PDA

View Full Version : congrats Chargers



Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 10:58 PM
hope you guys make a run

and oh yea....LT is expendable.....keep Sproles....release LT......he has more heart than that man


sorry to say so

sanluis
01-03-2009, 11:18 PM
Thanks for the congrats. I warned you about Sproles!!

LT is a great man and a great player weather you see it now or not.:tsk:

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:21 PM
Thanks for the congrats. I warned you about Sproles!!

LT is a great man and a great player weather you see it now or not.:tsk:

you did....i didn't listen :tsk:

at this rate he is expendable imo......they said the same bout Edge and look where he is now

LordTrychon
01-03-2009, 11:24 PM
you did....i didn't listen :tsk:

at this rate he is expendable imo......they said the same bout Edge and look where he is now

Advancing in the playoffs? :confused:

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:25 PM
Advancing in the playoffs? :confused:

:tsk: yep....

LordTrychon
01-03-2009, 11:25 PM
:tsk: yep....

Well, I was rooting for the Cards.

Sorry about the game tonight... I was pulling for ya.

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:30 PM
Well, I was rooting for the Cards.

Sorry about the game tonight... I was pulling for ya.

I was too

It was a team loss imo from the Playcalling to Tim Jennings (our version of Dre Bly)

Manning makes a record and yet we PHAIL :tsk:

I need a drink

Devilspawn
01-03-2009, 11:36 PM
Thanks for the congrats. I warned you about Sproles!!

LT is a great man and a great player weather you see it now or not.:tsk:
He just catches bad breaks and injuries at the worst times. It's a shame.

Anyway, congrats to you and BOU. Sproles stock just rose to incredible heights. This Chargers team is deep on offense, but losing him will be monumental. You can't replace someone who's a threat everytime he touches the ball. He looks like the Road Runner when those tree trunk legs of his putter to daylight. Any chance Smith outbids the highest bidder or convinces Sproles to play for a ring instead of bling bling?

And on a side note, I thought Oakland had the best punter in the game. I now call it a draw and will go on record and say that while Sproles was the MVP of that game, Scrifes should get a plaque for pinning the Colts within the ten all those drives. :shocked:

slim
01-03-2009, 11:41 PM
I was too

It was a team loss imo from the Playcalling to Tim Jennings (our version of Dre Bly)

Manning makes a record and yet we PHAIL :tsk:

I need a drink

Dude, the Colts were lucky to be in the game. How many times did the Colts turn it over in the red zone?

No offense...but the dolts spanked some ass tonight. Which is weird, because the Colts have the better team. :noidea:

pauld001
01-03-2009, 11:43 PM
Game Ball goes the the donks D......

Thanks Broncos for the oppurtunity for another playoff victory.....we couldnt have done it without ya......

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:46 PM
Dude, the Colts were lucky to be in the game. How many times did the Colts turn it over in the red zone?

No offense...but the dolts spanked some ass tonight. Which is weird, because the Colts have the better team. :noidea:

none actually, we couldn't convert on 3rd down

our team lost as a whole, it really doesn't help when you can't run the ball...

you may be right though.....:tsk: *sigh*

i'm going for a drink

slim
01-03-2009, 11:46 PM
Game Ball goes the the donks D......

Thanks Broncos for the oppurtunity for another playoff victory.....we couldnt have done it without ya......

How many rings does your sad ass team have?

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:47 PM
Game Ball goes the the donks D......

Thanks Broncos for the opportunity for another playoff victory.....we could have done it without ya......

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/image/sbxxxii/elway6125.jpg

http://www.achievement.org/achievers/man0/large/man0-004.jpg

Broncolingus
01-03-2009, 11:50 PM
none actually, we couldn't convert on 3rd down

our team lost as a whole, it really doesn't help when you can't run the ball...

you may be right though.....:tsk: *sigh*

i'm going for a drink

Have several, Changer...methinks many of us here in Broncoland were pulling for your boys...I know I was.

:beer: Here's to Sissy-Boi (and Co.) getting abused like twimp's by TEN or PIT...

Gamechanger
01-03-2009, 11:52 PM
Have several, Changer...methinks many of us here in Broncoland were pulling for your boys...I know I was.

:beer: Here's to Sissy-Boi (and Co.) getting abused like twimp's by TEN or PIT...

:beer: here here Lingus

is it still a good day or night for you when Peyton loses?

SeeingRed
01-03-2009, 11:52 PM
Sproles is friggin greased lightning, no pun intended.

pauld001
01-03-2009, 11:55 PM
How many rings does your sad ass team have?

doesnt matter who is in the playoff now...............

slim
01-03-2009, 11:57 PM
doesnt matter who is in the playoff now...............

lmmfao...

JONtheBRONCO
01-04-2009, 12:01 AM
Makes me think...

Is the NFL rigged?

That was terrible.

pauld001
01-04-2009, 12:01 AM
lmmfao...

livin in that past man...........

but really we had no business being here....seriously we sucked all year but ya let us in the playoffs ....the only negative thing I can think of is we are definetly stuck with Norv for the forseable future.....

slim
01-04-2009, 12:04 AM
livin in that past man...........

but really we had no business being here....seriously we sucked all year but ya let us in the playoffs ....the only negative thing I can think of is we are definetly stuck with Norv for the forseable future.....

Yeah, you are stuck with Norv.

BTW, we are not buds, bud...get it?

Now, please suck a fat one on your way out.

pauld001
01-04-2009, 12:09 AM
Yeah, you are stuck with Norv.

BTW, we are not buds, bud...get it?

Now, please suck a fat one on your way out.


lol....you can suck my left nut.......enjoy your new coach and enjoy your low draft picks for the next few years while we are in the playoffs for at least 2-3more years.....what a turd......

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:21 AM
lol....you can suck my left nut.......enjoy your new coach and enjoy your low draft picks for the next few years while we are in the playoffs for at least 2-3more years.....what a turd......

Rivers is Pennington part 2. How many passes did he throw to running backs and tight ends? Norv makes him look GOOD. You should pray norv stays for awhile so rivers can get a good rating and you can feel good about yourself. But still many of you pray for shanahan in hopes of one day having a ring. :laugh:

sanluis
01-04-2009, 12:25 AM
He just catches bad breaks and injuries at the worst times. It's a shame.

Anyway, congrats to you and BOU. Sproles stock just rose to incredible heights. This Chargers team is deep on offense, but losing him will be monumental. You can't replace someone who's a threat everytime he touches the ball. He looks like the Road Runner when those tree trunk legs of his putter to daylight. Any chance Smith outbids the highest bidder or convinces Sproles to play for a ring instead of bling bling?

And on a side note, I thought Oakland had the best punter in the game. I now call it a draw and will go on record and say that while Sproles was the MVP of that game, Scrifes should get a plaque for pinning the Colts within the ten all those drives. :shocked:

I sure hope Sproles stays!! Maybe LT will give up some bling and then we can keep Sproles??! :lol:

Our kicker was amazing!! He was actually a weapon for us tonight! And how about our D and new D-cord! They did a great job throwing off Payton and his protection. Too bad they fell a sleep on one play!! :shocked:

Thanks for the congrats DS!!

pumpdoc
01-04-2009, 12:25 AM
Rivers is Pennington part 2. How many passes did he throw to running backs and tight ends? Norv makes him look GOOD. You should pray norv stays for awhile so rivers can get a good rating and you can feel good about yourself. But still many of you pray for shanahan in hopes of one day having a ring. :laugh:

Poor poor Bronco fans and Colts fan this must really be hard for you to swollow. I believe Rivers is 5-1 against the Broncos and 3-1 against the Colts.:beer:

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:26 AM
Rivers is Pennington part 2. How many passes did he throw to running backs and tight ends? Norv makes him look GOOD. You should pray norv stays for awhile so rivers can get a good rating and you can feel good about yourself. But still many of you pray for shanahan in hopes of one day having a ring. :laugh:

So if Rivers is Pennington Part 2, and Rivers is better than Jay Cutler... What does that make Cutler??

sanluis
01-04-2009, 12:29 AM
So if Rivers is Pennington Part 2, and Rivers is better than Jay Cutler... What does that make Cutler??

1.Gum chewing punk that throws his teammates (Royal, Defense) under the bus??

2. A Loser??


3. All of the above?

:lol::lol:

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:30 AM
Your mom

King87
01-04-2009, 12:31 AM
So if Rivers is Pennington Part 2, and Rivers is better than Jay Cutler... What does that make Cutler??

Well, in reality it would make Cutler a talented beast who is going to KILL teams next year. But you know that, and we all know that.

Rivers being Pennington part two is blind bias and hate. The entire "he rides his team" argument is over. I used to subscribe to it, but this year he put up those numbers with a banged up and honestly wimpy LT, Gates has been hurt all year, his defense was inconsistent (until now). He's a damn fine QB. He's a douchebag, and he should have been fined heavily every time he taunted fans and did that atta baby bye bye crap to Cutler. Everytime someone talks about a wideout being a taunting douche, I point to Rivers.

However, he is a beast. He was a legit MVP candidate. People can say that he blows all they want, but they are just being dishonest.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:31 AM
What does that make you guys, still here on a BRONCOS site? Closet Bronco fans? Or just closet homosexuals? (not you King)

King87
01-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Your mom

Jay Cutler is his mom?

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:33 AM
What does that make you guys, still here on a BRONCOS site? Closet Bronco fans? Or just closet homosexuals?

It makes us fans who can speak amicably with fans of other teams and who like getting the views of fans from teams outside of our division and our own fanbase. That seems like a pretty self explanatory thing, in all honesty. But when you have nothing else to say, that usually seems like the right road to go down.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:34 AM
Jay Cutler is his mom?

No, but next year he may be his daddy......:D

sanluis
01-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Your mom

No, the answer is 3 all of the above!!!


:D

King87
01-04-2009, 12:35 AM
I'm still confused, Jay Cutler is a grown ass man, how the hell is he your mom?


And are you the daughter he always wanted?

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Well, in reality it would make Cutler a talented beast who is going to KILL teams next year. But you know that, and we all know that.

Rivers being Pennington part two is blind bias and hate. The entire "he rides his team" argument is over. I used to subscribe to it, but this year he put up those numbers with a banged up and honestly wimpy LT, Gates has been hurt all year, his defense was inconsistent (until now). He's a damn fine QB. He's a douchebag, and he should have been fined heavily every time he taunted fans and did that atta baby bye bye crap to Cutler. Everytime someone talks about a wideout being a taunting douche, I point to Rivers.

However, he is a beast. He was a legit MVP candidate. People can say that he blows all they want, but they are just being dishonest.

Cutler will probably rip some defenses apart next year, and I'll enjoy watching him do it.

I used to buy into the same thing about Rivers, but he is proving beyond doubt that he is much more than just a game manager.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:36 AM
It makes us fans who can speak amicably with fans of other teams and who like getting the views of fans from teams outside of our division and our own fanbase. That seems like a pretty self explanatory thing, in all honesty. But when you have nothing else to say, that usually seems like the right road to go down.

Good, and you got my view. :coffee:

King87
01-04-2009, 12:36 AM
No, but next year he may be his daddy......:D

Bryce, I think you may need to have a talk with your parents about the birds and the bees.

Unless they gave you that talk.....in which case I suggest you get more informed parents! ;)

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:36 AM
I'm still confused, Jay Cutler is a grown ass man, how the hell is he your mom?


And are you the daughter he always wanted?

Cutler is a special person... He is such a man beast that he has managed to become a mother without ever being pregnant... He kind of cast me aside, though, and doesn't even pay child support.:tsk:

Devilspawn
01-04-2009, 12:37 AM
I sure hope Sproles stays!! Maybe LT will give up some bling and then we can keep Sproles??! :lol:

Our kicker was amazing!! He was actually a weapon for us tonight! And how about our D and new D-cord! They did a great job throwing off Payton and his protection. Too bad they fell a sleep on one play!! :shocked:

Thanks for the congrats DS!!
I know all about punters as weapons, but why he's not in the Hall of Fame is for another discussion another time. :tsk: Scrifes had one of the best post-season games for a punter I ever saw. There was a Bronco fan on the Raiders board who was laughing at Shane Lechler being one of our 5 most indespensible players, because he's "just a kicker." :rolleyes: We had to learn him and then watched as the season proved it. Lechs throught his career and now Scrifes tonight shows how a GREAT punter can decide a game. Scrifes and Lechs went at it in our first game and nearly stole the show.

Which brings me to the defense. When the Chargers hired Norv, I was 50-50 and gave him the benefit of the Al Davis/Dan Snyder doubt. It was the Ted Cottrell hire that made me giggle. But now Ron Rivera has the D playing well, for the most part even though the secondary is stilla bit suspect... but that Cromartie... :shocked: his cousin had a way better game today in Arizona. What's his deal? He was in Asomugha and Champ's league last year. He fell off big time.

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:38 AM
Good, and you got my view. :coffee:

Yeah... And a legitimate view usually has some type of fact to back it up rather than blind opinion.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:41 AM
I stand by what I said, he is Pennington part 2. You guys asume that's a bad thing, that's your problem. To be honest though, all I am saying is he throws TONS of short passes. Screen, 5 yards to Gates, 4 yards to sproles, screen. Rivers' dad is a coach, so obviously he can manage the game well. But Norv knows Rivers strenghts and weaknesses and plays to them like a good coach should. Did you see those rainbows he threw on the run?

sanluis
01-04-2009, 12:44 AM
I know all about punters as weapons, but why he's not in the Hall of Fame is for another discussion another time. :tsk: Scrifes had one of the best post-season games for a punter I ever saw. There was a Bronco fan on the Raiders board who was laughing at Shane Lechler being one of our 5 most indespensible players, because he's "just a kicker." :rolleyes: We had to learn him and then watched as the season proved it. Lechs throught his career and now Scrifes tonight shows how a GREAT punter can decide a game. Scrifes and Lechs went at it in our first game and nearly stole the show.

Which brings me to the defense. When the Chargers hired Norv, I was 50-50 and gave him the benefit of the Al Davis/Dan Snyder doubt. It was the Ted Cottrell hire that made me giggle. But now Ron Rivera has the D playing well, for the most part even though the secondary is stilla bit suspect... but that Cromartie... :shocked: his cousin had a way better game today in Arizona. What's his deal? He was in Asomugha and Champ's league last year. He fell off big time.

Ray Guy the best ever would be proud of the performance Mike had tonight!

Crow is hurt ( hip )and I think he is having a bit of a sophomore slump! He may have read a few too many of his press clippings as well.

I hope other teams don't copy the way the Colts shut down our deep threat. They did a great job shutting out our wide-outs for most of the game. That did leave the middle open but I could tell Rivers wanted to throw the ball down field a lot more and couldn't with the Colts coverage.

King87
01-04-2009, 12:45 AM
I stand by what I said, he is Pennington part 2. You guys asume that's a bad thing, that's your problem. To be honest though, all I am saying is he throws TONS of short passes. Screen, 5 yards to Gates, 4 yards to sproles, screen. Rivers' dad is a coach, so obviously he can manage the game well. But Norv knows Rivers strenghts and weaknesses and plays to them like a good coach should. Did you see those rainbows he threw on the run?

I saw several good strikes across the middle of the field. I also saw him throw good deep passes all season long.

A good way to beat a fast defense like the Colts is to get the ball out of the QBs hand and put it in the hands of yourYAC guys. That's not all he can do, and you know that.

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 12:45 AM
I stand by what I said, he is Pennington part 2. You guys asume that's a bad thing, that's your problem. To be honest though, all I am saying is he throws TONS of short passes. Screen, 5 yards to Gates, 4 yards to sproles, screen. Rivers' dad is a coach, so obviously he can manage the game well. But Norv knows Rivers strenghts and weaknesses and plays to them like a good coach should. Did you see those rainbows he threw on the run?

I think he proved pretty well against you guys that he can throw good passes down the field when he hit Jackson on a couple 20 yarders, and Gates on one or 2. Pennington can't throw further than 10 yard very well. Rivers can also carry a team, which Pennington can't do.

Pennington could never be considered an MVP because he can't make plays like that... Rivers was a legitimate MVP candidate this season, and was beaten by the only QB who did more for his team.

Oh, and we took it as a bad thing because of the way it was worded.

Broncolingus
01-04-2009, 12:52 AM
:beer: here here Lingus

is it still a good day or night for you when Peyton loses?

Nah...not this year anyway.

Missing camp/preseason and came back like he did this year...

Dude is a damn good QB - and something us Bronc fans know a thing or two about.

Just wished he'd have lit up the Dolts like he did us a few years back...

Devilspawn
01-04-2009, 12:55 AM
Ray Guy the best ever would be proud of the performance Mike had tonight!
Scrifes' punts were actually a double bladed dagger. First he pins them back. Then the defense takes advantage and holds them to either 3-out or no more than 2 first downs of minimal gains Then the Colts punter, who should be ashamed of himself for collecting a check this week, gives SD a short field. That scares me because Lechler is a free agent. Watch the Colts snag him up. That's basically getting a 12th man on defense.


Crow is hurt ( hip )and I think he is having a bit of a sophomore slump! He may have read a few too many of his press clippings as well.

I hope other teams don't copy the way the Colts shut down our deep threat. They did a great job shutting out our wide-outs for most of the game. That did leave the middle open but I could tell Rivers wanted to throw the ball down field a lot more and couldn't with the Colts coverage.
Chambers caught a few but Vincent Jackson went M.I.A. which really surprised me. Might be the same scenario with Pitt and Tenn.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 12:57 AM
I was defending another bronco fan, and then you guys jump on me. I didn't make this so don't jump down my throat, Interesting stats though

Denver RB Receiving:
43 Receptions 413 Yards 2TD
Denver TE Receiving:
83 Receptions 1118 Yards 8TD
Total Denver RB+TE Receiving:
126 Receptions 1531 Yards 10TD

San Diego RB Receiving:
106 Receptions 1030 Yards 8TD
San Diego TE Receiving:
75 Receptions 831 Yards 10TD
Total San Diego RB+TE Receiving:
181 Reception 1861 Yards 18TD

So out of 384 Completions for Cutler... 32.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 312 Completions for Rivers... 58 Percent of them are to RB and TEs.

So out of 4526 Yards Passing for Cutler... 33.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 4009 Yards Passing for Rivers... 46.4 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

So out of 25 TDs thrown by Cutler... 40 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 34 TDs thrown by Rivers... 52.9 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

Broncoboy
01-04-2009, 12:59 AM
Can't read many posts without damn ads, autism books & all this blah-blah...is there a forum referee here?
We lost 8 games cuz the commitment to that run down, old LT.
All he did all year was run to the ground or out of bounds. Against the Colts, you all saw what a "regular" running back can do.
I'm all for trading LT straight up to KC for Larry Johnson.
We miss the big back Mike Turner was & LJ is still a legit runner.

LordTrychon
01-04-2009, 01:33 AM
Can't read many posts without damn ads, autism books & all this blah-blah...is there a forum referee here?
We lost 8 games cuz the commitment to that run down, old LT.
All he did all year was run to the ground or out of bounds. Against the Colts, you all saw what a "regular" running back can do.
I'm all for trading LT straight up to KC for Larry Johnson.
We miss the big back Mike Turner was & LJ is still a legit runner.

Ads and autism books?

Are you talking about sigs?

You can turn those off...

Broncoboy=SD fan? :confused:

Sotally Tober
01-04-2009, 03:45 AM
He just catches bad breaks and injuries at the worst times. It's a shame.

Anyway, congrats to you and BOU. Sproles stock just rose to incredible heights. This Chargers team is deep on offense, but losing him will be monumental. You can't replace someone who's a threat everytime he touches the ball. He looks like the Road Runner when those tree trunk legs of his putter to daylight. Any chance Smith outbids the highest bidder or convinces Sproles to play for a ring instead of bling bling?

And on a side note, I thought Oakland had the best punter in the game. I now call it a draw and will go on record and say that while Sproles was the MVP of that game, Scrifes should get a plaque for pinning the Colts within the ten all those drives. :shocked:

You would think AJ Smith would have learned his lesson with how well our last castoff RB, Turner, is doing now. Keep Sproles, he will be our feature back in the forseeable future and keep Merriman.

Sotally Tober
01-04-2009, 03:47 AM
I was defending another bronco fan, and then you guys jump on me. I didn't make this so don't jump down my throat, Interesting stats though

Denver RB Receiving:
43 Receptions 413 Yards 2TD
Denver TE Receiving:
83 Receptions 1118 Yards 8TD
Total Denver RB+TE Receiving:
126 Receptions 1531 Yards 10TD

San Diego RB Receiving:
106 Receptions 1030 Yards 8TD
San Diego TE Receiving:
75 Receptions 831 Yards 10TD
Total San Diego RB+TE Receiving:
181 Reception 1861 Yards 18TD

So out of 384 Completions for Cutler... 32.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 312 Completions for Rivers... 58 Percent of them are to RB and TEs.

So out of 4526 Yards Passing for Cutler... 33.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 4009 Yards Passing for Rivers... 46.4 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

So out of 25 TDs thrown by Cutler... 40 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 34 TDs thrown by Rivers... 52.9 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

Interesting. Isn't Scheffler a good recieving TE? You would think Cuddles could use him more often.

pumpdoc
01-04-2009, 08:16 AM
I was defending another bronco fan, and then you guys jump on me. I didn't make this so don't jump down my throat, Interesting stats though

Denver RB Receiving:
43 Receptions 413 Yards 2TD
Denver TE Receiving:
83 Receptions 1118 Yards 8TD
Total Denver RB+TE Receiving:
126 Receptions 1531 Yards 10TD

San Diego RB Receiving:
106 Receptions 1030 Yards 8TD
San Diego TE Receiving:
75 Receptions 831 Yards 10TD
Total San Diego RB+TE Receiving:
181 Reception 1861 Yards 18TD

So out of 384 Completions for Cutler... 32.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 312 Completions for Rivers... 58 Percent of them are to RB and TEs.

So out of 4526 Yards Passing for Cutler... 33.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 4009 Yards Passing for Rivers... 46.4 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

So out of 25 TDs thrown by Cutler... 40 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 34 TDs thrown by Rivers... 52.9 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

You forgot to mention that our tight end Gates often lines up at wide reciever, there goes your "stats":beer:

Northman
01-04-2009, 09:55 AM
Interesting. Isn't Scheffler a good recieving TE? You would think Cuddles could use him more often.

Probably would if he could stay healthy long enough.

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 10:55 AM
I was defending another bronco fan, and then you guys jump on me. I didn't make this so don't jump down my throat, Interesting stats though

Denver RB Receiving:
43 Receptions 413 Yards 2TD
Denver TE Receiving:
83 Receptions 1118 Yards 8TD
Total Denver RB+TE Receiving:
126 Receptions 1531 Yards 10TD

San Diego RB Receiving:
106 Receptions 1030 Yards 8TD
San Diego TE Receiving:
75 Receptions 831 Yards 10TD
Total San Diego RB+TE Receiving:
181 Reception 1861 Yards 18TD

So out of 384 Completions for Cutler... 32.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 312 Completions for Rivers... 58 Percent of them are to RB and TEs.

So out of 4526 Yards Passing for Cutler... 33.8 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 4009 Yards Passing for Rivers... 46.4 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

So out of 25 TDs thrown by Cutler... 40 Percent of them are to RB and TEs
So out of 34 TDs thrown by Rivers... 52.9 Percent of them are to RB and TEs

As far as I'm concerned with these stats... Cutler should start throwing to his RBs and TEs more. I think it shows his immaturity that he doesn't throw to them more often because I have also seen many on here talk about how he tries to force the ball deep all the time. If he was to start learning to dump it off and taking what he can get, he'd get the deep ball more often, and he'd be a better QB.

These are what make Rivers a better QB, and you also have to factor in the way they use Gates, and the fact that he is used a lot as a WR, and not just a TE.

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Can't read many posts without damn ads, autism books & all this blah-blah...is there a forum referee here?
We lost 8 games cuz the commitment to that run down, old LT.
All he did all year was run to the ground or out of bounds. Against the Colts, you all saw what a "regular" running back can do.
I'm all for trading LT straight up to KC for Larry Johnson.
We miss the big back Mike Turner was & LJ is still a legit runner.

So... You want to trade a player who was hurt and couldn't run the way he usually does, for a player who wasn't hurt and still couldn't run the way he usually does?? Explain how that makes sense.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Ok, fine Rivers is god. You guys happy now? Jesus I thought this was a bronco's board...........

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 03:29 PM
You forgot to mention that our tight end Gates often lines up at wide reciever, there goes your "stats":beer:

They're not my "stats" they're rivers stats. :welcome:

KCL
01-04-2009, 04:52 PM
So... You want to trade a player who was hurt and couldn't run the way he usually does, for a player who wasn't hurt and still couldn't run the way he usually does?? Explain how that makes sense.

No kidding...come and get LJ....I am all for KC letting him go.He doesn't want to play in KC any longer.

KCL
01-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Ok, fine Rivers is god. You guys happy now? Jesus I thought this was a bronco's board...........

This is a Broncos Board...what does that have to do with anything? This thread is in the smack forum and there is also a Other NFL Teams forum.That means other teams besides the Broncos.

Slick
01-04-2009, 05:09 PM
Ray Guy not having the ugly gold blazer is a damn shame. I saw him kick in person. No one has ever done it better.

Congrats Bolt fans. Your team took advantage of the opportunity, something we could not do.

I sure would like to see Cutler have the talent at RB that the Bolts have.

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 07:04 PM
Ok, fine Rivers is god. You guys happy now? Jesus I thought this was a bronco's board...........

This is the smack forum of a Broncos board, and if you don't wanna see people respond to your opinions, don't post them.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 09:12 PM
I do, I just didn't think dissing phylis would cause you so much distress. His rating was 62! Just make sure you guys are all back here when he gets killed by Pittsburg.

broncobryce
01-04-2009, 09:16 PM
This is a Broncos Board...what does that have to do with anything? This thread is in the smack forum and there is also a Other NFL Teams forum.That means other teams besides the Broncos.

My point was, I was sticking up for a bronco fan, and ended up getting outnumbered by non bronco fans. All because I stated rivers was Pennington part 2. Guess that's what I get for trying to help a fellow fan.:tsk:

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 10:25 PM
I do, I just didn't think dissing phylis would cause you so much distress. His rating was 62! Just make sure you guys are all back here when he gets killed by Pittsburg.

No distress, giving my opinion is not the same as distress. Disagreeing with you, was not because I was distressed, it was because I disagreed and I stated how. This is the smack forum, not everything is going to be said in the nicest manner.

Rivers will be the second best QB in the game for the second straight game, against the best defense in the league, I fully expect him to be destroyed.

Broncoboy
01-04-2009, 10:38 PM
Tomlinson--runs to the ground, avoids all contact, & runs for the sideline.

Larry Johnson--in trouble because a young lady wants $$
LJ may have been hurt this year but at least he runs hard & finishes off the run.

LT is finished...we let Mike Turner walk and Sproles is next.
Am I the only one who watched LT fail this year?
Norv Turner is the reason we lost 8 games....he kept callin' LT off left tackle until we were 4-8.
Package LT anywhere & get a draft pick for him. I don't mean to be an LT hater.....but as Eddie Murphy once said, "What have you done for me lately?"
SD FANS PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS.....DO WE LET SPROLES WALK OR SHOULD WE SEND LT PACKING?

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 10:41 PM
Tomlinson--runs to the ground, avoids all contact, & runs for the sideline.

Larry Johnson--in trouble because a young lady wants $$
LJ may have been hurt this year but at least he runs hard & finishes off the run.

LT is finished...we let Mike Turner walk and Sproles is next.
Am I the only one who watched LT fail this year?
Norv Turner is the reason we lost 8 games....he kept callin' LT off left tackle until we were 4-8.
Package LT anywhere & get a draft pick for him. I don't mean to be an LT hater.....but as Eddie Murphy once said, "What have you done for me lately?"
SD FANS PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS.....DO WE LET SPROLES WALK OR SHOULD WE SEND LT PACKING?

So it's LT's fault that the line couldn't block for most of the season??:confused:

The fact of the matter is, that LT had one down year, LJ flat sucked most of the year (a year he was probably needed more than any other), and has been hurt 2 years in a row. Getting LJ is far from a helpful thing for your team.

broncogirl7
01-04-2009, 10:57 PM
I still dislike Phyllis Rivers, but the Chargers did capitalize on the mistakes of the Colts and the overabundant penalities in OT.
I begrudgingly congratulate you on your win and acknowledge the fact that you are very lucky to have a talent like Darren Sproles on your team. I actually enjoyed watching him play and it made me sick to acknowledge that fact...

Broncoboy
01-04-2009, 10:58 PM
That's the same O-line that played yesterday.....They weren't stellar this year.....but true Charger fans know LT is on the downside. He'll be 30 years old by next training camp & we cannot HOPE he'll regain the skills he had in 2006. RB's are a dime a dozen & the whole year LT played like chopped liver.
He's makin' top dollar & I don't know the salary cap effect is.
I guarantee he won't rush for >1,000 yards next year.
Yes I am a Charger fan....if the Charger management is smart,
they'll unload him before next year.
Charger fans.......chime in on this! I SAY LT SHOULD GO!

broncogirl7
01-04-2009, 11:07 PM
That's the same O-line that played yesterday.....They weren't stellar this year.....but true Charger fans know LT is on the downside. He'll be 30 years old by next training camp & we cannot HOPE he'll regain the skills he had in 2006. RB's are a dime a dozen & the whole year LT played like chopped liver.
He's makin' top dollar & I don't know the salary cap effect is.
I guarantee he won't rush for >1,000 yards next year.
Yes I am a Charger fan....if the Charger management is smart,
they'll unload him before next year.
Charger fans.......chime in on this! I SAY LT SHOULD GO!

I agree that LT is on the down slide and can he really recover from that injury fully?

Broncoboy
01-04-2009, 11:15 PM
Last year it was the bum knee...this year the big toe and now the groin. Running backs take a pounding and have bodies 10 years older than actual. So, let's ship our 40 year old LT & get a young stud in the draft.

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY?"

Anyone know where that came from?

bengaaaaals1688
01-04-2009, 11:17 PM
That's the same O-line that played yesterday.....They weren't stellar this year.....but true Charger fans know LT is on the downside. He'll be 30 years old by next training camp & we cannot HOPE he'll regain the skills he had in 2006. RB's are a dime a dozen & the whole year LT played like chopped liver.
He's makin' top dollar & I don't know the salary cap effect is.
I guarantee he won't rush for >1,000 yards next year.
Yes I am a Charger fan....if the Charger management is smart,
they'll unload him before next year.
Charger fans.......chime in on this! I SAY LT SHOULD GO!

The only thing I thought you were going to far with was trading him for LJ because at the very least LJ is in the same spot as LT.

It's quite clear LT isn't as good as he used to be, although it is possible he will be able to get it back.

Broncoboy
01-04-2009, 11:27 PM
No rebound year for LT...no turning back the clock, no
resting his injuries. Father time has tamed this aged RB....
Emmit was let go like so many other aged RB's
Next year it will be a broken pinky, a strained muscle or some other sign of broken goods.
Last time he ran for 100yds. was........I can't even remember.
I doubt any GM would give a 5th rounder or higher for LT.

Devilspawn
01-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Last year it was the bum knee...this year the big toe and now the groin. Running backs take a pounding and have bodies 10 years older than actual. So, let's ship our 40 year old LT & get a young stud in the draft.

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY?"

Anyone know where that came from?
Eddie Murphy Raw?

King87
01-04-2009, 11:31 PM
No rebound year for LT...no turning back the clock, no
resting his injuries. Father time has tamed this aged RB....
Emmit was let go like so many other aged RB's
Next year it will be a broken pinky, a strained muscle or some other sign of broken goods.
Last time he ran for 100yds. was........I can't even remember.
I doubt any GM would give a 5th rounder or higher for LT.

I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

Let's see him keep playing before we claim that he can't rebound. He can't turn back the clock, but he can rest his injuries. The offseason does exist...unfortunately.

Emmit was let go when it was obvious that he was washed up. LT still has some years left in him, and I don't think anyone thinks he is washed up.

Magnificent Seven
01-04-2009, 11:31 PM
Looks like they might release LT in off season. Darren Sproles is an outstanding tailback.

pumpdoc
01-05-2009, 08:14 AM
Broncoboy, you are high!! You listen to too much "quacksaw" you make sure the Chargers resign Sproles and use him in conjunction with LT. Man I hate you bandwagoners, yeah LTs washed up:rolleyes:What Lt missed most this year was LoNeal busting out ahead of him, he had a rook to do that this year and he isn't yet up to it. I could go on........................

Broncoboy
01-05-2009, 10:25 AM
LoNeal was an asset, but he is not why we pay LT top dollar.
LT plays like a MLB slugger who was on roids.....then stopped but continued playing. ie. numbers plummeted, no juke, no speed, no change of direction.
Just "run to the ground" if it ain't there. Rewind your Tivo my friend.
3 & out all year after LT is stopped. The O-line has not played like last year but LT used to juke & out-maneuver linebackers at the line of scrimmage.
Now he runs in a straight line.....that is my main point.
Why run this guy 20 times a game when it's always 3 & out!

sanluis
01-05-2009, 11:53 AM
LoNeal was an asset, but he is not why we pay LT top dollar.
LT plays like a MLB slugger who was on roids.....then stopped but continued playing. ie. numbers plummeted, no juke, no speed, no change of direction.
Just "run to the ground" if it ain't there. Rewind your Tivo my friend.
3 & out all year after LT is stopped. The O-line has not played like last year but LT used to juke & out-maneuver linebackers at the line of scrimmage.
Now he runs in a straight line.....that is my main point.
Why run this guy 20 times a game when it's always 3 & out!


Cutlerfan247 is that you ??? :lol:

So let me see if I got this right?

Cut LT and every player that gets hurt.

Pick up LJ because he is so much better.:twitch:

Trade LT for a fifth rounder if we are lucky.:twitch:

Your posts are garbage boy.

I can smell them from here and they stink!! :der:

bengaaaaals1688
01-05-2009, 12:25 PM
LoNeal was an asset, but he is not why we pay LT top dollar.
LT plays like a MLB slugger who was on roids.....then stopped but continued playing. ie. numbers plummeted, no juke, no speed, no change of direction.
Just "run to the ground" if it ain't there. Rewind your Tivo my friend.
3 & out all year after LT is stopped. The O-line has not played like last year but LT used to juke & out-maneuver linebackers at the line of scrimmage.
Now he runs in a straight line.....that is my main point.
Why run this guy 20 times a game when it's always 3 & out!

Did you not realize that LT had turf toe all season and that injury makes it extremely difficult to cut and juke the way he always had?? He couldn't put the same pressure on his toe, and he couldn't cut as quickly because of it. It's not like he just decided not to run as hard, he physically couldn't run as hard.

Broncoboy
01-05-2009, 01:38 PM
LT insisted the toe was 100% midseason.
Let's move him while we can still get something.
8-8 in 08 is no lie. We sneaked in the playoffs despite the pitiful running game.
LT is hard to move because of the salary.....so maybe we should
use him more as a receiver than a running back.
This requires we have a durable running back which Sproles is not.

Here's something to look at......
Compare LT's stats vs. the opposing RB's stats.
LT got out-played in 14 outta 16 games this year.
I am not Cutler! I am from downtown SD and am sick & tired of
watching the ground tackle LT. A RB cannot run timidly in the NFL.
Time for the next chapter at runnning back.

Medford Bronco
01-05-2009, 02:03 PM
Congrats SD. Good work. :beer:

You stopped Manning better than Denver would have.
Good luck next week.

sanluis
01-05-2009, 02:36 PM
LT insisted the toe was 100% midseason.
Let's move him while we can still get something.
8-8 in 08 is no lie. We sneaked in the playoffs despite the pitiful running game.
LT is hard to move because of the salary.....so maybe we should
use him more as a receiver than a running back.
This requires we have a durable running back which Sproles is not.

Here's something to look at......
Compare LT's stats vs. the opposing RB's stats.
LT got out-played in 14 outta 16 games this year.
I am not Cutler! I am from downtown SD and am sick & tired of
watching the ground tackle LT. A RB cannot run timidly in the NFL.
Time for the next chapter at runnning back.


Don't worry, you will get your wish this Sunday when Sproles goes against the Steelers.

How did Turner the Burner do against The Cardinals? Should they get rid of him now while there is still some value? :coffee:

bengaaaaals1688
01-05-2009, 03:01 PM
LT insisted the toe was 100% midseason.
Let's move him while we can still get something.
8-8 in 08 is no lie. We sneaked in the playoffs despite the pitiful running game.
LT is hard to move because of the salary.....so maybe we should
use him more as a receiver than a running back.
This requires we have a durable running back which Sproles is not.

Here's something to look at......
Compare LT's stats vs. the opposing RB's stats.
LT got out-played in 14 outta 16 games this year.
I am not Cutler! I am from downtown SD and am sick & tired of
watching the ground tackle LT. A RB cannot run timidly in the NFL.
Time for the next chapter at runnning back.

And Chad Johnson insisted before the season even started that his shoulder was 100%... What's your point?? Players say those things all the time, and the ones who do usually say it because they don't want people to use it as an excuse for them, even if it is. Trainers and doctors said it wasn't 100%, I'll take their word first.

Medford Bronco
01-05-2009, 03:02 PM
Don't worry, you will get your wish this Sunday when Sproles goes against the Steelers.

How did Turner the Burner do against The Cardinals? Should they get rid of him now while there is still some value? :coffee:

:lol: Turner the burner more like the fumbler this week.

cost me in my pool :tsk:

As long as Rivers is clean with the ball you have a good shot.

We shall see.


My upset is Balt over Tenn. I think their D will swallow up Collins and have 2 or 3 turnovers IMO

sanluis
01-05-2009, 05:23 PM
:lol: Turner the burner more like the fumbler this week.

cost me in my pool :tsk:

As long as Rivers is clean with the ball you have a good shot.

We shall see.


My upset is Balt over Tenn. I think their D will swallow up Collins and have 2 or 3 turnovers IMO


Sorry about your pool!

We are going to upset Pit in Pit. They are already looking past us and to the Ravens.Plus Sproles is so short they will never be able to find him.

:D:lol:

Medford Bronco
01-05-2009, 05:25 PM
Sorry about your pool!

We are going to upset Pit in Pit. They are already looking past us and to the Ravens.Plus Sproles is so short they will never be able to find him.

:D:lol:

I like Balt to upset Ten as well. They are sick on D

We shall see.

pumpdoc
01-05-2009, 05:27 PM
LT insisted the toe was 100% midseason.
Let's move him while we can still get something.
8-8 in 08 is no lie. We sneaked in the playoffs despite the pitiful running game.
LT is hard to move because of the salary.....so maybe we should
use him more as a receiver than a running back.
This requires we have a durable running back which Sproles is not.

Here's something to look at......
Compare LT's stats vs. the opposing RB's stats.
LT got out-played in 14 outta 16 games this year.
I am not Cutler! I am from downtown SD and am sick & tired of
watching the ground tackle LT. A RB cannot run timidly in the NFL.
Time for the next chapter at runnning back.

You are high.

bengaaaaals1688
01-05-2009, 06:23 PM
Sorry about your pool!

We are going to upset Pit in Pit. They are already looking past us and to the Ravens.Plus Sproles is so short they will never be able to find him.

:D:lol:

Let Madden tell it and Sproles is a midget.:lol:

fcspikeit
01-06-2009, 01:21 AM
So if Rivers is Pennington Part 2, and Rivers is better than Jay Cutler... What does that make Cutler??

underrated it would appear... We got more points off of SD then the Colts did... Does that mean Cutler is better then Manning? :confused:

The only reason this wasn't a blowout is because the Colts D didn't give up 52. I suppose that's Cutlers fault too.. Face it, if we had Manning, Rivers or Pennington under center, we still would have been blown out.

King87
01-06-2009, 02:57 AM
underrated it would appear... We got more points off of SD then the Colts did... Does that mean Cutler is better then Manning? :confused:

The only reason this wasn't a blowout is because the Colts D didn't give up 52. I suppose that's Cutlers fault too.. Face it, if we had Manning, Rivers or Pennington under center, we still would have been blown out.

Peyton Manning lining up under center improves your passing game by a pretty staggering amount. Would you have lost, probably, but the score would have been closer.

fcspikeit
01-06-2009, 04:16 AM
Peyton Manning lining up under center improves your passing game by a pretty staggering amount. Would you have lost, probably, but the score would have been closer.

How is this possible? Cutler put up more points then Manning did.. Are you saying we have better WR's then the Colts? Maybe we have a better running game? :confused:

Why would Manning have done so much better with our offense then he did with his?

It's amazing how no one seems to blame Manning for the Colts losing to SD in a game they could have won, but some blame Cutler for our loss.. All the while knowing, the Cutler led offense put up more points then the Manning led offense..

Lets put it this way, if our D had held them to 17 we would have won period! If our D would have forced more then 1 punt, chances are we would have scored even more then we did... How many chances did Manning have on offense compared to Cutler? :coffee:

Please explain to me how Manning would have scored more against them with our offense then he did with his with less offensive possessions? LOL

sanluis
01-06-2009, 09:55 AM
How is this possible? Cutler put up more points then Manning did.. Are you saying we have better WR's then the Colts? Maybe we have a better running game? :confused:

Why would Manning have done so much better with our offense then he did with his?

It's amazing how no one seems to blame Manning for the Colts losing to SD in a game they could have won, but some blame Cutler for our loss.. All the while knowing, the Cutler led offense put up more points then the Manning led offense..

Lets put it this way, if our D had held them to 17 we would have won period! If our D would have forced more then 1 punt, chances are we would have scored even more then we did... How many chances did Manning have on offense compared to Cutler? :coffee:

Please explain to me how Manning would have scored more against them with our offense then he did with his with less offensive possessions? LOL

Turnovers are the key difference. Jay turns the ball over at critical times and puts that poor D back on the field.Payton doesn't do that to his D nearly as often. At times Jay is your Defenses own worst enemy. Red zone turnovers!! And then Jay calls the D out on television while smacking on his chewing gum like some punk ass. :tsk:

I admire Jays talents though and I think he is a very good QB just not MVP material like Payton. Even if he is a gum chewing punk:lol:

bengaaaaals1688
01-06-2009, 01:12 PM
How is this possible? Cutler put up more points then Manning did.. Are you saying we have better WR's then the Colts? Maybe we have a better running game? :confused:

Why would Manning have done so much better with our offense then he did with his?

It's amazing how no one seems to blame Manning for the Colts losing to SD in a game they could have won, but some blame Cutler for our loss.. All the while knowing, the Cutler led offense put up more points then the Manning led offense..

Lets put it this way, if our D had held them to 17 we would have won period! If our D would have forced more then 1 punt, chances are we would have scored even more then we did... How many chances did Manning have on offense compared to Cutler? :coffee:

Please explain to me how Manning would have scored more against them with our offense then he did with his with less offensive possessions? LOL

You do have a better running game, look at the stats. You averaged almost 30 yards per game more than the Colts, on only 17 more attempts, and averaged over 1 yard per carry more than they did. So, you have a better running game.

Not to mention that the comparison wasn't to Manning, it was to Rivers, and my statement was that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler.

Nomad
01-06-2009, 03:04 PM
Chargers may want to tell Vincent Jackson to lay off the liquor:drinking: and drive!

fcspikeit
01-06-2009, 09:36 PM
You do have a better running game, look at the stats. You averaged almost 30 yards per game more than the Colts, on only 17 more attempts, and averaged over 1 yard per carry more than they did. So, you have a better running game.

Not to mention that the comparison wasn't to Manning, it was to Rivers, and my statement was that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler.

The only time we ran the ball was when they only had 5 or 6 in the box.. We were on our 7th RB of the year. The colts had their 1st stringer back. Are you telling me you would rather have Tatur over Joseph (SP?)

Secondly, my response was to the post that said we would have done better with Manning against the Bolts..

fcspikeit
01-06-2009, 09:40 PM
Turnovers are the key difference. Jay turns the ball over at critical times and puts that poor D back on the field.Payton doesn't do that to his D nearly as often. At times Jay is your Defenses own worst enemy. Red zone turnovers!! And then Jay calls the D out on television while smacking on his chewing gum like some punk ass. :tsk:

I admire Jays talents though and I think he is a very good QB just not MVP material like Payton. Even if he is a gum chewing punk:lol:

Are you really trying to say you scored 52 on us because of the 2 Int's? :confused:

How many offensive positions did you have against us compared to the Colts? Even with the 2 turnovers, its pretty clear you had more positions against the Colts. The only reason you didn't blow them out 52 to 17 was because their D played a hell of a lot better then ours... The one Int you got put you on what, the 5? When Manning was going 3 and out from their 5 you where getting the ball around the 50. You tell me what was worse?

The Colts offense put their defense in way worse positions then our offense put our D. Maybe if their offense could have picked up a couple 1st downs and forced the Bolts to drive the field, they could have held a little more then they did. Even despite that, they only gave up 17 in 4 quarters. Ours gave up 52....

bengaaaaals1688
01-06-2009, 10:02 PM
The only time we ran the ball was when they only had 5 or 6 in the box.. We were on our 7th RB of the year. The colts had their 1st stringer back. Are you telling me you would rather have Tatur over Joseph (SP?)

Secondly, my response was to the post that said we would have done better with Manning against the Bolts..

I'm telling you that the Broncos had a better running game than the Colts, regardless of who was in the backfield. You could have had a snail in the backfield, and if you had more yards per game, and more yards per carry, you had a better running game. That's really all there is to it.

Broncolingus
01-06-2009, 10:14 PM
Ugh...

...if we're going to keep this thread going can we rename it to "Who Gives A Shit About the Chargers Cause They'll Always Suck-it" or something like that...

fcspikeit
01-06-2009, 11:05 PM
I'm telling you that the Broncos had a better running game than the Colts, regardless of who was in the backfield. You could have had a snail in the backfield, and if you had more yards per game, and more yards per carry, you had a better running game. That's really all there is to it.

I don't care how many yards we had per game, except for the few games with Hillis, we had no running game.. The Bolts didn't come with the game plan of stopping our run game and that's a fact! They didn't come with the game plan of stopping the Colts run game and that's a fact!

It was up to Cutler and Manning to beat them. Manning's defense gave him a chance to win the game, Cutlers didn't. It's really as simple as that...

It wouldn't have mattered if we ran for 200 yards against the Bolts, our defense couldn't stop them, that's a fact! Manning did no more against their D trying to stop him then Cutler did. Believing we could have scored more with Manning is absurd and a bit ridicules..

bengaaaaals1688
01-06-2009, 11:26 PM
I don't care how many yards we had per game, except for the few games with Hillis, we had no running game.. The Bolts didn't come with the game plan of stopping our run game and that's a fact! They didn't come with the game plan of stopping the Colts run game and that's a fact!

It was up to Cutler and Manning to beat them. Manning's defense gave him a chance to win the game, Cutlers didn't. It's really as simple as that...

It wouldn't have mattered if we ran for 200 yards against the Bolts, our defense couldn't stop them, that's a fact! Manning did no more against their D trying to stop him then Cutler did. Believing we could have scored more with Manning is absurd and a bit ridicules..

I don't remember arguing anything about who would have scored more. People really need to not spin the words of others to suit what they want the argument to be about. I never made a comment about Manning, I never even came close to mentioning Manning until YOU said something about their running game compared to your running game. I only said that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler, you got upset, and decided to compare Cutler to Manning, even though there isn't a comparison.

Fact... Your running game produced more than Manning's.

Fact... You had more production out of your running game. (Getting redundant yet??)

Fact... Manning is better than Cutler.

Fact... Rivers is better than Cutler.

Fact... You brought up the Manning Cutler comparison.

Fact... Nobody else here is even bothering to argue the differences between Manning and Cutler, but you.

Argue the points made, rather than the points you have decided to bring up, especially if your gonna let your orange and blue glasses blind you to the logic. If your numbers are better (in all facets of the stats) you had better production. You can argue the differences between running backs until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change that you had a better running game than the Colts, and it also has nothing to do with Rivers being better than Cutler.

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 01:01 AM
Peyton Manning lining up under center improves your passing game by a pretty staggering amount. Would you have lost, probably, but the score would have been closer.


How is this possible? Cutler put up more points then Manning did.. Are you saying we have better WR's then the Colts? Maybe we have a better running game? :confused:

Why would Manning have done so much better with our offense then he did with his?

It's amazing how no one seems to blame Manning for the Colts losing to SD in a game they could have won, but some blame Cutler for our loss.. All the while knowing, the Cutler led offense put up more points then the Manning led offense..

Lets put it this way, if our D had held them to 17 we would have won period! If our D would have forced more then 1 punt, chances are we would have scored even more then we did... How many chances did Manning have on offense compared to Cutler? :coffee:

Please explain to me how Manning would have scored more against them with our offense then he did with his with less offensive possessions? LOL


I don't remember arguing anything about who would have scored more. People really need to not spin the words of others to suit what they want the argument to be about. I never made a comment about Manning, I never even came close to mentioning Manning until YOU said something about their running game compared to your running game. I only said that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler, you got upset, and decided to compare Cutler to Manning, even though there isn't a comparison.

Fact... Your running game produced more than Manning's. (That says more about Manning then just about anything, Cutler was the only reason we had a running game with the scrubs we had)

Fact... You had more production out of your running game. (Getting redundant yet??) (Because they were trying to stop Cutler)

Fact... Manning is better than Cutler. (At this time who wouldn't agree with you? I never said Cutler was better then Manning)

Fact... Rivers is better than Cutler. (The majority of fans, players and coached disagrees with this, that is a fact!)

Fact... You brought up the Manning Cutler comparison. (No I simply stated that Manning produced less points against the same D. That is a FACT)

Fact... Nobody else here is even bothering to argue the differences between Manning and Cutler, but you. (Stop trying to make this a Cutler vs Manning argument. I never said Cutler was better then Manning. I simply pointed out a fact. You obviously can’t explain why the Cutler led offense put up more then the manning led offense, All you can reply with is Manning is better)


Argue the points made, rather than the points you have decided to bring up, especially if your gonna let your orange and blue glasses blind you to the logic. If your numbers are better (in all facets of the stats) you had better production. You can argue the differences between running backs until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change that you had a better running game than the Colts, and it also has nothing to do with Rivers being better than Cutler.

I responded to something King87 had said, I really don't care if a Bengals fan thinks Rivers is better then Cutler or not. That is a fact!

He said we would have done better with Manning, I asked him how that is possible beings he in FACT didn't do better against the same defense the next week with more opportunities.. You came back with we have a better running game, anyone who watched the game knows the only reason we had any success running the ball was because they were selling out trying to stop Cutler... apparently they wasn't focusing as much attention on Manning as Cutler, there is no way anyone with a strait face could say we had a better running game then the Colts with Tatur Bell...

King87
01-07-2009, 05:59 AM
I responded to something King87 had said, I really don't care if a Bengals fan thinks Rivers is better then Cutler or not. That is a fact!
Yes, because me being a Cincinnati man makes me inherently less intelligent about football. Seeing how you responded you obviously do care what I have to say to a normal extent otherwise you wouldn't have responded. That doesn't make me special, or a football know-it-all, but obviously the post was worth your time.
He said we would have done better with Manning, I asked him how that is possible beings he in FACT didn't do better against the same defense the next week with more opportunities.. You came back with we have a better running game, anyone who watched the game knows the only reason we had any success running the ball was because they were selling out trying to stop Cutler... apparently they wasn't focusing as much attention on Manning as Cutler, there is no way anyone with a strait face could say we had a better running game then the Colts with Tatur Bell...
Because your offense has more tools than Manning's does right now. And no, everyone knows it the system that Denver has. You guys have had plenty of production from average at best backs before Cutler was ever a Bronco. Cutler is a beast, but he wasn't the main reason why your running game could produce on the seventh back of the season.

By the way, the majority can think whatever they want about Culter being better than Rivers, but that doesn't make it true. Rivers was just as good as Manning was this year. He beat Cutler's team head to head to get into the playoffs. Granted I never much was of a "winning makes you a better individual player" type of guy, but that seems to be a standard amongst many football fans. He certainly was better statistically this year, his wideouts are worse than Cutler's, and his stud RB and TE have been hurt all year. So, it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have their Bronco shades on, or their "I hate the Chargers" shades on (and believe me I hate Merriman, Rivers, Castillo, and LT pretty passionately for a variety of reason) that as of right now Rivers is the better QB.

Cutler will be better for his career, but right now there isn't much to debate.

sanluis
01-07-2009, 12:09 PM
Are you really trying to say you scored 52 on us because of the 2 Int's? :confused:

How many offensive positions did you have against us compared to the Colts? Even with the 2 turnovers, its pretty clear you had more positions against the Colts. The only reason you didn't blow them out 52 to 17 was because their D played a hell of a lot better then ours... The one Int you got put you on what, the 5? When Manning was going 3 and out from their 5 you where getting the ball around the 50. You tell me what was worse?

The Colts offense put their defense in way worse positions then our offense put our D. Maybe if their offense could have picked up a couple 1st downs and forced the Bolts to drive the field, they could have held a little more then they did. Even despite that, they only gave up 17 in 4 quarters. Ours gave up 52....

No, I am not blaming poor Jay for the 52 we dropped on you guys. It is a team sport and Jays INT didn't help. Not being able to run the ball was bad as well all though Bell(?) did break some nice runs and did score. Maybe Mike moved away from the run too soon? I don't know.

I do know that Manning is a better QB than Cutler even with Cutlers stats this season. And as a better QB I think he would have done better in Cutlers place. I don't think he would have won but I think he would have done better.

Don't get me wrong. I do see Jays talent and he is deserving of praise and he is a Pro Bowl QB IMO. Just not as good as Manning... yet.:D

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 01:46 PM
Because your offense has more tools than Manning's does right now. And no, everyone knows it the system that Denver has. You guys have had plenty of production from average at best backs before Cutler was ever a Bronco. Cutler is a beast, but he wasn't the main reason why your running game could produce on the seventh back of the season.


By the way, the majority can think whatever they want about Culter being better than Rivers, but that doesn't make it true. Rivers was just as good as Manning was this year. He beat Cutler's team head to head to get into the playoffs. Granted I never much was of a "winning makes you a better individual player" type of guy, but that seems to be a standard amongst many football fans. He certainly was better statistically this year, his wideouts are worse than Cutler's, and his stud RB and TE have been hurt all year. So, it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have their Bronco shades on, or their "I hate the Chargers" shades on (and believe me I hate Merriman, Rivers, Castillo, and LT pretty passionately for a variety of reason) that as of right now Rivers is the better QB.

Cutler will be better for his career, but right now there isn't much to debate.

I don't think the Broncos have more tools on offense then the Colts.. IMO, Marshall, Royal, Stokley and Graham/Sheffler are not any better then Harrison, Wayne, Gonzalez and Clark.. The colts had more talent at the RB position as well.

Our system might have put up decant #'s on the ground but we could not run the ball when we needed to except for when we had Hillis. We got a lot of yards out of Shotgun formation, royal had the one big 73 yard run and there were a few other plays like that, that helped the #'s on the ground.
The Bolts didn't come with the game plan to stop the run for good reason.

I never said the colts had a better running game, just that they have a much better back.
IMO, neither us or the Colts could beat SD running the football. I believe it was a wash..

Maybe we could have ran the ball more? We were down by 2 TD’s from the 2nd quarter on. That pretty much killed any chance we had of trying to run the ball. At that point, either Cutler could perform a miracle or we couldn’t win.

I think rivers is a product of Turners system, Turner does a great job of setting up the screen and short throws, Don’t get me wrong, rivers has done well playing in that system. It’s pretty clear Cutler can do more on the field then Rivers can. A case could be made for Rivers being smarter with the football? Even if it was conceded he was the smarter of the 2. That doesn’t make him a better QB.

We could argue forever about what is the most important trait for a QB to have. We could use the extremes with Pennington and Favre.. Most everyone would take Favres ability in his prime over Penningtons decision making in his prime any day and twice on Sunday. Some guys have what you can’t coach, If you can teach them how to use their special ability, they will always be better then those who have to rely on their decision making alone.

On NFL N they asked who would you rather have now, Rivers or Breez. TD said Rivers because he is a winner, he took his team to the playoffs. How many more games did Rivers win this year over Breez? I would take Breeze hands down but maybe that’s just me.

My point is simple, we could argue all day about who is better out of Cutler and Rivers, Rivers and Breez, Pennington and Favre. In the end it would come down to our own opinion. Out of those 3 comparisons, I would take Cutler, Breez, and Favre. You might take, Rivers, Rivers and Pennington? Neither could prove their selections were right.



No, I am not blaming poor Jay for the 52 we dropped on you guys. It is a team sport and Jays INT didn't help. Not being able to run the ball was bad as well all though Bell(?) did break some nice runs and did score. Maybe Mike moved away from the run too soon? I don't know.

I do know that Manning is a better QB than Cutler even with Cutlers stats this season. And as a better QB I think he would have done better in Cutlers place. I don't think he would have won but I think he would have done better.

Don't get me wrong. I do see Jays talent and he is deserving of praise and he is a Pro Bowl QB IMO. Just not as good as Manning... yet.:D

That’s the thing, if Manning had been in cutlers place, the game plan wouldn’t have been the same because Manning can’t make the same throws Cutler can. Manning would have offered strengths in other areas. One thing is for sure, we can assume if the game plan had been the same as the Colts, he would have put up 17 points. The reason we had the success we did on offense was because of that game plan set up around Cutlers strength’s. IMO the Colts could have done better with Cutler, Manning missed some throws from lack of arm strength, if Cutler completes a couple of those, they get some more 1st downs and if nothing else, they back up SD offense. None of that can be proven however, just an opinion.

I agree Manning is the better QB right now. I would still rather have Cutler because of what he brings to the table for the future. Besides that, he has a lot more playing years left in the NFL then does Manning…

King87
01-07-2009, 05:53 PM
I don't think the Broncos have more tools on offense then the Colts.. IMO, Marshall, Royal, Stokley and Graham/Sheffler are not any better then Harrison, Wayne, Gonzalez and Clark.. The colts had more talent at the RB position as well.
Harrison is a hack, and is washed up. The combination of sheff and graham is not that far off of wayne, Royal is just as impactful as Gonzalez, and when you factor in the running game...yeah, I would say so.
Our system might have put up decant #'s on the ground but we could not run the ball when we needed to except for when we had Hillis. We got a lot of yards out of Shotgun formation, royal had the one big 73 yard run and there were a few other plays like that, that helped the #'s on the ground.
The Bolts didn't come with the game plan to stop the run for good reason.
I think you may be exaggerating a bit here. You guys had a pretty decent year for running as a whole, I don't buy that.
I never said the colts had a better running game, just that they have a much better back.
IMO, neither us or the Colts could beat SD running the football. I believe it was a wash..
Depth is a big deal. Those guys find runningbacks like no other.
Maybe we could have ran the ball more? We were down by 2 TDís from the 2nd quarter on. That pretty much killed any chance we had of trying to run the ball. At that point, either Cutler could perform a miracle or we couldnít win.
That isn't true either. You always hear that you have to stick to a good game plan. Honestly you needed to run the ball more to score and keep San Diego's offense off the field
I think rivers is a product of Turners system, Turner does a great job of setting up the screen and short throws, Donít get me wrong, rivers has done well playing in that system. Itís pretty clear Cutler can do more on the field then Rivers can. A case could be made for Rivers being smarter with the football? Even if it was conceded he was the smarter of the 2. That doesnít make him a better QB.
That would hold more water if he wasn't a pretty good QB before Turner. Rivers does far more than throw screens and short throws. Cutler can make more throws on the field, but Rivers performed better with worse wideouts, a much worse running game http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1 So, once again, what system? What system do they run there?
We could argue forever about what is the most important trait for a QB to have. We could use the extremes with Pennington and Favre.. Most everyone would take Favres ability in his prime over Penningtons decision making in his prime any day and twice on Sunday. Some guys have what you canít coach, If you can teach them how to use their special ability, they will always be better then those who have to rely on their decision making alone.
That's nice, and until Cutler starts to use his better and more consistently he won't be better than Rivers. Rivers has better decision making skills and as of right now, key words as of right now he uses his physical skills better. He isn't a weak armed chump like Pennington either.
On NFL N they asked who would you rather have now, Rivers or Breez. TD said Rivers because he is a winner, he took his team to the playoffs. How many more games did Rivers win this year over Breez? I would take Breeze hands down but maybe thatís just me.
I would take Brees without question because the past few years he is showing that the top five QB slots have three spots taken; Manning, Brady, and Brees have it locked.
My point is simple, we could argue all day about who is better out of Cutler and Rivers, Rivers and Breez, Pennington and Favre. In the end it would come down to our own opinion. Out of those 3 comparisons, I would take Cutler, Breez, and Favre. You might take, Rivers, Rivers and Pennington? Neither could prove their selections were right.

I can't prove mine opinion is right, however I can prove that my argument is better formed and has less bias.


Thatís the thing, if Manning had been in cutlers place, the game plan wouldnít have been the same because Manning canít make the same throws Cutler can. Manning would have offered strengths in other areas. One thing is for sure, we can assume if the game plan had been the same as the Colts, he would have put up 17 points. The reason we had the success we did on offense was because of that game plan set up around Cutlers strengthís. IMO the Colts could have done better with Cutler, Manning missed some throws from lack of arm strength, if Cutler completes a couple of those, they get some more 1st downs and if nothing else, they back up SD offense. None of that can be proven however, just an opinion.
Manning can make the same throws Cutler can. Cutler has the stronger arm, but Manning does have a cannon. At some point arm strength hits overkill. THe only thing that Manning would not be doing is the rollout plays.
I agree Manning is the better QB right now. I would still rather have Cutler because of what he brings to the table for the future. Besides that, he has a lot more playing years left in the NFL then does ManningÖ

Manning is going to be a stud for several more years. The jury is still out on how good Cutler can be. That selection does not really make sense.

bengaaaaals1688
01-07-2009, 06:47 PM
That says more about Manning then just about anything, Cutler was the only reason we had a running game with the scrubs we had

What exactly does Manning have to do with the running game?? The OL dictates how well a RB can do, and the RB dictates the potential for himself... Manning has nothing to do with the running game, and your OL was the only reason you had a running game with the scrubs you had.


Because they were trying to stop Cutler

So teams weren't trying to stop Manning?? Great logic there.:confused:


The majority of fans, players and coached disagrees with this, that is a fact!

If that is so factual... Then find me the proof (and no Pro Bowl isn't the proof).


No I simply stated that Manning produced less points against the same D. That is a FACT

Which is a comparison, and an irrelevant one at that. It isn't Manning's fault he started from his own end zone on 5 different drives.


Stop trying to make this a Cutler vs Manning argument. I never said Cutler was better then Manning. I simply pointed out a fact. You obviously canít explain why the Cutler led offense put up more then the manning led offense, All you can reply with is Manning is better

I didn't make it into one, you did. I can explain why... Manning started in his own end zone 5 times, his punter didn't do anything to help, and he had a total of 2 people that were making plays for him, not to mention a lack of blocking... Better??


I responded to something King87 had said, I really don't care if a Bengals fan thinks Rivers is better then Cutler or not. That is a fact!

He said we would have done better with Manning, I asked him how that is possible beings he in FACT didn't do better against the same defense the next week with more opportunities.. You came back with we have a better running game, anyone who watched the game knows the only reason we had any success running the ball was because they were selling out trying to stop Cutler... apparently they wasn't focusing as much attention on Manning as Cutler, there is no way anyone with a strait face could say we had a better running game then the Colts with Tatur Bell...

Yeah, because as Bengals fans we don't have the ability to know good players... Our team sucks, so we must be stupid.:rolleyes:

You do have a better running game. Again... 79 yards per game, 3.4 yards per carry compared to 120 yards per game, 4.2 yards per cary... The second is better, regardless of who is running the ball... What don't you get about that??:confused:

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 07:49 PM
Because your offense has more tools than Manning's does right now. And no, everyone knows it the system that Denver has. You guys have had plenty of production from average at best backs before Cutler was ever a Bronco. Cutler is a beast, but he wasn't the main reason why your running game could produce on the seventh back of the season.

By the way, the majority can think whatever they want about Culter being better than Rivers, but that doesn't make it true. Rivers was just as good as Manning was this year. He beat Cutler's team head to head to get into the playoffs. Granted I never much was of a "winning makes you a better individual player" type of guy, but that seems to be a standard amongst many football fans. He certainly was better statistically this year, his wideouts are worse than Cutler's, and his stud RB and TE have been hurt all year. So, it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have their Bronco shades on, or their "I hate the Chargers" shades on (and believe me I hate Merriman, Rivers, Castillo, and LT pretty passionately for a variety of reason) that as of right now Rivers is the better QB.

Cutler will be better for his career, but right now there isn't much to debate.

You didn’t watch to many Broncos games this year did you? Seriously, how many did you actually watch?


Beings your now trying to use statistics...

Were Cutlers wide outs statistically better the Rivers? How many drops did the Broncos receivers have compared to SD’s?


Also please try and stay in OUR conversation, why are you responding to comments I made to the other Bangles fan? :confused: I suspect you know more about the Broncos then him because you actually follow the Broncos and I bet you have watched more games then him…

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 08:18 PM
What exactly does Manning have to do with the running game?? The OL dictates how well a RB can do, and the RB dictates the potential for himself... Manning has nothing to do with the running game, and your OL was the only reason you had a running game with the scrubs you had.

For starters, if SD was selling out trying to stop the pass, they should have been able to run the ball, so Manning should of had something to do with the Colts running game.

Your right we were running with ďscrubsĒ after saying that are still going to try and convince me we had a good running game?



So teams weren't trying to stop Manning?? Great logic there.:confused:


How many times did I say the Bolts sold out to stop Manning? You must be :confused:



If that is so factual... Then find me the proof (and no Pro Bowl isn't the proof).


Your kidding me right? Millions of fans voted Cutler over Rivers. I can see why you wouldnít want to except that as proof.. LOL



Which is a comparison, and an irrelevant one at that. It isn't Manning's fault he started from his own end zone on 5 different drives.


The same as it wasnít Cutlers fault our defense only made them punt 1 time! It is Manning fault he couldnít get a couple first downs and force SDís offense to drive the length of the field..


I didn't make it into one, you did. I can explain why... Manning started in his own end zone 5 times, his punter didn't do anything to help, and he had a total of 2 people that were making plays for him, not to mention a lack of blocking... Better??


OMG listen to yourself, his punter did nothing to help him out punting from the back of his endzone 3 times? Maybe he could have done a little more if Manning could have moved the ball and gave him some room..


Yeah, because as Bengals fans we don't have the ability to know good players... Our team sucks, so we must be stupid. :rolleyes:


Yep thatís what I said :rolleyes: How many Broncos games did you watch this year? You donít see me arguing with you about the Bengals. You know why? Because I didnít waist my time watching one Bengals game. It would be pretty ďstupidĒ of me, to argue about a Bengals team with a Bengals fan, about something I obviously knew nothing about..



You do have a better running game. Again... 79 yards per game, 3.4 yards per carry compared to 120 yards per game, 4.2 yards per cary... The second is better, regardless of who is running the ball... What don't you get about that??:confused:


You do realize your trying to use stats to prove a point made by guys who were hurt and not even playing in the game donít you?

Tatum Bell will never be an every down back. He didnít run us to 12th in running yards. He is good for 8 Ė 12 carries a game thatís it. He was the only back we had, we had no running game. We had a spell back with no one to spell. Sure we were able to get a couple big plays off of him, try handing him the ball 20+ times and see what you get.

If AD wend down, would you try to use the #ís he put up all year to prove the Vikings had a good running game? How can you not see that?

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 08:23 PM
Manning is going to be a stud for several more years. The jury is still out on how good Cutler can be. That selection does not really make sense.

It makes about as much sense as the 9iners trading Montana knowing they had an unproven Young....


I'm not going to respond to everything else you wrote, Mainly because I don't want to take all the time needed to pull all your writing out of my quoted post...

When you multi respond in the future, will you please do it as the other Bengals fan does. It will be a lot easier to read and follow. TIA

King87
01-07-2009, 08:32 PM
It makes about as much sense as the 9iners trading Montana knowing they had an unproven Young....


I'm not going to respond to everything else you wrote, Mainly because I don't want to take all the time needed to pull all your writing out of my quoted post...

When you multi respond in the future, will you please do it as the other Bengals fan does. It will be a lot easier to read and follow. TIA

Really? You are going to compare taking Culter over Manning for the future during an era where an athlete's prime is longer than ever, and then try to pass it off like Montana and young?

If I had known that the copy and pasting was going to be an issue I would have done the multi to be honest.

bengaaaaals1688
01-07-2009, 08:32 PM
For starters, if SD was selling out trying to stop the pass, they should have been able to run the ball, so Manning should of had something to do with the Colts running game.

Your right we were running with ďscrubsĒ after saying that are still going to try and convince me we had a good running game?

So now it's Manning's fault that his OL didn't give Joseph Addai room to run?? Good logic.:rolleyes:


How many times did I say the Bolts sold out to stop Manning? You must be

You're the one who said the reason why your running game was so good was because defenses sold out on Cutler, which means either teams didn't sell out on Manning, or you're trying way too hard to defend your golden boy... I was making the point that it's probably the latter, and you still didn't get it.


Your kidding me right? Millions of fans voted Cutler over Rivers. I can see why you wouldnít want to except that as proof.. LOL

Yeah because the Pro Bowl is so accurate.:rolleyes: You realize Brett Favre made the Pro Bowl right??


The same as it wasnít Cutlers fault our defense only made them punt 1 time! It is Manning fault he couldnít get a couple first downs and force SDís offense to drive the length of the field..

Still confused I see... I haven't said a damn thing about something being Cutler's fault, your the one who keeps comparing the games, when I couldn't care less about them. I am only giving Manning's defense because you keep asking for it.


OMG listen to yourself, his punter did nothing to help him out punting from the back of his endzone 3 times? Maybe he could have done a little more if Manning could have moved the ball and gave him some room..

Yeah because it's really easy to move the ball from the 5 yard line when you don't have a running game. Is this really still that confusing to you??


Yep thatís what I said How many Broncos games did you watch this year? You donít see me arguing with you about the Bengals. You know why? Because I didnít waist my time watching one Bengals game. It would be pretty ďstupidĒ of me, to argue about a Bengals team with a Bengals fan, about something I obviously knew nothing about..

So because I didn't watch every Broncos game I can't form an intelligent opinion on Cutler?? Because I didn't watch them all I can't have a rational discussion?? You realize that I have been a part of this message board the entire season, so I have all the opinions of people who did watch every game and everything they saw, which then allows me to form an opinion?? Or did that part slip your mind??

Just because you wanna be a homer, doesn't mean I can't have a rational discussion... YOU'RE the one who can't be rational, and who throws out statistics just because he doesn't like them.


You do realize your trying to use stats to prove a point made by guys who were hurt and not even playing in the game donít you?

Tatum Bell will never be an every down back. He didnít run us to 12th in running yards. He is good for 8 Ė 12 carries a game thatís it. He was the only back we had, we had no running game. We had a spell back with no one to spell. Sure we were able to get a couple big plays off of him, try handing him the ball 20+ times and see what you get.

If AD wend down, would you try to use the #ís he put up all year to prove the Vikings had a good running game? How can you not see that?

See, this is where you aren't understanding, I'm not arguing about the difference between the games played against the Chargers because I couldn't care less. My argument started based on Rivers being better than Cutler, and then you brought up Manning and how they have a better RB as if the RB is relevant at all. Facts are facts, you had a better running game this season than the Colts, period.

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 09:15 PM
Yeah because the Pro Bowl is so accurate.:rolleyes: You realize Brett Favre made the Pro Bowl right??


We were talking about who fans thought was better. How could the fans vote not prove, who the fans thought was better :rolleyes:


Still confused I see... I haven't said a damn thing about something being Cutler's fault, your the one who keeps comparing the games, when I couldn't care less about them. I am only giving Manning's defense because you keep asking for it.


I was talking with King about the SD game! You’re the one who jumped the conversation. Why did you do that if you didn’t want to talk about the SD game?



Yeah because it's really easy to move the ball from the 5 yard line when you don't have a running game. Is this really still that confusing to you??


The point is he didn’t make any more plays AGAINST SD then Cutler did!


So because I didn't watch every Broncos game I can't form an intelligent opinion on Cutler?? Because I didn't watch them all I can't have a rational discussion?? You realize that I have been a part of this message board the entire season, so I have all the opinions of people who did watch every game and everything they saw, which then allows me to form an opinion?? Or did that part slip your mind??



So your admitting all your knowledge is 3rd party. That explains everything..



Just because you wanna be a homer, doesn't mean I can't have a rational discussion... YOU'RE the one who can't be rational, and who throws out statistics just because he doesn't like them.


I haven’t thrown out any statistics. Your trying to use statistics made by other backs to prove we had a better running game going into the SD game then the Colts did..



See, this is where you aren't understanding, I'm not arguing about the difference between the games played against the Chargers because I couldn't care less. My argument started based on Rivers being better than Cutler, and then you brought up Manning and how they have a better RB as if the RB is relevant at all. Facts are facts, you had a better running game this season than the Colts, period.

Then what the hell are you arguing for? King and I were talking about the comparable SD match up between us and the Colts.

If your argument is based on Rivers being better then Cutler why do you keep bringing up the Colts running game? Shouldn’t you be talking about how bad the Bolts run game was?

At times yes, we had a better running game then the Colts. Going into the Bolts game, The Colts had just as good a running game as us.

King87
01-07-2009, 09:22 PM
It makes about as much sense as the 9iners trading Montana knowing they had an unproven Young....
Ok, now that I know how to do this, let's start over. Seeing how the 9ers traded for Young they obviously saw something in him that lead them to believe he could be great. And seeing how they had one of the greatest coaches and talent evaluators of all time, they guess right.


I'm not going to respond to everything else you wrote, Mainly because I don't want to take all the time needed to pull all your writing out of my quoted post...
I think you may not want to respond to what I am saying for another reason, but hey, it's all in fun.:beer:

When you multi respond in the future, will you please do it as the other Bengals fan does. It will be a lot easier to read and follow. TIA
I do my best.

bengaaaaals1688
01-07-2009, 09:24 PM
We were talking about who fans thought was better. How could the fans vote not prove, who the fans thought was better

No, you said fans, coaches, and players think he is better... Fan vote proves nothing more than that Cutler is more popular than Rivers.


I was talking with King about the SD game! Youíre the one who jumped the conversation. Why did you do that if you didnít want to talk about the SD game?

I didn't, I responded to the response to my post... You responded to a post I made, I responded to that post. I didn't respond to what you said to King.



The point is he didnít make any more plays AGAINST SD then Cutler did!

The point of what?? How is that an argument?? I didn't say Manning made more plays, I didn't say anything... YOU asked me to explain why Manning couldn't win, I explained it... Just because you don't like my explanation doesn't mean to change the point of it.


So your admitting all your knowledge is 3rd party. That explains everything..

No I didn't admit that, I made the point. I pay attention to every team in the league, and I can have a rational discussion with anybody about any team, just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.


I havenít thrown out any statistics. Your trying to use statistics made by other backs to prove we had a better running game going into the SD game then the Colts did..

Because you did have a better running game going into the SD game than the Colts did. Your TEAM had a better running game than their TEAM. Get it??


Then what the hell are you arguing for? King and I were talking about the comparable SD match up between us and the Colts.

If your argument is based on Rivers being better then Cutler why do you keep bringing up the Colts running game? Shouldnít you be talking about how bad the Bolts run game was?

At times yes, we had a better running game then the Colts. Going into the Bolts game, The Colts had just as good a running game as us.

Because YOU brought up the Colts running game.

And the Chargers had a worse running game than you did, too... In case you didn't realize it.

King87
01-07-2009, 09:29 PM
This thread has taught me a lot. I now know how to multi-quote.

I also now know that it is too painful for many fans of the Broncos to admit that Rivers is a better quarterback than Cutler at the moment.

I can feel you though, it pained me to admit that at times Big Ben was better than Palmer.

I think I am going to walk away from this thread. :salute: gentlmen.

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 09:29 PM
Really? You are going to compare taking Culter over Manning for the future during an era where an athlete's prime is longer than ever, and then try to pass it off like Montana and young?


An athletes prime? They might play longer but there still not in their prime. Favre played this year but he was way out of his prime...

It was a valid comparison. Montana still had 3 - 5 good years left when they gave the job to Young. (My cousin by the way) He wasn't proven at the time...


If I had known that the copy and pasting was going to be an issue I would have done the multi to be honest.

Not a problem, I wasn't trying to slam you.. :beer:

It was a bit hard to pick out what you had just wrote from what you had wrote before and my response to that.. Then it seemed some of the stuff you responded to I had never even wrote to you.

Somehow 2 conversations got merged into one.


Anyways, this is getting a bit drawn out and quit frankly, really boring... We will just have to agree to disagree... :salute:

fcspikeit
01-07-2009, 10:24 PM
No, you said fans, coaches, and players think he is better... Fan vote proves nothing more than that Cutler is more popular than Rivers.

That's what I said, I'm going to let you in on a secret, your just a fan, I'm just a fan... The majority of us fans believe Cutler is better then Rivers.



I didn't, I responded to the response to my post... You responded to a post I made, I responded to that post. I didn't respond to what you said to King.

Wrong! Try and keep up...


Peyton Manning lining up under center improves your passing game by a pretty staggering amount. Would you have lost, probably, but the score would have been closer. (Post 91)


How is this possible? Cutler put up more points then Manning did.. Are you saying we have better WR's then the Colts? Maybe we have a better running game? :confused:

Why would Manning have done so much better with our offense then he did with his?

It's amazing how no one seems to blame Manning for the Colts losing to SD in a game they could have won, but some blame Cutler for our loss.. All the while knowing, the Cutler led offense put up more points then the Manning led offense..

Lets put it this way, if our D had held them to 17 we would have won period! If our D would have forced more then 1 punt, chances are we would have scored even more then we did... How many chances did Manning have on offense compared to Cutler? :coffee:

Please explain to me how Manning would have scored more against them with our offense then he did with his with less offensive possessions? LOL (post 92)


You do have a better running game, look at the stats. You averaged almost 30 yards per game more than the Colts, on only 17 more attempts, and averaged over 1 yard per carry more than they did. So, you have a better running game.

Not to mention that the comparison wasn't to Manning, it was to Rivers, and my statement was that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler. (post 94) You responded to my reply to King... I told you twice I responded to King.. You must have clearly thought I had Responded to you or you wouldn't have said, "Not to mention that the comparison wasn't to Manning, it was to Rivers, and my statement was that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler"





The point of what?? How is that an argument?? I didn't say Manning made more plays, I didn't say anything... YOU asked me to explain why Manning couldn't win, I explained it... Just because you don't like my explanation doesn't mean to change the point of it.


Wrong again! I asked King to explain how he could have done more with Denver's offense then he did with his. Read post 92 again..




No I didn't admit that, I made the point. I pay attention to every team in the league, and I can have a rational discussion with anybody about any team, just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.


You can have an opinion, But there is no way you could know as much about the Broncos and there troubles as me if you haven't watched as many games as me regardless how much 3rd party info you come up with...



Because you did have a better running game going into the SD game than the Colts did. Your TEAM had a better running game than their TEAM. Get it??


No we didn't! Bell was the starter going into the SD game. The guys who got us to 12th were all hurt, Get it???



Because YOU brought up the Colts running game.


I asked King if he thought the Broncos had a better running game then the Colts? Then you responded to that with the Broncos have a better running game, I then pointed out to you Bell was our starter... Beings the guys who got us to 12th were hurt, I figured it would be pretty easy for you to figure out why we didn't have any better running game then the Colts. I guess that is more complicated then it should be? :confused:



And the Chargers had a worse running game than you did, too... In case you didn't realize it.

Yep, we were a whopping 9 yards per game better :rolleyes: The yards we got off reversals made up for a hell of a lot more then 9 yards per game. Cutler ran for 200 yards. That alone made up for the extra 9 yards per game.

The only time we had a real running threat was when Pittman and Hillis were healthy, The rest of the time we were in shotgun... There were a couple time every HB on the roster went down. We had no one to run the ball, we passed every down except for a couple wr runs to get crap yards here and there... Going into the last game we had almost no threat of a running game, the biggest reason Bell was able to get what he did was because SD was selling out to stop Cutler. That is a credit to Cutler..

bengaaaaals1688
01-08-2009, 11:27 AM
That's what I said, I'm going to let you in on a secret, your just a fan, I'm just a fan... The majority of us fans believe Cutler is better then Rivers.

I'm gonna let you in on a secret... The Pro Bowl is a sham, and is a popularity contest, "fans" voted in Cutler over Rivers because "fans" don't like Rivers and his attitude, not because they think he is better. If you are going to base things on the Pro Bowl, it's not even worth debating.



Wrong! Try and keep up...

You responded to my reply to King... I told you twice I responded to King.. You must have clearly thought I had Responded to you or you wouldn't have said, "Not to mention that the comparison wasn't to Manning, it was to Rivers, and my statement was that Rivers is a better QB than Cutler"



So if Rivers is Pennington Part 2, and Rivers is better than Jay Cutler... What does that make Cutler??Post # 26


underrated it would appear... We got more points off of SD then the Colts did... Does that mean Cutler is better then Manning?

The only reason this wasn't a blowout is because the Colts D didn't give up 52. I suppose that's Cutlers fault too.. Face it, if we had Manning, Rivers or Pennington under center, we still would have been blown out.Post # 90

Like I said... YOU brought up the Manning comparison when responding to MY post. Just because I used a different post of your to respond to it, it was YOUR mentioning of Manning and SD. MY post had been comparing ONLY Cutler and Rivers, a comparison in which play versus the Chargers defense means absolutely nothing. So again... I was responding to something YOU said to ME.








Wrong again! I asked King to explain how he could have done more with Denver's offense then he did with his. Read post 92 again..


You really need to pay attention to your own posts...


(Stop trying to make this a Cutler vs Manning argument. I never said Cutler was better then Manning. I simply pointed out a fact. You obviously canít explain why the Cutler led offense put up more then the manning led offense, All you can reply with is Manning is better)Post # 102

You wanted me to reply with something more than Manning is better to explain why he didn't put up more points than Cutler.



You can have an opinion, But there is no way you could know as much about the Broncos and there troubles as me if you haven't watched as many games as me regardless how much 3rd party info you come up with...

1) I never said I know AS much as you do.
2) I can actually come up with a more rational and logical opinion through 3rd party info (if done correctly) than many people can through watching the game.
3) I'm unbiased in my opinion, whereas you will defend Cutler against any and all proof just because he is the QB of your team.
4) I haven't watched a lot of Bengals games, because I live in CT, but I still know more about the team and how they played this season than most people who went to every game.
5) In order to know a team, you just need to know the players and how they play... I happen to know most of the players in the league and how they play because it's what I do.



No we didn't! Bell was the starter going into the SD game. The guys who got us to 12th were all hurt, Get it???

And the starter for the Colts going into the SD game WAS the RB who led them to the 31st ranked run game... Your point??

Oh an, in case you still can't figure it out..

T. Bell 8 86 2 37
J. Addai 16 44 1 11
D. Rhodes 4 12 0 5

Seems like you had a better running game IN the SD game as well.


I asked King if he thought the Broncos had a better running game then the Colts? Then you responded to that with the Broncos have a better running game, I then pointed out to you Bell was our starter... Beings the guys who got us to 12th were hurt, I figured it would be pretty easy for you to figure out why we didn't have any better running game then the Colts. I guess that is more complicated then it should be? :confused:

See above as to how you DID have a better running game.


Yep, we were a whopping 9 yards per game better :rolleyes: The yards we got off reversals made up for a hell of a lot more then 9 yards per game. Cutler ran for 200 yards. That alone made up for the extra 9 yards per game.

You had almost 40 less carries than the Chargers did, and still had over 100 yards more than they did. Face it... You had a better running game, and last time I checked, a reverse is still a run... You seem to have this misconception that ONLY RBs can run the ball.


The only time we had a real running threat was when Pittman and Hillis were healthy, The rest of the time we were in shotgun... There were a couple time every HB on the roster went down. We had no one to run the ball, we passed every down except for a couple wr runs to get crap yards here and there... Going into the last game we had almost no threat of a running game, the biggest reason Bell was able to get what he did was because SD was selling out to stop Cutler. That is a credit to Cutler..

No that is a credit to your OL. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Peyton Manning and his running game was 31st in the league. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Kurt Warner, and his running game was 32nd in the league. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Cutler, and his OL gave the offense the 12th ranked running game.

The single most important part of ANY running game is the OL, NOT the QB.

fcspikeit
01-08-2009, 02:17 PM
I'm gonna let you in on a secret... The Pro Bowl is a sham, and is a popularity contest, "fans" voted in Cutler over Rivers because "fans" don't like Rivers and his attitude, not because they think he is better. If you are going to base things on the Pro Bowl, it's not even worth debating.



The opinion of those voting is no more a sham then yours or mine…






Like I said... YOU brought up the Manning comparison when responding to MY post. Just because I used a different post of your to respond to it, it was YOUR mentioning of Manning and SD. MY post had been comparing ONLY Cutler and Rivers, a comparison in which play versus the Chargers defense means absolutely nothing. So again... I was responding to something YOU said to ME.



Are you really that lost? Stay in context! I responded to what you said in post 26, I made a statement, (post 90)

“The only reason this wasn't a blowout is because the Colts D didn't give up 52. I suppose that's Cutlers fault too.. Face it, if we had Manning, Rivers or Pennington under center, we still would have been blown out.”

How can you not understand I am talking about our game against SD? You never responded to my reply to you. You jumped in the middle of my conversation with King, which is fine. Except by that time we were talking about the SD games. Everything you said in your reply to my reply to King, would only be assumed to be about what we were actually talking about.






You wanted me to reply with something more than Manning is better to explain why he
didn't put up more points than Cutler.


I wanted you to answer my question and stay in context with the discussion. We were talking about the one game..




1) I never said I know AS much as you do.
2) I can actually come up with a more rational and logical opinion through 3rd party info (if done correctly) than many people can through watching the game.
3) I'm unbiased in my opinion, whereas you will defend Cutler against any and all proof just because he is the QB of your team.
4) I haven't watched a lot of Bengals games, because I live in CT, but I still know more about the team and how they played this season than most people who went to every game.
5) In order to know a team, you just need to know the players and how they play... I happen to know most of the players in the league and how they play because it's what I do.



1) Yet your arguing with me about something you don’t know as much about.
2) 3rd party info from fans just like me or from fans who have a bone to pick, either way, your picking and choosing what you want to believe.
3) I am defending Cutler because us getting beat by the Bolts wasn’t his fault. The league MVP put up less points against them then he did.
4) That is just your opinion, as always people assume their opinion is right.
5) You can’t ‘know” how players play if you don’t actually watch them play. No more then you can pick good draft picks without watching a single game..




And the starter for the Colts going into the SD game WAS the RB who led them to the 31st ranked run game... Your point??

Oh an, in case you still can't figure it out..

T. Bell 8 86 2 37
J. Addai 16 44 1 11
D. Rhodes 4 12 0 5

Seems like you had a better running game IN the SD game as well.
You had almost 40 less carries than the Chargers did, and still had over 100 yards more than they did. Face it... You had a better running game, and last time I checked, a reverse is still a run... You seem to have this misconception that ONLY RBs can run the ball.


Getting 8 good carries out of your starting back isn’t a good running game, this is where your error comes in. You can’t just look at stats and say, they had a good run game because they put up this many yards, were they able to convert on 3rd and short in the run game? Was the run game effective enough to take pressure of the QB and open up the passing game? NO and NO. The Colts run game was just as bad, I never said it wasn’t. But saying we hade a good run game because we got 8 good carries out of Bell is stupid.
You should try watching the game instead of forming your opinion off the stats.



No that is a credit to your OL. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Peyton Manning and his running game was 31st in the league. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Kurt Warner, and his running game was 32nd in the league. Every team in the league "sold out" to stop Cutler, and his OL gave the offense the 12th ranked running game.
The single most important part of ANY running game is the OL, NOT the QB.

I already said, on the year we probably had a better running game then the Colts. The only reason I say probably is because I didn’t watch that many Colts games. By the #’s we were better. I don’t care what you say though, being able to get a couple big chunks off wr reversals and trick plays don’t translate into a good running game. Can you get tough yards when you need them? Can you punch it in on the ground from the 3? Can you run when the defense is set on stopping the run? That is what makes a good running game. When we lost Pittman and Hillis we had neither of those things.. We did not have a good running game with Bell as our starter, regardless your 3rd party info…

This is getting ridicules, I am getting tired of trying to keep you up to speed on the context of the discussion. Why don’t you go back to my response post to YOU and we can start over. You can’t just pick something out that I said to someone else, about something else and apply it to something you said in another discussion…

King87
01-08-2009, 03:19 PM
The people were not wrong for voting for Culter, they were wrong for not voting in the best QB in the AFC this year.

However, there is not a decent argument to be made for Cutler being better than Rivers.

If you go down the traditional path of winning and all that, Cutler losses.

If you go down the stats path, Cutler losses.

If you go down carrying your team, Rivers won the division that Cutler was in, was better statistically, and his team had the same record. To me that is pretty even as to how important both guys are for their team.

So, once again, Rivers should be there. Cutler should definitely be there. Farve....Farve is an example that I can use to prove how some fans know much more than others, and how some opinions have more merit than others.;)

broncobryce
01-08-2009, 05:57 PM
Rivers= god :rolleyes:

fcspikeit
01-08-2009, 07:14 PM
The people were not wrong for voting for Culter, they were wrong for not voting in the best QB in the AFC this year.

However, there is not a decent argument to be made for Cutler being better than Rivers.

If you go down the traditional path of winning and all that, Cutler losses.

If you go down the stats path, Cutler losses.

If you go down carrying your team, Rivers won the division that Cutler was in, was better statistically, and his team had the same record. To me that is pretty even as to how important both guys are for their team.

So, once again, Rivers should be there. Cutler should definitely be there. Farve....Farve is an example that I can use to prove how some fans know much more than others, and how some opinions have more merit than others.;)

So in your mind Favre is hands down the best QB to ever play the game?

King87
01-08-2009, 09:45 PM
So in your mind Favre is hands down the best QB to ever play the game?

As of this moment right now, when you look at his entire career, actually yes.

bengaaaaals1688
01-08-2009, 11:31 PM
The opinion of those voting is no more a sham then yours or mineÖ

It's a popularity contest, not opinion. They vote based on who they like more and who is talked about more.



Are you really that lost? Stay in context! I responded to what you said in post 26, I made a statement, (post 90)

ďThe only reason this wasn't a blowout is because the Colts D didn't give up 52. I suppose that's Cutlers fault too.. Face it, if we had Manning, Rivers or Pennington under center, we still would have been blown out.Ē

How can you not understand I am talking about our game against SD? You never responded to my reply to you. You jumped in the middle of my conversation with King, which is fine. Except by that time we were talking about the SD games. Everything you said in your reply to my reply to King, would only be assumed to be about what we were actually talking about.

When didn't I understand that?? I said flat out, I responded to the post said to King because there was more to respond to. It doesn't change the fact that YOU brought up the Manning comparison when replying to my post. You don't seem to get that.



I wanted you to answer my question and stay in context with the discussion. We were talking about the one game..

I answered your question and stayed in context with the discussion. You just didn't like my answer.



1) Yet your arguing with me about something you donít know as much about.
2) 3rd party info from fans just like me or from fans who have a bone to pick, either way, your picking and choosing what you want to believe.
3) I am defending Cutler because us getting beat by the Bolts wasnít his fault. The league MVP put up less points against them then he did.
4) That is just your opinion, as always people assume their opinion is right.
5) You canít ĎknowĒ how players play if you donít actually watch them play. No more then you can pick good draft picks without watching a single game..

1) I'm arguing from an unbiased point of view... You aren't.
2) It's how you use the 3rd party info. If you just take one side of it, then it is just picking and choosing, when you compare it all and pick out the most logical points and put them together, then it's more than feasible to use as an opinion because you are using the opinions of many to form it. If you put it all together and legitimately analyze it, then it's perfectly fine to use in an argument. You just assume I looked at one side of it because I disagree with you.
3) I never said it was his fault.
4) It's not my opinion when it's been proven.
5) I don't have to watch every game to know how they play.:rolleyes:


Getting 8 good carries out of your starting back isnít a good running game, this is where your error comes in. You canít just look at stats and say, they had a good run game because they put up this many yards, were they able to convert on 3rd and short in the run game? Was the run game effective enough to take pressure of the QB and open up the passing game? NO and NO. The Colts run game was just as bad, I never said it wasnít. But saying we hade a good run game because we got 8 good carries out of Bell is stupid.
You should try watching the game instead of forming your opinion off the stats.

8 good carries is better than 16 bad carries is it not?? Scratch that, 20 bad carries. 8 good carries means that your team probably should have run it more, while 20 bad carries means the run game wasn't working.

The Colts run game was worse. And I did watch the game, in case you forgot that was a Sunday Night game which you can watch anywhere in the US not just in Denver or San Diego.:rolleyes:


I already said, on the year we probably had a better running game then the Colts. The only reason I say probably is because I didnít watch that many Colts games. By the #ís we were better. I donít care what you say though, being able to get a couple big chunks off wr reversals and trick plays donít translate into a good running game. Can you get tough yards when you need them? Can you punch it in on the ground from the 3? Can you run when the defense is set on stopping the run? That is what makes a good running game. When we lost Pittman and Hillis we had neither of those things.. We did not have a good running game with Bell as our starter, regardless your 3rd party infoÖ

I don't remember saying you had a GOOD running game. I said you had a better running game than the Colts, and since they had a running game that was atrocious at best, that isn't a difficult thing to do. Stop reading into things that don't need to be read into.


This is getting ridicules, I am getting tired of trying to keep you up to speed on the context of the discussion. Why donít you go back to my response post to YOU and we can start over. You canít just pick something out that I said to someone else, about something else and apply it to something you said in another discussionÖ

I have the context of the discussion just fine, you just don't like my arguments for it.

Anything I say to that post will come to this same thing because you will take a Rivers Cutler comparison to Manning Cutler, like you did with your original response. So it isn't worth starting back at that just to hear more about Manning and Cutler.

fcspikeit
01-09-2009, 01:52 AM
It's a popularity contest, not opinion. They vote based on who they like more and who is talked about more.


So it’s a sham because all those voting are basing their vote on 3rd party info. Got yeah….



When didn't I understand that?? I said flat out, I responded to the post said to King because there was more to respond to. It doesn't change the fact that YOU brought up the Manning comparison when replying to my post. You don't seem to get that.


No, you said flat out you never responded to a post I made to King… I used Manning, Rivers and Pennington as a comparison when I responded to your post. Our D gave up 52! It wouldn’t have mattered who our QB was. It wasn’t a comparison to Manning as much as it was to ANY QB in the game.

King then said Manning would have scored more, that's when the conversation turned to Manning and Cutler. Yet somehow you were still :confused: and talking about Rivers (Hence context)




I answered your question and stayed in context with the discussion. You just didn't like my answer.



You have yet to tell me how Manning could have scored more points against the Bolts with our offense then he did with his..




1) I'm arguing from an unbiased point of view... You aren't.
2) It's how you use the 3rd party info. If you just take one side of it, then it is just picking and choosing, when you compare it all and pick out the most logical points and put them together, then it's more than feasible to use as an opinion because you are using the opinions of many to form it. If you put it all together and legitimately analyze it, then it's perfectly fine to use in an argument. You just assume I looked at one side of it because I disagree with you.
3) I never said it was his fault.
4) It's not my opinion when it's been proven.
5) I don't have to watch every game to know how they play.

1) The only way I could be biased is because I know more about Cutler then I do Rivers, therefore I have more insight to form my opinion on him. You know very little about either, you pick and choose what you want to use to form your opinion. You tell me which is more biased?
2) Who gets to determine which is most logical, the person searching for the info to present his side of the argument. Logic has very little to do with it. It’s just an opinion, and not an informed one at that..
3) Then why did you respond to my post in disagreement? All I said was it wasn’t Cutlers fault we lost to SD. The league MVP didn’t fair any better..
4) So everything you have ever said about the Bengals has been “proven” right?
5) No but you have to watch more then a couple. How can you calculate the facts to = a conclusion if you don’t have them all?



8 good carries is better than 16 bad carries is it not?? Scratch that, 20 bad carries. 8 good carries means that your team probably should have run it more, while 20 bad carries means the run game wasn't working.

The Colts run game was worse. And I did watch the game, in case you forgot that was a Sunday Night game which you can watch anywhere in the US not just in Denver or San Diego.


It wasn’t 8 good carries anyways, more like 4 good carries and 4 averages carries. It’s pretty hard to run the ball more when your down by 2 TD’s +. How many times can you run out of shotgun? We did not have a back who could constantly get yards running from under center formations. The 8 carries looked a lot better then 20 would have, coming out of running formations.

WOW, you actually watched a game? My guess is if you could have watched more, we wouldn’t be having this discussion…




I don't remember saying you had a GOOD running game. I said you had a better running game than the Colts, and since they had a running game that was atrocious at best, that isn't a difficult thing to do. Stop reading into things that don't need to be read into.


So then you admit we both had below average running games? We didn’t really have a running game, a better terminology would be to say, the few plays where we didn’t pass the ball.
Just like the WR reversals, they might work a few times, look good, and get a couple big chunks but you can’t run 20 wr reversals a game and expect them to be successful. The 4 times you ran them where you got good yards isn’t “proof” they would have been successful either.



I have the context of the discussion just fine, you just don't like my arguments for it.


Wouldn’t it better to have been said, I don’t like the argument of those who’s opinion you chose to make your own?



Anything I say to that post will come to this same thing because you will take a Rivers Cutler comparison to Manning Cutler, like you did with your original response. So it isn't worth starting back at that just to hear more about Manning and Cutler.



I am beginning to feel sorry for you, the comprehension of some isn’t as great as others. It appears I have expected too much.

It was probably wrong of me to assume you wouldn’t jump into a one game comparison between Manning and Cutler, with an older statement you made about River being better then Cutler.

If you want to go back and talk about that, we can do so…. On second thought, I presume you know as much about Rivers as you do about Cutler… Therefore there probably isn’t much point, it would make more sense for you to just tell me who’s opinion you have of him and I could discuss it with them..

fcspikeit
01-09-2009, 02:00 AM
As of this moment right now, when you look at his entire career, actually yes.

Now I can respect that...

I don't necessarily agree with it but at least your consistent.

I just think there is more to consider then #'s. Even with the #'s, which do you choose to look at? He also holds the record for INT's for instance.

Anyways, this probably isn't the right thread to get into a Montana, Elway, Marino, Unitas, etc, etc, vs Favre debate :D

King87
01-09-2009, 02:44 AM
Now I can respect that...

I don't necessarily agree with it but at least your consistent.

I just think there is more to consider then #'s. Even with the #'s, which do you choose to look at? He also holds the record for INT's for instance.

Anyways, this probably isn't the right thread to get into a Montana, Elway, Marino, Unitas, etc, etc, vs Favre debate :D

Thank you.

If you want to compare two players and one has much better stats than the other one, and both have not really won anything, you guy with the stat guy.

Granted winning is the most overrated thing you can talk about when you are comparing individuals, but you have to take it into account.

As far as the third party comment goes, third parties are like cars.

Some third parties may look like this:http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Ferrari/Hamann-Ferrari-599-GTB-manu-07_04-1024.jpg

Others may be like this http://carlnet.no-ip.org/fail_car_roof.jpg

This is Cutler's only real season in which he has done anything relevant to fans outside of Denver. I mean that in the sense that you guys have watched every last progression he has made. Others are less interested, and finally this year the rest of the league knew he could play ball.

We've known that Rivers can play ball. The first years looked like he was greatly benefitting from his surrondings. Now it's obvious that the man is a beast. But to say Cutler is better than Rivers? Nah, everything proves otherwise. The stats, the postseason apperance, hell, the "duel" to win the division.

Cutler is going to be better. The kid is a house. He threw the ball 600 friggin times, that's ridiculous. And, I am going to make a Brett Farve comparison. Brett Farve actually has a fantastic TD to INT ratio. People forget that in his prime he made almost all of those insane throws. There will never be another Farve in that sense, his arm strength in his younger days was impeccable. He threw a lot more INTs than anyone else because he has the attempts. The more you throw the ball the more likely it is you will throw INTs. The number of INTS he has is irrelevant because of how long he has played and his ratio. If Peyton Manning could play in his prime for 15 years he would have the INT record. Jut because of the attempts. Hell, take into consideration all the goofy things that come with INTS.

When your down late in the fourth quarter by two scores you gotta air it out. Your chances to throw an INT is greatly increased cause everyone knows it. I think that a lot of INTs aren't bad throws. Look at things like that and wrs tipping the ball, or running the wrong route, look at QBs getting blindsided because their LT messed up and throwing as they are getting hit. A lot of times an INT isn't a QBs fault.

So, when I look at 18 ints for Cutler I take that into consideration and I say "That is impressive. Like, Peyton Manning impressive."

Numbers don't lie, it all depends on who is looking at them, and their context. Which, may as well make them a third party?

I can assure you that Bengaaaaals1688 knows as much football as anyone on this board. I can assure you that he knows what he's talking about.

However, I do have a bone to pick with you:D;). The argument about Cutler helping out his running game is a tad bit silly my man. It's the system. He wasn't carrying Tatum Bell into the endzone, or any of your other backs. Does a nice passing game help? Sure, the same can be said of a running game helping out a passing game.

Since you did make the point of Cutler's offense scoring more against the Chargers than the Colts, I am willing to take that as a reasonable argument. However, your squad put up 21 points. 14 points came from Tatum Bell. Cutler did not really help out his running game that much because while he did have nice yards, your offense was constantly throwing the ball and failing to convert third downs. He also threw one TD and two Ints. Several times he overthrew his WRs. I do know a little bit more than you would think;)

Which brings us back to the fiasco of the running game. You were 12th, San Diego was 20th and the Colts were 31st. So in other words, Cutler's running game managed to be above average through all those injuries. He also plays in a place that is known for being a spot that anyone can run in. So in that regard, I don't think a lot of credit can be given to Cutler for your running game and the success it had.

fcspikeit
01-09-2009, 04:41 AM
If you want to compare two players and one has much better stats than the other one, and both have not really won anything, you guy with the stat guy.


If that's your only source to form an opinion, that's fine, however, those who were able to watch 95% of the games would have more knowledge to form a more complete opinion.

Take Johnny Unitus, he is talked about being one of the all time greats, how can I really say IMO Elway was better then him? All I have is stats on Unitus to make the comparison. I got to watch 90% of Elways games. The same can be said about Rivers. I haven't seen near as many games of his as I have Cutlers... All I can do is form my opinion off of what I have seen. I however don't pretend to know as much about him as a Bolts fan who has watched him play every game.

Now, from what I have seen, I would take Cutler over him. The fact I know more about Cutler could have something to do with that choice? There is comfort in knowing what your getting.



As far as the third party comment goes, third parties are like cars.

Some third parties may look like this:http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Ferrari/Hamann-Ferrari-599-GTB-manu-07_04-1024.jpg

Others may be like this http://carlnet.no-ip.org/fail_car_roof.jpg

Your right, you wouldn't know what you were getting until you seen the car for yourself... Seeing the car a couple times before it crashed through the rough wouldn't be enough. You wouldn't know details like why it crashed through the roof? You could only speculate as to why. You could ask others, and after sifting through all the different stories, you still couldn't be sure.. You would be left with just taking an informed guess. None of which could be called "fact"




This is Cutler's only real season in which he has done anything relevant to fans outside of Denver. I mean that in the sense that you guys have watched every last progression he has made. Others are less interested, and finally this year the rest of the league knew he could play ball.


As to why a Broncos fan would know more about Cutler and his situation with the Broncos...



We've known that Rivers can play ball. The first years looked like he was greatly benefitting from his surrondings. Now it's obvious that the man is a beast. But to say Cutler is better than Rivers? Nah, everything proves otherwise. The stats, the postseason apperance, hell, the "duel" to win the division.


The duel proves nothing! Rivers himself said he wasn't playing Cutler, he was playing our D while Cutler was playing the Bolts D... Rivers has been in the league longer then Cutler... How has Rivers team fared without a dominate running game? 8-8. How well did Rivers play while throwing from behind or getting blown out? Cutler had to do that a lot this year.. He threw a lot of his INT's while playing catch up. If you take away the Int's he threw forcing the ball playing catch up, his #'s are right there with Rivers. Sure SD lost 8 games too but they gave up a hell of a lot less points then we did. In other words, Cutler was playing catch up a hell of a lot more then Rivers. SD was in almost every game they lost. Rivers didn't need to force throws as Cutler did..

Another thing, Cutler counted for 66% of our offensive plays, compared to Rivers 55%. Make no mistake about it, Every team we played came with the game plan to stop Cutler.

Besides all that, I don't remember saying Cutler was better then Rivers. You said Rivers is better then Cutler



Cutler is going to be better. The kid is a house. He threw the ball 600 friggin times, that's ridiculous. And, I am going to make a Brett Farve comparison. Brett Farve actually has a fantastic TD to INT ratio. People forget that in his prime he made almost all of those insane throws. There will never be another Farve in that sense, his arm strength in his younger days was impeccable. He threw a lot more INTs than anyone else because he has the attempts. The more you throw the ball the more likely it is you will throw INTs. The number of INTS he has is irrelevant because of how long he has played and his ratio. If Peyton Manning could play in his prime for 15 years he would have the INT record. Jut because of the attempts. Hell, take into consideration all the goofy things that come with INTS.

I bet Favre' TD to INT ratio is not on par with Manning... At times Favre forced throws when he didn't need too.. You have to know when to go for broke. Like throwing it up for grabs in over time on 1st down in a playoff game.. That's the biggest knock on Favre IMO.



When your down late in the fourth quarter by two scores you gotta air it out. Your chances to throw an INT is greatly increased cause everyone knows it. I think that a lot of INTs aren't bad throws. Look at things like that and wrs tipping the ball, or running the wrong route, look at QBs getting blindsided because their LT messed up and throwing as they are getting hit. A lot of times an INT isn't a QBs fault.

So, when I look at 18 ints for Cutler I take that into consideration and I say "That is impressive. Like, Peyton Manning impressive."


There are many things that figure into the equation, How good a running game did the QB's have? How good was the defense? Many great QB's have had terrible games and still had a chance to win at the end. Manning threw what, 5 int's and they only lost because Mr clutch missed a short fieldgoal.

A lot of the greats had terrible games and they still won. Cutler has not had that luxury up to this point. If he has a bad game they lose.. Therefore, when he plays bad it gets seen more then it would and because of that, it appears he has more bad games then the next guy. He has yet to have a terrible game.




Numbers don't lie, it all depends on who is looking at them, and their context. Which, may as well make them a third party?


No they don't lie, the numbers are a great tool, but you have to figure in any and all relevant numbers. Most disagreement's with numbers, come from the importance or lack there of, put on any and all relevant numbers.

Numbers are fact's, I wouldn't say they are 3rd party. 3rd party comes from those calculating the facts to form a conclusion. If they didn't figure all the fact's into the equation, their result is no longer fact at all. Therefore, the more facts you have to calculate, the closer your opinion will be to fact. Just looking at numbers is only part of the equation.



I can assure you that Bengaaaaals1688 knows as much football as anyone on this board. I can assure you that he knows what he's talking about.


I respect your opinion, but there is no way you can assure that...

Just like with me and my opinion's, all you can do is compile everything I have said to form your opinion of me. You don't have access to everything I have said, therefore, your opinion will be limited to what you know of me.

That by the way is only what I choose to show... You really don't know me, regardless what you pick up from the few conversation we have and what you have seen me write on a massage board.



However, I do have a bone to pick with you:D;). The argument about Cutler helping out his running game is a tad bit silly my man. It's the system. He wasn't carrying Tatum Bell into the endzone, or any of your other backs. Does a nice passing game help? Sure, the same can be said of a running game helping out a passing game.


When the QB forces the defense into only having 5 or 6 guys in the box, it helps the running game! When your QB makes up 66% of your offensive plays, that takes the focus off the running game. Not figuring that into the equation to form your opinion, is more then a tad bit silly...;)




Since you did make the point of Cutler's offense scoring more against the Chargers than the Colts, I am willing to take that as a reasonable argument. However, your squad put up 21 points. 14 points came from Tatum Bell. Cutler did not really help out his running game that much because while he did have nice yards, your offense was constantly throwing the ball and failing to convert third downs. He also threw one TD and two Ints. Several times he overthrew his WRs. I do know a little bit more than you would think;)

Manning missed more open guys then Cutler did... The Broncos had more drops then the Colts did also.. You must not realize who we had at HB? He is not an every down back. You can't run Bell 20+ times a game and expect him to succeed, he has proven to fail time and time again. He has always been good for 8-12 carries a game. Besides that, our D gave up 52. Even if we would have tried to ran more, that plan went out the window in the second quarter.



Which brings us back to the fiasco of the running game. You were 12th, San Diego was 20th and the Colts were 31st. So in other words, Cutler's running game managed to be above average through all those injuries. He also plays in a place that is known for being a spot that anyone can run in. So in that regard, I don't think a lot of credit can be given to Cutler for your running game and the success it had.

As I said before, Cutler accounted for 66% of the offensive plays. We have never thrown the ball so much, we have never been in shotgun as much as we were last year. Therefore, Past #'s mean a lot less because we were clearly not running the same system as we had in the past. There were a couple games we didn't even have a healthy back and went with an empty backfield for more then half the offensive plays.

There is a reason 95% of Broncos fans are screaming for another back. We had 7 different starting backs this year, there is no way you can have a real threat in the back field when your that inconsistent. Every time a new guy came in and learned the system he got hurt and we had to start over... I shouldn't have to explain this, having as many backs go on IR as we did, should be enough of an explanation in itself.

There is no doubt in my mind, if Cutler hadn't played as well as he did, forcing defenses to only look at him and our passing game, our running game would have been by far worse then it was...




That was a mouthful :D I have enjoyed our conversation, but I fear it has ran its course, that being said, I'm unsure I will post in this thread again. We have probably derailed it enough as it is... :beer:

That reminds me, Congrats to the Bolts and their fans on their playoff win :beer:...

I hope I don't have to say that again after this week, although, I would take some pleasure in watching the Steelers get their butts kicked..:D

bengaaaaals1688
01-09-2009, 12:26 PM
So itís a sham because all those voting are basing their vote on 3rd party info. Got yeahÖ.

No it's a sham because it's biased. The FAVORITE player, or the most talked about player is the one who usually gets it. Not because of 3rd party info, but because of personal feelings rather than legitimate facts. As just one example, if you need more I can find them, a couple years ago when Tony Romo made the Pro Bowl after starting only 8 games on the season, and clearly not having the numbers or results to back up a Pro Bowl selection. He was talked about more, people like him better, so they voted for him... Not 3rd party information, just plain bias, or not knowing anything.


No, you said flat out you never responded to a post I made to KingÖ I used Manning, Rivers and Pennington as a comparison when I responded to your post. Our D gave up 52! It wouldnít have mattered who our QB was. It wasnít a comparison to Manning as much as it was to ANY QB in the game.

King then said Manning would have scored more, that's when the conversation turned to Manning and Cutler. Yet somehow you were still :confused: and talking about Rivers (Hence context)

Oh okay, so you responded to my post with a comparison to other QBs when I was comparing only to Rivers and didn't even mention the SD game... Yeah, you made a really intelligent argument.:rolleyes:

I responded to the post you made to King because there was more to respond to, I believe I JUST said that.


You have yet to tell me how Manning could have scored more points against the Bolts with our offense then he did with his..

You never asked me that, and I never attempted to address that. I don't know how many points he would have scored, and frankly I don't care. Manning could have scored 60 points, or he could have scored 3 points, my argument has never involved who would score more points, look back... I responded to specific aspects of the post because as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant how many points he could have scored against them with your offense.


1) The only way I could be biased is because I know more about Cutler then I do Rivers, therefore I have more insight to form my opinion on him. You know very little about either, you pick and choose what you want to use to form your opinion. You tell me which is more biased?
2) Who gets to determine which is most logical, the person searching for the info to present his side of the argument. Logic has very little to do with it. Itís just an opinion, and not an informed one at that..
3) Then why did you respond to my post in disagreement? All I said was it wasnít Cutlers fault we lost to SD. The league MVP didnít fair any better..
4) So everything you have ever said about the Bengals has been ďprovenĒ right?
5) No but you have to watch more then a couple. How can you calculate the facts to = a conclusion if you donít have them all?

1) I didn't pick and choose anything... If you MUST know, I like Cutler a lot better than I like Rivers. However, the proof is in the pudding, and at this point in time Rivers is a better QB than Cutler is. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I ONLY read things that support my argument. My argument was formed off of the support by numbers, what I've seen, and what I've heard. Not my fault you don't like it.
2) The most logical is that which makes the most sense. When everything is combined it's quite simple to find the truth.
3) No you asked if you had a better running game, I answered.
4) You really like taking things to extreme huh?? I said I know more than people who go to every game, which has been proven. I didn't say EVERYTHING I've ever said is right, you just wanted to take it to that level as an attempt to try and prove yourself right.
5) Easy... Highlights, replays, analysts, statistics, etc etc.


It wasnít 8 good carries anyways, more like 4 good carries and 4 averages carries. Itís pretty hard to run the ball more when your down by 2 TDís +. How many times can you run out of shotgun? We did not have a back who could constantly get yards running from under center formations. The 8 carries looked a lot better then 20 would have, coming out of running formations.

WOW, you actually watched a game? My guess is if you could have watched more, we wouldnít be having this discussionÖ

4 good carries and 4 average carries, is better than 20 bad carries. Average is better than bad. You should probably have watched the game more closely. To start with, you ran better when you didn't run out of shotgun in that game, so get off this shotgun shit. BOTH of Bell's TDs came out of under center formations. And also get off the it's hard to run the ball when you're down by 2 TDs + because you only ran the ball FOUR times in the first half. And only THREE times in the first quarter. In the first quarter you were down 10-6 as the largest deficit you had, but you didn't run the ball. You kept throwing. In the second quarter, you got the ball again, and didn't run it, you were down 24-6, but it was the second quarter, you had more than enough time. You ran the ball ONCE in the second quarter... Then by the time you ran the ball again, you were down by 3 TDs instead of just 2+. It isn't your running game's fault you only ran it 8 times, it's your coaches' faults. Pay attention.


So then you admit we both had below average running games? We didnít really have a running game, a better terminology would be to say, the few plays where we didnít pass the ball.
Just like the WR reversals, they might work a few times, look good, and get a couple big chunks but you canít run 20 wr reversals a game and expect them to be successful. The 4 times you ran them where you got good yards isnít ďproofĒ they would have been successful either.

Again, I never said you had a GOOD running game, I said you had a BETTER running game. Stop trying to argue semantics, you had a better rushing attack than the Colts, whether you actually had a good one or not.


Wouldnít it better to have been said, I donít like the argument of those whoís opinion you chose to make your own?

You have reading problems... I didn't use specific opinions, I used ALL opinions. I know about Cutler's arm (granted everyone does), I know about his ability to avoid the rush, I know about his WRs, I know about his OL, I know about his inability to look off the safety (well), I know about the times he has looked shaken after throwing INTs, I know that he typically doesn't get shaken after throwing INTs, I know about his tendency to lock onto the WR he wants to throw to. You keep believing I only know one side of the argument, I'll keep knowing the truth.


I am beginning to feel sorry for you, the comprehension of some isnít as great as others. It appears I have expected too much.

It was probably wrong of me to assume you wouldnít jump into a one game comparison between Manning and Cutler, with an older statement you made about River being better then Cutler.

If you want to go back and talk about that, we can do soÖ. On second thought, I presume you know as much about Rivers as you do about CutlerÖ Therefore there probably isnít much point, it would make more sense for you to just tell me whoís opinion you have of him and I could discuss it with them..

Again... You brought up Manning in your response to me as well as to King. You clearly had no intention of arguing the original point I had made because you wanted to try and show that Cutler did something better than the league's MVP, as well as best QB. Which is why your response to ME involved Manning AND how Cutler did against the SD defense, which, in case you didn't realize it, Rivers has never played against because he's on that offense, so bringing up Rivers was even more irrelevant in that response than Manning... Also happens to be how I knew you had no intention of having that argument.

Benetto
01-09-2009, 07:55 PM
I hope James Harrison or Troy Polamalu knock the shit out of Darren Sproles.

King87
01-09-2009, 08:54 PM
I hope James Harrison or Troy Polamalu knock the shit out of Darren Sproles.

All I can say is that that little man needs to avoid those two and Casey Hampton like the plague.

pumpdoc
01-09-2009, 10:37 PM
All I can say is that that little man needs to avoid those two and Casey Hampton like the plague.


I'm enjoying this, The Chargers are a different team from week 11.

Go Chargers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah I have a 250$ + dinner at Donovans riding on this game.:beer:

slim
01-09-2009, 10:39 PM
King is a homo

Gamechanger
01-09-2009, 10:41 PM
http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/images/admin/bs.jpg

this guy WILL use Sproles as a toothpick

slim
01-09-2009, 10:44 PM
Gamechanger is a homo too.

Gamechanger
01-09-2009, 10:48 PM
Gamechanger is a homo too.

shut up fat boy

Bozo Jr.
01-29-2009, 12:59 AM
Sorry about latest playoff loss Dolts! I guess you guys couldn't simulate snow conditions in the locker room showers!:laugh:

Bozo Jr.
01-29-2009, 01:01 AM
I'm enjoying this, The Chargers are a different team from week 11.

Go Chargers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah I have a 250$ + dinner at Donovans riding on this game.:beer:

Guess not. Loooosers!!!

Sponsored Links