PDA

View Full Version : Could we be a trade partner for Hillis?



DenBronx
10-06-2011, 09:20 PM
Hillis wasn’t happy with his lack of usage after last week’s game. Tony Grossi of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer believes the drama may only be starting.

Grossi opined on a video segment that he thinks Hillis will request a trade as the “next step” in the process. The contract talk is “not going well” according to Grossi, who says the Browns see Montario Hardesty as a runner with a higher ceiling.
So, yeah, this may get uglier.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/06/the-peyton-hillis-drama-is-not-going-away/


Seems to be alot of he said/she said stuff going on in Cleveland.

But would you welcome Hillis back to be the running back for the Broncos? Seems like the Browns are giving more reps to Hardesty now and Hillis thinks he should be playing more.

Would you welcome a trade? Player for player? Thinking Hillis for Moreno and maybe another player or late draft pick?

camdisco24
10-06-2011, 09:25 PM
YES! But I have a feeling that may only happen in dream land...

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 09:25 PM
I heard Hillis is pretty dumb so I am not sure. :lol:

Of course I would welcome him back. The problem is the trade details would be RIDICULOUS!

Denver trades Hillis and 3rd or 6th for Quinn.

Denver then trades 3rd for Hillis.

That would mean we gave up 2 3rds and a 6th for Quinn. (not the actual values but you get my drift).

Now I want to find McD and punch him :mad: (just when I thought I was over Hillis).

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 09:30 PM
Any trade would have to include 1st rounder Moreno. Since they would in return need help at RB, not that Moreno has been much help. At least that's what I think.


Holmgren would never go for it though. But I would think the Broncos, now that McD is gone might consider it especially since most of the fan based was upset by the trade in the first place.

Lancane
10-06-2011, 09:32 PM
I wouldn't trade a draft pick for Hillis, even though adding him (back) to the backfield with McGahee would sure up our running offense. We're already going to be down two draft picks this off-season, we can't afford to let another go and expect to build the roster in the correct manner. If I was the Broncos I would look at possibly trading a player, maybe DJ Williams for Hillis, but no draft picks.

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 09:36 PM
I wouldn't trade a draft pick for Hillis, even though adding him (back) to the backfield with McGahee would sure up our running offense. We're already going to be down two draft picks this off-season, we can't afford to let another go and expect to build the roster in the correct manner. If I was the Broncos I would look at possibly trading a player, maybe DJ Williams for Hillis, but no draft picks.

I think we could afford to ship DJ. He has been a good player in Denver but Woodyard seems to not miss a beat when he is in for DJ. Plus we will probably be drafting more LBs next year anyway. So, if that's what it took to get Hillis then I think the Broncos would do it. It's not like he is the captain here anymore anyway.

Hillis and McGahee would fix alot of problems here, espescially in the redzone.

Npba900
10-06-2011, 09:43 PM
Why would Hillis want to return back to Denver is my question. Hillis is really better suited for a zone-blocking scheme running attack with a balanced west coast passing attack. I'm not sure which teams out there run a complete zone blocking with a viable dedicated west coast passing attack--besides Shanahan's zone blocking and west coast passing attack. However, this is where Hillis should try and get traded to.

Hillis would be an elite RB if he was on a team surrounded by talent on offense. Perhaps such as the New Orleans Saints. Remember a RB in the NFL has a short career span, however, a RB with great talent that doesn't take a pounding every Sunday can enjoy a 6-10 career.


Hillis going back to Denver at this point would be bad career decision b/c the Broncos are not a talented team right now.

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 09:48 PM
But I would think the Broncos, now that McD is gone might consider it especially since most of the fan based was upset by the trade in the first place.

If the Broncos gave two shits, let alone one, what the fanbase thinks, Orton wouldn't have started week 1.

[They aint bringing back Hillis because we loved him. If they brought him back it is because they like him.]

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:01 PM
If the Broncos gave two shits, let alone one, what the fanbase thinks, Orton wouldn't have started week 1.

[They aint bringing back Hillis because we loved him. If they brought him back it is because they like him.]

I was thinking they would consider bringing him back because they NEED him, not because they liked him.

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 11:03 PM
I was thinking they would consider bringing him back because they NEED him, not because they liked him.

They NEED a DT more and we all see how that worked out.

Northman
10-06-2011, 11:03 PM
Doubt Hillis would want to come back to this trainwreck.

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 11:04 PM
Cleveland was a trainwreck and dude was happy just to be wanted. Honestly, I doubt he cares so long as he is getting paid. He should too if for no other reason than the HORRIBLE injury he already sustained in this league.

Magnificent Seven
10-06-2011, 11:06 PM
Larsen would move to LB, if they got Hillis back?

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:13 PM
They NEED a DT more and we all see how that worked out.

Don't hold your breath. We have needed a DT for about 7 years and the Broncos wont even look in that direction.

I agree that's a bigger need but alot of people thought the reason for Fox coming in was to stop the run and run the ball. Well we passed on a DT in round 1 for Miller. That so far looks like a homerun. We then passed on DTs (Paea, who is on 3rd team) in rounds 2 and 3. Guess what? We are listed in the top 10 in the league at stopping the run. I credit that to picking up Bunkley who has been tremendous and by far better than any round 2 or 3 DT in this years draft.

So, I suspect Fox and co. will continue to bargain shop at DT next year too and if it works he and Elway and Xandres will look like a genius.

Nomad
10-06-2011, 11:14 PM
Npba900's take probably is right. I believe Hillis would come back to Denver because he knows he was always welcomed here regardless of McDaniel's being a numbnut.

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 11:15 PM
Larsen would move to LB, if they got Hillis back?

Which is where he belongs!

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:19 PM
Cleveland was a trainwreck and dude was happy just to be wanted. Honestly, I doubt he cares so long as he is getting paid. He should too if for no other reason than the HORRIBLE injury he already sustained in this league.

I doubt Fox will hold on to Moreno if he doesnt step up this year. So far it looks the same to me and Moreno isnt going to be much more than a 3rd down back.

Hillis is a long shot but regardless Fox will make a RB a priority at some point.

I would like Matt Forte if it was possible. The Bears seem to be leading him on and wont give him a contract but all the guy does it make it happen. Just a pipe dream though...:laugh:

Bosco
10-06-2011, 11:20 PM
I fail to see the benefit to bringing him back. Cleveland is finding out what two different coaching staffs in Denver found out years before, and running backs can be picked up in the draft if you want to go that route.

jhildebrand
10-06-2011, 11:21 PM
I fail to see the benefit to bringing him back. Cleveland is finding out what two different coaching staffs in Denver found out years before, and running backs can be picked up in the draft if you want to go that route.

That he is dumb?

Bosco
10-06-2011, 11:23 PM
That he is dumb?

That, and that he can be a moody player when the circumstances aren't what he feels they should be.

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:23 PM
By the way I just bought TWO Moreno NFL Players Jerseys by Reebok for $12 at Loves Truck Stop here in California.

Not a Moreno fan but couldnt pass up the bargain.

Northman
10-06-2011, 11:28 PM
That, and that he can be a moody player when the circumstances aren't what he feels they should be.

Welcome to the NFL. Every player is like that.

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:29 PM
I fail to see the benefit to bringing him back. Cleveland is finding out what two different coaching staffs in Denver found out years before, and running backs can be picked up in the draft if you want to go that route.

1,177 yards rushing 11 TD's, 477 recieving 2 TD's last year.

That's one reason I could think of.

Lancane
10-06-2011, 11:32 PM
I fail to see the benefit to bringing him back. Cleveland is finding out what two different coaching staffs in Denver found out years before, and running backs can be picked up in the draft if you want to go that route.

That's true, and the tailback class for the upcoming draft isn't exactly shallow. And as I mentioned earlier, after already having lost two picks in the 2012 NFL Draft we as a rebuilding team can ill afford to trade more away.

Bosco
10-06-2011, 11:35 PM
Welcome to the NFL. Every player is like that.

Not even true. There are many of them that handle these situations like adults. Granted it would be impossible to measure, but I'd bet you anything that a very small minority become openly affected by these circumstances.


1,177 yards rushing 11 TD's, 477 recieving 2 TD's last year.

That's one reason I could think of.

Ok, but what about the previous two years in Denver? Both very pedestrian save for a short span of games in 2008. How about this year in Cleveland? Not even 200 yards rushing through 3 games and already losing playing time to a younger player.

Northman
10-06-2011, 11:43 PM
Not even true. There are many of them that handle these situations like adults. Granted it would be impossible to measure, but I'd bet you anything that a very small minority become openly affected by these circumstances.


Dont know about that. Ive seen guys like Manning and Brady throw fits on the sideline as well. I guess you could be right for the guys who rarely even play but for most of the guys that are starters ive seen quite a few of them have moody moments.

DenBronx
10-06-2011, 11:44 PM
Not even true. There are many of them that handle these situations like adults. Granted it would be impossible to measure, but I'd bet you anything that a very small minority become openly affected by these circumstances.



Ok, but what about the previous two years in Denver? Both very pedestrian save for a short span of games in 2008. How about this year in Cleveland? Not even 200 yards rushing through 3 games and already losing playing time to a younger player.

Near 4.6 yards per carry here in Denver in limited time.

Did Josh use him in 2009? No he didnt. Hillis started 2 games and even then McDaniels wouldnt even consider using Hillis. His first year? He was beastin as a rookie (6 TD's, 5.0 ypc) until he landed akwardly on his leg, landing him on IR for the rest of the year.

Bosco
10-06-2011, 11:55 PM
Near 4.6 yards per carry here in Denver in limited time. Sure, but that goes right back to the impressive span of 2008 but completely ignores the first half of the season that saw him benched in week 2 or 3.


Did Josh use him in 2009? No he didnt. Hillis started 2 games and even then McDaniels wouldnt even consider using Hillis. His first year? He was beastin as a rookie (6 TD's, 5.0 ypc) until he landed akwardly on his leg, landing him on IR for the rest of the year.And you still don't think that he got benched in 2009 for a reason? I don't understand how a staff that consisted of Mike Shanahan and Bobby Turner and the current Browns staff can both bench or restrict Peyton's playing time and Denver fans either ignore it or make excuses, but you bring up 2009 when McDaniels (with Bobby Turner still on staff) and he's the evil tyrant coach out to get Peyton. And what point does our collective fanbase start recognizing a pattern here?

Oh, and I'd have to back to verify, but IIRC those two games Hillis started in 2009 where at FB when we opened in a two back set. I don't believe he started any games at RB.

Clipworthy
10-06-2011, 11:58 PM
What is this? Am I awake? Is this really happening?

Hillis back to Denver talk? SMHLMAOROFLPMSOL.

sneakers
10-07-2011, 12:00 AM
Trade him for Quinn.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-07-2011, 12:32 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if Peyton is a little....sensitive.

Clipworthy
10-07-2011, 03:22 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if Peyton is a little....sensitive.

Maybe he just doesn't wanna play for the Browns.


Few do.

CrazyHorse
10-07-2011, 06:56 AM
Hillis for Moreno straight up!

vandammage13
10-07-2011, 09:00 AM
Madden curse.

BroncoWave
10-07-2011, 09:35 AM
Hmm, maybe he isn't getting a new contract from the Browns because of what I have been saying for years. He just isn't that good. I was ridiculed for saying last year was his absolute ceiling and he will never have that kind of season again, but he is starting to prove me right. His YPC is terrible this year and he is losing carries to Hardesty (oh yeah, JUST like I said would happen this year). If this keeps up, and I see no reason why it won't, I will be serving a LOT of crow at the end of this season.

Mike
10-07-2011, 09:57 AM
Will they take Quinn back?

BORDERLINE
10-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Hillis to Denver would be ideal. Forget about what was given up for him. He would give us an immediate boost to our short yardage situations.

And we all seen how Hillis plays. The heart the drive the intensity he plays with. I'm sure if we trade for him he will play his azz off to show everyone McD was an idiot for trading him.

Hillis and Tebow in the backfield:D:D:D:D:D:D:elefant:.

vandammage13
10-07-2011, 12:03 PM
We should see if the Browns are interested in Brady Quinn for Hillis + a late round pick.

Seems like a fair deal to me.

Tned
10-07-2011, 12:07 PM
We should see if the Browns are interested in Brady Quinn for Hillis + a late round pick.

Seems like a fair deal to me.

People keep remembering it was TWO late round picks, a 6th in 2011 and conditional 2012 we still owe Cleveland.

Canmore
10-07-2011, 12:11 PM
People keep remembering it was TWO late round picks, a 6th in 2011 and conditional 2012 we still owe Cleveland.

Do you really have to keep reminding us! :laugh:

Thnikkaman
10-07-2011, 12:27 PM
Do you really have to keep reminding us! :laugh:

An elephant never forgets. And Dent is one big elephant. :elefant:

DenBronx
10-07-2011, 04:51 PM
Sure, but that goes right back to the impressive span of 2008 but completely ignores the first half of the season that saw him benched in week 2 or 3.

And you still don't think that he got benched in 2009 for a reason? I don't understand how a staff that consisted of Mike Shanahan and Bobby Turner and the current Browns staff can both bench or restrict Peyton's playing time and Denver fans either ignore it or make excuses, but you bring up 2009 when McDaniels (with Bobby Turner still on staff) and he's the evil tyrant coach out to get Peyton. And what point does our collective fanbase start recognizing a pattern here?

Oh, and I'd have to back to verify, but IIRC those two games Hillis started in 2009 where at FB when we opened in a two back set. I don't believe he started any games at RB.

I dont trust anything Josh McDaniels did here in Denver. It doesnt matter if Turner was on staff or not, he underminded players and coaches. Thats why he chased out Nolan, because he didnt agree with the way he handled the defense.

The fact is the Browns DIDNT restrict Peytons playing time last year. If you follow the dram THIS year in Cleveland you will realize it isnt about performance. Its about money. Peyton doesnt want to play for 600k a year with putting up those kind of numbers. What if he were to get injured? Chris Johnson held out and got a new contract. Forte has been complaining and imo has a right to ask for a new deal. Face it, Hillis WAS the offense for Cleveland last year. This year he was sick and excuse one game and to top it off, contract issues. I say pay or trade the man.

Denver needs help in the running game and Hillis will soon ask for a trade if he doesnt get a new deal.

DenBronx
10-07-2011, 04:53 PM
Straight out of Cleveland...


Will Peyton Hillis Request A Trade From Browns?
7th October, 2011 - 9:25 am
Cleveland Plain Dealer - Tony Grossi of The Cleveland Plain Dealer predicts that Browns running back Peyton Hillis will soon request a trade.

The NFL's trade deadline comes in Week 6.

The Browns have a bye this weekend.

Hillis and the Browns don't appear to have made much progress when it comes to a long-term contract extension.

He rushed for 1,177 yards on 270 carries in 16 games last season and scored 11 touchdowns. [READ]


Read the full article:

http://football.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/23955/20111007/will_peyton_hillis_request_a_trade_from_browns/


http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/10/browns_insider_watch_chat_live_2.html

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 05:04 PM
Hmm, maybe he isn't getting a new contract from the Browns because of what I have been saying for years. He just isn't that good. I was ridiculed for saying last year was his absolute ceiling and he will never have that kind of season again, but he is starting to prove me right. His YPC is terrible this year and he is losing carries to Hardesty (oh yeah, JUST like I said would happen this year). If this keeps up, and I see no reason why it won't, I will be serving a LOT of crow at the end of this season.

I still say you are wrong, whether he "reaches" last year's production or not. Going by that brillian logic, I guess Chriss Johnson isn't any good because he doesn't reach 2000 yrds every year. I'm betting he hit his ceiling too! THe players in the locker room were stating in their loss that they may have won if Hillis got the damn ball. The players know who the best RB on the roster is, and it isn't Hardesty.

Hillis is the best runner on both our teams, bar none.

getlynched47
10-07-2011, 05:07 PM
No, we would not be a trade partner for Peyton Hillis.

I like Hillis, and was sad when he left, but it would be absolutely idiotic to trade back for Peyton Hillis.

We have two slow runningbacks already in Knowshon Moreno and Willis McGahee. The kind of running back we need is a speedster. Hillis is not that kind of runningback.

We need the home run hitter. Not to mention that Hillis' running style has already taken a toll on his body.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 05:09 PM
No, we would not be a trade partner for Peyton Hillis.

I like Hillis, and was sad when he left, but it would be absolutely idiotic to trade back for Peyton Hillis.

We have two slow runningbacks already in Knowshon Moreno and Willis McGahee. The kind of running back we need is a speedster. Hillis is not that kind of runningback.

We need the home run hitter. Not to mention that Hillis' running style has already taken a toll on his body.

I agree we won't trade back for the player that McDick traded away, but just what about our running game makes you think we need a speedster? Hillis is faster than both the RBs on our roster.

getlynched47
10-07-2011, 05:12 PM
I agree we won't trade back for the player that McDick traded away, but just what about our running game makes you think we need a speedster? Hillis is faster than both the RBs on our roster.

We need a speedster as a complimentary back to McGahee and Moreno.

I don't think Hillis is any faster than those two. Just more powerful.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 05:16 PM
We need a speedster as a complimentary back to McGahee and Moreno.

I don't think Hillis is any faster than those two. Just more powerful.

No.. he's faster for sure.

But I don't see either one of those being a back we use in the future, so I guess I can't considering us trying to get a "complimentary" back to a moreno who is pretty much useless.

getlynched47
10-07-2011, 05:19 PM
No.. he's faster for sure.

But I don't see either one of those being a back we use in the future, so I guess I can't considering us trying to get a "complimentary" back to a moreno who is pretty much useless.

Considering that McGahee signed a 4 year deal with a lot of guarantees in the first few years of the contract, and Moreno is signed cheaply through 2013, they'll both be back in 2012 unless we get a MASSIVE upgrade at the runningback position.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Considering that McGahee signed a 4 year deal with a lot of guarantees in the first few years of the contract, and Moreno is signed cheaply through 2013, they'll both be back in 2011 unless we get a MASSIVE upgrade at the runningback position.

I don't care for HOW long these two are signed for.. they aren't our future. McGahee is the complimentary back to WHOMEVER we get, and Moreno has pretty much played himself out of a spot on this team. It doesn't take a massive upgrade to be better than Knowshon, because he sucks.

getlynched47
10-07-2011, 05:51 PM
I don't care for HOW long these two are signed for.. they aren't our future. McGahee is the complimentary back to WHOMEVER we get, and Moreno has pretty much played himself out of a spot on this team. It doesn't take a massive upgrade to be better than Knowshon, because he sucks.

I apologize, I misread your post (I thought you meant for next year).


I'm sad that it's not working out with Knowshon Moreno. I really wanted him to be great. But his tripping issues and inability to stay healthy are ridiculous.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 05:59 PM
I apologize, I misread your post (I thought you meant for next year).


I'm sad that it's not working out with Knowshon Moreno. I really wanted him to be great. But his tripping issues and inability to stay healthy are ridiculous.

I honestly don't truly believe Moreno will be on the team next year. If we draft another RB somewhere, where does this leave Knowshon? He isn't providing anything for our team now.

I know what you mean. ALthough at the time I was pretty upset about us wasting a high pick on a RB, I WANTED him to be great. Its been a long time since the Broncos have had a great RB to rely on. But man, as you said, the guy can't stay on his feet, can't find the hole, and just can't stay healthy. It sucks to be a player and not stay healthy.

But I'm ready to move on. Mark it down as just another McDoofus mistake.

Bosco
10-07-2011, 06:00 PM
I dont trust anything Josh McDaniels did here in Denver. It doesnt matter if Turner was on staff or not, he underminded players and coaches. Thats why he chased out Nolan, because he didnt agree with the way he handled the defense.

The fact is the Browns DIDNT restrict Peytons playing time last year. If you follow the dram THIS year in Cleveland you will realize it isnt about performance. Its about money. Peyton doesnt want to play for 600k a year with putting up those kind of numbers. What if he were to get injured? Chris Johnson held out and got a new contract. Forte has been complaining and imo has a right to ask for a new deal. Face it, Hillis WAS the offense for Cleveland last year. This year he was sick and excuse one game and to top it off, contract issues. I say pay or trade the man.

Denver needs help in the running game and Hillis will soon ask for a trade if he doesnt get a new deal.

And I see you STILL can't give a logical explanation as to why he was benched in 2008. Even if you cling to the belief that Josh didn't play him in 2009 for reasons unrelated to his play, 2008 still needs to be addressed.

Sure, Peyton had a solid season in 2010, but it's kind of funny how everyone acts like he was such a stud last year, when his performance in a simplified offense designed to work through him got him a whole whopping 230 more yards than Moreno got in split duty in 2009 in an offense that people here act like was the most idiotic thing to ever grace a football field. The fact that a measly 14.3 yards per game separates two extreme stances nicely illustrates the delusion this fanbase has about all things McDaniels, but I digress.

Anyways, Peyton may be acting like a bitch because he's unhappy with the contract he has, but that will have nothing to do with the Browns choosing to give Hardesty more carries, or Peyton's below average performance so far this season.


just what about our running game makes you think we need a speedster? Hillis is faster than both the RBs on our roster.

No he's not. Moreno is substantially faster than Hillis. He might be faster than McGahee though.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=32821&draftyear=2008&genpos=fb

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=65960&draftyear=2009&genpos=rb

DenBronx
10-07-2011, 06:19 PM
And I see you STILL can't give a logical explanation as to why he was benched in 2008. Even if you cling to the belief that Josh didn't play him in 2009 for reasons unrelated to his play, 2008 still needs to be addressed.

Sure, Peyton had a solid season in 2010, but it's kind of funny how everyone acts like he was such a stud last year, when his performance in a simplified offense designed to work through him got him a whole whopping 230 more yards than Moreno got in split duty in 2009 in an offense that people here act like was the most idiotic thing to ever grace a football field. The fact that a measly 14.3 yards per game separates two extreme stances nicely illustrates the delusion this fanbase has about all things McDaniels, but I digress.

Anyways, Peyton may be acting like a bitch because he's unhappy with the contract he has, but that will have nothing to do with the Browns choosing to give Hardesty more carries, or Peyton's below average performance so far this season.



No he's not. Moreno is substantially faster than Hillis. He might be faster than McGahee though.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=32821&draftyear=2008&genpos=fb

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=65960&draftyear=2009&genpos=rb



Because Hillis fumbled. That would be the only logical explaination I could think.

I can deal with fumbles. All RBs fumble at some point but not all put up those kind of stats.

I'm not going to continue to argue with a wall...:coffee:

Bosco
10-07-2011, 06:31 PM
Because Hillis fumbled. That would be the only logical explaination I could think.

I can deal with fumbles. All RBs fumble at some point but not all put up those kind of stats.

I'm not going to continue to argue with a wall...:coffee:

I don't recall Peyton having any fumbles in the first couple weeks of 2008, right before he got benched for Larsen.

DenBronx
10-07-2011, 06:36 PM
I don't recall Peyton having any fumbles in the first couple weeks of 2008, right before he got benched for Larsen.

Sorry I was thinking 2009. I just remember McDaniels pissed after Hillis fumbled and didnt really seem to give him another chance.


But looking back are you saying Larsen is a better runner than Hillis?

BroncoWave
10-07-2011, 06:40 PM
I still say you are wrong, whether he "reaches" last year's production or not. Going by that brillian logic, I guess Chriss Johnson isn't any good because he doesn't reach 2000 yrds every year. I'm betting he hit his ceiling too! THe players in the locker room were stating in their loss that they may have won if Hillis got the damn ball. The players know who the best RB on the roster is, and it isn't Hardesty.

Hillis is the best runner on both our teams, bar none.

Yeah, because you can totally compare a 2000 yard season to an 1100 yard season. Come on Rav, you are smarter than that. If 1100 yards is the most he ever rushes for, then it will be impossible to deny that perhaps he is not as good as many on here have made him out to be.

Bosco
10-07-2011, 06:42 PM
Sorry I was thinking 2009. I just remember McDaniels pissed after Hillis fumbled and didnt really seem to give him another chance. That was part of the problem. He also dropped a fairly crucial pass in the Bengals game and forced us to burn timeouts because he could not line up right in the formations. I'm too lazy to find it now, but if you go through my old posts you'll find a link I posted that quoted Jay Cutler talking about Peyton having trouble learning the plays then as well.


But looking back are you saying Larsen is a better runner than Hillis? Of course not, and I doubt that's what Shanahan and co. thought in 2008. I would imagine that felt that Larsen was a better pure fullback and more reliable player.

vettesplus
10-07-2011, 07:37 PM
how about hillis for tt!!!!!!!

BroncoWave
10-07-2011, 07:44 PM
How about let the Browns keep Hillis? We have enough mediocre RBs on our roster.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 07:45 PM
Hillis is better than any back we have on the roster. He's a stud there, and would be a stud here. I wou ld make the Hillis for Tebow trade in a heartbeat.

But think I could be called racist for wanting Hillis on the roster, not sure though.

DenBronx
10-07-2011, 08:03 PM
That was part of the problem. He also dropped a fairly crucial pass in the Bengals game and forced us to burn timeouts because he could not line up right in the formations. I'm too lazy to find it now, but if you go through my old posts you'll find a link I posted that quoted Jay Cutler talking about Peyton having trouble learning the plays then as well.

Of course not, and I doubt that's what Shanahan and co. thought in 2008. I would imagine that felt that Larsen was a better pure fullback and more reliable player.

But he was a rookie, and a 6th rounder at that. No one expected much out of Hillis but other than a few and I mean few missed assignments, he by far passed expectations. I'm going by what I see today and yes that's much better than anyone we have now, even McGahee.

BroncoWave
10-07-2011, 08:03 PM
Peyton Hillis sucks. You're still in denial but you will see by the end of the season. And it's laughable to suggest he is better than any RB on our roster. Give me McGahee over him any day of the week. Denver would be morons to actually give something up for him.

Tned
10-07-2011, 09:32 PM
An elephant never forgets. And Dent is one big elephant. :elefant:

Look like one... Have the memory of one...

Tned
10-07-2011, 09:37 PM
Peyton Hillis sucks. You're still in denial but you will see by the end of the season. And it's laughable to suggest he is better than any RB on our roster. Give me McGahee over him any day of the week. Denver would be morons to actually give something up for him.

More BTB Hillis bashing quoted for future reference. ;)

BroncoStud
10-07-2011, 10:00 PM
No way do we actually give up something of value to get him back. Let him come here as a free agent or a trade for Quinn, straight up, but we would be the dumbest and most pathetic organization in professional sports if we let Cleveland stick it to us AGAIN.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 10:32 PM
Peyton Hillis sucks. You're still in denial but you will see by the end of the season. And it's laughable to suggest he is better than any RB on our roster. Give me McGahee over him any day of the week. Denver would be morons to actually give something up for him.

Nope. Hillis is STILL the best runner that would be on this roster... PERIOD. Its LAUGHABLE that anyone.... ANYONE... would say he "sucks" :lol: :lol: :lol:

MOtorboat
10-07-2011, 10:40 PM
Nope. Hillis is STILL the best runner that would be on this roster... PERIOD. Its LAUGHABLE that anyone.... ANYONE... would say he "sucks" :lol: :lol: :lol:

I doubt that he would be the best runner on this team, considering he couldn't get above seven different running backs, including one who was selling cell phones at the time, and then two years later one who is currently on the roster who beat him out for a spot...

Hillis is a lot like Orton. His sin is mediocrity. Last year, Hillis was a little better than mediocre, like Orton was in 2009.

Now, we have the "he sucks or he's awesome" mantra, with no in between, when in reality, they are both in between. They are just OK.

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 11:06 PM
I doubt that he would be the best runner on this team, considering he couldn't get above seven different running backs, including one who was selling cell phones at the time, and then two years later one who is currently on the roster who beat him out for a spot...

Hillis is a lot like Orton. His sin is mediocrity. Last year, Hillis was a little better than mediocre, like Orton was in 2009.

Now, we have the "he sucks or he's awesome" mantra, with no in between, when in reality, they are both in between. They are just OK.

Their first round pick, Hardesty... still hasn't beat Hillis out despite your prediction that it was going to happen before the season started. Seems the only way Hardesty gets in the game is when Hillis is absent.

Hillis is better than ANY RB we have on this roster, just as he was better than any of the RBs we had starting in front of him. This entire "he couldnt' start in front of the other 7 guys" is jut flat out crap. He was starting at FB at the time. The coaches drafted him as a FB, were using him as a FB, he was on the field as a FB. When the time came where we needed him to try at TB..he exceeded anyone we had on THAT roster.

Its absurd that you guys just won't admit that you are wrong about the dude...whether it be that you were a moreno backer, and didn't like the fact that Hillis was more popular, or that you think the only reason people like him is because he's white. I can't even believe that you guys are trying to deny that Hillis is better than ANYONE we have on this Broncos team. Its absurd.

Watchthemiddle
10-07-2011, 11:12 PM
. I can't even believe that you guys are trying to deny that Hillis is better than ANYONE we have on this Broncos team. Its absurd.

:beer:

I don't get it either. I don't care if he has break away speed or not, he has break-YOUR-neck speed and gets it done whether it be between the 20's or in the redzone. I could see Shanny trying to get him back again. He knew how to use him and could use him well just like he is now doing with Torrain.

Tned
10-07-2011, 11:21 PM
I doubt that he would be the best runner on this team, considering he couldn't get above seven different running backs, including one who was selling cell phones at the time, and then two years later one who is currently on the roster who beat him out for a spot...

Hillis is a lot like Orton. His sin is mediocrity. Last year, Hillis was a little better than mediocre, like Orton was in 2009.

Now, we have the "he sucks or he's awesome" mantra, with no in between, when in reality, they are both in between. They are just OK.

Quoted for future reference of the Hillis sucks, blah, blah, blah...

BroncoStud
10-08-2011, 12:00 AM
This is freaking stupid. Peyton Hillis would be HANDS DOWN the best RB on this roster were he to return. Not one RB currently a Bronco has his combination of vision, power, speed, hands, and versatility. He's a beast and how quickly people forget how dangerous he was in Shanahan's bootleg rollouts with Cutler slinging him the football.

Would McCoy use him properly? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Shanahan make a move to acquire him for the Redskins. He would be a hell of a combination RB with Ryan Torain once again.

We would be fools to give up a draft pick or a solid player for him after giving him away with some picks for Brady freaking Quinn... I doubt he will be a Bronco anytime soon, but make no mistake, Hillis would easily be the best and most complete RB on this roster, and it wouldn't be close.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 12:42 AM
But he was a rookie, and a 6th rounder at that. No one expected much out of Hillis but other than a few and I mean few missed assignments, he by far passed expectations. I'm going by what I see today and yes that's much better than anyone we have now, even McGahee.

And he was also a 6th rounder because of his own to a large degree. Last year I posted a copy of one of his scouting reports that got leaked onto the internet and it talked candidly about his tendency to be moody and the trouble he had learning assignments.

Believe me, this is not new information by any stretch.


Their first round pick, Hardesty... still hasn't beat Hillis out despite your prediction that it was going to happen before the season started. Seems the only way Hardesty gets in the game is when Hillis is absent.

Hillis is better than ANY RB we have on this roster, just as he was better than any of the RBs we had starting in front of him. This entire "he couldnt' start in front of the other 7 guys" is jut flat out crap. He was starting at FB at the time. The coaches drafted him as a FB, were using him as a FB, he was on the field as a FB. When the time came where we needed him to try at TB..he exceeded anyone we had on THAT roster.

Well first off, Hardesty was a 2nd rounder (a late one at that) and not a 1st rounder.

Second, BTB is exactly correct that Hillis couldn't beat out the backs on our roster in 2008. He started the year as the starting FB, got benched in week 2 or 3 and was even inactive for a handful of games before we moved him to running back out of neccesity. He didn't even get the start then until we lost Torain and Selvin Young to injuries.

Tned
10-08-2011, 09:48 AM
Cribbs told the hosts that the situation surrounding Hillis and his contract and the sickness issue from back on September 25th has taken off a life of its own – for no reason.

“It’s been blown out of proportion,” Cribbs said. “If it was a guy that we really didn’t think deserved it, we would be mimicking and you’d hear a lot of snickering and talking behind their back.

“We’d of pulled that guy aside and said ‘hey man just keep playing and hopefully you’ll get it someday,’” Cribbs said. “But this is Peyton Hillis you’re talking about, you don’t question a guy like that on a team. They’re negotiating I’m pretty sure, they’re talking, everybody needs to just relax a little bit on that.”

...

“Peyton’s one the best guys, you had to beg him just to get on Twitter,” Cribbs said. “He’s a great guy, I hate for him to go through this situation like I did. It does weigh heavy on you because you want the fans support. This contract situation, It doesn’t define me it doesn’t define Hillis. He’s gonna give his heart out for this team, and the fans can’t ask for nothing more than that.”



http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/10/07/cribbs-tells-92-3-the-fan-hes-confident-hillis-saga-will-have-a-happy-ending/

rcsodak
10-08-2011, 09:48 AM
Hillis wasn’t happy with his lack of usage after last week’s game. Tony Grossi of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer believes the drama may only be starting.

Grossi opined on a video segment that he thinks Hillis will request a trade as the “next step” in the process. The contract talk is “not going well” according to Grossi, who says the Browns see Montario Hardesty as a runner with a higher ceiling.
So, yeah, this may get uglier.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/06/the-peyton-hillis-drama-is-not-going-away/


Seems to be alot of he said/she said stuff going on in Cleveland.

But would you welcome Hillis back to be the running back for the Broncos? Seems like the Browns are giving more reps to Hardesty now and Hillis thinks he should be playing more.

Would you welcome a trade? Player for player? Thinking Hillis for Moreno and maybe another player or late draft pick?

I bet this would have fit wonderfully on my Peyton's Place thread when this news was fresh.

Meh......Search function is overrated.

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

Tned
10-08-2011, 09:54 AM
I bet this would have fit wonderfully on my Peyton's Place thread when this news was fresh.

Meh......Search function is overrated.

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

The contract that the Browns give, or don't give, Hillis will go a long way to showing what they think of Hillis.

Everything else is just wild speculation.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 12:49 PM
And he was also a 6th rounder because of his own to a large degree. Last year I posted a copy of one of his scouting reports that got leaked onto the internet and it talked candidly about his tendency to be moody and the trouble he had learning assignments.

Believe me, this is not new information by any stretch.

.


Yeah but so was Terrel Davis. Why did he go so late in the draft? Because he kept injuring his hammy?? Even so, if you think at all a guy will be any good in the NFL you don't wait till the 6th round. No one knew Davis would do what he did in the NFL or he would have went in the 1st.

I can deal with missed assignments from a rookie. Our RBs before Hillis wernt exactlly tearing it up were they? Then Hillis came in and showed us some hope. Rushing for 129 yards and recieving 116 yards in the same game. Yes he might have got benched at some point for missing an assignment but after he came in and showed us that he could easily rish for over 100 yards then there was no turning back...he was the starter until he injured his hammy and was placed on IR Dec 9th.

Trust me on this Hillis would have remained the starter if not for the injury...missed assignments or not!

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 12:58 PM
Yeah but so was Terrel Davis. Why did he go so late in the draft? Because he kept injuring his hammy?? Even so, if you think at all a guy will be any good in the NFL you don't wait till the 6th round. No one knew Davis would do what he did in the NFL or he would have went in the 1st.

don't compare hillis to davis. davis wasn't a sixth round pick because of attitude. he was an underutilized running back who suffered through one school cutting it's football program (long beach state) and then being the unheralded transfer kid on a georgia squad usually flush with big name recruits.

i realize some broncos fans still see hillis as some sort of folk hero; but i've never really liked the guy. something about him just didn't feel right to me. i got the same vibe from cutler. i don't miss him either.

Ravage!!!
10-08-2011, 01:21 PM
Hillis wasn't a six round pick because of attitude :lol:

how many FBs were taken before Hillis? What round were they taken in? Hillis was the lead back for McFadden (ever heard of him?) and Felix Jones.... and was STILL the fan favorite in Arkansas! He's a Great guy and one hell of a football player.

Besides, knowing that rational doesn't like him, just gives me that much more reason to feel he's the real deal.

Northman
10-08-2011, 01:25 PM
I find it funny that two people who criticize Hillis the most were mega McDaniels supporters. I mean shit, if we are going to talk about poor attitudes and childishness McD leads all of the above in that category and he was the coach. lmao

Ravage!!!
10-08-2011, 01:26 PM
I find it funny that two people who criticize Hillis the most were mega McDaniels supporters. I mean shit, if we are going to talk about poor attitudes and childishness McD leads all of the above in that category and he was the coach. lmao

Yeah.. its not a fluke

Tned
10-08-2011, 01:30 PM
When did Hills get bumped up to a sixth round pick? Was there a recount?

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 01:52 PM
don't compare hillis to davis. davis wasn't a sixth round pick because of attitude. he was an underutilized running back who suffered through one school cutting it's football program (long beach state) and then being the unheralded transfer kid on a georgia squad usually flush with big name recruits.

i realize some broncos fans still see hillis as some sort of folk hero; but i've never really liked the guy. something about him just didn't feel right to me. i got the same vibe from cutler. i don't miss him either.

yeah, lets just continue to ship out our young talent and never rebuild. fans like cutler, hillis, marshall, sheff for a reason. THEY PRODUCED!!!


so if that's the logic, lets just ship out von miller and decker too. lets just hit the nail on the head in the draft and ship them all out after 1 or 2 good years here. buy low sell high until we are left with a bunch of andre goodmans and brady quinns.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 01:54 PM
When did Hills get bumped up to a sixth round pick? Was there a recount?

7th round schmeveth round.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 01:58 PM
So how's the redzone working for Moreno lately? How long did it take him to break 100 yards rushing? I mean if were comparing apples to oranges. How many times has he fumbled? Wasnt he a top 15 pick?

I would rather take the Von Millers and the Brian Orakpos in the 1st and find value in the later parts of the drafts for a RB. This team doesnt need to overspend on another RB. We hit the target with Hillis and shipped him for Quinn and we shipped TWO draft picks!! We're the ones paying!! Tell me that was smart...please...with all the logic in the world please tell me we made the right decision!!!

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 02:10 PM
yeah, lets just continue to ship out our young talent and never rebuild. fans like cutler, hillis, marshall, sheff for a reason. THEY PRODUCED!!!


what did they produce? nice stats? yes. pro bowls? some. that's it. no playoff games, much less wins.

beyond that, though, i believe many of those listed players divided the locker room with their attitudes. plus, they weren't leaders on the field. they were talented, yes, but their play felt hollow.

having said that, they weren't the only reasons their broncos teams didn't win. shanny/mcd/whomever, should have acquired more/better veteran leadership to guide these players. they should have groomed these players' maturity (though, in today's NFL, you don't have time to wait for that). had shanny not be fired, i think that might have happened. but it didn't.

yes, it's easy to look at these former broncos and miss their talent, but i really don't miss them on the roster. cutler always seemed petty and apathetic, more concerned about himself than anything else; marshall was spectacular, but he needed to leave (the ghosts of that darrent williams shooting haunted him in denver); sheffler was a prima donna with above-average stats; hillis, i always found it curious how shanahan, a guy who loves low round RBs with hidden talent, didn't play him until he had to, i always suspected there had to be something off with him.

let the disagreement begin.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 02:19 PM
what are we producing now?

2-14? 2010

59 - 14? den vs oak

1-3? 2011


thats what happens when egos get in the way.


also, please explain how hillis "divided" the locker room. this will be interesting...

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 02:22 PM
I find it funny that two people who criticize Hillis the most were mega McDaniels supporters. I mean shit, if we are going to talk about poor attitudes and childishness McD leads all of the above in that category and he was the coach. lmao

i'm assuming you're counting me as one of these. this is mostly because i try not to overreact about everything; like instantly hating mcd or instantly loving hillis.

i still like mcd in theory, but he fails in reality. his time in st. louis isn't helping things either.

as for hillis, my points of criticisms were mostly at his fanboy followers who somehow annointed him a superstar after a few weeks of good play. of course, he proved a lot of those fanboys to be right with his production in cleveland last year. but, i could never get past the suspicion that much of the hillis love was simply because he's white. i mean, his style of play isn't that much different than someone like ruben droughns, yet hillis becomes a folk hero while droughns was always considered a stopgap. funny how things like that work.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 02:22 PM
also, shanahan didnt play ALOT of RBs until "he had to".

some guys never got a shot until someone got injured. that's just how the NFL works sometimes.

Shazam!
10-08-2011, 02:30 PM
Hillis returning to Denver is a pipedream.

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 02:31 PM
also, shanahan didnt play ALOT of RBs until "he had to".

some guys never got a shot until someone got injured. that's just how the NFL works sometimes.

that's a good point. but considering shanny was high on hillis after the draft and hillis' rookie season featured a very unstable backfield, logic suggests shanny would have given hillis some chances earlier. he didn't. again, i don't know why, but i always interpreted that as suspicious and suggestive of there being more to hillis that we didn't realize with our outside perspectives.

of course, it's all moot now.

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 02:33 PM
also, please explain how hillis "divided" the locker room. this will be interesting...

i'm not sure he did. but i feel strongly that cutler, marshall and scheffler did.

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 02:41 PM
i'm not sure he did. but i feel strongly that cutler, marshall and scheffler did.

because they disagreed with the guy who distroyed the franchise?

dont you think they saw it before the fans did?

DenBronx
10-08-2011, 02:44 PM
that's a good point. but considering shanny was high on hillis after the draft and hillis' rookie season featured a very unstable backfield, logic suggests shanny would have given hillis some chances earlier. he didn't. again, i don't know why, but i always interpreted that as suspicious and suggestive of there being more to hillis that we didn't realize with our outside perspectives.

of course, it's all moot now.

you're right, it is all moot now.

and I think the browns are working hard to get hillis a new contract anyway. the players seem to love him in cleveland.

Nomad
10-08-2011, 02:47 PM
Bring Hillis back:werd:.....that would be my sign at the game this Sunday!

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 02:50 PM
because they disagreed with the guy who distroyed the franchise?

dont you think they saw it before the fans did?

my thoughts on those guys predates mcdaniels' arrival. remember, things were getting very bad while shanahan was still the coach; that's why i don't blame everything on mcd, though he does deserve a lot of blame.

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 03:16 PM
Bring Hillis back:werd:.....that would be my sign at the game this Sunday!

mine would read: "just win baby."

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:20 PM
as for hillis, my points of criticisms were mostly at his fanboy followers who somehow annointed him a superstar after a few weeks of good play. of course, he proved a lot of those fanboys to be right with his production in cleveland last year. but, i could never get past the suspicion that much of the hillis love was simply because he's white. i mean, his style of play isn't that much different than someone like ruben droughns, yet hillis becomes a folk hero while droughns was always considered a stopgap. funny how things like that work.

Droughns was a stopgap. If there was anyone who benefitted from the Denver system it was Ruben. When he got to Cleveland he failed like many thought he would. Hillis on the hand has done very well like many thought he would. I dont care what color he is and suspect many other people dont either. It was easy to tell that Peyon had talent. Is Hillis Terrell Davis? No. But he is better than most of the backs we have had on this team the last 5-6 years. Im not even sure Hillis is considered a folk hero. He simply is a fans type of player. And like any fan when you see a very good player traded away its going to bring the wrath down. I mean maybe its the opposite here? Maybe YOU dislike him because he's white. Your one of the few to even bring up color when it comes to Hillis which continues to be baffling.

Nomad
10-08-2011, 03:21 PM
mine would read: "just win baby."

mmkay...Al Davis!

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:21 PM
Yeah but so was Terrel Davis. Why did he go so late in the draft? Because he kept injuring his hammy?? Even so, if you think at all a guy will be any good in the NFL you don't wait till the 6th round. No one knew Davis would do what he did in the NFL or he would have went in the 1st.

I can deal with missed assignments from a rookie. Our RBs before Hillis wernt exactlly tearing it up were they? Then Hillis came in and showed us some hope. Rushing for 129 yards and recieving 116 yards in the same game. Yes he might have got benched at some point for missing an assignment but after he came in and showed us that he could easily rish for over 100 yards then there was no turning back...he was the starter until he injured his hammy and was placed on IR Dec 9th.

Trust me on this Hillis would have remained the starter if not for the injury...missed assignments or not!

Fair enough point, but when the next coaching staff with the same RB coach benches the player for the exact same reason in 2009, that's a pretty big problem and indicative that the player has a fundamental flaw in his game. Yet people wanted to lay the blame at McDaniels feet, rather than on Peyton, where it belongs.

Of course the really sad part is that formation alignments are ******* simple to learn. I have the alignment descriptions for both backs in the EP offense memorized, and most of them can be figured out just from context. There is simply no excuse for Peyton (or any player for that matter) not being able to line up correctly.


Hillis wasn't a six round pick because of attitude :lol: It wasn't the sole reason, but it certainly didn't help either.


I find it funny that two people who criticize Hillis the most were mega McDaniels supporters. I mean shit, if we are going to talk about poor attitudes and childishness McD leads all of the above in that category and he was the coach. lmao

Just curious, but why would you try to sidetrack a discussion with a divisive and ultimately irrelevant issue? That type of deflection is usually a pretty big clue that one's position is rather weak and it certainly does nothing to help foster rational discussion around here. Since you brought it up though, let's talk about the flip side of that logic. The most vocal of the McD haters latched on to Hillis pretty heavily once it was clear he was in the doghouse, and they LOVED to take every opportunity to point out how well Hillis was doing in 2010, but now that he's been quiet this year and lost significant playing time to another player, they seem to prefer to just let the whole issue go.

Two sides to a coin my friend.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:26 PM
Just curious, but why would you try to sidetrack a discussion with a divisive and ultimately irrelevant issue? That type of deflection is usually a pretty big clue that one's position is rather weak and it certainly does nothing to help foster rational discussion around here. Since you brought it up though, let's talk about the flip side of that logic. The most vocal of the McD haters latched on to Hillis pretty heavily once it was clear he was in the doghouse, and they LOVED to take every opportunity to point out how well Hillis was doing in 2010, but now that he's been quiet this year and lost significant playing time to another player, they seem to prefer to just let the whole issue go.

Two sides to a coin my friend.

Im not sidetracking anything. But it is interesting that two people bashing on a player also happen to be McD supporters. Its basically a reference point because i believe your objectivity to be skewed regarding such subjects.

Either way, Hillis has battled some injury problems this year so its a bit expected his numbers are down which is why he is quiet so far this year.

rationalfan
10-08-2011, 03:35 PM
Im not sidetracking anything. But it is interesting that two people bashing on a player also happen to be McD supporters. Its basically a reference point because i believe your objectivity to be skewed regarding such subjects.

i think it's interesting how you classify people as "supporters" or, I presume, "haters." most people aren't that polarized, they can praise or criticize the same people/things without being biased by belief.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:39 PM
i think it's interesting how you classify people as "supporters" or, I presume, "haters." most people aren't that polarized, they can praise or criticize the same people/things without being biased by belief.

Most people yes. But having observed yours and Bosco's posts for a while now i dont think im making that much of a stretch.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 03:40 PM
Im not sidetracking anything. But it is interesting that two people bashing on a player also happen to be McD supporters. Its basically a reference point because i believe your objectivity to be skewed regarding such subjects.

Either way, Hillis has battled some injury problems this year so its a bit expected his numbers are down which is why he is quiet so far this year.

Like shit you aren't. Bringing up McDaniels in a thread that has NOTHING to do with him is sidetracking. It is impossible for you to talk to people who don't suck Hillis' balls without bringing up how they feel about McD.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:42 PM
Like shit you aren't. Bringing up McDaniels in a thread that has NOTHING to do with him is sidetracking. It is impossible for you to talk to people who don't suck Hillis' balls without bringing up how they feel about McD.

Uh, McDaniels has EVERYTHING to do with Hillis. Or have you already forgotten who traded him?

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Like shit you aren't. Bringing up McDaniels in a thread that has NOTHING to do with him is sidetracking. It is impossible for you to talk to people who don't suck Hillis' balls without bringing up how they feel about McD.

Beat me to it.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:45 PM
Uh, McDaniels has EVERYTHING to do with Hillis. Or have you already forgotten who traded him?

McDaniels is only relevant to the Hillis situation with respect to the 2009 season. Since much of the current discussion so far has been centered on 2008 and 2011, you trying to inject him into this is a clear deflection.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:46 PM
McDaniels is only relevant to the Hillis situation with respect to the 2009 season. Since much of the current discussion so far has been centered on 2008 and 2011, you trying to inject him into this is a clear deflection.


Sorry, you lose again. Just because you want to exclude a certain portion of Hillis's career doesnt make it so. :lol:

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:47 PM
Sorry, you lose again. Just because you want to exclude a certain portion of Hillis's career doesnt make it so. :lol:

Uhh, what? No one is excluding anything homie.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 03:48 PM
McDaniels is only relevant to the Hillis situation with respect to the 2009 season. Since much of the current discussion so far has been centered on 2008 and 2011, you trying to inject him into this is a clear deflection.

No, McDaniels is relevant to the discussion as it relates to what Hillis did last year also. McDaniels is relevant to anything that Hillis does subsequent to being traded.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:48 PM
Uhh, what? No one is excluding anything homie.

By saying it only involves 2008 and 2011 is trying to exclude any talk of McDaniels involvement into the Hillis affair. Are you backtracking on your previous statement now?

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:48 PM
No, McDaniels is relevant to the discussion as it relates to what Hillis did last year also.

How so?

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 03:50 PM
How so?

McDaniels is the one who traded Hillis. Duh.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 03:52 PM
McDaniels is the one who traded Hillis. Duh.

Yeah, but that doesn't explain why he is relevant to Peyton's 2010 season.

Northman
10-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't explain why he is relevant to Peyton's 2010 season.

Neither is 2008.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 03:55 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't explain why he is relevant to Peyton's 2010 season.

Its relevant because Hillis could have been doing that in Denver. Instead, the Broncos had Brady Quinn, who never saw the field and thats on top of oweing Cleveland a draft pick this year.

Whether you like it or not, McDaniels and the Broncos are on the hook for whatever trade they make and its subsequent results.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 04:03 PM
Neither is 2008.

I agree. I simply use it to point out that the same problems Hillis had in 2009 were ones he had in 2008 and that blaming either coaching staff for that is illogical.


Its relevant because Hillis could have been doing that in Denver. Instead, the Broncos had Brady Quinn, who never saw the field and thats on top of oweing Cleveland a draft pick this year.

Whether you like it or not, McDaniels and the Broncos are on the hook for whatever trade they make and its subsequent results.

The problem with this is that you're assuming the results would have been the same. You cannot say that because Hillis put up X amount of yards in 2011 that he would have done the same here. You have to factor in schemes, talent levels, strength of opponents...etc.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 04:09 PM
The problem with this is that you're assuming the results would have been the same. You cannot say that because Hillis put up X amount of yards in 2011 that he would have done the same here. You have to factor in schemes, talent levels, strength of opponents...etc.

The problem with that is that Hillis was already a productive player in Denver prior to being traded. The running game in recent years has turned to garbage, also because of choices McDaniels made. McDaniels is on the hook for all of this. And so is the Denver Broncos organization up to and including Pat Bowlen. But it was a McDaniels decision and he will be forever on the hook for what happens after the trade.

Shazam!
10-08-2011, 04:11 PM
All I know is I'd take Hillis over Moreno any freakin' day.

Nomad
10-08-2011, 04:18 PM
All I know is I'd take Hillis over Moreno any freakin' day.

:werd:

Bosco
10-08-2011, 04:20 PM
The problem with that is that Hillis was already a productive player in Denver prior to being traded. The running game in recent years has turned to garbage, also because of choices McDaniels made. McDaniels is on the hook for all of this. And so is the Denver Broncos organization up to and including Pat Bowlen. But it was a McDaniels decision and he will be forever on the hook for what happens after the trade.

Actually, our running game had been falling off for several years now. 2006 is the last year Denver really had a strong running game. Our 2009 offense was substantially more balanced than the 2008 version and both we comparable in overall rushing yards. To blame our lack of a running game on Josh is silliness of epic proportions.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 04:22 PM
BTW, there is no way Denver will trade for Hillis. At least I don't see it happening. It was clearly a huge **** up and it represents the flaws within the Broncos organization, which includes ceding too much power to McDaniels, who was not qualified to handle this much power. Bowlen, Ellis, Xanders, but mostly McDaniels all have a hand in this awful trade. But there's no way the Broncos will trade for Hillis because they would be admitting that they all made huge mistakes when McDaniels was here and didn't know what they were doing. Even though they're now trying to be more transparent (which is also questionable), thats going forward. Trading for Hillis would mean that they're facing their ****up and Im not sure that the powers that be are really big enough to do that. It's too painful for them to admit how bad the incompetence was during McDaniels tenure.

I'd love to have Hillis back but it's not happening because too much pride, ego, and embarrassment is involved.

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Things I will never understand: How 397 rushing yards in 22 games is more productive than 1752 yards in 22 games.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Actually, our running game had been falling off for several years now. 2006 is the last year Denver really had a strong running game. Our 2009 offense was substantially more balanced than the 2008 version and both we comparable in overall rushing yards. To blame our lack of a running game on Josh is silliness of epic proportions.

And now it all becomes clear. You're one of the few remaining McDaniels apologists. Good luck with that.

spikerman
10-08-2011, 04:26 PM
Trade him for Quinn.

Don't be ridiculous. Only a complete and utter moron would trade Hillis for Quinn.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 04:28 PM
And now it all becomes clear. You're one of the few remaining McDaniels apologists. Good luck with that.

Funny how you had to resort to this instead of actually addressing my post. Shame that you have to resort to the same tactics Northman used.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 04:37 PM
Funny how you had to resort to this instead of actually addressing my post. Shame that you have to resort to the same tactics Northman used.

I have addressed your posts. Where have you been?

Bosco
10-08-2011, 04:40 PM
I have addressed your posts. Where have you been?

You didn't address the post that elicited that response from you.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 04:43 PM
Funny how you had to resort to this instead of actually addressing my post. Shame that you have to resort to the same tactics Northman used.

It really is lame. But with how Hillis is playing this season and them being too stubborn to admit possibly being wrong, all they can do is deflect to McDaniels.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 04:53 PM
You didn't address the post that elicited that response from you.

Thats because it was stupid.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 04:59 PM
Thats because it was stupid.

If it was stupid, it should have been easy to refute it, right?

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 05:00 PM
Uh, McDaniels has EVERYTHING to do with Hillis. Or have you already forgotten who traded him?

http://i.imgur.com/Ocnxs.jpg

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 05:05 PM
If it was stupid, it should have been easy to refute it, right?

Ill agree to refute it but if I do, you have to agree to never defend McDaniels again. Deal?

Bosco
10-08-2011, 05:10 PM
Ill agree to refute it but if I do, you have to agree to never defend McDaniels again. Deal?

Why do you need qualifiers and incentives to have a discussion?? If you think you can refute my post (good luck, BTW) then take your shot. If not, then don't.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 05:13 PM
Why do you need qualifiers and incentives to have a discussion?? If you think you can refute my post (good luck, BTW) then take your shot. If not, then don't.

You need to make it worth my time. I don't want to be constantly addressing this matter. If you're just going to continue repeating the same garbage, then what am I getting out of it? You need to put up some collateral if you want to be treated with legitimacy. If you're not willing to put up some collateral, you're just some guy who is always mindlessly defending McDaniels, in which case, you're a waste of time.

If you want to be seen as a legitimate poster, you need to put up some collateral. To make it worth my time, I'm requiring that you never defend McDaniels again as collateral.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 05:19 PM
You need to make it worth my time. I don't want to be constantly addressing this matter. If you're just going to continue repeating the same garbage, then what am I getting out of it? You need to put up some collateral if you want to be treated with legitimacy. If you're not willing to put up some collateral, you're just some guy who is always mindlessly defending McDaniels, in which case, you're a waste of time.

If you want to be seen as a legitimate poster, you need to put up some collateral. To make it worth my time, I'm requiring that you never defend McDaniels again as collateral.

http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

Seriously man, I've seen some really crazy posts on this and other forums, but yours may have seriously just taken the crazy cake. Reputation based on collateral. Interesting concept.

I'll tell you what though. You give me an objective, measurable way to tell me that you have refuted my argument and I'll gladly take your challenge.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 05:25 PM
http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

Seriously man, I've seen some really crazy posts on this and other forums, but yours may have seriously just taken the crazy cake. Reputation based on collateral. Interesting concept.

Fake incredulousness. Thats pretty much what I expected.


I'll tell you what though. You give me an objective, measurable way to tell me that you have refuted my argument and I'll gladly take your challenge.

No, thats not where this was coming from. You wanted proper acknowledgment to one of your posts as though there was legitimacy to it and you weren't simply being dismissed based on being a McDaniels apologist. I've already explained to you what is required to be treated with legitimacy. I'm not going to play this game where someone responds to your post (as if its legitimate) and then you continue on doing the same thing. Thats what all this "measurable way" nonsense is all about. I've got news for you. It's not happening. If you want to be treated with legitimacy, you know what's required. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 05:29 PM
Orange you are the only one wasting anyone's time. Bosco made a valid point and you refuse to refute it, probably because you can't, so you set forth a completely unrealistic proposal to set grounds under which you would respond. YOU are the one wasting everyone's time. You could just admit that you were wrong about how good Hillis is and this convo would end much quicker.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 05:41 PM
Orange you are the only one wasting anyone's time. Bosco made a valid point and you refuse to refute it, probably because you can't, so you set forth a completely unrealistic proposal to set grounds under which you would respond. YOU are the one wasting everyone's time. You could just admit that you were wrong about how good Hillis is and this convo would end much quicker.

I still find it pretty funny that this noob thinks he is going to sit here and tell me what I need to do to be taken legitimately.

He's not responding to my post because he knows I'm right. Whether he wants to debate the matter on pure statistics or go deeper and discuss the relevant schemes, there is simply no debate that our running game had fallen off substantially in recent years, so he has to resort to absurdity.

Nomad
10-08-2011, 05:43 PM
Is that a pear or mango?

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 05:44 PM
So, let me see if I can nail this timeline.

Bosco asks why both Shanahan and the Browns have limited Hillis' playing time.

Northman says its because of McDaniels that Bosco asked that question (without answering the question).

Then lex responds to the thread and goes off on McDaniels, and when asked to refute the original post, then says Bosco should make it worth his time to respond to a post he already responded to.

Well isn't that a giant cluster.

The question has still not been answered...why was Hillis time limited under Shanahan, and now under Pat Shurmer? Obviously, that question has nothing to do with McDaniels and his motive for benching and trading Hillis.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 05:46 PM
The question has still not been answered...why was Hillis time limited under Shanahan, and now under Pat Shurmer? Obviously, that question has nothing to do with McDaniels and his motive for benching and trading Hillis.

No, clearly it has everything to do with McDaniels. Anyone who doesn't think McD is the worst coach ever is just not qualified to comment.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 05:46 PM
I still find it pretty funny that this noob thinks he is going to sit here and tell me what I need to do to be taken legitimately.

He's not responding to my post because he knows I'm right. Whether he wants to debate the matter on pure statistics or go deeper and discuss the relevant schemes, there is simply no debate that our running game had fallen off substantially in recent years, so he has to resort to absurdity.

Still not willing to put up the collateral? Thats what I thought.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 05:47 PM
Still not willing to put up the collateral? Thats what I thought.

Because your premise of "putting up collateral" is ****ing retarded. Either participate in the conversation or sthu.

Northman
10-08-2011, 05:48 PM
Northman says its because of McDaniels that Bosco asked that question (without answering the question).



Incorrect. I never named names when i made my comment. They simply responded too it which pretty much backed up my claim.

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 05:50 PM
Incorrect. I never named names when i made my comment. They simply responded too it which pretty much backed up my claim.

True. My apologies.

Can you answer the original question about why Shanahan and Shurmer both found the need to limit such a great player?

Northman
10-08-2011, 05:53 PM
True. My apologies.

Can you answer the original question about why Shanahan and Shurmer both found the need to limit such a great player?

No, no one can which makes the question mute.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 05:54 PM
No, no one can which makes the question mute.

Moot.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 05:55 PM
No, no one can which makes the question mute.

The answer is pretty simple, you just refuse to say it. It's okay to admit you were wrong.

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 05:56 PM
No, no one can which makes the question mute.

So, then we can not answer the question as to why McDaniels benched him, too, right?

Northman
10-08-2011, 05:57 PM
So, then we can not answer the question as to why McDaniels benched him, too, right?


Correct.

All ive ever stated is that i believe Hillis is a very good back. Nothing more, nothing less.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:00 PM
So, then we can not answer the question as to why McDaniels benched him, too, right?

Are you asking why McDaniels benched Hillis? If you are, it should be obvious that McDaniels always felt the need to justify taking Moreno and so Moreno was always going to be the starter.

I really hope that's not what you were asking though. It was a really stupid question, if it was.

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 06:02 PM
Are you asking why McDaniels benched Hillis? If you are, it should be obvious that McDaniels always felt the need to justify taking Moreno and so Moreno was always going to be the starter.

I really hope that's not what you were asking though. It was a really stupid question, if it was.

So, you can back that up, right? I mean with something other than your conjecture. Right?

Define "productive."

Bosco
10-08-2011, 06:03 PM
So, let me see if I can nail this timeline.

Bosco asks why both Shanahan and the Browns have limited Hillis' playing time.

Northman says its because of McDaniels that Bosco asked that question (without answering the question).

Then lex responds to the thread and goes off on McDaniels, and when asked to refute the original post, then says Bosco should make it worth his time to respond to a post he already responded to.

Well isn't that a giant cluster.

The question has still not been answered...why was Hillis time limited under Shanahan, and now under Pat Shurmer? Obviously, that question has nothing to do with McDaniels and his motive for benching and trading Hillis.

Good post. And is Orange really Lex? I remember him from his first couple accounts here and over on the Mane and thought the posting styles were similar. It's all very clear to me now.


No, no one can which makes the question mute.

We may not be able to state it with 100% certainty as we are not part of the coaching staff, but we can make some pretty reasonable inferences based on knowledge we can obtain.

- I've posted a scouting report that talks of Peyton's struggles with learning plays and his tendency to want to freelance and rely on physical talent.

- I've posted a link to an interview where Jay Cutler openly talked about Peyton's trouble learning the plays resulting in him getting benched for Larsen early in 2008.

- We can see instances early in 2009 where Peyton was clearly confused in trying to line up in the formation and cost us timeouts, like in the Cleveland and Raiders game.

Take all that into consideration, and you can come to a pretty reasonable assumption that he's having trouble transitioning to Shurmur's offense.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Are you asking why McDaniels benched Hillis? If you are, it should be obvious that McDaniels always felt the need to justify taking Moreno and so Moreno was always going to be the starter.

I really hope that's not what you were asking though. It was a really stupid question, if it was.

So what is your excuse for Shanahan and Shurmur limiting his role?

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:06 PM
So, you can back that up, right? I mean with something other than your conjecture. Right?

Define "productive."

I could, but Im going to need some collateral from you also. The scratch that Im requring from you is that you not post for a week if I answer.

Deal?

Bosco
10-08-2011, 06:06 PM
Correct.

All ive ever stated is that i believe Hillis is a very good back. Nothing more, nothing less.

Say what???

You repeatedly railed on McDaniels for trading Hillis, and now you're saying it's impossible for you to know why that happened?

Logic doesn't follow my friend.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 06:08 PM
I could, but Im going to need some collateral from you also. The scratch that Im requring from you is that you not post for a week if I answer.

Deal?

You've been bounced off of this forum and the Mane several times, and IIRC you openly welched on a bet you made over there just before one of your numerous bannings.

I don't think you've obtained the level of legitimacy to demand these bets. :lol:

Northman
10-08-2011, 06:09 PM
We may not be able to state it with 100% certainty as we are not part of the coaching staff

Thats actually all that is certain. The rest is just conjecture and speculation on your part.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:10 PM
So what is your excuse for Shanahan and Shurmur limiting his role?

When did Shanahan limit his role once he proved himself in 08? Once he showed what he could do, he became a featured part of the offense. I really hope that you're not saying McDaniels limiting Hillis after he had proved himself in 08 and Shanahan not playing him prior to him cracking the starting lineup are the same. Because if that's what youre saying, you need to just stop posting.

Northman
10-08-2011, 06:11 PM
Say what???

You repeatedly railed on McDaniels for trading Hillis, and now you're saying it's impossible for you to know why that happened?



I railed on the trade because it was a moronic trade in my opinion because i think he is a great player. As to WHY he was traded no one knows.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:11 PM
You've been bounced off of this forum and the Mane several times, and IIRC you openly welched on a bet you made over there just before one of your numerous bannings.

I don't think you've obtained the level of legitimacy to demand these bets. :lol:

What are you talking about?

MOtorboat
10-08-2011, 06:11 PM
I could, but Im going to need some collateral from you also. The scratch that Im requring from you is that you not post for a week if I answer.

Deal?

This must mean you don't have a very good answer.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 06:11 PM
When did Shanahan limit his role once he proved himself in 08? Once he showed what he could do, he became a featured part of the offense. I really hope that you're not saying McDaniels limiting Hillis after he had proved himself in 08 and Shanahan not playing him prior to him cracking the starting lineup are the same. Because if that's what youre saying, you need to just stop posting.

He because a featured back when SIX RBs went on IR and Hillis was his only choice. Tatum Bell, who was selling cell phones earlier in the season, looked every bit as good if not better than Hillis that season.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:12 PM
Say what???

You repeatedly railed on McDaniels for trading Hillis, and now you're saying it's impossible for you to know why that happened?

Logic doesn't follow my friend.

Still not willing to put up the collateral eh? I see your obsession with defending McDaniels is too strong.

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 06:12 PM
This must mean you don't have a very good answer.

Pretty convenient on his part. "I will only answer your post if you refuse to respond to it!" :lol:

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:13 PM
He because a featured back when SIX RBs went on IR and Hillis was his only choice. Tatum Bell, who was selling cell phones earlier in the season, looked every bit as good if not better than Hillis that season.

Yeah, thats not at all true. You should really stop posting if all you can do is make stuff up. Go away and spare everyone the stupidity.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 06:16 PM
I railed on the trade because it was a moronic trade in my opinion because i think he is a great player. As to WHY he was traded no one knows.

If you don't know why he was traded, how can you determine that the trade was moronic?

BroncoWave
10-08-2011, 06:16 PM
Yeah, thats not at all true. You should really stop posting if all you can do is make stuff up. Go away and spare everyone the stupidity.

Bell averaged 5.7 YPC that season. Hillis averaged 5. Those are called facts my friend.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:17 PM
This must mean you don't have a very good answer.

No, thats not what it means. Again, I simply want to avoid the mindless rinse and repeat. You need to be more thoughtful in what and how you post instead of trolling all the time. There needs to be some risk that you take on when trolling otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.

Either cough up the ante of shut up.

Nomad
10-08-2011, 06:21 PM
BTB, what do you do on gamenights? I don't know if the game is in NO or not, but right now I could use a good Pat O Briens Hurricane! You go down there often....to Bourbon St.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 06:21 PM
No, thats not what it means. Again, I simply want to avoid the mindless rinse and repeat. You need to be more thoughtful in what and how you post instead of trolling all the time. There needs to be some risk that you take on when trolling otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.

Either cough up the ante of shut up.

You've spent more time here trying to defend your lunacy than the few minutes it would have taken to make your counterpoint to my post. It's quite obvious your worries of keeping the discussion's integrity are bunk.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:24 PM
You've spent more time here trying to defend your lunacy than the few minutes it would have taken to make your counterpoint to my post. It's quite obvious your worries of keeping the discussion's integrity are bunk.

If you're not going to put up the scratch, go away.

And a McDaniels apologist attacking anyone's lunacy is more than ironic.

You're a joke.

Northman
10-08-2011, 06:24 PM
If you don't know why he was traded, how can you determine that the trade was moronic?

Based on my feelings of the player, and what the player had done in the league compared (before and after the trade) too what we got in return. I also take in account WHO did the trade. McDaniels was a terrible HC, from his character all the way down to his decision making. It really wasnt that difficult to determine for me.

Agent of Orange
10-08-2011, 06:30 PM
Bell averaged 5.7 YPC that season. Hillis averaged 5. Those are called facts my friend.

5.0 is awesome. Hillis had a bigger workload than Bell also. What has Moreno's YPC been? Its kind of funny that you would defend Bosco like he's your little brother and then undermine his point that the running game was faltering before McDaniels got here. If Bell was some scrub off the street, as you say, and he averaged 5.7 yards per carry, wouldnt that kill Bosco's argument that it was bad before McDaniels went to Denver. Granted, the running game wasn't what it was in Shanahan's early years but it's kind of stupid to defend McDaniels by criticizing the running game under Shanahan. Even when it dropped off, it was still a juggernaut compared to when McDaniels arrived and your point about Tatum Bell averaging 5.7 yards per carry just kills his premise.

If you're going to defend your little brother, you should try to do so in a way that doesn't call him out.

Tned
10-08-2011, 06:35 PM
Things I will never understand: How 397 rushing yards in 22 games is more productive than 1752 yards in 22 games.

It's not worth looking up the sarcastic stat post, so I am going to assume that the 397 is Hillis in Denver and the 1752 is Moreno in Denver.

If so, then the answer is one you already know, which is as a starter, Hillis averaged 5.0 YPC. He only had 397 yards because McDaniels didn't play him, which at least based on some reports was for personal reasons.

Tned
10-08-2011, 06:41 PM
True. My apologies.

Can you answer the original question about why Shanahan and Shurmer both found the need to limit such a great player?

In Denver, Hillis was a 7th round rookie FB. His job wasn't to run the ball until he got elevated to RB based on injuries. However, right before he started getting RB carries, he had a 100+ yard receiving game out of the FB spot. He is the only running back in Denver history to have both a 100 yard receiving game and 100 yard rushing game in the same season.

In Cleveland, they said before the season started that they were going to run Hillis less than last year, because it isn't possible for any back to carry the load he did. He not only had 277 carries, but also was second on the team with 61 receptions. He was, and there is ZERO dissagreement on this, the focal point of their offense from the second or third game until the end of the season.

Tned
10-08-2011, 06:43 PM
Based on my feelings of the player, and what the player had done in the league compared (before and after the trade) too what we got in return. I also take in account WHO did the trade. McDaniels was a terrible HC, from his character all the way down to his decision making. It really wasnt that difficult to determine for me.

Yea, and the fact that pretty much every NFL analyst last she went on and on about how it will go down as one of the worst trades in Denver history.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 07:45 PM
Based on my feelings of the player, and what the player had done in the league compared (before and after the trade) too what we got in return. I also take in account WHO did the trade. McDaniels was a terrible HC, from his character all the way down to his decision making. It really wasnt that difficult to determine for me.

Your feelings of the player and his performance and not relevant in deciding if the trade was "moronic". Talented players get traded all the time for issues not relating to their play on the field or talent level. Your attempt to blame McDaniels for the situation when you yourself admit you lack information is nothing short of din ingenious.


It's not worth looking up the sarcastic stat post, so I am going to assume that the 397 is Hillis in Denver and the 1752 is Moreno in Denver.

If so, then the answer is one you already know, which is as a starter, Hillis averaged 5.0 YPC. He only had 397 yards because McDaniels didn't play him, which at least based on some reports was for personal reasons.

Two problems here. One is sample size. Peyton's sample size is smaller than Moreno's and it's speculative at best that his high YPC average would have remained constant with increased workload. Second, you saying he only had 397 yards because Josh didn't play him ignores everything that happened prior to Josh getting here. Your point would be valid if he had seen regular playing time under Shanahan and then not under Josh, but BOTH used him sparingly.

And lastly, have you ever stopped to think about why McDaniels selected Moreno with Hillis still on the roster? Has it never crossed your mind that the Patriots likely scouted Hillis too, and that from that scouting, Josh knew Peyton's limitations?


In Denver, Hillis was a 7th round rookie FB. His job wasn't to run the ball until he got elevated to RB based on injuries. However, right before he started getting RB carries, he had a 100+ yard receiving game out of the FB spot. He is the only running back in Denver history to have both a 100 yard receiving game and 100 yard rushing game in the same season.

This too has problems. It was well known that Hillis was not in the mold of a traditional fullback and would be better fit as either a running back or RB/FB hybrid. His scouting reports reflect this. Shanahan and Turner have long favored these type of fullbacks going all the way to Aaron Craver and Howard Griffith, and given their talent for finding running backs it seems highly unlikely that they had no idea what kind of runner he could be until they were forced to use him.


In Cleveland, they said before the season started that they were going to run Hillis less than last year, because it isn't possible for any back to carry the load he did. He not only had 277 carries, but also was second on the team with 61 receptions. He was, and there is ZERO dissagreement on this, the focal point of their offense from the second or third game until the end of the season.

That's pretty funny considering that 270 carries is not a terribly high workload for a starting running back. That's only a 16.9 carry per game average, and every year you have a handful or more of backs that get 300+ carries.

Tned
10-08-2011, 07:58 PM
Two problems here. One is sample size. Peyton's sample size is smaller than Moreno's and it's speculative at best that his high YPC average would have remained constant with increased workload. Second, you saying he only had 397 yards because Josh didn't play him ignores everything that happened prior to Josh getting here. Your point would be valid if he had seen regular playing time under Shanahan and then not under Josh, but BOTH used him sparingly.

Prior to Josh getting to Denver, Hillis was a FB and became the starting running back due to attrition. He wasn't on the depth chart as a running back. Once he was given the starting job out of necessity, he was clearly the best running back the Broncos had in '08.


And lastly, have you ever stopped to think about why McDaniels selected Moreno with Hillis still on the roster? Has it never crossed your mind that the Patriots likely scouted Hillis too, and that from that scouting, Josh knew Peyton's limitations?

I assumed it was because McDaniels had procine whip worm larvae in his brain from eating undercooked pork in Indonesia.

Well, that speculation is no less factual than yours, so I'll go with the whip worm theory...


This too has problems. It was well known that Hillis was not in the mold of a traditional fullback and would be better fit as either a running back or RB/FB hybrid. His scouting reports reflect this. Shanahan and Turner have long favored these type of fullbacks going all the way to Aaron Craver and Howard Griffith, and given their talent for finding running backs it seems highly unlikely that they had no idea what kind of runner he could be until they were forced to use him.

This is simply not the case. Quite a few Broncos fans, and of course Razorback fans, hoped he would be used as a FB that got some carries and was thrown to from the backfield, but there was ZERO indication from the Broncos that they had any plans for him other than as a FB.

This, like so many of your anti-Hillis posts over the years, is your opinion/spin to try and paint him, a 7th round pick, as a failure.


That's pretty funny considering that 270 carries is not a terribly high workload for a starting running back. That's only a 16.9 carry per game average, and every year you have a handful or more of backs that get 300+ carries.

What's pretty funny is that this statement either shows a complete lack of football knowledge or how Hillis was used by the Browns last year. There is not a single NFL expert/analysis that hasn't discussed the Browns without talking about Hillis being overused last year and the Browns needing a back to take part of the work load off of him.

If all you are going to do is use one stat line in isolation to prove your point about his workload, then it is a greater fail than McDaniels two year term here and needs no further rebuttal.

Northman
10-08-2011, 07:59 PM
Your feelings of the player and his performance and not relevant in deciding if the trade was "moronic".

But they are relevant when giving an opinion on the situation.


Talented players get traded all the time for issues not relating to their play on the field or talent level. Your attempt to blame McDaniels for the situation when you yourself admit you lack information is nothing short of din ingenious.


What situation am i blaming McDaniels on? All ive said is he traded away a good player and the history of his decision making while in Denver was a sign he didnt know what he was doing.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 08:39 PM
I assumed it was because McDaniels had procine whip worm larvae in his brain from eating undercooked pork in Indonesia.

Well, that speculation is no less factual than yours, so I'll go with the whip worm theory...

Less factual? No. Less plausible? By leaps and bounds.


This is simply not the case. Quite a few Broncos fans, and of course Razorback fans, hoped he would be used as a FB that got some carries and was thrown to from the backfield, but there was ZERO indication from the Broncos that they had any plans for him other than as a FB.

This, like so many of your anti-Hillis posts over the years, is your opinion/spin to try and paint him, a 7th round pick, as a failure. Bronco and Razorback fans can hope for whatever the hell they want, but it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. The Broncos haven't used a traditional FB model even before Shanahan was here. Just about every fullback they used from Griffith to Cecil Sapp to Kyle Johnson and even Reuben Droughns were all guys who were converted from running back at some point and had differing levels of usefulness in the running and receiving games. The assumption that they would suddenly do a complete 180 and switch to the traditional fullback role after just drafting a guy who was literally a prototype of the hybrid they'd used for over a decade is asinine, to put it kindly.


What's pretty funny is that this statement either shows a complete lack of football knowledge or how Hillis was used by the Browns last year. There is not a single NFL expert/analysis that hasn't discussed the Browns without talking about Hillis being overused last year and the Browns needing a back to take part of the work load off of him.

If all you are going to do is use one stat line in isolation to prove your point about his workload, then it is a greater fail than McDaniels two year term here and needs no further rebuttal.By all means TNed, let's see some links to these "experts" saying this. I'd love to see who exactly thinks that a guy who wasn't even in the top 10 in carries and just barely cracked the top 10 in total touches is being "overused". That's a pretty standard workload for this supposedly elite back, is it not?

Now, if you mean that the Browns needed to find other offensive weapons to prevent defenses from keying in on Hillis (and I'll be that is what the experts said) that would be something I could agree with, but that is a separate issue from workload and overuse.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 08:41 PM
But they are relevant when giving an opinion on the situation.

An opinion based off an admitted lack of knowledge. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, so be it. Personally, I like to hold myself to a higher standard.

Tned
10-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Less factual? No. Less plausible? By leaps and bounds.

The point is you have zero basis for your statement, just like I have zero basis for my whip worm theory.


Bronco and Razorback fans can hope for whatever the hell they want, but it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. The Broncos haven't used a traditional FB model even before Shanahan was here. Just about every fullback they used from Griffith to Cecil Sapp to Kyle Johnson and even Reuben Droughns were all guys who were converted from running back at some point and had differing levels of usefulness in the running and receiving games. The assumption that they would suddenly do a complete 180 and switch to the traditional fullback role after just drafting a guy who was literally a prototype of the hybrid they'd used for over a decade is asinine, to put it kindly.

Your warping the topic here. I said that there was zero indication that the Broncos planned to use him other than as a FB. Shanahan used fullback primarily to block, with some catches out of the backfield, and very rarely, runs. There was no indication that Hillis had been drafted to play a traditional RB role, or split time between RB and FB.

Again, you are simply making this stuff up.


By all means TNed, let's see some links to these "experts" saying this. I'd love to see who exactly thinks that a guy who wasn't even in the top 10 in carries and just barely cracked the top 10 in total touches is being "overused". That's a pretty standard workload for this supposedly elite back, is it not?

Try google. I would suggest searches like "+Hillis +workload" or "+hillis +overused" and things like that. It was such a common topic in the offseason, I'm sure you will be able to master Google enough to find them.


Now, if you mean that the Browns needed to find other offensive weapons to prevent defenses from keying in on Hillis (and I'll be that is what the experts said) that would be something I could agree with, but that is a separate issue from workload and overuse.

The answer is both. That Hillis wore down in the latter half of the year, due to the % of offensive plays that he was involved in, whether carrying the ball, receiving or as a decoy. For most of the year, Hillis was the Browns offense. That was well reported last year, in the offseason and the early part of this offseason, and how it needed to change.

You clearly have followed no coverage of the Browns, which I wouldn't find surprising since you purport to be a Broncos fan. However, considering you also claim to be an expert on all things Peyton Hillis, you should at least do some cursory research of his time with the Browns before spewing ridiculous nonsense.

Tned
10-08-2011, 08:48 PM
An opinion based off an admitted lack of knowledge. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, so be it. Personally, I like to hold myself to a higher standard.

Did you REALLY just give a "admitted lack of knowledge" jab at someone, considering the posts YOU are making in this thread?

Wow, just wow!

Northman
10-08-2011, 08:51 PM
Did you REALLY just give a "admitted lack of knowledge" jab at someone, considering the posts YOU are making in this thread?

Wow, just wow!

Beat me to it.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 09:14 PM
The point is you have zero basis for your statement, just like I have zero basis for my whip worm theory.

That's bullshit and you know it. Frankly, it's a little shocking that a generally smart guy like yourself thinks there is "zero basis" for the possibility that New England also happened to scout Peyton Hillis prior to the draft.


Your warping the topic here. I said that there was zero indication that the Broncos planned to use him other than as a FB. Shanahan used fullback primarily to block, with some catches out of the backfield, and very rarely, runs. There was no indication that Hillis had been drafted to play a traditional RB role, or split time between RB and FB.

Again, you are simply making this stuff up.

There was no indication because you never looked or never paid attention. Every significant scouting report I've seen on him predicted that he would be a hybrid type, lacked the size and skill to be a lead blocker and that his running talents would be wasted in that role. He was predicted to be a WCO fullback (which is what Shanahan used) or a hybrid, and in the preseason he even lined up in some single backs sets.

Also, you're using strawman arguments on my stance on Hillis. I don't believe I've ever referred to him as a failure. In fact, just the simple fact that he made the roster as a 7th rounder would preclude that. His late season run in 2008 and his 2010 season makes him more successful than 90% of 7th rounders ever drafted. Using logical fallacies doesn't make you look very good here.


Try google. I would suggest searches like "+Hillis +workload" or "+hillis +overused" and things like that. It was such a common topic in the offseason, I'm sure you will be able to master Google enough to find them.

I'm not going on a hunt to find the support for statements YOU made. That's your job, and if I can do it, so can you.


The answer is both. That Hillis wore down in the latter half of the year, due to the % of offensive plays that he was involved in, whether carrying the ball, receiving or as a decoy. For most of the year, Hillis was the Browns offense. That was well reported last year, in the offseason and the early part of this offseason, and how it needed to change.

The second part I would agree with. The first is just flat out wrong if the person making that statement believes that Hillis is the elite, franchise back he's portrayed as. If you view him as the complimentary part of a two back offense, then that works too, but that essentially precludes him from being elite too and you can't have it both way.


You clearly have followed no coverage of the Browns, which I wouldn't find surprising since you purport to be a Broncos fan. However, considering you also claim to be an expert on all things Peyton Hillis, you should at least do some cursory research of his time with the Browns before spewing ridiculous nonsense.

Another straw man. I've never claimed to be an expert on Hillis, or any other player for that matter. I'm simply able to obtain information and make reasonable conclusions from it. I'll be waiting for you to show me the coverage of the Browns that you speak of.

Bosco
10-08-2011, 09:21 PM
Did you REALLY just give a "admitted lack of knowledge" jab at someone, considering the posts YOU are making in this thread?

Wow, just wow!

Of course, and what is your problem with it? The difference between Northman's "I don't have a ******* clue why someone did something but they are a moron for doing it" argument and my arguments that use reasonable conclusions synthesized from several pieces of information is pretty substantial.

Cugel
10-08-2011, 09:25 PM
Don't hold your breath. We have needed a DT for about 7 years and the Broncos wont even look in that direction.

I agree that's a bigger need but alot of people thought the reason for Fox coming in was to stop the run and run the ball. Well we passed on a DT in round 1 for Miller. That so far looks like a homerun. We then passed on DTs (Paea, who is on 3rd team) in rounds 2 and 3. Guess what? We are listed in the top 10 in the league at stopping the run. I credit that to picking up Bunkley who has been tremendous and by far better than any round 2 or 3 DT in this years draft.

So, I suspect Fox and co. will continue to bargain shop at DT next year too and if it works he and Elway and Xandres will look like a genius.

Look. You don't draft a DT in the top 10 because he can stuff the run. You can find DTs in the 2nd or 3rd round who can do that about as well as Marcel Dareus.

The reason to draft a DT in the top 10 is that he can rush the passer.

The idea is that OTs try to push Dumervil (and now Miller) PAST the pocket. When the QB feels Doom coming he just steps UP into a perfect pocket -- because there is no inside pass-rush pressure from the DTs.

That was why the Eagles got rid of Broderick Bunkley. It wasn't that he couldn't tackle runners. He was taken #6 (I think) and he could never rush the passer. That made him a bust.

Here in Denver he still can't but he's a better run defender than anyone Denver had so he's a step up.

Dareus is going to be a disruptive force in the middle of the D-line for the Bills. When the QB faces inside pressure there's NOWHERE for him to go.

That's how the Giants won the SB. They got pressure right up the middle with Justin Tuck, and even Tom Brady and the 18-0 Patriots with WRs like Randy Moss couldn't do anything about it.

The ONE thing that even the best NFL QBs can't handle is pressure right in their face. That's how teams beat Peyton Manning, that's how teams beat Brady.

No pressure in the middle = a LOOONG afternoon for your defense because that QB has a perfect throwing lane -- and the elite QBs can sit back there and hit the open WR all day if you give them a little time.

But, if they have to bail out because there's penetration right up the middle then they are stepping right into Doom's arms.

That was my fantasy before the draft -- get Dareus to generate a push up the middle and Doom might well break Michael Strahan's all-time sack record. Not now though.

Northman
10-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Of course, and what is your problem with it? The difference between Northman's "I don't have a ******* clue why someone did something but they are a moron for doing it" argument and my arguments that use reasonable conclusions synthesized from several pieces of information is pretty substantial.

Dont be a moron.

I never said i dont have a ******* clue about it. I said NO ONE knows why he was traded. Big difference. Ive also stated my reasoning on said issue using the information, history, etc that ive seen. The problem is you cant handle the idea that you dont know what happened and your only guessing like everyone else.

Tned
10-08-2011, 09:28 PM
That's bullshit and you know it. Frankly, it's a little shocking that a generally smart guy like yourself thinks there is "zero basis" for the possibility that New England also happened to scout Peyton Hillis prior to the draft.

You are trying to make a case that New England scouted him and that McDaniels based his actions on that NE scouting over the film from '08.

Show some basis for this other than the figment of your imagination.


There was no indication because you never looked or never paid attention. Every significant scouting report I've seen on him predicted that he would be a hybrid type, lacked the size and skill to be a lead blocker and that his running talents would be wasted in that role. He was predicted to be a WCO fullback (which is what Shanahan used) or a hybrid, and in the preseason he even lined up in some single backs sets.

I didn't say there was nothing written in scouting reports or on on blogs, or by "really smart" fans like you about how Hillis "might" be used. What I said was that after the BRONCOS drafted him in the 7th round of the draft as a FB, there was no indication from the BRONCOS that they intended to use him other than as a FB.


Also, you're using strawman arguments on my stance on Hillis. I don't believe I've ever referred to him as a failure. In fact, just the simple fact that he made the roster as a 7th rounder would preclude that. His late season run in 2008 and his 2010 season makes him more successful than 90% of 7th rounders ever drafted. Using logical fallacies doesn't make you look very good here.

You are going to pull the "logical fallacy" card on another person. OMG, that's even more hilarious than the "admitted lack of knowledge" crap you pulled on North. :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol:


I'm not going on a hunt to find the support for statements YOU made. That's your job, and if I can do it, so can you.

Suit yourself. I've told you what the analysts said about Hillis last season and going into this season. If you wish to remain ignorant to the facts, and instead simply post un-supported opinions, that's your choice.


The second part I would agree with. The first is just flat out wrong if the person making that statement believes that Hillis is the elite, franchise back he's portrayed as. If you view him as the complimentary part of a two back offense, then that works too, but that essentially precludes him from being elite too and you can't have it both way.

Ok, you have an opinion on this. I'm surprised, I've never know you to be opinionated. Good for you, throwing your opinion out.


Another straw man. I've never claimed to be an expert on Hillis, or any other player for that matter. I'm simply able to obtain information and make reasonable conclusions from it. I'll be waiting for you to show me the coverage of the Browns that you speak of.

Oh really. You may wish to review all of the nonsense you have spewed in Hillis threads and all of the reasons that he could not and would not be successful in the NFL.

Again, I'll give you this for your hypocritical accusation of someone else using logical fallacies in a discussion: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol:

Bosco
10-08-2011, 09:39 PM
You are trying to make a case that New England scouted him and that McDaniels based his actions on that NE scouting over the film from '08.

Show some basis for this other than the figment of your imagination.

Another strawman. I never tried to make the case for anything other than the possibility (a likely one at that) that New England scouted him.

Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing, TNed.


I didn't say there was nothing written in scouting reports or on on blogs, or by "really smart" fans like you about how Hillis "might" be used. What I said was that after the BRONCOS drafted him in the 7th round of the draft as a FB, there was no indication from the BRONCOS that they intended to use him other than as a FB.If you're looking for an outright statement from the team regarding that, you won't get much indication of anything, especially considering how Shanahan was an expert at saying alot without really saying anything.


You are going to pull the "logical fallacy" card on another person. OMG, that's even more hilarious than the "admitted lack of knowledge" crap you pulled on North. :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: You can feel free to quit deflecting and point out my logical fallacies when you find them, mmkay?


Suit yourself. I've told you what the analysts said about Hillis last season and going into this season. If you wish to remain ignorant to the facts, and instead simply post un-supported opinions, that's your choice.I wonder what some of my college professors would have said if I turned in a research paper with a reference section that said "Use Google, you'll find it."


Oh really. You may wish to review all of the nonsense you have spewed in Hillis threads and all of the reasons that he could not and would not be successful in the NFL.

Again, I'll give you this for your hypocritical accusation of someone else using logical fallacies in a discussion: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :lol:I re-iterate my challenge to you. Point out my logical fallacies and posts where I've made these claims. Give it your best shot.

Tned
10-09-2011, 12:47 AM
Another strawman. I never tried to make the case for anything other than the possibility (a likely one at that) that New England scouted him.

Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing, TNed.

If you're looking for an outright statement from the team regarding that, you won't get much indication of anything, especially considering how Shanahan was an expert at saying alot without really saying anything.

You can feel free to quit deflecting and point out my logical fallacies when you find them, mmkay?

I wonder what some of my college professors would have said if I turned in a research paper with a reference section that said "Use Google, you'll find it."

I re-iterate my challenge to you. Point out my logical fallacies and posts where I've made these claims. Give it your best shot.

If I'm bored enough, I might waste time doing so. More time than not, I don't try and win a debate by crying, "you used s strawman, wahh, wahh...," I leave that to the likes of you. Especially when your use of the strawman defense is in itself inaccurate.

As to the rest, you throw out completely unreported and undocumented supposition on your part as a basis for proving a point, such as "why" McDaniels might have chosen not to play Hillis or why he would trade him. The same with your claim of what the Broncos intended for Hillis when they drafted him, even though nothing the team said or in the way he was used prior to the injuries in the backfield backs up what you say.

I don't have the time or patience that I used to to play "forum debate class" games with people like you. I love talking football, mostly Broncos, but also some other stuff like Hillis in this case, but when people simply spew undocumented drivel and claim it to be fact, rather than opinion, and then when called on their bull shit, they pull debate class "mommy, mommy, he attacked me with a strawman.... Please help me, I think he will use a tin man next...." crap, I won't waste my time playing the games.

Don't get me wrong, I will continue to point out the bull shit, but I won't waste time pointing out your false analogies, post hoc ergo crap, ad hoc reasoning or other crap you inject into discussions to "win" arguments when your facts and positions won't do so on their own.

I'll just let you have the personal gratification of playing with yourself.... :rolleyes:

Bosco
10-09-2011, 01:25 AM
If I'm bored enough, I might waste time doing so. More time than not, I don't try and win a debate by crying, "you used s strawman, wahh, wahh...," I leave that to the likes of you. Especially when your use of the strawman defense is in itself inaccurate.

As to the rest, you throw out completely unreported and undocumented supposition on your part as a basis for proving a point, such as "why" McDaniels might have chosen not to play Hillis or why he would trade him. The same with your claim of what the Broncos intended for Hillis when they drafted him, even though nothing the team said or in the way he was used prior to the injuries in the backfield backs up what you say.

I don't have the time or patience that I used to to play "forum debate class" games with people like you. I love talking football, mostly Broncos, but also some other stuff like Hillis in this case, but when people simply spew undocumented drivel and claim it to be fact, rather than opinion, and then when called on their bull shit, they pull debate class "mommy, mommy, he attacked me with a strawman.... Please help me, I think he will use a tin man next...." crap, I won't waste my time playing the games.

Don't get me wrong, I will continue to point out the bull shit, but I won't waste time pointing out your false analogies, post hoc ergo crap, ad hoc reasoning or other crap you inject into discussions to "win" arguments when your facts and positions won't do so on their own.

I'll just let you have the personal gratification of playing with yourself.... :rolleyes:

You don't need to get all personal with me here, TNed. It's not my fault that you apparently feel that using logical fallacies and unsupported statements that send other off on wild goose chases is a good way to have discussion. If you can't handle something as simple as "back up what you say, and don't use ****** up logic" then maybe you shouldn't even bother posting. It's not rocket science, and your performance here not withstanding, I think you can handle it.

I'll be right here waiting though, if you decide to step up.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2011, 01:46 AM
the pompous arrogance is unbelievable. You just know he's the hit of the party :lol:

Northman
10-09-2011, 07:03 AM
the pompous arrogance is unbelievable. You just know he's the hit of the party :lol:

You have to cut him some slack, his ego is still bruised after being wrong about McD.

Tned
10-09-2011, 10:31 AM
You don't need to get all personal with me here, TNed. It's not my fault that you apparently feel that using logical fallacies and unsupported statements that send other off on wild goose chases is a good way to have discussion. If you can't handle something as simple as "back up what you say, and don't use ****** up logic" then maybe you shouldn't even bother posting. It's not rocket science, and your performance here not withstanding, I think you can handle it.

I'll be right here waiting though, if you decide to step up.

Dude, you do the exact thing you accuse others of doing, which is using logical fallacies. Introducing irrelevant and unproven "facts" (otherwise known as your highly imaginative hypotheses) into the argument to try and prop up your position.

Trust me, in my best Jack Nicholson voice.... "I CAN HANDLE THE BOSCO...." It's just that it isn't worth the effort on a player who isn't here anymore, when dealing with well reported facts (Hillis work load) or playing stupid "so, Mr. Tned, when did you stop beating your wife" debate games.

You make assertion after assertion that has ZERO basis in fact (outside of what you imagine "could have happened") and then present it not as your opinion or what could have been, but as fact, and then build these elaborate house of nonsense arguments to prove your points based on these wild ass hypotheses --- AKA wild ass guesses.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2011, 11:19 AM
He because a featured back when SIX RBs went on IR and Hillis was his only choice. Tatum Bell, who was selling cell phones earlier in the season, looked every bit as good if not better than Hillis that season.

THis doesn't even make sense for a couple reasons. The most obvious being... no one cares WHY he was put into the starting lineup as a TB, but what he did ONCE he got there.

Guess what, Brady didn't get into the starting lineup until injury. Neither did Kurt Warner and sooooo many other great players. But do you look back and say "but why didn't they get into the lineup sooner?" Perhaps you would state that the only reason these two got into the lineup was because they were white....but most will only look at the production ONCE they got the shot, and THAT is what the point is.

When Shanahan was here, Hillis was producing out of the FB spot from day one. When given the shot at TB, he produced more than any RB we had on the roster then, and since. He's STILL the better back of anyone here. Hillis was listed as either the first or second best FB in the draft. He was a BEAST in college (and still is). SHanahan drafted him as a FB, practiced him as a FB, USED him as a FB in games..... is it really a shocker that he wasn't lined up as a tail-back for practices?? He was NOT drafted to be the primary ball carrier! :lol: WOW, what a SHOCKER that the coach that drafted him to be the FB, and was using him as the FB, didn't put him at Tail-BACK!! Never heard of!!! /sarcasm. But once he DID get the shot, he produced..... period.

McD hated the fact that he was asked about him time and time and time again by the media every week, and the reason the media was asking about him is because EVERYONE could see (from prior PRODUCTION) that Hillis was the best RB on the roster. Instead of having to deal with that, and to justify spending a 1st round pick on Moreno-the-bust, he ships off Hillis so that the question is never asked again.

BroncoWave
10-09-2011, 11:21 AM
McD hated the fact that he was asked about him time and time and time again by the media every week, and the reason the media was asking about him is because EVERYONE could see (from prior PRODUCTION) that Hillis was the best RB on the roster. Instead of having to deal with that, and to justify spending a 1st round pick on Moreno-the-bust, he ships off Hillis so that the question is never asked again.

All complete speculation that you are trying to present as fact.

DenBronx
10-09-2011, 01:37 PM
Look, other than the fumbles, there's really nothing else you can knock in regards to Hillis.

Tned
10-09-2011, 01:46 PM
Look, other than the fumbles, there's really nothing else you can knock in regards to Hillis.

Well, he's dumb and hasn't lived up to his 7th round selection. Oh, and he hasn't fallen off a stationary bike yet. There's a lot to knock Hillis about.

BroncoWave
10-09-2011, 01:57 PM
Well, he's dumb and hasn't lived up to his 7th round selection. Oh, and he hasn't fallen off a stationary bike yet. There's a lot to knock Hillis about.

This is why it's hard to take your discussion on this topic seriously. Not a single person has claimed this. In fact, I'm pretty sure even the most ardent Hillis detractors (myself included) have admitted that he's done quite well for a 7th round pick.

Tned
10-09-2011, 02:06 PM
This is why it's hard to take your discussion on this topic seriously. Not a single person has claimed this. In fact, I'm pretty sure even the most ardent Hillis detractors (myself included) have admitted that he's done quite well for a 7th round pick.

Has anyone said "hasn't lived up to his 7th round pick"? No. Have they said that "he couldn't win the RB job in camp" or "the Broncos didn't use him until 7 other backs were injured" or that he wasn't drafted by the Broncos to be a FB, but instead a FB/RB hybrid and failed to prove he could do so.

DenBronx
10-09-2011, 02:11 PM
Well, he's dumb and hasn't lived up to his 7th round selection. Oh, and he hasn't fallen off a stationary bike yet. There's a lot to knock Hillis about.

Ok, that made me laugh. :lol: I had to go back and watch it on youtube.

DenBronx
10-09-2011, 02:15 PM
Dwayne Bowe is a beast.

Yes he is, I should have drafted him in a few fantasy leagues.

Bosco
10-09-2011, 02:29 PM
Dude, you do the exact thing you accuse others of doing, which is using logical fallacies. Introducing irrelevant and unproven "facts" (otherwise known as your highly imaginative hypotheses) into the argument to try and prop up your position.

Trust me, in my best Jack Nicholson voice.... "I CAN HANDLE THE BOSCO...." It's just that it isn't worth the effort on a player who isn't here anymore, when dealing with well reported facts (Hillis work load) or playing stupid "so, Mr. Tned, when did you stop beating your wife" debate games.

You make assertion after assertion that has ZERO basis in fact (outside of what you imagine "could have happened") and then present it not as your opinion or what could have been, but as fact, and then build these elaborate house of nonsense arguments to prove your points based on these wild ass hypotheses --- AKA wild ass guesses.

So it's "not worth the time" but yet here you are, still responding to these posts. If it's not worth the time, why keep trying to get the last word in? And I still find it funny that you accuse me of all these logical fallacies, yet you can't list a signle recent example.

All talk, no action.


THis doesn't even make sense for a couple reasons. The most obvious being... no one cares WHY he was put into the starting lineup as a TB, but what he did ONCE he got there.

Guess what, Brady didn't get into the starting lineup until injury. Neither did Kurt Warner and sooooo many other great players. But do you look back and say "but why didn't they get into the lineup sooner?" Perhaps you would state that the only reason these two got into the lineup was because they were white....but most will only look at the production ONCE they got the shot, and THAT is what the point is. The difference is that none of those guys started at other positions, got benched, and then got benched again at their new position.


Hillis was producing out of the FB spot from day one. Really? Where is this production? I don't think 4 touches for 18 yards through 3 games is much production.

Tned
10-09-2011, 02:35 PM
So it's "not worth the time" but yet here you are, still responding to these posts. If it's not worth the time, why keep trying to get the last word in? And I still find it funny that you accuse me of all these logical fallacies, yet you can't list a signle recent example.

All talk, no action.

The difference is that none of those guys started at other positions, got benched, and then got benched again at their new position.

Really? Where is this production? I don't think 4 touches for 18 yards through 3 games is much production.

As I said, I will call you on your unsupported or even nonsensical statements of 'fact,' but I won't play the "mommy, he cheated, he used a falic thingy on me..." game with you. This isn't high school or college debate class. Man up, stop posting lies or unsupported theories as if they are fact, and just discuss things in a grown up manner.

It's ok to have an opinion. We all have them, and message boards are boring when everyone holds the same opinion. The problem is when you are so obsessed with winning your argument you introduce irrelevant, or in many cases purely made up, 'facts' in an attempt to prove yourself right.

Open and honest discussion. Try it, you might actually like it.

:coffee:

DenBronx
10-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Peyton Hillis doubting Browns futureEmail Print Comments1357 ESPN.com news services

BEREA, Ohio -- Peyton Hillis wanted to retire with the Browns. Now, he's wondering and worrying if he has a future in Cleveland beyond the next 12 games.

Hillis, whose stalled negotiations with the team on a contract extension have spawned weeks of analysis, conjecture and rumor, said Monday he has no regrets about sitting out the Sept. 25 game against Miami with strep throat, a decision -- reached with the advice of his agent -- that fueled reports he missed the game to protest not getting a new deal.

Hillis is in the final year of his rookie deal and will make a base salary of $600,000 this season. As for next season, he's beginning to doubt he'll be around.



You feel unappreciated because you want to get something done and nothing has gotten done at this point. You don't know the ultimate feelings in the end of what's going on up top (in the front office).


-- Peyton Hillis
on if he's worried about his Browns future

"Whenever something's not set in stone, then I guess anything is possible, which means your career's not here," he said. "So, yeah, that definitely worries me."

The Browns returned from their bye week with the Hillis matter remaining a hot topic. Following the team's first practice since last Wednesday, Hillis stood in the middle of Cleveland's locker room with his arms folded across his chest for more than 10 minutes answering questions about his contract.

Hillis could have ended the controversy.

Instead, it lingers.

read the full article:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7084711/peyton-hillis-worries-long-term-cleveland-browns-future

BroncoWave
12-05-2015, 02:51 PM
Hey, remember when people thought Hillis was good? :)

Timmy!
12-05-2015, 03:01 PM
What in the name of necromancy

Cugel
12-05-2015, 03:08 PM
When Shanahan was here, Hillis was producing out of the FB spot from day one. When given the shot at TB, he produced more than any RB we had on the roster then, and since. He's STILL the better back of anyone here. Hillis was listed as either the first or second best FB in the draft. He was a BEAST in college (and still is). SHanahan drafted him as a FB, practiced him as a FB, USED him as a FB in games..... is it really a shocker that he wasn't lined up as a tail-back for practices?? He was NOT drafted to be the primary ball carrier! :lol: WOW, what a SHOCKER that the coach that drafted him to be the FB, and was using him as the FB, didn't put him at Tail-BACK!! Never heard of!!! /sarcasm. But once he DID get the shot, he produced..... period.

McD hated the fact that he was asked about him time and time and time again by the media every week, and the reason the media was asking about him is because EVERYONE could see (from prior PRODUCTION) that Hillis was the best RB on the roster. Instead of having to deal with that, and to justify spending a 1st round pick on Moreno-the-bust, he ships off Hillis so that the question is never asked again.

McMoron hated Hillis from day one because Hillis mistakenly hit on his wife at a party in the pre-season. Hillis apologized for his mistake, but McMoron being a tiny little tyrant never got over it.

This is highly ironic, since Hillis is now married to Amanda Brown:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1075716/14975123/1320430619917/amanda-brown-pictures.jpg?token=qsxSy9AZvgHuUNoby50UKmYBfD0%3D

That doesn't mean that the Broncos should want an aging RB.

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:09 PM
Hey, remember when people thought Hillis was good? :)

Remember when people turned a running back discussion into a race debate?

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:11 PM
McMoron hated Hillis from day one because Hillis mistakenly hit on his wife at a party in the pre-season. Hillis apologized for his mistake, but McMoron being a tiny little tyrant never got over it.

This is highly ironic, since Hillis is now married to Amanda Brown:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1075716/14975123/1320430619917/amanda-brown-pictures.jpg?token=qsxSy9AZvgHuUNoby50UKmYBfD0%3D

That doesn't mean that the Broncos should want an aging RB.

In his defense, from what I remember, McDaniel's wife was pretty hot.

Cugel
12-05-2015, 03:15 PM
In his defense, from what I remember, McDaniel's wife was pretty hot.

They are not even in the same universe:

8095

Versus:

8096

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 03:16 PM
remember when people thought McDick would be a good HC for the broncos?

Northman
12-05-2015, 03:19 PM
Remember when people turned a running back discussion into a race debate?

Lol, i forgot about that. Wasnt around the time the Madden cover was being done?

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:20 PM
remember when people thought McDick would be a good HC for the broncos?

And couldn't deal with it when he wasn't. Now those are some threads to bump.

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 03:21 PM
Lol, i forgot about that. Wasnt around the time the Madden cover was being done?

Yeah.... wave was pretty certain the only reason Hillis was a contender over Vick was because of race.

Northman
12-05-2015, 03:21 PM
remember when people thought McDick would be a good HC for the broncos?

That shit was funny too.

Cugel
12-05-2015, 03:22 PM
remember when people thought McDick would be a good HC for the broncos?

The proper term is "McMoron". I am still at least 1/2 convinced that he was a sleeper agent for Belichick sent to do the maximum he could do to utterly destroy the Broncos franchise and set them back for years. The look on his face when he left the facility and him suddenly landing back in his old job as OC in New England:

8097
"Mission accomplished!"

I mean, who has that kind of shit eating grin on their face as they are driving away with their office stuff in a box, after just being unceremoniously fired in the middle of a season?

The guy was literally told: "clear out your desk and turn in your keys and leave the facility, effective immediately." Why does he look happy?

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:23 PM
Lol, i forgot about that. Wasnt around the time the Madden cover was being done?

Yea, someone, can't remember who, but I think he likes to bump four year old threads, and had a man crush on McDaniels, said Hillis was only popular because he was white.

SR
12-05-2015, 03:35 PM
They are not even in the same universe: <img src="http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8095"/> Versus: <img src="http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8096"/>

McDaniels and his wife look related.

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:43 PM
They are not even in the same universe:

8095

Versus:

8096

I don't know who she is, but damn, Peyton did good.

Cugel
12-05-2015, 03:46 PM
McDaniels and his wife look related.

I looked more closely and you're right. It's the noses. They match!

SR
12-05-2015, 03:56 PM
I looked more closely and you're right. It's the noses. They match!

And mouths.

BroncoWave
12-05-2015, 04:03 PM
Yeah.... wave was pretty certain the only reason Hillis was a contender over Vick was because of race.

Nope, not what I said. I said it was a novelty that a white RB was as successful as he was. Didn't say Hillis was picked because he was white and someone else was black. Would be just the same as if a 5 foot tall QB succeeded or a 300 pound cornerback. It would be a novelty. But because this certain novelty had to do with race, everyone jumped on it.

Probably because you all knew that none of you had a leg to stand on when it came to arguing Hillis' talent, so let's just all call BTB a racist!

Northman
12-05-2015, 04:08 PM
Well, BTB was a pretty big douche. Wave though, he's an alright guy.

BroncoWave
12-05-2015, 04:11 PM
Also, if I'm racist for what I have said about Hillis, then everyone who ever called Larry Bird the "Great White Hope" is every bit as racist because it's the exact same thing. A white guy started lighting up the NBA which was pretty unusual, and people latched onto that.

Very similar to when you started seeing all the black scrambling QBs pop up in the NFL in the early 2000s, headlined by Vick. That was new and novel, and people latched onto that.

Or when a black guy makes it big in the NHL people latch onto that because, again, novel.

Or when the woman became a coach for the Cardinals this past offseason. That sure was a novelty that became national news.

That was all I mean when I made those statements years and years ago. It's just straight up false that I ever claimed Hillis was voted to the cover over Vick because he was white and Vick was black. That stance wouldn't even make sense since almost every Madden cover athlete has been black.

BroncoWave
12-05-2015, 04:20 PM
Well, BTB was a pretty big douche. Wave though, he's an alright guy.

Yeah that guy was a POS. He was spot on about this Hillis guy though! :D

Northman
12-05-2015, 04:20 PM
Personally, i dont care if you are racist or not, thats none of my business. But if you want to bust balls about Hillis knock yourself out brother.

Simple Jaded
12-05-2015, 10:24 PM
Is it bad that I hope Hillis really did nail Doogie's wife?

Simple Jaded
12-05-2015, 10:33 PM
I looked more closely and you're right. It's the noses. They match!


And mouths.

They probably both smack their lips like valleygirls when they talk too.

Simple Jaded
12-05-2015, 10:42 PM
Hey, remember when people thought Hillis was good? :)

He's still better than the guy McDaniel's wasted a pick to replace him with.