PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe now?



Crush05
09-20-2008, 06:36 PM
Alright now in the preseason and heck I will even go as far as saying as far back as training camp that our Broncos could and would go 13-3 or 12-4 and a lot of you said no way. I backed this up with what we had seen in camps, and preseason games w/ the starters. Now I see a lot of people jumping on the wagon so to speak when they did not believe. You know who you all are!!! Comments welcome!!:salute: Either way I am happy with our team and the overall state of the chat rooms. We have a great group this year even with some nay sayers.

Go Broncos

broncobryce
09-20-2008, 06:40 PM
:aetsch: What I want to know, is where are all the people who said Kubiac was the true genius, not shanahan? They seem to have quieted down!

MOtorboat
09-20-2008, 06:42 PM
Do I believe? That we could, or we will? Do I believe in your kool-aid...yeah, I wish I possessed some.

9-7, 10-6...defense isn't good enough to be 13-3.

Reidman
09-20-2008, 06:46 PM
Well, if our defense comes together which I think they will then we could definitely go 13-3.
Right now it's our offense and our offense alone that is keeping us in the game.

I'm just glad to see Denver finally in the spotlight everywhere I turn and rightfully so...

G_Money
09-20-2008, 06:51 PM
Props for calling your shot.

You do remember that the Broncos almost always start off hot and then cool as the season closes, though, right? Shanny has a lot of teams that start 5-1 and fade at the finish.

I still think we look like a very healthy 10-6 team with a playoff bid and a LOT of great things to build on for next year.

We'll see what happens once Cutler gets dirty. If his jersey stays clean all year, then your prediction might come true.

I don't have any problem with being wrong when it comes to the Broncos doing BETTER than I expect. ;) And once you actually GET to the playoffs anything is possible.

Let's just get there, whatever the record is.

~G

dogfish
09-20-2008, 06:57 PM
3-0 is what i'm looking for right now. . . .

Benetto
09-20-2008, 07:23 PM
Our defense is nowhere near a 13-3 season...Sure Indy dominated with their offense for a couple of years without a decent Defense, and had the oposition trying to keep up with the score game after game...but I doubt we end up 13-3 or even 12-4...I can see 10 wins, and a CRUCIAL last game Vs SD deciding it all..

Npba900
09-20-2008, 07:31 PM
Do I believe? That we could, or we will? Do I believe in your kool-aid...yeah, I wish I possessed some.

9-7, 10-6...defense isn't good enough to be 13-3.

MB, you maybe right, however you may want to consider Denver is playing a middle range schedule due to going 8-8.....so a 12-4 or 14-2 season remains a possibilty.

But yeah.....Denver must address their lack of ability to putting oppossing teams QB's on their arse!!

Npba900
09-20-2008, 07:34 PM
Our defense is nowhere near a 13-3 season...Sure Indy dominated with their offense for a couple of years without a decent Defense, and had the oposition trying to keep up with the score game after game...but I doubt we end up 13-3 or even 12-4...I can see 10 wins, and a CRUCIAL last game Vs SD deciding it all..

There's so much parity in today's NFL theres no reason why Denver can't go 13-3 or 14-2 this season.

Npba900
09-20-2008, 07:35 PM
3-0 is what i'm looking for right now. . . .

Yep take it one game a week.

Tned
09-20-2008, 07:38 PM
MB, you maybe right, however you may want to consider Denver is playing a middle range schedule due to going 8-8.....so a 12-4 or 14-2 season remains a possibilty.

But yeah.....Denver must address their lack of ability to putting oppossing teams QB's on their arse!!

The NFL went to a predefined schedule about 4 years ago. A teams record only impacts 2 of their 16 games, it has a very minimal impact on their schedule. Hence the reason that the New England Patriots that went 16-0 have the easiest schedule in the NFL based on last years records. So, our 7-9 record (not 8-8) last year doesn't give us an easy schedule, this schedule (with the exception of two games) was put together by the NFL around 4 years ago.

Broncos Mtnman
09-20-2008, 07:40 PM
Alright now in the preseason and heck I will even go as far as saying as far back as training camp that our Broncos could and would go 13-3 or 12-4 and a lot of you said no way. I backed this up with what we had seen in camps, and preseason games w/ the starters. Now I see a lot of people jumping on the wagon so to speak when they did not believe. You know who you all are!!! Comments welcome!!:salute: Either way I am happy with our team and the overall state of the chat rooms. We have a great group this year even with some nay sayers.

Go Broncos

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=320156&postcount=45

I originally predicted 11-5 based on the assumption that we would lose to Oakland. Since we won that game, I'm right there with you on 12-4.

Broncos Mtnman
09-20-2008, 07:43 PM
Our defense is nowhere near a 13-3 season...Sure Indy dominated with their offense for a couple of years without a decent Defense, and had the oposition trying to keep up with the score game after game...but I doubt we end up 13-3 or even 12-4...I can see 10 wins, and a CRUCIAL last game Vs SD deciding it all..

I have to disagree.

If we continue to produce on offense, our defense only needs to be average to give us the record we're talking about.

fcspikeit
09-20-2008, 08:28 PM
:aetsch: What I want to know, is where are all the people who said Kubiac was the true genius, not shanahan? They seem to have quieted down!

I haven't heard anyone say he was the real genius, just the question was asked by a few...

Just curious though, Do you believe shanahan is calling the games this year the same as he did last year?

My only complaint was that we were to conservative last year.. Shanahan is calling to win this year instead of calling not to lose...

That being said, why would those who were critical of his play calling last year have anything negative too say about his play calling this year? He isn't calling the game's the same... Maybe he listened to all those people? Or maybe he just finally seen what was so clear to those people last year??

Npba900
09-20-2008, 08:33 PM
Props for calling your shot.

You do remember that the Broncos almost always start off hot and then cool as the season closes, though, right? Shanny has a lot of teams that start 5-1 and fade at the finish.

I still think we look like a very healthy 10-6 team with a playoff bid and a LOT of great things to build on for next year.

We'll see what happens once Cutler gets dirty. If his jersey stays clean all year, then your prediction might come true.

I don't have any problem with being wrong when it comes to the Broncos doing BETTER than I expect. ;) And once you actually GET to the playoffs anything is possible.

Let's just get there, whatever the record is.

~G

I agree that Shanahan has started out 5-1 in the post Elway years, but I think this time its different merely b/c who QB is behind the center. Cutler is no Griese nor is he Jake Plummber. Cutler is a cross btwn Elway and Steve Young, and b/c of this, the offense has a significantly better chance of operating consistently and efficiently every Sunday.

In the past years after Elway retired, the offense stalled from mid season onward under the leadership of Griese and Plummber. With Cutler we will see more consistency and efficiency which will correlate into more points and wins b/c the zone blocking running game will click because the passing game is so efficient.

Short of injuries (cross your fingers) this years Broncos offense is going to be hard to stop.

omac
09-20-2008, 09:22 PM
I haven't heard anyone say he was the real genius, just the question was asked by a few...

Just curious though, Do you believe shanahan is calling the games this year the same as he did last year?

My only complaint was that we were to conservative last year.. Shanahan is calling to win this year instead of calling not to lose...

That being said, why would those who were critical of his play calling last year have anything negative too say about his play calling this year? He isn't calling the game's the same... Maybe he listened to all those people? Or maybe he just finally seen what was so clear to those people last year??

Nah, he has a good point. I remember there were some posters who implied that Kubiak was the reason our offense was good, and that the true genius left for Houston.

The playcalling last season, or even seasons before, were nowhere near this season, but that's what you can do with an effective, healthy OL. Most of the passing plays alone that we did this season, we didn't have the protection to do last season, where Jay had to get rid of the ball really fast.

fcspikeit
09-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Nah, he has a good point. I remember there were some posters who implied that Kubiak was the reason our offense was good, and that the true genius left for Houston.

The playcalling last season, or even seasons before, were nowhere near this season, but that's what you can do with an effective, healthy OL. Most of the passing plays alone that we did this season, we didn't have the protection to do last season, where Jay had to get rid of the ball really fast.

So your answer to the question is the same as mine... There's no reason to complain about Shanahan's coaching this year because he is doing a better job..

my guess is that, had Shanahan called the games the past 2 years as he is this year, all those complaining about the past couple years wouldn't have been complaining.

The merit of the complaint should be based off of the time they were complaining, and not this year. ESP sense we both agree he is not coaching the same this year as he had the last couple years..

slim
09-20-2008, 09:55 PM
16-0

Lonestar
09-20-2008, 10:21 PM
I see a much improved:


OLINE that has up to now allowed Jay to make a decent read..

one veteran WR than can find his ass with both hands.

one rookie WR that could be a game breaker.

two TE's than can make a difference

mikey that is calling the shots because of the improvements in all of these areas..

What I have not yet seen:


Is a dangerous running game setting up the passing game..

nor have I seen any semblance of defense.

a total lack of ST play..

I see a rookie wall hitting at least 3 of the above mentioned players..


For the time being I still do not see 13-3..

I still think mikey is a great "O" Minded coach and Gary certainly learned alot from him.. Dinger was a total loss as was Bates and now PROBABLY Slowik..

Tned
09-20-2008, 10:37 PM
I see a much improved:


OLINE that has up to now allowed Jay to make a decent read..

one veteran WR than can find his ass with both hands.

one rookie WR that could be a game breaker.

two TE's than can make a difference

mikey that is calling the shots because of the improvements in all of these areas..

What I have not yet seen:


Is a dangerous running game setting up the passing game..

nor have I seen any semblance of defense.

a total lack of ST play..

I see a rookie wall hitting at least 3 of the above mentioned players..


For the time being I still do not see 13-3..

I still think mikey is a great "O" Minded coach and Gary certainly learned alot from him.. Dinger was a total loss as was Bates and now PROBABLY Slowik..

I agree with much of what you post, but what exactly do you mean by the rookie wall, and which three rookies do you see hitting it?

Lonestar
09-20-2008, 10:51 PM
I agree with much of what you post, but what exactly do you mean by the rookie wall, and which three rookies do you see hitting it?

Rookie wall is usually described as being out of gas late in the year when there normal football season have been over.. Late NOV for most of them..

Playing a 16 games schedule and then training camp and preseason almost doubles the amount o playing time they got in college..

clady and royale are both used to playing 10-12 games a year in royales case not every play on Offense..

Torain IF he comes back will have issues.. late in the year mostly because of conditioning...

I think we all have to agree that Royale is much better than everyone thought except Top that is.. I never dreamed he would have any impact at all.. Now I have to ask is it royale being the exception of the rookie no play rule or mikey desperate to have someone on the other side to counter balance Marshall.

MasterShake
09-20-2008, 10:53 PM
Rookie wall is usually described as being out of gas late in the year when there normal football season have been over.. Late NOV for most of them..

Playing a 16 games schedule and then training camp and preseason almost doubles the amount o playing time they got in college..

clady and royale are both used to playing 10-12 games a year in royales case not every play on Offense..

Torain IF he comes back will have issues.. late in the year mostly because of conditioning...

I think we all have to agree that Royale is much better than everyone thought except Top that is.. I never dreamed he would have any impact at all.. Now I have to ask is it royale being the exception of the rookie no play rule or mikey desperate to have someone on the other side to counter balance Marshall.

I think having Royal opposite Marshall takes a lot of pressure off him, and vice versa. Sometimes swagger can compensate lack of talent, but I think Royal and Marshall have both. I'll let you know for sure come late January! :salute:

Lonestar
09-20-2008, 11:09 PM
I think having Royal opposite Marshall takes a lot of pressure off him, and vice versa. Sometimes swagger can compensate lack of talent, but I think Royal and Marshall have both. I'll let you know for sure come late January! :salute:


That is a given.

But when he was drafted he was drafted to KR and be groomed for playing the slot when Stokely retires.. Now that might not be for a couple more years if he wants to play now that he is not going to have the pressure on him like last year..

Now we need to find another slot guy that it seems that royale is #2..

Or maybe just find another solid #2 and play fast Eddie in the slot and really give the D fits..

omac
09-20-2008, 11:18 PM
So your answer to the question is the same as mine... There's no reason to complain about Shanahan's coaching this year because he is doing a better job..

my guess is that, had Shanahan called the games the past 2 years as he is this year, all those complaining about the past couple years wouldn't have been complaining.

The merit of the complaint should be based off of the time they were complaining, and not this year. ESP sense we both agree he is not coaching the same this year as he had the last couple years..

I'm not sure about what we're debating right now. I just agreed that some people believed it was Kubiak who was the brains in the offense, not Shannahan, and when he left, so did the creativity on offense. Obviously, that's not the case.

My point is, he's doing a better job of playcalling because he has better, healthier personel to call plays with. During most of the Jake era, we had an OL that was great at run blocking, but not as good at pass protection; couple that with the fact that Jake's strength was throwing from outside the pocket and not from inside, so those were the offensive plays called. Run heavy, bootleg, rolling.

After the AFCCG, Shanny decided we needed to pass from the pocket more. Unfortunately in 2006, those weren't the strengths of our OL and QB at the time, and it showed. There was more success later in the season with Jay being a better pocket passer. All of a sudden, the ball was spread around more to Marshall and Stokley, not just Javon. Still, it was a transition period that continue off into 2007, that we are now seeing the fruits of.

In 2007, our OL was decimated by injuries, so that if Jay had to stay in the pocket, he'd need to always get rid of the ball real fast. That would eliminate a ton of plays from the playbook. Obviously, you couldn't throw a whole lot deep, and our most effective plays were still the roll-outs, and quick slants. We also had a ton of injuries during the season to our RB1, RB2, & RB3; couple that with the injury ridden OL, and that affects the effectiveness of our rushing attack. I believe the injury to Tom Nalen in the middle has hurt our effectiveness running up the gut.

Now, we have a healthy OL that's been great at pass protection, but sub-par in run blocking, so we pass a whole lot, and are simply opportunistic with our rushing.

During the Jake era, with the playcalling, we could run a lot on 3rd and long, because we had such confidence with our rushing attack. Those may look like conservative plays, but they're risky, as the chances for success aren't that high. Same with going for 2 with a pass, instead of kicking the point after, but we have the confidence in our passing game.

The playcalling has, for the most part, been tailored to fit the strengths of the people on the field.

In 2006, where we moved from a lot of roll-outs to pocket passing, who's to say how effective we could've been if Jake took the effort early on in the offseason to really learn the system and get comfortable with it. He has had some good passing seasons, so it's not a stretch to think he could've done good if he put in the time.

I don't disagree with you. I just believe that the playcalling is much more diverse right now, at least with the passing game, because of the healthy, effective personel we have. No way can we run these same plays last season. In the same light, no way can this team lean on the rushing attack the way they could in 2005 and earlier.

Tned
09-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Rookie wall is usually described as being out of gas late in the year when there normal football season have been over.. Late NOV for most of them..

Playing a 16 games schedule and then training camp and preseason almost doubles the amount o playing time they got in college..

clady and royale are both used to playing 10-12 games a year in royales case not every play on Offense..

Torain IF he comes back will have issues.. late in the year mostly because of conditioning...

I think we all have to agree that Royale is much better than everyone thought except Top that is.. I never dreamed he would have any impact at all.. Now I have to ask is it royale being the exception of the rookie no play rule or mikey desperate to have someone on the other side to counter balance Marshall.

You can look back at my posts where I quoted the "liar" who stated he drafted Royal not because he was a kick returner, but because he was the best WR in bump and run coverage and coming out of the break.

I was wonderng about the third rookie, since there isn't a third rookie that is a 'surprise' that would hit the rookie wall. Since Torrain isn't involved in the first two wins, he certainly couldn't be a let down when he hits a wall, if he ever plays this season. Hillis hasn't had enough impact at this point.

omac
09-20-2008, 11:24 PM
I see a much improved:


OLINE that has up to now allowed Jay to make a decent read..

one veteran WR than can find his ass with both hands.

one rookie WR that could be a game breaker.

two TE's than can make a difference

mikey that is calling the shots because of the improvements in all of these areas..

What I have not yet seen:


Is a dangerous running game setting up the passing game..

nor have I seen any semblance of defense.

a total lack of ST play..

I see a rookie wall hitting at least 3 of the above mentioned players..


For the time being I still do not see 13-3..

I still think mikey is a great "O" Minded coach and Gary certainly learned alot from him.. Dinger was a total loss as was Bates and now PROBABLY Slowik..

I agree with everything; you actually posted most of what I was replying to fcspikeit with, but much shorter. I gotta learn that. :D

With the defense, how about we say it's less worse than last season. We've substituted one evil for a slightly lesser one, that at least gives the offense a chance to win the game, instead of losing the game for the Broncos (so far).

With ST, Prater's doing pretty good on the kickoffs, but the coverage is still very weak.

omac
09-20-2008, 11:27 PM
You can look back at my posts where I quoted the "liar" who stated he drafted Royal not because he was a kick returner, but because he was the best WR in bump and run coverage and coming out of the break.

I was wonderng about the third rookie, since there isn't a third rookie that is a 'surprise' that would hit the rookie wall. Since Torrain isn't involved in the first two wins, he certainly couldn't be a let down when he hits a wall, if he ever plays this season. Hillis hasn't had enough impact at this point.

Maybe Jrwiz meant Ryan Harris, who's practically a rookie because of his back issues last season.

Tned
09-20-2008, 11:28 PM
That is a given.

But when he was drafted he was drafted to KR and be groomed for playing the slot when Stokely retires.. Now that might not be for a couple more years if he wants to play now that he is not going to have the pressure on him like last year..

Now we need to find another slot guy that it seems that royale is #2..

Or maybe just find another solid #2 and play fast Eddie in the slot and really give the D fits..

That's what some of you fans believed, not what Shanahan said. He said that Royal wouldn't have to produce at WR right away, but never said he was a 'slot' receiver.

Here is him talking about Royal in the presser after the first day of the draft:


On whether he has ever had his first two choices available when drafting
"It hasn't happened that way before, but we have never picked with the 12th pick, either. You have a little bit better chance, but you don't always know in the second round if that guy is going to be there."


On what Royal can contribute offensively
"I thought he was the best wide receiver versus bump coverage that came out [in the draft]. He has that type of ability to be bumped. That's where you start off as a wide receiver--if you can't beat bump coverage, usually you are selling cars in a short time, it's just the nature of the business--or you're coaching, one or the other. He has the ability to be bumped and he played with three other receivers who were fairly productive. I'm glad he didn't get a lot of balls because I think if he did he would have probably went earlier [in the draft].

"A lot of guys you get in the second round as wide receivers, it's a year's growth. It takes a while to understand the NFL and get used to it, but this is the type of guy that has the ability to help us in special teams and he doesn't have to help us right away [on offense]."




On whether he considered moving out of the second round to acquire additional draft picks
"There could have been if Royal wasn't there. We had a number of options to move back and we could have gotten a third or a fourth, depending on how far back you want to go. You can do that quite a bit, but sometimes when you do that you lose out on guys that you think can help your football team."
http://den.scout.com/2/750170.html

I know many weren't high on the Royal pick, but he was. Many weren't high on the Scheffler pick, but he was. Many weren't sure about the Marshall pick, but he was. Many thought that Dumervil was too small to be an NFL end and therefore weren't high on him, but he was. Some thought Clady was the WRONG tackle to choose in the draft and therefore weren't high on him, but he was.

dogfish
09-20-2008, 11:39 PM
That is a given.

But when he was drafted he was drafted to KR and be groomed for playing the slot when Stokely retires.. Now that might not be for a couple more years if he wants to play now that he is not going to have the pressure on him like last year..

Now we need to find another slot guy that it seems that royale is #2..

Or maybe just find another solid #2 and play fast Eddie in the slot and really give the D fits..


if we keep Djax around the next few years, i like the idea of royal playing out of the slot when we go three wide. . . or if jackson doesn't stikc, you can almost always find competent veteran possesion receivers for a relatively reasonable cost-- with two stud wideouts and a dynamic tight end, it's not like the #3 WR has to be a big-time playmaker. . . we're suddenly in great shape in the receiving corps with three legitimate weapons, and they're all below the age of 26-- if we keep this group together and healthy, we're more or less set for a decade. . . after all the picks we've throw at this group over the years, it's really nice to finally get the big payoff. . . throw in a talented left tackle to protect jay's blind side, and we have something we haven't had since elway left-- an identity on offense! now if we can just do something about that shitty efense. . .

Tned
09-20-2008, 11:42 PM
if we keep Djax around the next few years, i like the idea of royal playing out of the slot when we go three wide. . . or if jackson doesn't stikc, you can almost always find competent veteran possesion receivers for a relatively reasonable cost-- with two stud wideouts and a dynamic tight end, it's not like the #3 WR has to be a big-time playmaker. . . we're suddenly in great shape in the receiving corps with three legitimate weapons, and they're all below the age of 26-- if we keep this group together and healthy, we're more or less set for a decade. . . after all the picks we've throw at this group over the years, it's really nice to finally get the big payoff. . . throw in a talented left tackle to protect jay's blind side, and we have something we haven't had since elway left-- an identity on offense! now if we can just do something about that shitty efense. . .

He's a couple inches shorter than Harrison, but same weight, which makes him 'stockier'. Maybe time will show that he is only a slot receiver, and maybe at some point the Broncos will have a better #2 WR, but early indications are he will do just fine split out wide.

dogfish
09-20-2008, 11:59 PM
He's a couple inches shorter than Harrison, but same weight, which makes him 'stockier'. Maybe time will show that he is only a slot receiver, and maybe at some point the Broncos will have a better #2 WR, but early indications are he will do just fine split out wide.

i'm pretty much sold. . . as long as he's strong enough to get off press coverage, his ability to gain seperation with his awesome quickness and very crisp routes more than makes up for lack of height. . . we've seen guys like steve smith and santana moss succeed as starting receivers, and royal looks to be just as talented and just as determined as either of those guys. . .

i'll admit, i was one of the people who hated taking an undersized WR/return specialist when there were quality DT, RB and LB prospects on the board (and from early retuns, i think people here would have been just as happy if we'd taken matt forte). . . it's not that i didn't like royal, because i did-- i just felt that we could find an equally speedy return specialist much later in the draft (hell, alridge was a UDFA, and he can fly). . . however, eddie's ability to make a quick impact as a starting receiver has drastically changed my opinion of the pick. . . i just didn't expect that from him, but now that i've seen him on the field against quality NFL competition, i'm convinced. . . i knew that he was a smart guy, a tough athlete with a good work ethic-- but he's FAR exceeded my expectations!

Tned
09-21-2008, 12:10 AM
i'm pretty much sold. . . as long as he's strong enough to get off press coverage, his ability to gain seperation with his awesome quickness and very crisp routes more than makes up for lack of height. . . we've seen guys like steve smith and santana moss succeed as starting receivers, and royal looks to be just as talented and just as determined as either of those guys. . .

i'll admit, i was one of the people who hated taking an undersized WR/return specialist when there were quality DT, RB and LB prospects on the board (and from early retuns, i think people here would have been just as happy if we'd taken matt forte). . . it's not that i didn't like royal, because i did-- i just felt that we could find an equally speedy return specialist much later in the draft (hell, alridge was a UDFA, and he can fly). . . however, eddie's ability to make a quick impact as a starting receiver has drastically changed my opinion of the pick. . . i just didn't expect that from him, but now that i've seen him on the field against quality NFL competition, i'm convinced. . . i knew that he was a smart guy, a tough athlete with a good work ethic-- but he's FAR exceeded my expectations!

Obviously, nobody could have expected him to produce to the level he has in the first season, since we are seeing one article after another about him and the Eagles receiver (Desean Jackson?) and how nearly unprecedented it is for rookie WR's to produce at this level. WRs normally take time to develop. So, I don't think anyone could have anticipated this, but the fact that they do take time to develop, in my mind, makes this pick good, even if he didn't start paying dividends until year two, since he had the bonus of being a PR/KR.

I know some are jaded when it comes to believing Shanny, but for the first time since he has been in Denver I heard him say, "for the first time, I got the two players I wanted in the first two rounds". If he said it every year, you could doubt it, but he doesn't.

As to getting off the line, FWIW, apparently Shanahan's scouting staff seems to think it is no problem, since he claimed that Royal was "the best wide receiver versus bump coverage that came out" of the draft. Since he could beat the bump coverage, then he has the speed and vertical jump to allow him to make plays.

weazel
09-21-2008, 12:26 AM
nope, I do not agree. I dont see this team going 13-3 or 12-4.

They haven't shown that they can run the ball consistently, and when the weather gets worse you need to be able to run the ball.

The defense doesnt look all that great to me, it will have to get much, much better.

Haven't we seen this before? I remember this team being 7-2 and then blowing it from there last season, and even the last.

Hey, I hope they roll through everyone and win the freakin' superbowl! I just dont see it happening.

Thats not being pessimistic, its being realistic.

go Broncos!

prediction for tomorrow... Broncos 37 - Saints 18

Crush05
09-21-2008, 01:40 AM
Do I believe? That we could, or we will? Do I believe in your kool-aid...yeah, I wish I possessed some.

9-7, 10-6...defense isn't good enough to be 13-3.

I would expect that from you!!!:tsk:

Crush05
09-21-2008, 01:47 AM
nope, I do not agree. I dont see this team going 13-3 or 12-4.

They haven't shown that they can run the ball consistently, and when the weather gets worse you need to be able to run the ball.

The defense doesnt look all that great to me, it will have to get much, much better.

Haven't we seen this before? I remember this team being 7-2 and then blowing it from there last season, and even the last.

Hey, I hope they roll through everyone and win the freakin' superbowl! I just dont see it happening.

Thats not being pessimistic, its being realistic.

go Broncos!

prediction for tomorrow... Broncos 37 - Saints 18

Can you not see the change?:tsk: We are a monster on offense and I gtee you that our defense figures things out! Come on stop being so negative people and support our team to the record I know they can accomplish!!:salute:

dogfish
09-21-2008, 03:00 AM
Can you not see the change?:tsk: We are a monster on offense and I gtee you that our defense figures things out! Come on stop being so negative people and support our team to the record I know they can accomplish!!:salute:

lol. . . c'mon, put the orange pom-poms down for a sec, they get in the way of serious discussion. . . we all support the team, regardless of what we expect their record to be-- support them in the way they want to be supported, with cash spent on gear, tickets, etc etc. . . when i'm in the stands i cheer as loudly as anyone there, but our "support" in the form of what we say on a message board doesn't have any bearing on what happens on the field. . . i've never seen a 13-3 prediction throw a block or make a tackle. . . :laugh:

if you think they're a 13-3 team that's perfectly fine-- it's certainly possible, and i don't think anyone is denying that this team looks a lot more talented than the ones we've rolled out there the past few years. . . i even think there's hope for defensive improvement with some schematic adjustments, but i don't see how you can say that D and "special" teams aren't a legit concern right now-- our offense looks great, sure, but how many shootouts can you win before it eventually catches up with you?

i'm not trying to say that we're necessarily right or that you're necessarily wrong (we all have opinions, but none of us know what's going to happen, no matter how much a few individuals will try to convince you otherwise :lol: ), but if you want people to give any weight to your opinion you need to come up with something a little more substantial and concrete than "i guarantee the D will get better". . . why? i can see an awful lot of potential for this year's team also, but snuffing the JV fader "offense" doesn't mean we're good on D-- there's plenty of room for improvement, but it's going to take more than wildly exuberant good vibes from the fans to get it done. . .

Den21vsBal19
09-21-2008, 03:07 AM
Believe?????

Hell no!

I'll believe when the defense shut's down a decent offense, or when we win a game without having to put on an offensive masterclass :coffee:

Until then, guess I'm just going to enjoy the ride ;)

broncophan
09-21-2008, 05:38 AM
No...I don't believe....not with the pathetic defense....Well....the broncos are 2-0.....and last season at this time the broncos were 2-0......and we know how last season turned out......let's see where this team stands at about 7:30 eastern time tonight....and take it 1 game at a time the rest of the way.....as of now....I'm wondering how the defense is going to stop Reggie Bush...

Bronco9798
09-21-2008, 07:17 AM
I have to disagree.

If we continue to produce on offense, our defense only needs to be average to give us the record we're talking about.

You can only hide your defense in the regular season. Then the playoffs start and you get really exposed. (actually, our Defense has already been exposed) We just need to tighten up the D and special teams, then we can do something the Patriots couldn't accomplish, 19-0! :D

Nomad
09-21-2008, 07:43 AM
Do I believe? That we could, or we will? Do I believe in your kool-aid...yeah, I wish I possessed some.

9-7, 10-6...defense isn't good enough to be 13-3.

We may be a game or two better than I predicted at 9-7 season as long as we keep the same players on the field and no one gets hurt, but the defense (pass rush) needs to step up and ST. A balanced team playing at this level is more believable.

MOtorboat
09-21-2008, 07:58 AM
lol. . . c'mon, put the orange pom-poms down for a sec, they get in the way of serious discussion. . . we all support the team, regardless of what we expect their record to be-- support them in the way they want to be supported, with cash spent on gear, tickets, etc etc. . . when i'm in the stands i cheer as loudly as anyone there, but our "support" in the form of what we say on a message board doesn't have any bearing on what happens on the field. . . i've never seen a 13-3 prediction throw a block or make a tackle. . . :laugh:

if you think they're a 13-3 team that's perfectly fine-- it's certainly possible, and i don't think anyone is denying that this team looks a lot more talented than the ones we've rolled out there the past few years. . . i even think there's hope for defensive improvement with some schematic adjustments, but i don't see how you can say that D and "special" teams aren't a legit concern right now-- our offense looks great, sure, but how many shootouts can you win before it eventually catches up with you?

i'm not trying to say that we're necessarily right or that you're necessarily wrong (we all have opinions, but none of us know what's going to happen, no matter how much a few individuals will try to convince you otherwise :lol: ), but if you want people to give any weight to your opinion you need to come up with something a little more substantial and concrete than "i guarantee the D will get better". . . why? i can see an awful lot of potential for this year's team also, but snuffing the JV fader "offense" doesn't mean we're good on D-- there's plenty of room for improvement, but it's going to take more than wildly exuberant good vibes from the fans to get it done. . .

The only real time that our positivity or negativity can even remotely help or hurt the team is when we're at Invesco cheering, and I'm not worried about that. Best fans in football. Loudest fans in football. (OK...maybe after watching Auburn last night, the SEC can get kind of loud, but close...)

Otherwise being a cheerleader isn't really necessary...unless I can date one.

Broncolingus
09-21-2008, 09:17 AM
]...but the defense (pass rush) needs to step up and ST.[/B]..

...how many more years is this going to be the case?

Don't need to have the best ever in the history of the planet, or even a top 5-group....just an above average front-four that can consistently put some pressure on the QB and plug the running holes.

Denver won't do anything against the 'top' teams in the league, let alone in the post-season, this year, next year, etc. until this is fixed.

ktrain
09-21-2008, 09:34 AM
The NFL went to a predefined schedule about 4 years ago. A teams record only impacts 2 of their 16 games, it has a very minimal impact on their schedule. Hence the reason that the New England Patriots that went 16-0 have the easiest schedule in the NFL based on last years records. So, our 7-9 record (not 8-8) last year doesn't give us an easy schedule, this schedule (with the exception of two games) was put together by the NFL around 4 years ago.

Great point Tned. I would add that teams change a great deal from year to year. For example in 2006, a team like Pittsburgh might finish second or third
(down year) and be dominating the division the next year 2007. The opposite could be true of a team like Baltimore (great in 2006, with a first place finish, but sucked in 2007).

In reality, the second or third place non-division schedule often ends up being tougher than the first place schedule due to the fact that only 2 games are actually influenced and many times last year's placement is not indicative of this year's talent level.

We should be celebrating this scheduling change, it will make the new Denver Dynasty last even longer!!!!!

Spider
09-21-2008, 09:34 AM
Alright now in the preseason and heck I will even go as far as saying as far back as training camp that our Broncos could and would go 13-3 or 12-4 and a lot of you said no way. I backed this up with what we had seen in camps, and preseason games w/ the starters. Now I see a lot of people jumping on the wagon so to speak when they did not believe. You know who you all are!!! Comments welcome!!:salute: Either way I am happy with our team and the overall state of the chat rooms. We have a great group this year even with some nay sayers.

Go Broncos

well you will be right , on the mane I predicted a 12-4 season in the preseason also , I wold like to see more running by 1 back then the RBBC bull . now on to Defense , defenses all over the league are struggling , case in point , last week the browns ran a simple over loaded line formation vs the steelers , and despite weather conditions , they moved the ball , it was more of the browns screw up then steelers defense that kept the browns down to 6 points ......... so at this point of the season I like were we are sitting ........

Crush05
09-21-2008, 11:30 AM
Wow Orange pom poms, I thought I was and am a football fan. The people in here who do know me know I do not look through orange glasses or carry orange pom poms. Heck I was and still do get slammed for pinning the name Jake the "MISTAKE" a qb IMO was a mistake to bring to Denver. But then there was quite a few people that had orange pom poms and glasses on when he was here, but all he could do is choke. People here say look at our record, he took us to the AFCC. Well excuse me I thought this was a team game, all the way up until he single handily lost the AFCC game for us and gave up.

As far as our defense goes this is a new defense coordinator in as many years as I can remember. But this is the first year our defense has shown potential since I can remember. In the first game they did a pretty good job against Oakland. In the sencond game we shut San Diego down completely in the first half. In the second half they found a weekness and we did not adjust to it. But I promise you this Mike will not let that continue. The defense is slowly starting to gel. Remember they are a very young defense. They are growing together and IMO they will hit thier peak at the right time and we are and will be playoff bound.

So for those of you who are nay sayers, I have no time for your negativity. I welcomed comments not to be slammed. If you cannot do that go back to Broncomania I am sure you will find the people you want there!!:salute:

MOtorboat
09-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Wow Orange pom poms, I thought I was and am a football fan. The people in here who do know me know I do not look through orange glasses or carry orange pom poms. Heck I was and still do get slammed for pinning the name Jake the "MISTAKE" a qb IMO was a mistake to bring to Denver. But then there was quite a few people that had orange pom poms and glasses on when he was here, but all he could do is choke. People here say look at our record, he took us to the AFCC. Well excuse me I thought this was a team game, all the way up until he single handily lost the AFCC game for us and gave up.

As far as our defense goes this is a new defense coordinator in as many years as I can remember. But this is the first year our defense has shown potential since I can remember. In the first game they did a pretty good job against Oakland. In the sencond game we shut San Diego down completely in the first half. In the second half they found a weekness and we did not adjust to it. But I promise you this Mike will not let that continue. The defense is slowly starting to gel. Remember they are a very young defense. They are growing together and IMO they will hit thier peak at the right time and we are and will be playoff bound.

So for those of you who are nay sayers, I have no time for your negativity. I welcomed comments not to be slammed. If you cannot do that go back to Broncomania I am sure you will find the people you want there!!:salute:

Wow...touched a nerve there apparently. People aren't slamming you by saying the Broncos will go 10-6.

That's not negativity. That's called debate.

Retired_Member_001
09-21-2008, 11:40 AM
I WILL believe for sure if we go 3-0.

:salute:

Crush05
09-21-2008, 11:42 AM
Wow...touched a nerve there apparently. People aren't slamming you by saying the Broncos will go 10-6.

That's not negativity. That's called debate.

No this went out to one person actually. I just will not call them out like that. Now you on the other hand lol we have always been able to talk and agree to disagree in a way that we respect each other. Kind of like when I replied to you earlier saying "I would expect that from you" and in all honesty I respect you opinion. Once again this was more to one person then others so with that I apologize!!

LordTrychon
09-21-2008, 11:47 AM
I WILL believe for sure if we go 3-0.

:salute:

Here's to making a believer out of the furball. :laugh:

Crush05
09-21-2008, 11:48 AM
Here's to making a believer out of the furball. :laugh:

LOL I agree!!:salute:

Broncolingus
09-21-2008, 11:59 AM
No this went out to one person actually. I just will not call them out like that. Now you on the other hand lol we have always been able to talk and agree to disagree in a way that we respect each other. Kind of like when I replied to you earlier saying "I would expect that from you" and in all honesty I respect you opinion. Once again this was more to one person then others so with that I apologize!!

...you are fine calling out MB...

...he does not post happy, joy-joy things and is mean.

Retired_Member_001
09-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Here's to making a believer out of the furball. :laugh:

:lol:

I'm already half way there, but last year we went 2-0 and then look what happened. :laugh:

If we go 3-0 with 3 good performances, then I definitely believe we are a contender.

Crush05
09-21-2008, 12:04 PM
...you are fine calling out MB...

...he does not post happy, joy-joy things and is mean.

:laugh: Now that is funny!!! MB is a good person though. Like I said we get along quite well even if we disagree!! But that is still way to funny!!

weazel
09-21-2008, 05:55 PM
no, no, no!!!!!!

Northman
09-21-2008, 05:57 PM
If our defense had played anything like last year i would say yes. But this defense is worse than last year.

MOtorboat
09-21-2008, 06:12 PM
What was that about defense and orange glasses?

Best not to say I told you so after two games...

G_Money
09-21-2008, 06:24 PM
3-0.

Who knows, at this rate we might go 13-3 with 10 more last-second gasping victories.

I may not live to the end of the season though.

And being ejected from the playoffs in the first round at 13-3 would kinda suck...

~G

Northman
09-21-2008, 06:27 PM
BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







lol

Tned
09-21-2008, 06:29 PM
3-0.

Who knows, at this rate we might go 13-3 with 10 more last-second gasping victories.

I may not live to the end of the season though.

And being ejected from the playoffs in the first round at 13-3 would kinda suck...

~G

As many of us, including you I believe, have said, if you make it to the playoffs, anything can happen.

G_Money
09-21-2008, 06:34 PM
Yes it can.

But that works both ways. This O could finally get shut down too and we could get crushed 45-3 on our own field. Still, best to just get there first. ;)

But can this offense get us there without any defensive help at all?

Lots of season left - let's hope the defense crawls toward adequate over the next 13 weeks.

~G

Tned
09-21-2008, 06:46 PM
Yes it can.

But that works both ways. This O could finally get shut down too and we could get crushed 45-3 on our own field. Still, best to just get there first. ;)

But can this offense get us there without any defensive help at all?

Lots of season left - let's hope the defense crawls toward adequate over the next 13 weeks.

~G

There has been a lot of changes on defense, so I think they will crawl towards adequate or average as the season moves along.

Bronco9798
09-21-2008, 06:54 PM
I beleive now. I beleive we have the worse defense in the entire NFL. I was embarrassed watching that game today. It's really sad watching that defense try to play football for a full 4 quarters.

Bronco9798
09-21-2008, 06:55 PM
There has been a lot of changes on defense, so I think they will crawl towards adequate or average as the season moves along.

Personally, I think you're crazy or trying to make yourself feel better about the D. That is the worse defense in the NFL.

Retired_Member_001
09-21-2008, 06:59 PM
Personally, I think you're crazy or trying to make yourself feel better about the D. That is the worse defense in the NFL.

I agree.

We said the same thing about our defense last year. Guess what? They got worse. :lol:

We've got a horrible defense and there's nothing we can do about it untill the off-season. We're going to have to deal with it.

Inkana7
09-21-2008, 07:01 PM
We scored 34 and our offense didn't look that impressive. That's amazing. We can just outscore everyone to 13-3.

dogfish
09-21-2008, 07:02 PM
okay, several things that are becoming quite obvious. . .

our passing game is downright dominant. . . as long as we can put all of our weapons on the field, we're going to have a chance in every game. . . this unit really MAY be good enough to carry the team on it's shoulders. . .

but unfortunately, that's pretty much all we've got. . . we're extremely one-dimensional right now, with little to no balance. . . okay, sure, we did have a few nice runs, and statistically our running game has been efficient. . . however, we basically have no power running game to control the clock and put teams away when we jump out to big leads-- so, while we may never be out of games, the other team is never out of it against us, either. . .

the alleged defense is just terrible, it's softer than pudding-- and the "special" teams played solid today, but one game is a long way from demonstrating any kind of consistency. . .

the good news is that we're 3-0 with two divisional wins, and certainly look to be a much more competitive team than the past two years. . . however, it's equally apparent that there's still a LOT of work to be done. . . 3-0 and all the gaudy stats won't count for anything if we fade down the stretch the way we have in years past, and IMO a feeble defense combined with the lack of a closer in the running game doesn't portend especially well for staying power. . .

we need to keep getting better, and it looks to me like these are some of the main questions that will determine whether that happens, because the passing game is pretty close to maxed out as it is-- i just don't see where there's that much more room for improvement in that area. . . so. . . can we make some adjustments to get better defensive results? can we prevent big plays on "special" teams going forward? and can ryan torrain come back healthy and provide that dimension that's missing from our running game right now? and if not, will we possibly give hillis a shot to see if he can get it done?

however it plays out, ATM it's good to be winning again, and it should certainly continue to be interesting!

Nomad
09-21-2008, 07:03 PM
I believe we are the worst 2nd half team right now! Thank goodness Denver scores 21 -3 each of their last two games. And Brees and Rivers schooled our defense in the 2nd half. It's all about adjustments and playing down the stretch and my orange colored glasses are off for the 2nd half play in the last two games. Shanny needs to nip that in the butt!

Retired_Member_001
09-21-2008, 07:06 PM
I believe we are the worst 2nd half team right now! Thank goodness Denver scores 21 -3 each of their last two games. And Brees and Rivers schooled our defense in the 2nd half. It's all about adjustments and playing down the stretch and my orange colored glasses are off for the 2nd half play in the last two games. Shanny needs to nip that in the butt!

I don't think that we mentally slack off, I think the defense is just THAT bad that after a half of Football, they have already been beaten.

ChairmanBron
09-21-2008, 07:18 PM
okay, several things that are becoming quite obvious. . .

our passing game is downright dominant. . . as long as we can put all of our weapons on the field, we're going to have a chance in every game. . . this unit really MAY be good enough to carry the team on it's shoulders. . ......

Yes the passing game is scary awsome. But I do believe once we get Ryan Torain in the back field, we can keep our defense off the field as long as possible and in doing so will improve their stats a bit. :rolleyes:

But seriously, we need a running game to keep them off the field!

omac
09-21-2008, 11:32 PM
I believe we are the worst 2nd half team right now! Thank goodness Denver scores 21 -3 each of their last two games. And Brees and Rivers schooled our defense in the 2nd half. It's all about adjustments and playing down the stretch and my orange colored glasses are off for the 2nd half play in the last two games. Shanny needs to nip that in the butt!

I think we've been letting down most of the 3rd quarters, but as a team, no matter how good or how bad we've been playing, we've been coming up clutch at the end of the game when we needed the plays .... Cutler to Royal in the endzone, twice .... DJ stopping their rusher (Pierre Thomas?) in the backfield to force a FG instead of allowing them a 1st down so that they could run down the clock and end the game.

Our offense was again making the needed drives to win the game, but a conservative run call by Shanny on 3rd and long stalled one for a FG, and Scheffler was stripped of the ball for a turnover on the other.

Crush05
09-22-2008, 12:20 AM
I think we've been letting down most of the 3rd quarters, but as a team, no matter how good or how bad we've been playing, we've been coming up clutch at the end of the game when we needed the plays .... Cutler to Royal in the endzone, twice .... DJ stopping their rusher (Pierre Thomas?) in the backfield to force a FG instead of allowing them a 1st down so that they could run down the clock and end the game.

Our offense was again making the needed drives to win the game, but a conservative run call by Shanny on 3rd and long stalled one for a FG, and Scheffler was stripped of the ball for a turnover on the other.

Great points you put into words what I could not.

omac
09-22-2008, 12:43 AM
Great points you put into words what I could not.

Thanks, man. :cheers:

weazel
09-22-2008, 12:49 AM
where is atwater27? why arent you following me around into every thread saying Im being pessimistic about the D?

hate to say I told ya so...

Nomad
09-22-2008, 05:58 AM
I think we've been letting down most of the 3rd quarters, but as a team, no matter how good or how bad we've been playing, we've been coming up clutch at the end of the game when we needed the plays .... Cutler to Royal in the endzone, twice .... DJ stopping their rusher (Pierre Thomas?) in the backfield to force a FG instead of allowing them a 1st down so that they could run down the clock and end the game.

Our offense was again making the needed drives to win the game, but a conservative run call by Shanny on 3rd and long stalled one for a FG, and Scheffler was stripped of the ball for a turnover on the other.

However you want to justify Denver's play it's your opinion? It shouldn't come to this point with a 3 score lead.

Tned
09-22-2008, 06:36 AM
However you want to justify Denver's play it's your opinion? It shouldn't come to this point with a 3 score lead.

It is ironic in one regard. If we had a defensive juggernaut, and like most defensive juggernauts had little offense, and were winning 12-9 or 9-6 or 14-13, I don't think people would be freaking out to the same degree about winning by two or three points.

omac
09-22-2008, 06:45 AM
However you want to justify Denver's play it's your opinion? It shouldn't come to this point with a 3 score lead.

It shouldn't, but it does. :D And since it does, I'm glad that our players are responding well when they get the chance, unlike the Chargers, who gave the game to us after they couldn't recover from "the call".

Worst case scenario, with all the holes in this team, this is still a very resilient team. They respond well to adversity. At least we know that about them. :cheers:

Nomad
09-22-2008, 06:45 AM
It is ironic in one regard. If we had a defensive juggernaut, and like most defensive juggernauts had little offense, and were winning 12-9 or 9-6 or 14-13, I don't think people would be freaking out to the same degree about winning by two or three points.

I would agree, but watching a 3 score lead in the last two games dwindle to nailbiters doesn't compare! It's not like it's trading offensive scores in the 1st quarter, the team is up and why is it too hard to have the defense to hold them! Maybe I'm missing something but defenses down the stretch of a season makes the difference and against high powered team, they've done enough to get by which will come to bite the BRONCOS unless they improve as the season goes on.

Tned
09-22-2008, 07:07 AM
I would agree, but watching a 3 score lead in the last two games dwindle to nailbiters doesn't compare! It's not like it's trading offensive scores in the 1st quarter, the team is up and why is it too hard to have the defense to hold them! Maybe I'm missing something but defenses down the stretch of a season makes the difference and against high powered team, they've done enough to get by which will come to bite the BRONCOS unless they improve as the season goes on.

Yes, the defense steps up, I'm just saying if we were a 'defensive powerhouse" with no offense (as the defensive powerhouses are), we could instead be finding ourselves trailing 6-3 in the fourth quarter watching our offense go three and out, and turning the ball back over and calling on our defense to make yet another stand.

I was just pointing out the irony of how one (Defense awesome, offense sucks) is ok, because defenses win championships), but the other (defense sucks, but offense is league leading) isn't.

EastCoastBronco
09-22-2008, 08:31 AM
I read somewhere, I think it was Peter King's column, that Bates and Dennison are calling the plays. Shanny has veto power but he's not running the O...As so many people think. I know I was surprised. I just assumed Shanny ran the O.

Thnikkaman
09-22-2008, 09:06 AM
I read somewhere, I think it was Peter King's column, that Bates and Dennison are calling the plays. Shanny has veto power but he's not running the O...As so many people think. I know I was surprised. I just assumed Shanny ran the O.

I linked that article over in the Jeremy Bates thread.

Its like Denver's Defense shows up for the 1st quarter, and then the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter. I don't get it. I think we have the personnel to be an average D fence, but its being run by a retarded monkey. "Looks like they are going to pass, so lets rush 3 into the box. I wonder if they had Lynch up in the box yesterday to see if he wanted to come in under a coaching role instead of playing safety.

Lonestar
09-22-2008, 11:15 AM
even during the Superbowl years we had a lot of games that were close in the 4th quarter..

We tend to go into prevent defense and lets not lose this conservative offense when we go up by 2 or more scores..

It has been mikeys modus operandi forever..

NightTrainLayne
09-22-2008, 11:36 AM
I linked that article over in the Jeremy Bates thread.

Its like Denver's Defense shows up for the 1st quarter, and then the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter. I don't get it. I think we have the personnel to be an average D fence, but its being run by a retarded monkey. "Looks like they are going to pass, so lets rush 3 into the box. I wonder if they had Lynch up in the box yesterday to see if he wanted to come in under a coaching role instead of playing safety.

First I've heard of this. Lynch was in the Coach's box yesterday? I missed that somehow.

Kaylore
09-22-2008, 11:37 AM
First I've heard of this. Lynch was in the Coach's box yesterday? I missed that somehow.

Lynch was in the fox sports booth, not the coach's box.

NightTrainLayne
09-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Lynch was in the fox sports booth, not the coach's box.

Maybe that's where we're going wrong. We're letting Joe Buck and Troy Aikman do our personnel/hiring intereviews. . . :D

Lonestar
09-22-2008, 11:53 AM
Maybe that's where we're going wrong. We're letting Joe Buck and Troy Aikman do our personnel/hiring intereviews. . . :D

actually they might do a better job! :laugh::laugh:

So far slowick does not look like an answer..

Thnikkaman
09-22-2008, 12:21 PM
Lynch was in the fox sports booth, not the coach's box.

Hmm. When they were talking about Lynch, they didn't make it sound like he was in the Fox Sports Booth. I was also watching from the internet. :elefant:

NightTrainLayne
09-22-2008, 12:25 PM
Hmm. When they were talking about Lynch, they didn't make it sound like he was in the Fox Sports Booth. I was also watching from the internet. :elefant:

I was watching from Hooters. . .

Must have been when the waitress was doing a hand-stand for us. . .

ambiguous
09-22-2008, 12:47 PM
I agree that Shanahan has started out 5-1 in the post Elway years, but I think this time its different merely b/c who QB is behind the center. Cutler is no Griese nor is he Jake Plummber. Cutler is a cross btwn Elway and Steve Young, and b/c of this, the offense has a significantly better chance of operating consistently and efficiently every Sunday.

In the past years after Elway retired, the offense stalled from mid season onward under the leadership of Griese and Plummber. With Cutler we will see more consistency and efficiency which will correlate into more points and wins b/c the zone blocking running game will click because the passing game is so efficient.

Short of injuries (cross your fingers) this years Broncos offense is going to be hard to stop.

Plummber?

MOtorboat
09-22-2008, 01:02 PM
Lynch was in the fox sports booth, not the coach's box.


Hmm. When they were talking about Lynch, they didn't make it sound like he was in the Fox Sports Booth. I was also watching from the internet. :elefant:

I thought he was in the KOA booth...

dogfish
09-22-2008, 02:49 PM
I thought he was in the KOA booth...

funny. . . i thought he was on the grassy knoll. . . .

MOtorboat
09-29-2008, 01:19 PM
:cricket:

Nomad
09-29-2008, 06:15 PM
I believe the BRONCOS got their rearends handed to them yesterday!

Lonestar
09-29-2008, 10:12 PM
I believe the BRONCOS got their rearends handed to them yesterday!

a very asstoot post, pardon the pun..

But watch out the Bronco fanatics are out in force today offering excuses for the monumental ass kicking.. there coming to get you..a huh

MOtorboat
09-29-2008, 10:14 PM
a very asstoot post, pardon the pun..

But watch out the Bronco fanatics are out in force today offering excuses for the monumental ass kicking.. there coming to get you..a huh

It's also not the end of the world, as you are asserting.

weazel
09-29-2008, 10:33 PM
this thread is hilarious

broncosinindy
09-30-2008, 12:08 AM
:aetsch: What I want to know, is where are all the people who said Kubiac was the true genius, not shanahan? They seem to have quieted down!

Jeremy bates is calling the plays. just like ( i cant remember hishs turd name) from last year. Shanny guys does NOT call the plays like all you think. i am sure he has a big hand in it. but it is up to the coaching staff all you conspirators need to quiet