field.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

This is what our President calls a teachable moment. While the above was meant to inflame and bait, the same content (without the flame bait) could have been written like this:


Nice, well thought out post. Good job.

Anyone new to a scheme/program/team is going to struggle.

thse rookie QB's were the only thing new to the team that had other VEteran players and good defenses in the Jets case top 5 IIRC.

Yet DEN had 35 new players to th team, every coach except turner and rick were new to the team and all were new to the schemes, which meant Denver had much more to overcome.

Teaching one guy a limited playbook with everyone else around him already knowing it is a hell of a lot different than teaching everyone.

Not even to mention execution of the 11 on the field.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

The exact same opinion (minus the bashing of fans with different opinions) was expressed, without slamming/baiting others on the message board.

I hope, like the Beer Summit, this can be a teachable moment that we can all embrace.

Lonestar
07-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Posted June 30, 2010, 1:29 pm MT No. 1 Reason for Broncos optimism in 2010By Mike Klis


The defensive line. It’s about time the Broncos seriously addressed the Curse of Trevor Pryce. Yes, there is some age alongside the names of Jamal Williams (34), Justin Bannan (31) and Jarvis Green (31).

But there are also 12 combined playoff appearances from the trio — Green (six), Williams (four) and Bannan (two).

Since Mike Shanahan dumped Pryce after the 2005 season, the Broncos have gone a relatively respectable 32-32 despite having arguably the NFL’s worst collection of defensive fronts.

In 2009, after a sensational six-game start, the Broncos’ defense allowed 158.1 yards rushing in their last 10 games. How bad is 158.1 rushing yards allowed per game? Consider Tampa Bay ranked 32nd in the 32-team NFL by allowing 158.2 rushing yards a game.

In 2008, only 0-16 Detroit and 2-14 Kansas City gave up more than the 5.0 yards per carry surrendered by Denver’s D.

In 2007, the Broncos ranked 30th in the NFL by allowing 142.6 yards per game.

And after a record-setting, six-game start in 2006, the Broncos’ defense fell apart. Injuries to defensive linemen Gerard Warren and Courtney Brown, and the departure of Pryce _ arguably the most talented defensive lineman in Broncos history _ caused the Broncos to allow 26.1 points in their last 10 games. How bad is 26.1 points per game? San Francisco ranked 32nd in points allowed that year with 25.8 points.

Meanwhile, Pryce is going on his fifth season with the defensive-minded Baltimore Ravens. Letting him go was clearly one of the biggest mistakes of the Shanahan era. In Williams, Bannan and Green, the Broncos may finally have the kind of playoff-caliber defensive front to overcome the Trevor Curse.

Since this thread has went far astray.

Thought reposting the OP to see if anyone really wants to debate his theory.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
07-09-2010, 12:12 PM
This is what our President calls a teachable moment. While the above was meant to inflame and bait, the same content (without the flame bait) could have been written like this:



The exact same opinion (minus the bashing of fans with different opinions) was expressed, without slamming/baiting others on the message board.

I hope, like the Beer Summit, this can be a teachable moment that we can all embrace.

:lol::lol:

arapaho2
07-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Anyone that does not think a the advent of a new scheme does not matter is full of something. I do not want to smell. I suspect everyone knows that.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


but isnt that you?? i mean dooms not only had a new scheme every single season...but a brand new never played before position...and he is supposed to be better then the best instantly...right ?

Tned
07-09-2010, 12:19 PM
Here we have another teachable moment this original post:


Your beating a dead horse on this. rav has been a jay lover since he was drafted. So anyone having to do with his leaving or being his replacement will never be worth a crap.
IMO do not waste your time trying to be logical I will fall on deaf ears.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Could be re-written without the parts intended to flame and bait, but instead that pertain to the topic of the thread like:



Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Once again, in the spirit of the Beer Summit, we can see how easy it is to post in a manner where we can all get along.

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 12:30 PM
i get along with everybody.....even when they're wrong;)

arapaho2
07-09-2010, 12:32 PM
orton was an early candidate for the probowl,he was maybe the most efficient qb in the league through those 6 wins,and the broncos d was one of the worst in the league through the last 10 games.....how do you figure that the d should be left alone ?
i'm not saying orton was "elite" by any means ,but it is laughable to say that sanchez helped his team more.
and the broncos had what was considered the toughest 8 game stretch in the league last year.....the schedule was far from easy.
should we have been able to beat kc and oak at home yes.....did the d do their part.....NO. they got ran through like a wet paper towell to the tune of 244 yds avg down the stretch.
did the offense "light it up"......no but as ive said before both sides stunk when the chips were down.
and the jets got a free pass to the playoffs by both the colts and bengals.


heres a little stat

in the last 10 games
in the wins the offense averaged 35 ppg
in losses 15.3ppg...which would have tied cleveland at 29th worst offense

now you can blame the defense for that all you want...but the offense failed to produce points in losses

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 12:35 PM
heres a little stat

in the last 10 games
in the wins the offense averaged 35 ppg
in losses 15.3ppg...which would have tied cleveland at 29th worst offense

now you can blame the defense for that all you want...but the offense failed to produce points in losses

WOW ! i bet most teams that lose "failed to produce enough points to win"
brilliant:beer:
as i said BOTH sides share the blame during the 2-8 finish and the 6-0 start.
pretty simple really

Tned
07-09-2010, 12:39 PM
heres a little stat

in the last 10 games
in the wins the offense averaged 35 ppg
in losses 15.3ppg...which would have tied cleveland at 29th worst offense

now you can blame the defense for that all you want...but the offense failed to produce points in losses

The defense wasn't stopping many sustained drives during that stretch. They were pretty horrific. Orton was playing hurt, and during at least part of that stretch Buck was hurt. One could fault McDaniels/Turner for refusing to give Hillis a shot and overusing a worn out Moreno.

The biggest issue I have on offense, and I don't know if it was play calling or Orton, was so many really short passes and WR screens. It allowed the other team's D to compress up to the LOS, and create a lot more traffic in that 2-10 yard (from the LOS) strip where nearly all the passes were going.

Anyway, back to 'blame', I don't see how you can apply more blame to one side of the ball than the other. They both played bad in those last 10 games.

arapaho2
07-09-2010, 01:01 PM
The defense wasn't stopping many sustained drives during that stretch. They were pretty horrific. Orton was playing hurt, and during at least part of that stretch Buck was hurt. One could fault McDaniels/Turner for refusing to give Hillis a shot and overusing a worn out Moreno.

The biggest issue I have on offense, and I don't know if it was play calling or Orton, was so many really short passes and WR screens. It allowed the other team's D to compress up to the LOS, and create a lot more traffic in that 2-10 yard (from the LOS) strip where nearly all the passes were going.

Anyway, back to 'blame', I don't see how you can apply more blame to one side of the ball than the other. They both played bad in those last 10 games.


im not saying it was all offnes, or not the defense

simply disregarding the idea that we just lost because the defense

sure the defense couldnt stop many...but also i would bet the offense was bad in 3 n outs in that time...which we all knows tears apart a defense late in the games and season

look at the indy game...sure the defense allwed two 1st qrt tds...thats what happens when your coach foolishly gives the ball to payton instead of recieving the ball

but also look at the broncos 3 1st qrt drives...69 yards...5:33 TOP...a failed 3rd and 2 and a failed 4th and 1

sure the defense couldnt stop manning, not many can...but the offense did didly shit when the defense was reeling

maybe a sustained drive by our offense would have gave the defnese enough time to adjust..relax..or get their head in the game..what ever the issue was...but they didnt get that....im sure that 1:21 minute break between indy scores didnt work for the defenses benefit

the defense also then stiffened and held manning scoreless for about two full qrts...and the offense couldnt capitalize

jhildebrand
07-09-2010, 02:28 PM
WOW ! i bet most teams that lose "failed to produce enough points to win"
brilliant:beer:
as i said BOTH sides share the blame during the 2-8 finish and the 6-0 start.
pretty simple really

But the problem is you are apt, or seem willing, to credit both sides of the ball equally for their failures.

The reality is the offense had much more to do with the D's so called poor performance i.e. 8 TOP in the second half of 3 games, several failed 4th down conversions, too many 3 and outs to count, leaving the D with poor field position, etc...

Meanwhile there were games where the D was +2 or more in the TO ratio and the O still couldn't stay on the field let alone get points.

Finally, everybody seems so willing to point to the KC game as proof of the D's issues all while overlooking Orton's pick 6 machine he had going!

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 02:44 PM
But the problem is you are apt, or seem willing, to credit both sides of the ball equally for their failures.

!

that pretty much say's it all...:confused:

Ravage!!!
07-09-2010, 07:16 PM
so if sanchez played well with 12 td's and 20 picks
how is it that orton sucked with 21 td's and 12 int's
is this another "opinion " debate ?:laugh:

I never said anything about Orton sucking. I said this LAME "its a new system" excuse...is ridiculous. It works when you have nothing else to use. Its a "I don't know what else to say, it HAS to be the new system" reasoning. We have used it for the entire offense. Yet, when going 6-0 on the back of the defense, we were PRAISING this "new offense" and new system.

Orton has 5 years experience reading defenses in the NFL. Learning a " new system" for a vet QB is nothing more than learning the terminology (ask any veteran QB, they've all said it a hundred times in commentary). Routes from team to team are the same. Reading defenses remain the same, no matter what offensive "scheme" you are in. So what is it about this new "scheme" that our veteran QB needs more time with? I mean, at least the rookie Sanchez (as an example) has the reasons of being a first year player in the NFL.


and the jets had the #1 scoring defense in the league allowing 236 points while the broncos D was 20th allowing 324

what was Denver's defense ranked when we didn't allow a single point in the second half during those first 6 wins?


it's ortons fault for all the 3 and outs......got it !
and yet sanchez gave the ball up 8 more times and threw 1/2 the td's.....i can't figure out how he was better....but i'm sure someone can
:confused: when did you change the debate on who played better, Orton or Sanchez??? That was never part of the discussion. You've gotten so far into trying to defend Orton, that you've lost the point. The point of bringing up Sanchez (and Ryan, and Flacco) was to point out that "learning a new system" doesn't mean you are promised failure, no matter how high Wiz wants to swing his flag. It shows that while some are just ACHING to give Orton the "he's learning a new system" excuse, there are players in the NFL that are not only learning new systems, but playing for the first time in the NFL.... and succeeding (someone on our Bronco Defense comes to mind, but he doesn't count or fit on Wiz's flag). So how is it that Orton is held up as if he's the first person to change OCs, systems, or teams??

Orton played like everyone knew he would. Well when his defense was playing lights out, and NOT well when more of the offense was placed on his shoulders. What do you think was the pattern when he was in Chicago? I've given his record when the defense gives up a measly 10 points in the second half of any game... its horrendous. This "new system" excuse just doesn't hold water, and THAT was the points on bringing up the rookie QBs. Not comparing their statistical numbers :laugh:

T.K.O.
07-09-2010, 07:30 PM
I never said anything about Orton sucking. I said this LAME "its a new system" excuse...is ridiculous. It works when you have nothing else to use. Its a "I don't know what else to say, it HAS to be the new system" reasoning. We have used it for the entire offense. Yet, when going 6-0 on the back of the defense, we were PRAISING this "new offense" and new system.

Orton has 5 years experience reading defenses in the NFL. Learning a " new system" for a vet QB is nothing more than learning the terminology (ask any veteran QB, they've all said it a hundred times in commentary). Routes from team to team are the same. Reading defenses remain the same, no matter what offensive "scheme" you are in. So what is it about this new "scheme" that our veteran QB needs more time with? I mean, at least the rookie Sanchez (as an example) has the reasons of being a first year player in the NFL.



what was Denver's defense ranked when we didn't allow a single point in the second half during those first 6 wins?


:confused: when did you change the debate on who played better, Orton or Sanchez??? That was never part of the discussion. You've gotten so far into trying to defend Orton, that you've lost the point. The point of bringing up Sanchez (and Ryan, and Flacco) was to point out that "learning a new system" doesn't mean you are promised failure, no matter how high Wiz wants to swing his flag. It shows that while some are just ACHING to give Orton the "he's learning a new system" excuse, there are players in the NFL that are not only learning new systems, but playing for the first time in the NFL.... and succeeding (someone on our Bronco Defense comes to mind, but he doesn't count or fit on Wiz's flag). So how is it that Orton is held up as if he's the first person to change OCs, systems, or teams??

Orton played like everyone knew he would. Well when his defense was playing lights out, and NOT well when more of the offense was placed on his shoulders. What do you think was the pattern when he was in Chicago? I've given his record when the defense gives up a measly 10 points in the second half of any game... its horrendous. This "new system" excuse just doesn't hold water, and THAT was the points on bringing up the rookie QBs. Not comparing their statistical numbers :laugh:

i did,nt "CHANGE" my opinion...it was stated that orton had no excuse when rookie qb's did so well....i pointed out that sanchez sucked but his TEAM carried him to the playoffs....a luxury orton did'nt have:salute:
his team stankified the field when the chips were down.defense included

Lonestar
07-10-2010, 10:14 AM
i did,nt "CHANGE" my opinion...it was stated that orton had no excuse when rookie qb's did so well....i pointed out that sanchez sucked but his TEAM carried him to the playoffs....a luxury orton did'nt have:salute:
his team stankified the field when the chips were down.defense included

Good post.

Rav wants to preach that having a rookie running back playing behind a OL that is changing from zbs to PBS with a new QB calling new plays with new verbage is the same as everyone BUT the rookie QB that is on the same page with that RQB is calling a limited playbook.

Anyone but rav KNOWS that a split second hesitation at the pro level cab doom a play.

It was said by one of the players after film sudy, that many times during the year that plays were busted because WRs ran the wrong route or made the wrong cut or made the cut at the wrong time.
Because of this the timing of the play in this VERY complex spread offense was busted.

Everyone knows that at tis level this is more of a team sport and everyone has to be on the same page and execute it flawlessly.

What you get away with in college you can't in the NFL. As you pointed out the "rookie" QB had a great supporting cast that already knew the scheme and even then his play (numbers) was nothing to write home about.

Is/was Orton the answer I don't know. But I do know that butthurt jay was not man enough to gut it out here so options were limited.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
07-10-2010, 10:50 AM
i did,nt "CHANGE" my opinion...it was stated that orton had no excuse when rookie qb's did so well....i pointed out that sanchez sucked but his TEAM carried him to the playoffs....a luxury orton did'nt have:salute:
his team stankified the field when the chips were down.defense included

Sanchez's team didn't start off 6-0 and in fact was only 4-4 at the halfway point in the season and two games below .500 by week 11 of the season. :salute:

What did Orton do to help when the chips were down as you say?

Ravage!!!
07-10-2010, 11:03 AM
i did,nt "CHANGE" my opinion...it was stated that orton had no excuse when rookie qb's did so well....i pointed out that sanchez sucked but his TEAM carried him to the playoffs....a luxury orton did'nt have:salute:
his team stankified the field when the chips were down.defense included

I didn't say you changed your opinion. I said you changed the topic of debate. It was about the fact that this lame "new system" excuse doesn't hold water considering others in the league succeed when having new systems, new coaches, new teammates, or even new to the NFL. Then you wanted to change it to a debate on who is better, Orton or Sanchez.

Don't let Wiz's preaching about 'new system' fool you. He's PURELY only looking for the good, because its not Shanahan and its Not Cutler (whom he didn't like because he wasn't Plummer). He's completely biased, and by FAR the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.

This "new system" excuse, only goes so far. Everyone can point out how the 'new system' seemed to be working great for the first 6 games when the defense was shutting teams OUT in the second half of the game. Then when you have nearly HALF a season of experience for a VETERAN QB, that excuse is WELLLLLLLLL over with.

The point is very simple. Many teams have installed new systems, with rookie players, and succeeded. Don't give me this Wiz excuse that the rookie had a 'limited playbook' CRAP, considering thats the EXACT same thing people have been saying about Orton... he got a limited version of this "massively complex" offensive system. Limiting his reads, and WHY he only threw 3 yrd passes. After all, its a NEW system, and he couldn't dare fathom getting more of the incredible playbook. So the same "reasons of success" that Wiz is giving to Sanchez, are the SAME excuses that people have been giving Orton for the reasons of his 5 yrd completions. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Bosco
07-10-2010, 12:26 PM
Ahh.. but new to the rookie QB. The NFL was new to the rookie. EVERYTHING was new to the rookie, so whats the difference? none. That's not what you said though. You claimed the Jets went to the playoffs despite the new system in place, when in reality it was just their rookie quarterback in a new system.

Lonestar
07-10-2010, 04:32 PM
That's not what you said though. You claimed the Jets went to the playoffs despite the new system in place, when in reality it was just their rookie quarterback in a new system.
:salute:
This deserves to be bumped. Just to keep it fresh.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
07-11-2010, 11:11 AM
I have said it before, and I believe Rav has too, if you have a new QB it is not much different than installing a new system.

T.K.O.
07-11-2010, 11:53 AM
I have said it before, and I believe Rav has too, if you have a new QB it is not much different than installing a new system.

like favre ? no
but when you have new coaches,system and qb then you can expect some confusion.and every player ive ever heard talk about it says the same thing
"it takes a season or 2 for the light to go on" then you are playing and reacting ,not thinking !
this is true for sanchez (because he was a rookie) and the majority of the broncos team (for reasons already stated)
it's all good...i think the whole team will be better this year,and you do not.
no biggie.....we'll just have to wait and see:salute:

Northman
07-11-2010, 11:59 AM
it's all good...i think the whole team will be better this year,and you do not.
no biggie.....we'll just have to wait and see:salute:

Bravo TKO, way to stay classy as this point needs to be bumped time and time again. Some of us have doubts and thats all we've pointed too whereas some are more optimistic. Never the less, we all want the Broncos to succeed in the end.

T.K.O.
07-11-2010, 12:09 PM
Never the less, we all want the Broncos to succeed in the end.

as opposed to just the beginning.....(of the season):laugh: get it?