Excuses are a tool of incompetence .......

[omac]

"Excuses are a tool of incompetence used by those who have nothing else better to say."

Did you get that, Norv? :D

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcwest/0-3-357/Quote-sheet--Brandon-Marshall.html


Quote sheet: Brandon Marshall
October 2, 2008 6:49 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Bill Williamson
Courtesy of the Denver Broncos' PR staff, here are excerpts from Brandon Marshall's press briefing today:

Brandon Marshall on ...

The Tampa Bay defense: "This year they are mixing it up. They are definitely known for a Tampa-2 especially when Coach [Tony] Dungy was there. Now they are mixing it up and playing a little bit of three deep. Last week, they threw a little Cover-8 in there. They are doing very little of [Cover] 2 in there but I expect some 2. If we get it, we will be ready and prepared."

The adjustments they will make if he is double covered: "We are going to continue to do the same thing. If they want to do that then I would be happy to ride Brandon Stokley and Eddie Royal to the playoffs with them catching a bunch of balls and moving the chains. Like I said before the season, they have to play fair. Last week Eddie Royal had nine catches for 100- something yards [104] but we had four turnovers. When you lose that battle it is tough to win the game."

People saying the first three weeks were a fluke: "It is the National Football League and we have no excuses. Excuses are a tool of incompetence used by those who have nothing else better to say. I have something to say. I am not going to make any excuses but it is the National Football League. We are going to get it done this week and we have to come every week to play."

His eagerness to get back on the field: "I couldn't sleep Tuesday night. I was anxious and I was looking forward to practice. Just getting out there and being able to polish up some things. They threw two at me a little bit last weekend. I didn't prepare myself as I should of. This week I am excited to have another weekend, another opportunity. Going back to my college days, whenever I have a so-so game or a bad game, I am hard on myself. My expectations are a little bit different than everybody else's. I always go back to the drawing board which is practice and go back to the field and work harder. I busted my butt yesterday and I am going to bust my butt today and Friday. It is just working on technique, how to release against a Cover-2, push them outside or push them inside. I am just going to polish up some things."

Establishing a running game: "We are still doing very well with the run. I think we are averaging over 120 yards per game. Whenever you have over 100 yards rushing during a game then you have a chance to win the ball game. Fortunately we have so many receivers and so many different weapons that we are going to spread it out and create mismatches to take advantage of."

His fumble during the Kansas City Chiefs game: "I feel like, if I didn't fumble, it would have been a totally different game. Unfortunately, that was the way that they won Sunday. We have to do our best to eliminate those mistakes and those turnovers. Personally, I took it pretty rough."

How the fumble changes his preparations this week: "It just shows me that I have to work harder on ball security. Since college my wide receivers coach, Coach [D.J.] McCarthy, used to tell me that ball security is job security, both yours and mine. If I want to continue to be a wide receiver in the NFL, I have to have ball security."

[Thnikkaman]

If he can adopt this attitude to his life as well as on the football field, he should be the 2nd or 3rd Broncos wide receiver in the HoF at the end of his career.

(If they don't let Rod Smith in, I'm stink bombing the HoF)

[jrelway]

fine young man this guy is turning into. thank god he aint like TO or Chad Johnson. You know for a fact those 2 would blame their qbs.

[underrated29]

I AM GLAD WE lost early to KC. It kinda brought everyone back down to earth a bit. And get all the mistakes out in one game.


it also seemed to really push the guys and get that fire going. Which is exactley what i want to see with us taking on the bucs and the next 3 games before our bye. I want to be 7-1 at the bye- if our guys stay hungry enough it will happen.

[ApaOps5]

He really is digging those self help books he has been reading. Good for him looks like he has his mind in the right direction.

[LRtagger]

I AM GLAD WE lost early to KC. It kinda brought everyone back down to earth a bit. And get all the mistakes out in one game.

Not me. I would have rather been brought back down to earth in a non-divisional game.

[Broncolingus]

I would have rather been brought back down to earth in a non-divisional game.

Me too and agreed.

...and ,not against a team that'd lost 12 straight...

...and, not against team that many of the Top 25 college teams today could beat...

...and, not let LJ run for 14213476912367 yards...

Etc., etc., etc...

[omac]

I AM GLAD WE lost early to KC. It kinda brought everyone back down to earth a bit. And get all the mistakes out in one game.


it also seemed to really push the guys and get that fire going. Which is exactley what i want to see with us taking on the bucs and the next 3 games before our bye. I want to be 7-1 at the bye- if our guys stay hungry enough it will happen.

I think it was McCree who said after the game that if we'd have been 4-0, we'd be believing our own you-know-what, so better to take it in the chin now.

I don't like losing to a divisional rival, or losing for that matter, but losing to the worst team in the league could be a very good wakeup call. Let's go undefeated this 2nd quarter. :cheers:

[broncofanatic1987]

Not me. I would have rather been brought back down to earth in a non-divisional game.

What difference does it make if it's division game or a non division game?

Technically speaking, a team can lose every division game and still win the division based on overall record. As unlikely as it might be that a team can be bad enough to lose every division game and still win the 10 other games they play against non division opponents, it's still possible.

It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.

As to the original post, I find the shot at Norv Turner to be unwarranted. While the Dolts did have three chances to stop the Broncos after the bad call, the fact is the Chargers would have won that game if the bad call is called the right way. He has every right to be angry with that call. I certainly don't feel sorry for the Dolts. You take the win however you get it. They wouldn't feel sorry for the Broncos if it had happened to them.

[MOtorboat]

What difference does it make if it's division game or a non division game?

Technically speaking, a team can lose every division game and still win the division based on overall record. As unlikely as it might be that a team can be bad enough to lose every division game and still win the 10 other games they play against non division opponents, it's still possible.

It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.

As to the original post, I find the shot at Norv Turner to be unwarranted. While the Dolts did have three chances to stop the Broncos after the bad call, the fact is the Chargers would have won that game if the bad call is called the right way. He has every right to be angry with that call. I certainly don't feel sorry for the Dolts. You take the win however you get it. They wouldn't feel sorry for the Broncos if it had happened to them.

:tsk:

Like two years ago, when the Chiefs and Broncos had the same record, and their divisional record got them into the playoffs and the Broncos went to the golf course?

Divisional games not important...you need a history lesson...

[LRtagger]

What difference does it make if it's division game or a non division game?

Technically speaking, a team can lose every division game and still win the division based on overall record. As unlikely as it might be that a team can be bad enough to lose every division game and still win the 10 other games they play against non division opponents, it's still possible.

It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.



Uhhh no.

Tell me what will happen if SD beats us in week 17 and we have a tied record with them...say we are both 10-6, but their only divisional loss was the one game to us.

Tell me which team will be going to the playoffs if the WC is already secured by another division.

[broncofanatic1987]

:tsk:

Like two years ago, when the Chiefs and Broncos had the same record, and their divisional record got them into the playoffs and the Broncos went to the golf course?

Divisional games not important...you need a history lesson...

Perhaps you should take a reading comprehension course. I addressed why it's always best to beat division opponents.:rolleyes:

[broncofanatic1987]

Uhhh no.

Tell me what will happen if SD beats us in week 17 and we have a tied record with them...say we are both 10-6, but their only divisional loss was the one game to us.

Tell me which team will be going to the playoffs if the WC is already secured by another division.

Maybe you should sign up for the same reading comprehension course as the other guy.:coffee:

[MOtorboat]

What difference does it make if it's division game or a non division game?

Technically speaking, a team can lose every division game and still win the division based on overall record. As unlikely as it might be that a team can be bad enough to lose every division game and still win the 10 other games they play against non division opponents, it's still possible.



Perhaps you should take a reading comprehension course. I addressed why it's always best to beat division opponents.:rolleyes:

What? Did you forget your ridiculous argument, or are you just not very bright?


It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.

So you can predict the future? And the only tiebreaker we could possibly have is with...? No reading comprehension problems here.


As to the original post, I find the shot at Norv Turner to be unwarranted. While the Dolts did have three chances to stop the Broncos after the bad call, the fact is the Chargers would have won that game if the bad call is called the right way. He has every right to be angry with that call. I certainly don't feel sorry for the Dolts. You take the win however you get it. They wouldn't feel sorry for the Broncos if it had happened to them.

You a Chargers fan?

Still not sure how any of your argument equates to divisional games are important. You flat out stated divisional games aren't that important at all and then went on to be apologist for the Chargers...then you turned around and said that its best to beat divisional opponents.

:confused:

Good argument.

Have you met lex?

[broncofanatic1987]

What? Did you forget your ridiculous argument, or are you just not very bright?



So you can predict the future? And the only tiebreaker we could possibly have is with...? No reading comprehension problems here.



You a Chargers fan?

Still not sure how any of your argument equates to divisional games are important. You flat out stated divisional games aren't that important at all and then went on to be apologist for the Chargers...then you turned around and said that its best to beat divisional opponents.

:confused:

Good argument.

Have you met lex?

I think you have demonstrated once again why you need a reading comprehension class. You also could use a lesson in how not to lie about something that is there for everyone to look at. I never said division games weren't important. I could understand why someone might get the impression that I think that, but no, I did not flat out state that they "aren't that important at all". I did make it clear that I believe that is always best to win those games though. Because they could factor in on tie breakers.

You can't even get the order in which I stated thing right. I stated that it's alway best to beat division opponents before I said anything about the Chargers. Since when does referring to the Chargers as the Dolts or saying that I don't feel sorry for them constitute being a Chargers apologist? What are smoking dude? Don't mess up the rotation. It's puff puff give.:rolleyes:

Yeah, you're not too bright, but whatever.:coffee:

[LRtagger]

Maybe you should sign up for the same reading comprehension course as the other guy.:coffee:

UHHH are you delirious?

My point was that a tie-breaker could come down to a team BESIDES kc which you did not point out. You said the KC game wasnt a big deal because we wont be in a tie-breaker for a playoff spot with KC. I merely pointed out that we could be in a tie-breaker with SD in which case the KC game could be the tie-breaker that sends Denver home packing and SD to the playoffs.

You said unless we are tied for a playoff spot WITH KC that the only meaning the game will have is draft position which IS INCORRECT



It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.



Answer the question I posed in my last post and then tell me how unimportant the KC game was.

:coffee:

[broncofanatic1987]

UHHH are you delirious?

My point was that a tie-breaker could come down to a team BESIDES kc which you did not point out. You said the KC game wasnt a big deal because we wont be in a tie-breaker for a playoff spot with KC. I merely pointed out that we could be in a tie-breaker with SD in which case the KC game could be the tie-breaker that sends Denver home packing and SD to the playoffs.

You said unless we are tied for a playoff spot WITH KC that the only meaning the game will have is draft position which IS INCORRECT




Answer the question I posed in my last post and then tell me how unimportant the KC game was.

:coffee:

Nothing you said changes the fact that I said it's always best to win division games. I said it and you can't change it.

[LRtagger]

Nothing you said changes the fact that I said it's always best to win division games. I said it and you can't change it.

http://www.carolinarides.com/forum/images/smilies/backpedal.gif

NO, I'M the one that said it in MY post and you quoted ME and responded by saying division games aren't that important unless you are in a tie with THAT PARTICULAR TEAM.


Not me. I would have rather been brought back down to earth in a non-divisional game.

Is it ironic that the title of this thread is "Excuses are the tool of imcompetence"?

[broncofanatic1987]

http://www.carolinarides.com/forum/images/smilies/backpedal.gif

NO, I'M the one that said it in MY post and you quoted ME and responded by saying division games aren't that important unless you are in a tie with THAT PARTICULAR TEAM.



Is it ironic that the title of this thread is "Excuses are the tool of imcompetence"?

There you go telling lies. Why do you guys lie when what I said is there for everyone to see? The only thing I quoted from you in my first post was the post you put up about how you wished the Broncos had been brought back to earth in a non division game. No where in that post did you specifically say the it's always best to win a division game. I said it. You can't change it.


broncofanatic1987 Quote:

Originally Posted by LRtagger
Not me. I would have rather been brought back down to earth in a non-divisional game.

What difference does it make if it's division game or a non division game?

Technically speaking, a team can lose every division game and still win the division based on overall record. As unlikely as it might be that a team can be bad enough to lose every division game and still win the 10 other games they play against non division opponents, it's still possible.

It doesn't matter who you lose to until it comes down to a tiebreaker. In that sense it is always best to beat a division opponent, but how likely is it that Broncos and the Chiefs are going to end up tied with a playoff spot on the line? The only tie we really have to worry about with those two teams is who gets the higher pick in next years draft, and that's not the kind of tie we should be hoping for.

As to the original post, I find the shot at Norv Turner to be unwarranted. While the Dolts did have three chances to stop the Broncos after the bad call, the fact is the Chargers would have won that game if the bad call is called the right way. He has every right to be angry with that call. I certainly don't feel sorry for the Dolts. You take the win however you get it. They wouldn't feel sorry for the Broncos if it had happened to them.
10-03-2008 08:35 PM

Busted for the liar you are.:rolleyes:

[yardog]

:doh:

[frauschieze]

:doh:

Yard, you're the best. :hug:

[LRtagger]

Wow just wow

[omac]

Well, I think the shot at Norv Turner was warranted. :D

Kidding aside, bad calls and missed calls happen almost every game, I think. It's unfortunate for the Chargers that this happened at a crucial point. Though it greatly influenced the outcome of the game, it did not decide it. They still had 2 chances to win the game, if they could've gotten stops.

What I didn't like with Norv was that he was blaming the loss on Hochulli. First off, though Hochulli made a bad call (the whistle), the only thing Hochulli was allowed to do was to follow the guidelines set when such an event happens. It happened twice this same week, in this SD game, and in the Dallas x Philly game. Had he not proceeded to do what he did after the blown whistle, he'd in effect be making up the rules and guidelines as he went along during the game, which is clearly outside of his duties. He could only do the next best thing, and proceed according to the guidelines, and apologize to Norv for the blown whistle.

The 2nd thing is that the Chargers lost that game because they were unable to contain our offense. Truth is, we let them in the game, with blown special teams coverage, and conservative playcalling in the 3rd quarter.

Norv can blame Ed all he likes, and Ed takes responsibility for it, but the reason the Chargers lost is because their defense couldn't stop our offense throughout most of the game, and during the 2 times they needed to the most.

And Norv never acknowledged that part of their weakness. So, yeah, the shot at Norv is very warranted. Acknowledge that the whistle was a big mistake, but man up and realize why your team really lost. Don't scapegoat the ref. :D

[broncofanatic1987]

Well, I think the shot at Norv Turner was warranted. :D

Kidding aside, bad calls and missed calls happen almost every game, I think. It's unfortunate for the Chargers that this happened at a crucial point. Though it greatly influenced the outcome of the game, it did not decide it. They still had 2 chances to win the game, if they could've gotten stops.

What I didn't like with Norv was that he was blaming the loss on Hochulli. First off, though Hochulli made a bad call (the whistle), the only thing Hochulli was allowed to do was to follow the guidelines set when such an event happens. It happened twice this same week, in this SD game, and in the Dallas x Philly game. Had he not proceeded to do what he did after the blown whistle, he'd in effect be making up the rules and guidelines as he went along during the game, which is clearly outside of his duties. He could only do the next best thing, and proceed according to the guidelines, and apologize to Norv for the blown whistle.

The 2nd thing is that the Chargers lost that game because they were unable to contain our offense. Truth is, we let them in the game, with blown special teams coverage, and conservative playcalling in the 3rd quarter.

Norv can blame Ed all he likes, and Ed takes responsibility for it, but the reason the Chargers lost is because their defense couldn't stop our offense throughout most of the game, and during the 2 times they needed to the most.

And Norv never acknowledged that part of their weakness. So, yeah, the shot at Norv is very warranted. Acknowledge that the whistle was a big mistake, but man up and realize why your team really lost. Don't scapegoat the ref. :D

It is true that the bad call was not the sole reason the Chargers lost, but it was one of the reasons and Norv has every right to be angry about it. It was in fact,the single biggest reason they lost. Despite their poor defense in that game, they would have still won that game if Hochuli doesn't make the bone head call. Yes, Hochuli administered the only remedy that the rules allowed him to administer after he blew the call, but he never should have blown the call to begin with. The Broncos know something about winning despite a poor defense, it's happened in 2 of their 3 wins this year. If it weren't for the blown call that should never have happened, one of those 3 wins wouldn't have happened. As I said before, I don't feel sorry for the Chargers. They would not feel sorry for the Broncos if the Broncos had lost because of a blown call. They had 3 chances to stop the Broncos after the call and didn't get it done. Too bad for them. But, they still have a right to be angry about the call and they should be. The refs should never be a factor in the outcome of a game because of a blown call that really is inexcusable. Some blown calls are understandable, that one wasn't.

[omac]

It is true that the bad call was not the sole reason the Chargers lost, but it was one of the reasons and Norv has every right to be angry about it. It was in fact,the single biggest reason they lost. Despite their poor defense in that game, they would have still won that game if Hochuli doesn't make the bone head call. Yes, Hochuli administered the only remedy that the rules allowed him to administer after he blew the call, but he never should have blown the call to begin with. The Broncos know something about winning despite a poor defense, it's happened in 2 of their 3 wins this year. If it weren't for the blown call that should never have happened, one of those 3 wins wouldn't have happened. As I said before, I don't feel sorry for the Chargers. They would not feel sorry for the Broncos if the Broncos had lost because of a blown call. They had 3 chances to stop the Broncos after the call and didn't get it done. Too bad for them. But, they still have a right to be angry about the call and they should be. The refs should never be a factor in the outcome of a game because of a blown call that really is inexcusable. Some blown calls are understandable, that one wasn't.

Blown calls shouldn't be a factor in the outcome of games, but the reality is, they are, whether they're called in the early, mid, or later parts of the game. I can't respect a professional coach's action when he blames a loss to a blown call by the ref, and takes no responsibility for his team not executing when they needed to. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's cool. :cheers:

[broncofanatic1987]

Blown calls shouldn't be a factor in the outcome of games, but the reality is, they are, whether they're called in the early, mid, or later parts of the game. I can't respect a professional coach's action when he blames a loss to a blown call by the ref, and takes no responsibility for his team not executing when they needed to. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's cool. :cheers:

I will agree that Norv Turner should have acknowledged his defense's poor play as a major factor in why they lost. But, I just can't blame him for being angry about that horrendously bad call by Hochuli.