PDA

View Full Version : Travis will be here next year.



underrated29
10-12-2007, 01:46 PM
i am going to go out on a limb here and say that travis will be here next year. He already got the jump on the league by getting these court dates and everything. Further pushing back his "suspension", but also buying him more time.

By that i mean that, if all goes well with travis and his lawyers he will have to retake the piss test. And after all this time, he should have flushed the pipes pretty well by now. Also i somewhat believe that he would pass the poylgraph and hair test (although i heard the hair test can show thc from up to a year ago, can anyone verify that.OB). And should he pass these tests, well then we keep a major asset to our team. feel free to disagree.


travis you can piss in this :first: its clean.

Mike
10-12-2007, 01:50 PM
i am going to go out on a limb here and say that travis will be here next year. He already got the jump on the league by getting these court dates and everything. Further pushing back his "suspension", but also buying him more time.

By that i mean that, if all goes well with travis and his lawyers he will have to retake the piss test. And after all this time, he should have flushed the pipes pretty well by now. Also i somewhat believe that he would pass the poylgraph and hair test (although i heard the hair test can show thc from up to a year ago, can anyone verify that.OB). And should he pass these tests, well then we keep a major asset to our team. feel free to disagree.


travis you can piss in this :first: its clean.

Until the next time.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-12-2007, 02:02 PM
Yeah? What's the over/under on the kids he'll have?

underrated29
10-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Yeah? What's the over/under on the kids he'll have?

are you going to polygraph me on this?




1 more. 10 is an even number.

9.5 if his next girl is a midget.

In-com-plete
10-12-2007, 02:46 PM
i am going to go out on a limb here and say that travis will be here next year. He already got the jump on the league by getting these court dates and everything. Further pushing back his "suspension", but also buying him more time.

By that i mean that, if all goes well with travis and his lawyers he will have to retake the piss test. And after all this time, he should have flushed the pipes pretty well by now. Also i somewhat believe that he would pass the poylgraph and hair test (although i heard the hair test can show thc from up to a year ago, can anyone verify that.OB). And should he pass these tests, well then we keep a major asset to our team. feel free to disagree.


travis you can piss in this :first: its clean.

I'm not up to date on the "hair" drug test. It may have came a long way since I last heard about it. But it really just depends on how long your hair is as to how far back you can tell. If it's an inch long, you can go back 2 months. 2 inches you can go back 4 months.

In other words, ½" = 1 month.

TXBRONC
10-12-2007, 04:57 PM
I don't Under Travis has been successful in putting things off concerning the drug test, but I think its ultimately just putting off the inevitable. I can see the League prevailing and Travis getting suspended before the start of next season. Besides that, I've been of the understanding that the hearing will take place before this season is over.

Medford Bronco
10-12-2007, 05:00 PM
I don't Under Travis has been successful in putting things off concerning the drug test, but I think its ultimately just putting off the inevitable. I can see the League prevailing and Travis getting suspended before the start of next season. Besides that, I've been of the understanding that the hearing will take place before this season is over.

Lets get Selvin ready for some serious playing time then.

Simple Jaded
10-12-2007, 07:45 PM
The Broncos do not have a choice!!!

He'll be suspended in about 3 or 4 weeks from now, meaning he'll come off his one year suspension sometime next November (Of course this is assuming he can avoid burning tree from now on).....Meaning he'll be reinstated AFTER next years trading deadline.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think you can trade a player that is under suspension.<----Who'd be stupid enough to trade for him anyways?

I'm wondering if they can cut him while he's under suspension....because if they can, that's what they should do.

As you can tell, I'm not buying the "second hand smoke" BS....

TXBRONC
10-12-2007, 07:56 PM
The Broncos do not have a choice!!!

He'll be suspended in about 3 or 4 weeks from now, meaning he'll come off his one year suspension sometime next November (Of course this is assuming he can avoid burning tree from now on).....Meaning he'll be reinstated AFTER next years trading deadline.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think you can trade a player that is under suspension.<----Who'd be stupid enough to trade for him anyways?

I'm wondering if they can cut him while he's under suspension....because if they can, that's what they should do.

As you can tell, I'm not buying the "second hand smoke" BS....

I think you're right that teams can not trade suspended players but they can release them.

One of the articles that has been posted in this forum indicated that Shanahan said if Henry is suspended he's gone.

Skywalker
10-12-2007, 08:23 PM
I think you're right that teams can not trade suspended players but they can release them.

One of the articles that has been posted in this forum indicated that Shanahan said if Henry is suspended he's gone.

If that's the case, I really hope we take a RB on the first day next draft :mad:

Simple Jaded
10-12-2007, 08:30 PM
I think you're right that teams can not trade suspended players but they can release them.

One of the articles that has been posted in this forum indicated that Shanahan said if Henry is suspended he's gone.


I'm hoping you're right, TX, but the article I saw didn't really say if Shanahan would cut him before, during or after his suspension.....

The reason I'm a bit confused is because Shanahan cut Sauerflake and Peterson AFTER their suspensions....

TXBRONC
10-12-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm hoping you're right, TX, but the article I saw didn't really say if Shanahan would cut him before, during or after his suspension.....

The reason I'm a bit confused is because Shanahan cut Sauerflake and Peterson AFTER their suspensions....

Ok, as rare as it is I could be wrong. :D

Nevertheless considering Shanahan's previous history I think it's very possible if Henry gets suspended for an entire season.

Simple Jaded
10-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Ok, as rare as it is I could be wrong. :D

Nevertheless considering Shanahan's previous history I think it's very possible if Henry gets suspended for an entire season.

He'd be a hypocrite not to, but this is a mess that just doesn't have the same set of rules as those other two examples.....The biggest hurdle is the 12 million Shanahan gave him to play about 8games. :mad:...

TXBRONC
10-12-2007, 08:42 PM
He'd be a hypocrite not to, but this is a mess that just doesn't have the same set of rules.....The biggest hurdle is the 12 million Shanahan gave him to play about 8games. :mad:...

True but I think the organization could recoup a big portion of the signing bonus.

Simple Jaded
10-12-2007, 09:53 PM
True but I think the organization could recoup a big portion of the signing bonus.


I hope so. :salute:.......

broncosfanscott
10-13-2007, 12:22 AM
True but I think the organization could recoup a big portion of the signing bonus.

If they let him go after the suspension, which seems inevitable, would be easy since Atlanta got a bunch of the money they gave Vick.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 10:04 AM
If they let him go after the suspension, which seems inevitable, would be easy since Atlanta got a bunch of the money they gave Vick.

Exactly. I don't think business the NFL is always fair to the players but when a teams hand these guys mega millions they have reasonable expectation that the player will stay out of trouble.

Den21vsBal19
10-13-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't Under Travis has been successful in putting things off concerning the drug test, but I think its ultimately just putting off the inevitable. I can see the League prevailing and Travis getting suspended before the start of next season. Besides that, I've been of the understanding that the hearing will take place before this season is over.

Maybe, but then you've got the whole appeals process, so I can quite easily see this running past the end of the season............


The Broncos do not have a choice!!!

He'll be suspended in about 3 or 4 weeks from now, meaning he'll come off his one year suspension sometime next November (Of course this is assuming he can avoid burning tree from now on).....Meaning he'll be reinstated AFTER next years trading deadline.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think you can trade a player that is under suspension.<----Who'd be stupid enough to trade for him anyways?

I'm wondering if they can cut him while he's under suspension....because if they can, that's what they should do.

As you can tell, I'm not buying the "second hand smoke" BS....

Tampa? They were dumb enough to trade for Jake when it was pretty common knowledge that he was contemplating retirement...................otherwise Washington, Snyder's got more money than sense :laugh:

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 12:59 PM
Maybe, but then you've got the whole appeals process, so I can quite easily see this running past the end of the season............



Tampa? They were dumb enough to trade for Jake when it was pretty common knowledge that he was contemplating retirement...................otherwise Washington, Snyder's got more money than sense :laugh:

I'm including the appeals process. If I have understood correctly all of Henry's options will run out by sometime in November.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 01:08 PM
Might be a little early to jump to conclusions, but I'm fairly certain that this defense Henry and his attorney have came up with isn't exactly a good one. "Second hand THC." Give me a break. He's as good as gone, and Denver will be on route to looking for another running back. Oh hey though, Tatum wants out of Detroit, but is a free agent at the end of the year. Bring him back. :ahhhhh:

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 01:16 PM
Might be a little early to jump to conclusions, but I'm fairly certain that this defense Henry and his attorney have came up with isn't exactly a good one. "Second hand THC." Give me a break. He's as good as gone, and Denver will be on route to looking for another running back. Oh hey though, Tatum wants out of Detroit, but is a free agent at the end of the year. Bring him back. :ahhhhh:

I don't know if you were actually joking, but honestly I couldn't see us bring him back.

I don't see Henry's defense holding up unless somehow he can prove the test was flawed.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 01:30 PM
I don't know if you were actually joking, but honestly I couldn't see us bring him back.

There wasn't any bridge burning that took place though, and if Denver is desparate for a running back if Henry goes bye-bye, it wouldn't be that bad of an idea, even if it's a trial run. That is, unless we feel comfortable with Selvin Young being our main back, which I would say is a bad idea. I think that Denver would be more open to the idea than he would be, considering he know he'd probably get "jobbed" (in his mind) again.


I don't see Henry's defense holding up unless somehow he can prove the test was flawed.

From what I've gathered, he's already stating the test was flawed because he's a victim of "second hand THC" - I shouldn't even get into discussing illegal matters, but from being a "crazy kid" back in the day - it'd take an immense amount of second hand THC for it to even show up in your system. You'd probably need to be hot-boxed for about an hour. If you're around weed for a couple of minutes and inhale the smoke, that's not going to show up in a urine test.

If he somehow won this case. . . yeah. Benchmark.

Davii
10-14-2007, 02:33 AM
it'd take an immense amount of second hand THC for it to even show up in your system.
If he somehow won this case. . . yeah. Benchmark.

I guess we can go ahead and say the dangers of second hand smoke are a lie then?

Requiem / The Dagda
10-14-2007, 03:45 AM
I guess we can go ahead and say the dangers of second hand smoke are a lie then?

At least for pot. It's not going to show up in your system by just being around it. Unless you're getting hot boxed or are around it constantly.

Joel
10-14-2007, 04:01 AM
There wasn't any bridge burning that took place though, and if Denver is desparate for a running back if Henry goes bye-bye, it wouldn't be that bad of an idea, even if it's a trial run. That is, unless we feel comfortable with Selvin Young being our main back, which I would say is a bad idea. I think that Denver would be more open to the idea than he would be, considering he know he'd probably get "jobbed" (in his mind) again.



From what I've gathered, he's already stating the test was flawed because he's a victim of "second hand THC" - I shouldn't even get into discussing illegal matters, but from being a "crazy kid" back in the day - it'd take an immense amount of second hand THC for it to even show up in your system. You'd probably need to be hot-boxed for about an hour. If you're around weed for a couple of minutes and inhale the smoke, that's not going to show up in a urine test.

If he somehow won this case. . . yeah. Benchmark.
since they're clearly on crack.... :P

Think about it, guys, not just in terms of what the rules say, but in terms of basic logic and fair play: As much as Godell wants to hold teams accountable for their players behavior (which I'm not sure is entirely fair; if you're covering up a guys misdeeds or ignoring them that's one thing, but if he blind sides you along with the rest of the League punishing the team is just adding injury to injury) do you HONESTLY think the NFL is going to say: "Hey, we know we only allow you a 53 man regular season roster and 8 Practice Squad guys, and we also know we won't allow this guy to play for ANYONE for the next 12 months, but you MUST retain him on your roster; if you didn't want to give up one of the top 60 guys who showed up to training camp you shouldn't have signed a pothead"? In what universe is that reasonable...? If Henrys appeal is unsuccessful, which seems very likely, he's almost certainly done in Denver--or anywhere else. Maybe he can be Ricky Williams backup in the CFL, but as far as the NFL he'll just be another guy who's been given multiple chances to demonstrate whether he prefers to be the League rushing leader on a Super Bowl contender or spend his Sundays toking up, and demonstrated said preference each time. Even if the second hand smoke claim is plausible, even if it's TRUTHFUL, it doesn't really change anything; he's still associating with folks Godell doesn't want associated with the League, and, once again, be honest; if you got pulled over for weaving down the road, tested positive for pot and told the cop "it's sidestream" how much good do you think that'd do you in court...?

Right now Selvin Young looks like the best bet unless/until we find another versatile journeyman free agent who's affordable. Our top picks need to be spent fixing a DT position where virtually NO ONE we have fits Bates' scheme so we can manage to move out of last place in rushing D, Ian Gold is only getting older and Nate Webster looks lost at SLB when he's even visible; our top picks should be spent there and nowhere else, and if I had my druthers we wouldn't draft anything but NTs and multi-position LBs until the second day. Tatum Bell is no more the answer next year than he was last year; he's still not a pile mover, still can't pick up the blitz and there's no reason to think he's any less fumble prone. The only thing he brings to the table is that he's really fast in the open field--something Selvin Young and a couple hundred other current and potential NFL backs can also say, without all the down sides of Tatum (people worry about Youngs two fumbles so far; if Tatum had only fumbled twice in the last five games of 2006 we'd have gone to the playoffs.... )

My two cents; take 'em for what they're worth: I think next years starting running back will be Young, Mike Bell if his time at fullback has made him a better halfback, or TBA (NOT Tater). Even if we don't go hard for NTs and LBs I don't see that changing in light of the fact that two of our best linemen (Hamilton and Nalen) may have played their last down already, while our safeties continue to age as well.

underrated29
10-15-2007, 11:43 AM
No way we bring bell back, selvin is a much better rb than tatum. I dont know which is faster, i will give the nod to tatum. But selvin actually has enough power to move through a guy or two. tatum didnt. and he fumbled.

Im sure mikey has seen by now, the best runners for our team are the ones who can push the pile. MA,reuben,orlandis gary, TD, Portis. Some were complete backs, some were slow but strong. All of those though imo did better that bell and could push it.

Lonestar
10-15-2007, 01:00 PM
Jut a quick comment Thenry while a talented RB seems to be an airhead, he is now on his 3rd NFL team perhaps the other two were smarter than we were.

We have consistently been a great running team Without spending a top DAFT choice on one we are batting 500 on top RBs and that is considering that poorti$$$$ was an airhead also wanting out of hicksville and going for the money instead of being on a great team. SO while we got champ out of the deal it was still IMHO a bad choice and then picking up "take it to the house" tater in the second round was IMHO even a bigger BUST.

Anyone remotely thinking about bringing back that loser needs to seek therapy.

When this franchise has built RB's from the lower rounds into great ones why waste a top draft choice on someone that traditionally has a 3-4 year useful self life when a great DT can serve for 8-14 years without missing a beat. And frankly folks they earn a lot less over those years than the flash in the pan super stud RB that in Mikey's attack with a high powered QB and mega receivers seems at best limited.

Lonestar
10-15-2007, 01:02 PM
No way we bring bell back, selvin is a much better rb than tatum. I dont know which is faster, i will give the nod to tatum. But selvin actually has enough power to move through a guy or two. tatum didnt. and he fumbled.

Im sure mikey has seen by now, the best runners for our team are the ones who can push the pile. MA,reuben,orlandis gary, TD, Portis. Some were complete backs, some were slow but strong. All of those though imo did better that bell and could push it.

your correct tater was a loser compared to DEN history of having real running backs.

Since he is gone hopefully this thread will be the last we hear from him.

Where are those high fives when you need one..

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 01:16 PM
Jut a quick comment Thenry while a talented RB seems to be an airhead, he is now on his 3rd NFL team perhaps the other two were smarter than we were.

We have consistently been a great running team Without spending a top DAFT choice on one we are batting 500 on top RBs and that is considering that poorti$$$$ was an airhead also wanting out of hicksville and going for the money instead of being on a great team. SO while we got champ out of the deal it was still IMHO a bad choice and then picking up "take it to the house" tater in the second round was IMHO even a bigger BUST.

Anyone remotely thinking about bringing back that loser needs to seek therapy.

When this franchise has built RB's from the lower rounds into great ones why waste a top draft choice on someone that traditionally has a 3-4 year useful self life when a great DT can serve for 8-14 years without missing a beat. And frankly folks they earn a lot less over those years than the flash in the pan super stud RB that in Mikey's attack with a high powered QB and mega receivers seems at best limited.

Jr it's uncalled for to say anyone thinking about us bringing back needs therapy. Bell is still the NFL while the guy you have held so highly isn't even on a roster so I think the back best labled as a loser is Q.

I don't see us bringing him back however, if he did he would come back as change of pace back a role he did quite well with.

If I'm not mistaken you have been critical a time or two about how Shanahan didn't take Steven Jackson when he had the chance.

Also if we go 3-13 as you have suggested that will put Denver in top five for sure and more than likely the top three. Again couple that with fact Henry will be gone I think Shanahan would take the guy could possibly be the best player in the enter draft and that would be McFadden.

underrated29
10-15-2007, 01:36 PM
does anyone know about lamont jordan, if his contract expires soon. I would assume it does since they spent a ton on dom rhodes. I we could bring in jordan, who also perfectly fits our running style, then we could defintley draft other positions, that imo we have larger needs for.

If we did bring in jordan i must admit that bell would be the perfect compliment to him. I would very much like to see him come back and play, but only if he sees like 10 reps max. I am not impressed with him as a feature back or a split back. But as a breather back to compliment a power he is almighty.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 01:47 PM
does anyone know about lamont jordan, if his contract expires soon. I would assume it does since they spent a ton on dom rhodes. I we could bring in jordan, who also perfectly fits our running style, then we could defintley draft other positions, that imo we have larger needs for.

If we did bring in jordan i must admit that bell would be the perfect compliment to him. I would very much like to see him come back and play, but only if he sees like 10 reps max. I am not impressed with him as a feature back or a split back. But as a breather back to compliment a power he is almighty.

I don't remember exact numbers but I think the Raiders gave him big contract not only monetarily speaking but also in years as well.

underrated29
10-15-2007, 01:52 PM
I don't remember exact numbers but I think the Raiders gave him big contract not only monetarily speaking but also in years as well.

for jordan or rhodes?

Lonestar
10-15-2007, 01:53 PM
Jr it's uncalled for to say anyone thinking about us bringing back needs therapy. Bell is still the NFL while the guy you have held so highly isn't even on a roster so I think the back best labled as a loser is Q.

I don't see us bringing him back however, if he did he would come back as change of pace back a role he did quite well with.

If I'm not mistaken you have been critical a time or two about how Shanahan didn't take Steven Jackson when he had the chance.

Also if we go 3-13 as you have suggested that will put Denver in top five for sure and more than likely the top three. Again couple that with fact Henry will be gone I think Shanahan would take the guy could possibly be the best player in the enter draft and that would be McFadden.


Considering who we actually took instead of Steven Jackson I stand by my statement. I'd have rather taken wilfork that year over him or DJ.

Can we let the Q comments rest as they have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and BTW he was second day pick not a top choice. therefore less like to make the team.

Would Mikey waste another top choice on a RB? Probably while letting the defense languish as he has for the past 10 years outside of last year and a couple of LB's he has not spent any time on defense in the first round.

Which IMO is almost criminal.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 01:54 PM
for jordan or rhodes?

Sorry, I was speaking of Jordan, but Rhodes probably got a pretty penny as well.

underrated29
10-15-2007, 01:57 PM
normally id say yes shanny would ignore defense, but im not so sure this year upcomming. OUr offense is almost in place besides rb, and he knows that the defense is the weakness of our team. Plus jim bates wont be able ot do his job unless he has some beef to work with.

That being said, if we do somehow end up a top 3 pick and dont get another rb, mcfadden would be hard to pass.

underrated29
10-15-2007, 01:58 PM
Sorry, I was speaking of Jordan, but Rhodes probably got a pretty penny as well.

i should have figured..al davis

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 02:08 PM
Considering who we actually took instead of Steven Jackson I stand by my statement. I'd have rather taken wilfork that year over him or DJ.

Can we let the Q comments rest as they have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and BTW he was second day pick not a top choice. therefore less like to make the team.

Would Mikey waste another top choice on a RB? Probably while letting the defense languish as he has for the past 10 years outside of last year and a couple of LB's he has not spent any time on defense in the first round.

Which IMO is almost criminal.

You're trying to have both ways then Jr. If your going to smear one runningback then it's more than fair game to bring in one you favored. If you don't want me to bring Q then at very least don't derogatory towards Bell. Bell is gone from here as well there no need to smear him. Even though he has limitations he was more productive.

I know what round Q was drafted in and as you mentioned Shanahan has done well with low round runningbacks so that's irrelevant.

You're missing a huge point, if we get as high in the draft as you suggest the best pick to make is McFadden and considering that Henry will more than likely be gone it would make him an even more attractive pick because we then have a need to fill.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 02:10 PM
normally id say yes shanny would ignore defense, but im not so sure this year upcomming. OUr offense is almost in place besides rb, and he knows that the defense is the weakness of our team. Plus jim bates wont be able ot do his job unless he has some beef to work with.

That being said, if we do somehow end up a top 3 pick and dont get another rb, mcfadden would be hard to pass.

Ignoring the defense means you do nothing. What's to say he wouldn't still pay attention to the defense the rest of the draft?

underrated29
10-15-2007, 02:23 PM
im sure he would. without knowing travis's situation and/or us trading or signing a new rb. (or using young/bell). its hard to guage what he would do.

if we could get mcfadden i could see him 100% taking him. and going line and defense with the rest. But i also think....


its just too hard to say at the moment. there are to many unknowns. Mcfaden would be sick. but we really need big time defenseive help. and from what the draft gurus are saying is that the dline (or for now our biggest weakness) is only good for the 1st rd or so then it drops off.

so its tough. To me either would make me happy. I would lean to defense first, but i also dont know much about dm either.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-15-2007, 03:26 PM
I guess the Broncos have some interest in Vikings running back Mewelde Moore. I always liked him, fun to watch and is a good returner. Smart, disciplined player. Not a starter, but he can catch the ball well and is a nice change of pace guy. Some guy linked to it on the Orange Mane.

Medford Bronco
10-15-2007, 03:51 PM
I guess the Broncos have some interest in Vikings running back Mewelde Moore. I always liked him, fun to watch and is a good returner. Smart, disciplined player. Not a starter, but he can catch the ball well and is a nice change of pace guy. Some guy linked to it on the Orange Mane.

As a returner and a change of pace would be great. :salute:

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 05:02 PM
As a returner and a change of pace would be great. :salute:

If his primary duty was to return kicks that would be great.

GEM
10-15-2007, 05:20 PM
True but I think the organization could recoup a big portion of the signing bonus.

The problem there is....he's probably already spent it on fast cars and jewelry....cause you know he didn't use it to pay his child support.....:ahhhhh:

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 05:24 PM
The problem there is....he's probably already spent it on fast cars and jewelry....cause you know he didn't use it to pay his child support.....:ahhhhh:

That and some of his favorite marijuana.

pnbronco
10-16-2007, 12:01 PM
The problem there is....he's probably already spent it on fast cars and jewelry....cause you know he didn't use it to pay his child support.....:ahhhhh:

I have been out of the loop for a week now, still out of town. I thought I read before I left the Henry had only received portion of the bonus and would be given out that way for the season. Also I think Mike Anderson tried the I was at a party line and they proved that that didn't work. Keep posting so I can keep up with current events, thanks...

TXBRONC
10-16-2007, 12:05 PM
I have been out of the loop for a week now, still out of town. I thought I read before I left the Henry had only received portion of the bonus and would be given out that way for the season. Also I think Mike Anderson tried the I was at a party line and they proved that that didn't work. Keep posting so I can keep up with current events, thanks...

That's about the size of it, Henry is more or less trying the same defense that Mike Anderson used. Since it didn't work for Mike I don't see how it will work for Henry.

Lonestar
10-16-2007, 12:20 PM
That's about the size of it, Henry is more or less trying the same defense that Mike Anderson used. Since it didn't work for Mike I don't see how it will work for Henry.


This time it was Mikeys party...

TXBRONC
10-16-2007, 03:01 PM
This time it was Mikeys party...

Since you refer to Shanahan all the time the condesceding Mikey label I'm guessing that you mean Shanahan. I hope I'm wrong. At any rate if you are refering to Shanahan it's a terrible thing accusing him of.

Lonestar
10-16-2007, 11:00 PM
Since you refer to Shanahan all the time the condescending Mikey label I'm guessing that you mean Shanahan. I hope I'm wrong. At any rate if you are referring to Shanahan it's a terrible thing accusing him of.

I was kidding about Mikey's throwing a pot party. sorry that you missed the sarcastic button.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 07:20 AM
I was kidding about Mikey's throwing a pot party. sorry that you missed the sarcastic button.

Jr you have accused Shanahan of taking bribes and meant it so with you it's a little harder to know when you're kidding at times and as I said you are incessantly condescending to him.

Rick
10-17-2007, 07:49 AM
I am fairly sure Henry could be cut if suspended after all I am fairly sure Tank Johnson was cut during his.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Jr you have accused Shanahan of taking bribes and meant it so with you it's a little harder to know when you're kidding at times and as I said you are incessantly condescending to him.

Taking bribes, Shirley you jest.

I'd like a link to that one..

Do I respect mikey? As a coach he has his moments, as a GM he sucks. Not so sure without Gibbs and Kubiak he could have even won the superbowls.

But taking Bribes, I think you confuse me with someone else..

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 12:48 PM
Taking bribes, Shirley you jest.

I'd like a link to that one..

Do I respect mikey? As a coach he has his moments, as a GM he sucks. Not so sure without Gibbs and Kubiak he could have even won the superbowls.

But taking Bribes, I think you confuse me with someone else..

No I'm not kidding and no I'm not confusing you with someone else. Right after Plummer was traded and it became know that Shanahan traded him for a seventh round pick. You said something to the effect "With that low of a draft choice for Plummer it makes one wonder if Mikey was taking money under the table." It several months ago. Besides that it wasn't the first time you had questioned Shanahan's integrity.

As far as your comment about Gibbs and Kubiak you're basically calling Shanahan an inept coach. There is no need to speculate because that didn't happen so I think wondering about it is pointless. Nevertheless given the talent he put together to go along with Elway there is no doubt in my mind that Denver would have still won those two Super Bowls.

With that Jr I'll let go.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 02:49 PM
No I'm not kidding and no I'm not confusing you with someone else. Right after Plummer was traded and it became know that Shanahan traded him for a seventh round pick. You said something to the effect "With that low of a draft choice for Plummer it makes one wonder if Mikey was taking money under the table." It several months ago. Besides that it wasn't the first time you had questioned Shanahan's integrity.

As far as your comment about Gibbs and Kubiak you're basically calling Shanahan an inept coach. There is no need to speculate because that didn't happen so I think wondering about it is pointless. Nevertheless given the talent he put together to go along with Elway there is no doubt in my mind that Denver would have still won those two Super Bowls.

With that Jr I'll let go.

Well I can't remember making that comment in anything but a sarcastic mode.

I guess I'll have to ask Tned for a sarcastic simile to put on 85% of my posts.

However not on this one this is dead serious..

I have to ask you what has mikey done since Gibbs has left other than been a mediocre leader.

I have to wonder had it not been for that team loaded with HOF personnel could mikey have pulled it off I doubt it very seriously.

Does he have a brilliant mind on the offensive side of the ball sure he does.

Has he run this team into the ground since those glory years, I think this year pretty much shows how much truth there is to that.

What has mikey done since John, Shannon, TD and Eddie Mac left.
2000 11-5 John gone, TD and Eddie still here.
2001 8-8 3rd place playing a second place schedule Eddie mac gone
2002 9-7 2nd place playing a third place schedule
2003 10-6 2nd place playing a second place schedule
2004 10-6 2nd place playing a second place schedule
2005 13-3 1 place playing a second place schedule
2006 9-7 3rd place playing a first place schedule
2007 2-3 real close to 0-5 playing a third place schedule

One playoff win since John retired, always a few players shy of a full load.

Sorry but I at this moment have very little respect for mikey. His personnel decisions have been poor at best until the draft that Darrent came to town and frankly I'm not all that sure that beyond Darrent who was drafted for all the wrong reasons (KR) that, that draft was not a total bust.

The jury is still out of foxworth all of the nest draft and even last Aprils.

The latest draft choices are looking pretty good, but we will really not know for sure whether these players will be much more than marginal starters to super stars.

Although the odds are heavily against them being super stars with mikey's batting average.

Look if Y'all want to think that mikey walks on water go for it, stick you heads in the sand one more year (this one is a gimmie due to all the injuries so far). BUT if he does not do well next year in 2008 he is gone!

He has had carte blanc with this team since walking in the door and Pat has IMHO been very good to him. But folks our only goal is to win Superbowl rings each year and the only players that have one from DEN are Rod and Jason as starters.

IN that goal he has failed miserably.

underrated29
10-17-2007, 03:15 PM
i dont see how jr, i see it as success. With a team that lost all those hof players. or super talented players we never had a losing season, and have pushed to the playoffs multiple times.

As you said only 2 superbowl players remain (what about lepsis and nalen?) and we are yet again in the hunt.

2 plays from being 0-5, well those two plays happened. Just like last years fluke loss to the 9'ers or the one play loss to the seahawks with a 54 yrd field goal.

we are 2-3 probably soon to be 2-4, after that our shcedule is cake. we are on the road but most of the teams we can beat. And the way the division is watered down. 9-7 or 10-6 could very well make that playoff appearance.

So i think mikey ahs done a great job, considering he has had to totally rebuild the team, and in doing so not scrificed a single year.

oh and the 8-8 year we had, i think we also set or tied an nfl record of games decided by 6 pts or less.

to me i would summerize the teams last decade like this.
lost gibbs/coaching staff team still good.
lost players to fa/ret- team not so good
add players to fill major holes left by vacated players team better
add coaching staff/ then lose coaching staff
add more players just a few key players away , team almost there
add new coaching staff and players team just needs to come together.

oh and knock reigning champs and undefeated in playoffs team out of playoffs= priceless!!!

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 03:33 PM
i dont see how jr, i see it as success. With a team that lost all those hof players. or super talented players we never had a losing season, and have pushed to the playoffs multiple times.

As you said only 2 superbowl players remain (what about lepsis and nalen?) and we are yet again in the hunt.

2 plays from being 0-5, well those two plays happened. Just like last years fluke loss to the 9'ers or the one play loss to the seahawks with a 54 yrd field goal.

we are 2-3 probably soon to be 2-4, after that our shcedule is cake. we are on the road but most of the teams we can beat. And the way the division is watered down. 9-7 or 10-6 could very well make that playoff appearance.

So i think mikey ahs done a great job, considering he has had to totally rebuild the team, and in doing so not scrificed a single year.

oh and the 8-8 year we had, i think we also set or tied an nfl record of games decided by 6 pts or less.

to me i would summerize the teams last decade like this.
lost gibbs/coaching staff team still good.
lost players to fa/ret- team not so good
add players to fill major holes left by vacated players team better
add coaching staff/ then lose coaching staff
add more players just a few key players away , team almost there
add new coaching staff and players team just needs to come together.

oh and knock reigning champs and undefeated in playoffs team out of playoffs= priceless!!!

I do not remember Nalen and specifically Lepsis as starters.
I still do not think that mikey and his player personnel decision should be anything but poor.

Do not get me started on all of the boners he has made but saying the following should suffice nash, middlebrooks and all the browncos. If you want to talk about the rest I'll be happy to .

Has he made a few good ones Champ comes to mind beyond that until 2006 draft he IMHO sucked. And that draft still has the jury out on it. There could be a couple of really great players in there. But they also could be a Watts waiting to happen.

As a coach offensively he has few peers, but the rest of the package IMHO is flawed.

You make solid points, but the bottom line is he has failed in his mission statement since John retired.

broncos9697
10-17-2007, 03:43 PM
the nfl just handed henry his final results and he has 1 week to appeal which I am sure he will do then it will take 3 weeks to figer every thing out then he will know if he's suspended so he's with the team for at least 3 more weeks..he'll play also

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 04:45 PM
the NFL just handed henry his final results and he has 1 week to appeal which I am sure he will do then it will take 3 weeks to figer every thing out then he will know if he's suspended so he's with the team for at least 3 more weeks..he'll play also

If that is the case then what was left of th season just went down the crapper.. They may not even win one more game this year..

underrated29
10-17-2007, 05:48 PM
If that is the case then what was left of th season just went down the crapper.. They may not even win one more game this year..

how do you mean jr, i think this is great news. Henry is by far the best back on the team and if we have him for atleast 3 more weeks that is great news considering the situation.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 07:26 PM
If that is the case then what was left of th season just went down the crapper.. They may not even win one more game this year..

That's fine because then we can draft McFadden.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-17-2007, 07:36 PM
No chance at McFadden, unless he lost an arm.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 07:58 PM
No chance at McFadden, unless he lost an arm.

Apparently you're not following the conversation. If we are 3-13 or 2-14 as Jr has suggested then yes we will more than likely have the opportunity to draft McFadden without him having to lose an arm. :ranger:

Requiem / The Dagda
10-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Apparently you're not following the conversation. If we are 3-13 or 2-14 as Jr has suggested then yes we will more than likely have the opportunity to draft McFadden without him having to lose an arm. :ranger:

Yeah, too bad we're not going to finish that badly.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 08:43 PM
Yeah, too bad we're not going to finish that badly.

I don't think we will either.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 10:22 PM
I don't think we will either.

we shall see who is closer to the correct prognostication. I think we will be a lot closer to 3-13 than 9-7..or higher like you think.

underrated29
10-18-2007, 11:09 AM
we shall see who is closer to the correct prognostication. I think we will be a lot closer to 3-13 than 9-7..or higher like you think.

jr out of the next 10 games you thin we will only win 1? we got pits, greenbay,detroit, kansas city, tenn,chi,oak,kansas city,hou,san diego, minn.

gb,det,ten (if young is still hurt),chi, hou. all those teams are struggling to run the ball. I dont care how good the teams defense is, or their recievers or thier record. If they cant run on us. Then we should win.

We stopped the bills, and the raiders. All because we didnt let them run for 250+ if we can hold them to under 150 we can win.

I think we beat GB,DET,CHI,OAK,KC,HOU, AND MAYBE TEN.if young isnt playing.

there is no way we lose to all of those teams except one.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 01:02 PM
jr out of the next 10 games you thin we will only win 1? we got pits, greenbay,detroit, kansas city, tenn,chi,oak,kansas city,hou,san diego, minn.

gb,det,ten (if young is still hurt),chi, hou. all those teams are struggling to run the ball. I dont care how good the teams defense is, or their recievers or thier record. If they cant run on us. Then we should win.

We stopped the bills, and the raiders. All because we didnt let them run for 250+ if we can hold them to under 150 we can win.

I think we beat GB,DET,CHI,OAK,KC,HOU, AND MAYBE TEN.if young isnt playing.

there is no way we lose to all of those teams except one.

Look this team could go either way it could go into the toilet quick or come around , I see them as visiting the bathroom.

I do not see us beating GB or TEN period regardless of running game or not.

This Defense has made all pros of every RB that we have come across. We can not stop any RB and if we put 8-10 in the box the decent to good QB will pick us apart cause the DL does not put a lot of pressure on the QB.

OAK KC HOU and maybe even CHI and DET are loses waiting to be racked up .

Save the team money and humiliation by not even going to SAN KC or OAK. forfeit those games and create a few more bye weeks.

Not gonna guess @ MIN as that is to long from now, but that might be our only win yet this year.. With maybes in CHI and DET and if tater and foster get hot running the ball DET is no lock...

I have not seen anything yet that shows any reason to believe we can stop any warm body from running the ball. Until then I got to go with 1-forever the rest of the season.

Let me add I also see no reason to believe with the OLINE neat up like it is and the rest of the injuries on offense that scoring inside the red zone does not look like that is gonna change much either.

So that leaves out outscoring someone. if you can't outscore someone with a poor O and piss poor D.

Rick
10-18-2007, 09:15 PM
I don't think we will but as bad as we have been playing, and depending on what happens with Javon all those teams mentioned may very well beat us.

Hell we barely beat Oakland while at full strength.

With Detroit, they are not a good team perhaps but Tatum doesn't need to run up the gut to beat us, he can run through the wide open gaps we have on our run D, and like him or hate him, if he gets an inch of free space he is gone.

Green bay with Favre always has a shot, Vikes has one of the best young backs in the league, Texans have a coach that knows our offense like the back of his hand, Chicago while not as good as last year are still basically the same team that went to the SB, KC is always a tough match, SD kicked our ass last time, and if we can't stop a guy we KNOW will run how are we to stop a QB that can run like a RB but will run when we don't always know he will?

I still think we will win some of them but if stuff doesn't improve drastically and soon, we could easily find ourselves losing most of those games.

Mike
10-19-2007, 08:16 AM
The only games remaining that Denver has a 50/50 shot at winning are Detroit, Oakland, Houston. Every other game Denver has much less favorable odds on...and honestly I am not sure that they are 50/50 against Oak and Hou. I am just trying to make myself feel a little better.

I agree with JR...Denver is closer to 3-13 than 7-9. I will be extremely impressed if this team gets 4 more wins.

This just isn't their year. :tsk:

Lonestar
10-19-2007, 09:26 AM
The only games remaining that Denver has a 50/50 shot at winning are Detroit, Oakland, Houston. Every other game Denver has much less favorable odds on...and honestly I am not sure that they are 50/50 against Oak and Hou. I am just trying to make myself feel a little better.

I agree with JR...Denver is closer to 3-13 than 7-9. I will be extremely impressed if this team gets 4 more wins.

This just isn't their year. :tsk:


with all the injuries on top of all the changes and rookies no one in their right mind that thought this team was going to excell and certainly not be a super bowl contender. $ more wins this year would be a gift from heaven. I'm not even sure the DET with tater nad foster in a grudge match is winnable and HOU has Gary who at lest has a decent team in front of him as we speak.

I hope we do better but am not holding my breath....

Write this one off to all teh negatives and lets get some decent draft choices..

underrated29
10-19-2007, 11:00 AM
in light of the new news on walker i retract all my previous statements and am sure that we will land a top 5 pick.

it sucks but i am kinda looking foreward to it, in a giddy way.

Mike
10-19-2007, 11:07 AM
in light of the new news on walker i retract all my previous statements and am sure that we will land a top 5 pick.

it sucks but i am kinda looking foreward to it, in a giddy way.

A top 5 pick would be nice, but it would also be expensive.

Denver, in my mind, has a lot of positions to address this offseason. I am beginning to think that it might be wiser (if they land a top 5 spot) to trade back and pick up multiple draft picks. I know people want a sexy new RB, but I'd rather get several solid (less expensive) players.

underrated29
10-19-2007, 11:33 AM
A top 5 pick would be nice, but it would also be expensive.

Denver, in my mind, has a lot of positions to address this offseason. I am beginning to think that it might be wiser (if they land a top 5 spot) to trade back and pick up multiple draft picks. I know people want a sexy new RB, but I'd rather get several solid (less expensive) players.

exactly as i stated earlier, if we could trade to some team around like 11 or 12, we would get their pick, plus their 2nd and 1st next year. We could then take a good dt/lb and trade the 2nd or our 2nd for jenkins or whoever was on the block, then we still will have an early 2nd to use for dt/lb/or rb if we must.

I think that would be ideal.

TXBRONC
10-20-2007, 07:45 PM
exactly as i stated earlier, if we could trade to some team around like 11 or 12, we would get their pick, plus their 2nd and 1st next year. We could then take a good dt/lb and trade the 2nd or our 2nd for jenkins or whoever was on the block, then we still will have an early 2nd to use for dt/lb/or rb if we must.

I think that would be ideal.

It sounds good, but the only problem is the other team coming up with fair compensation.