PDA

View Full Version : A look at our remaining schedule.



BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 11:44 AM
vs. New Orleans
@ Cincy
@ Carolina
vs. SD
@ KC
vs. TB
@ Oakland
@ Baltimore
vs. Cleveland
vs. KC

Other than the Baltimore game, I don't see a single game we will be the underdog in the rest of the way. If this team can start playing the way they have shown they are capable of, I see no reason why we can't rack up double-digit wins this season, barring some serious injuries.

And honestly, the AFC is so mediocre this season I think we could so something in the playoffs, as long as we avoided the Pats, who I don't think we'd stand much of a chance against.

Rex
10-17-2012, 11:46 AM
Man am I glad you posted this. I lost my pocket schedule and I didnt know who the eff they were playing the rest of the season and didnt know where to find out

#wantedtostartathreadreallybad

slim
10-17-2012, 11:47 AM
10-6 sounds reasonable to me, which should be enough to win the division.

underrated29
10-17-2012, 12:04 PM
I still say we lose to NO and possibly to the panthers and bengals. The rest of the games should all be wins.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 12:05 PM
games I think we could lose
Cincy, Balt, NO

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 12:05 PM
I still say we lose to NO and possibly to the panthers and bengals. The rest of the games should all be wins.

Brees have a bounty on Manning?

MileHighCrew
10-17-2012, 12:09 PM
I honestly believe that last game will propell the Broncos on a big run. I say they are 10-3 heading into the Baltimore game.

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 12:14 PM
I still say we lose to NO and possibly to the panthers and bengals. The rest of the games should all be wins.

The Saints and Panthers are BAD this year. The Saints can still score at least, but their defense might be the worst in the league. I just don't see them stopping Manning. And given that we are at home and the Saints are a notoriously poor road team, I would be very surprised/disappointed if we lost, especially coming off the bye.

Northman
10-17-2012, 12:15 PM
vs. New Orleans (Could go either way)
@ Cincy (Win)
@ Carolina (Win)
vs. SD (Win)
@ KC (Win)
vs. TB (Win)
@ Oakland (Win)
@ Baltimore (Could go either way)
vs. Cleveland (Win)
vs. KC (Win)

Depending that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot i think we can at worse go 11-5. Bmore is hurting and NO's defense is atrocious. But both have other elements that can hurt us so it can go either way. IMO

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 12:19 PM
I guess I'm just more confident about the NO game than most. Home game, off the bye, against a bad road team who should really be 0-5 if not for a very lucky game against SD. And this will be Vitt's first game back as their coach, so they will have to adjust to a new head coach.

It would be a HUGE disappointment if we lost to them, and would completely wipe out any momentum we may have gained from this SD game.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
I guess I'm just more confident about the NO game than most. Home game, off the bye, against a bad road team who should really be 0-5 if not for a very lucky game against SD. And this will be Vitt's first game back as their coach, so they will have to adjust to a new head coach.

It would be a HUGE disappointment if we lost to them, and would completely wipe out any momentum we may have gained from this SD game.

I think it could go either way, depending on how they place this week. Are the NO of old after beating the chargers are they back to same team this season. I do not think we will be able to smash Brees like we did Rivers. This will be a shoot out. We can not get into a hole against Brees.

topscribe
10-17-2012, 12:38 PM
vs. New Orleans
@ Cincy
@ Carolina
vs. SD
@ KC
vs. TB
@ Oakland
@ Baltimore
vs. Cleveland
vs. KC

Other than the Baltimore game, I don't see a single game we will be the underdog in the rest of the way. If this team can start playing the way they have shown they are capable of, I see no reason why we can't rack up double-digit wins this season, barring some serious injuries.

And honestly, the AFC is so mediocre this season I think we could so something in the playoffs, as long as we avoided the Pats, who I don't think we'd stand much of a chance against.
Even Baltimore has lost Ray Lewis and their best CB. But Carolina might be tough
in their house, and KC could be a trap game.

Disagree about Pats. Tough game, yes. But by the playoffs, Denver will have all
their offensive ducks in a row, and on defense D.J. will be back in shape, and
all the sudden the Broncos have found they have depth at CB. Denver is
beginning to look good, but I don't think they were near as good when they
played NE as they will be by the end of the season . . .
.

Dapper Dan
10-17-2012, 12:44 PM
Man am I glad you posted this. I lost my pocket schedule and I didnt know who the eff they were playing the rest of the season and didnt know where to find out

#wantedtostartathreadreallybad

And someone started the thread last week. I guess we'll start one after each game. You got the next one?

underrated29
10-17-2012, 12:51 PM
Here is why i think the way I do.


We struggle against teams that can run and pass. If we can make a team or play a team that is one dimensional we can win, weather its passing or running. but both kills us. Also, the speed guys kill us.

Saints, can run and they can pass. Sure, we could stop their passing, but I think sproles and Pierre will kill us. IF we load up to stop them, I am sure we can but then it lets brees lose and he will kill us. You are right about their d probably not being able to slow us down, so imo the way to win that game is to sustain some long time comsuming drives and keep their offense on the bench and cold.


Panthers- I do not see how we can contain cam, Stewie and deangelo williams. They will run all over us. If we bottle them up, cam is a good enough passer to hit the TE. Our only hope in that game imo is to double up steve smith and greg olsen. Their other WR i think we can man or zone up. The rest of the team has to be in full blitz or run blitz and contain cam. Cant let him run. I do not see how our defense will be able to stop him.

Bengals- They always play us tough for whatever reason. They are neither great at running or passing and their defense is just pretty good. If we can stop AJ green and hawkins, then we should have a good shot, but this game could go either way as I like their defense.

I do not see any other teams that can do that. I think we smoke the ravens. Flacco imo is a terrible terrible QB. If we just man up with champ and porter on smith and bolden, and rush the hell out of flacco he will fold. Rice imo is the only weapon we need to fear against them. We shut him down and I have full confidence that flacco can not and will not beat us.

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 01:02 PM
Even Baltimore has lost Ray Lewis and their best CB. But Carolina might be tough
in their house, and KC could be a trap game.

Disagree about Pats. Tough game, yes. But by the playoffs, Denver will have all
their offensive ducks in a row, and on defense D.J. will be back in shape, and
all the sudden the Broncos have found they have depth at CB. Denver is
beginning to look good, but I don't think they were near as good when they
played NE as they will be by the end of the season . . .
.

I still think NE is our kryptonite. We cannot cover the TE and they have 2 of the best in the game. The only reason we even kept it close a few weeks ago was because Hernandez was out and Gronk was limited by an injury. If both of those guys are healthy, I think they beat us by 2 touchdowns every time. I hope to be proven wrong, but I just don't think we can beat them when healthy.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 01:02 PM
Here is why i think the way I do.


We struggle against teams that can run and pass. If we can make a team or play a team that is one dimensional we can win, weather its passing or running. but both kills us. Also, the speed guys kill us.

Saints, can run and they can pass. Sure, we could stop their passing, but I think sproles and Pierre will kill us. IF we load up to stop them, I am sure we can but then it lets brees lose and he will kill us. You are right about their d probably not being able to slow us down, so imo the way to win that game is to sustain some long time comsuming drives and keep their offense on the bench and cold.


Panthers- I do not see how we can contain cam, Stewie and deangelo williams. They will run all over us. If we bottle them up, cam is a good enough passer to hit the TE. Our only hope in that game imo is to double up steve smith and greg olsen. Their other WR i think we can man or zone up. The rest of the team has to be in full blitz or run blitz and contain cam. Cant let him run. I do not see how our defense will be able to stop him.

Bengals- They always play us tough for whatever reason. They are neither great at running or passing and their defense is just pretty good. If we can stop AJ green and hawkins, then we should have a good shot, but this game could go either way as I like their defense.

I do not see any other teams that can do that. I think we smoke the ravens. Flacco imo is a terrible terrible QB. If we just man up with champ and porter on smith and bolden, and rush the hell out of flacco he will fold. Rice imo is the only weapon we need to fear against them. We shut him down and I have full confidence that flacco can not and will not beat us.

The thing about Carolina is they are not running it like they normally do. They are running it really bad. If you can shut down Smith you contain 90% of cams passing game. He depends on smith. But if you can frustrate Cam he is as good as done. He is a quitter and has temper tantrums. But our problem will be containing Cam from running.

NO has a bad running game and depend on Brees spreading it out and letting them try to run. But Graham is not 100% either. I am more worried about Brees picking us apart rather then their running game. If our pass rushers are in the game I think then is our chance. But if there is no pressure on Brees he will start the races.

Bengals will be interesting. They are a good passing team and a good defense. Their ground game is not much with Benson gone.

BroncoNut
10-17-2012, 01:05 PM
I still think NE is our kryptonite. We cannot cover the TE and they have 2 of the best in the game. The only reason we even kept it close a few weeks ago was because Hernandez was out and Gronk was limited by an injury. If both of those guys are healthy, I think they beat us by 2 touchdowns every time. I hope to be proven wrong, but I just don't think we can beat them when healthy.

there is alot more to a football game than scoring touchdowns.

topscribe
10-17-2012, 01:50 PM
I still think NE is our kryptonite. We cannot cover the TE and they have 2 of the best in the game. The only reason we even kept it close a few weeks ago was because Hernandez was out and Gronk was limited by an injury. If both of those guys are healthy, I think they beat us by 2 touchdowns every time. I hope to be proven wrong, but I just don't think we can beat them when healthy.
True enough. Denver will be improved, but with both TEs healthy, so will NE.
But I still think you may be discounting Denver's offense a bit. I can see
two-touchdown victories, but I'm not sure NE would be on the winning side of
that in every game . . .
.

slim
10-17-2012, 01:53 PM
True enough. Denver will be improved, but with both TEs healthy, so will NE.
But I still think you may be discounting Denver's offense a bit. I can see
two-touchdown victories, but I'm not sure NE would be on the winning side of
that in every game . . .
.

We can't stop their offense, Top. At this point, I think that is pretty clear.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 01:56 PM
We can't stop their offense, Top. At this point, I think that is pretty clear.

we just need to do what seattle did. Keep welker on his ass and get real physical.

slim
10-17-2012, 01:57 PM
we just need to do what seattle did. Keep welker on his ass and get real physical.

Yeah, if only we had tried that the last 3 times we played them.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 01:59 PM
Yeah, if only we had tried that the last 3 times we played them.

something....i know welker just about crawled off the field after that game

slim
10-17-2012, 02:06 PM
something....i know welker just about crawled off the field after that game

Yeah, to bad we don't have Seattle's defense.

NightTerror218
10-17-2012, 02:16 PM
Yeah, to bad we don't have Seattle's defense.

we also have not spent the huge money they did on FA. Nor have the crap record for years to draft high enough to build it up.

topscribe
10-17-2012, 03:13 PM
We can't stop their offense, Top. At this point, I think that is pretty clear.
And neither can they stop ours. That's the point . . .
.

Joel
10-17-2012, 03:39 PM
vs. New Orleans
@ Cincy
@ Carolina
vs. SD
@ KC
vs. TB
@ Oakland
@ Baltimore
vs. Cleveland
vs. KC

Other than the Baltimore game, I don't see a single game we will be the underdog in the rest of the way. If this team can start playing the way they have shown they are capable of, I see no reason why we can't rack up double-digit wins this season, barring some serious injuries.

And honestly, the AFC is so mediocre this season I think we could so something in the playoffs, as long as we avoided the Pats, who I don't think we'd stand much of a chance against.
Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. The Chiefs have a great D and no offense, but we nearly always have trouble in Arrowhead. That's still our best shot at sweeping a division team though; the next time we play the Bolts and Faders each will be out to avenge humiliation, and the next game against Oakland is in the Black Hole. 4-2 in the division is probably the best we can expect, and that means at least 5 losses if we beat everyone else. In other words, if we go 8-2 in our remaining games we finish 11-5, and anyone who thinks this team will win 8 of its last 10 is nuts.

Since the Texans collapse against GB the Ravens are arguably the best AFC team, and losing Ray Lewis didn't suddenly make them the kind of .500 team we can expect to beat. Now we're down to 10-6, best case scenario. Just because Cincy lost to Cleveland doesn't mean they suck; divisional games are usually tough, but Cincy's still a good team that should beat us. That's 9-7 even if we beat NO, Carolina and Tampa. If we lose any of those three games we must either sweep multiple division opponents or upset the Ravens/Bengals.

This team doesn't reach the postseason unless a LOT of stars align, and won't be there long even then. The sooner fans accept that the sooner we will sit back and enjoy the ride; the sooner the FO accepts it the sooner they will start patching all the many holes that make us a .500 team (at best.) Clock's ticking; Manning, Champ, Stokley, Brooking, Koppen, Adams and DJ are all on the wrong side of 30.

BroncoNut
10-17-2012, 04:11 PM
^ towards the pissy side, but I like your stocism Joel. Are you still in Norway?

Joel
10-17-2012, 04:28 PM
^ towards the pissy side, but I like your stocism Joel. Are you still in Norway?
Yup, makes watching those night games a real pain. I nearly went to bed when we were down 24-0 at the half, because it was already nearly 4AM and I didn't want to be dragging my tail for the privilege of watching the Broncos get blown out on national TV. Glad I stuck around though; after the Vikings ineptitude, the Cowboys refusal to win and the Texans humiliation, beating SD saved my weekend.

Ravage!!!
10-17-2012, 04:53 PM
Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. The Chiefs have a great D and no offense,
This couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you DO need some of what he's smoking, because if you think the Chiefs have a great D, then you aren't watching ANY football at all this season. Their defense is bad...flat... out.... bad. Now it may get better, but they don't pressure the QB, and they dn't stop the run. I have NO clue where you get any idea that they have a great D unless you like looking at news articles from last season to make your opinion for you.


but we nearly always have trouble in Arrowhead.
True


the next time we play the Bolts and Faders each will be out to avenge humiliation,
Which doesn't really mean much at all. If you can't get motivated to WIN against a division team, than the "we were embarrassed last game" motivation doesn't mean Jack Squat.


and the next game against Oakland is in the Black Hole.
Uhmm.. through 2010, 2011, and this season...the Raiders are 9-11 at home with five of those losses being to division games (out of 7 so far). Its not like the Black Hole is this "scary" place to go play....despite the crowd wearing all their Halloween costumes.


Since the Texans collapse against GB the Ravens are arguably the best AFC team, and losing Ray Lewis didn't suddenly make them the kind of .500 team we can expect to beat.
Once again, you are showing that you don't watch very much football. What Houston collapse?? Losing to GB?? Who has the Ravens beat, and have you seen them play?? They aren't that good, and teams are running on them like never before. Losing Ray Lewis is ABSOLUTELY a huge loss for them. Its like losing their starting QB from that team. It's Huge.


Now we're down to 10-6, best case scenario. Just because Cincy lost to Cleveland doesn't mean they suck; divisional games are usually tough, but Cincy's still a good team that should beat us.
Horse Shit. Why SHOULD they beat us? Because you want to believe this team isn't any good without Tebow? Cincy isn't better than we are. Sure they COULD win the game, but I absolutely see NOTHING from that team that makes them a team that "should" beat us whatsoever. This is the remarks from someone that just likes to believe we are much worse than we are.


This team doesn't reach the postseason unless a LOT of stars align, and won't be there long even then. The sooner fans accept that the sooner we will sit back and enjoy the ride; the sooner the FO accepts it the sooner they will start patching all the many holes that make us a .500 team (at best.) Clock's ticking; Manning, Champ, Stokley, Brooking, Koppen, Adams and DJ are all on the wrong side of 30.
:lol: :lol: Again, why, because you say so? A LOT of stars are needed to get to the post season??? Seriously? No, that was what was needed with Tebow was QB. YOu are by far the biggest BS downer I've ever seen. You just hate hate hate that your Tebow is playing special teams on NY and just can't stand to believe and see that this team is already MUCH MUCH better than it was last year.... MUCH.

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 05:24 PM
Rav, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more than in this post. There is nothing I can really add.

I'm not sure what was more ridiculous about his post, that 4-2 is the best we can hope for in the division or that all the stars would have to align for us to make the playoffs.

I'm the first to admit we are still a pretty flawed team, but the AFC is just bad this year and our division is the worst in it. Barring some major injuries I just don't see how we don't make the playoffs at this point.

slim
10-17-2012, 05:25 PM
And neither can they stop ours. That's the point . . .
.

They don't have to. Our offense will stop themselves (for at least 1/2 the game).

topscribe
10-17-2012, 05:36 PM
They don't have to. Our offense will stop themselves (for at least 1/2 the game).
The eternal optimist, Slim . . . :tsk:
.

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 05:38 PM
Also, Cincy is the ultimate (as Bill Simmons calls it) good-bad team. Meaning they are good enough to beat bad teams but can't beat anyone good. Look at their wins last season and this year: Last year: Cleveland, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Indy, Seattle, Tennessee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Arizona. This year: Cleveland, Washington, Jacksonville

Where is an impressive win there? (keep in mind that all those NFCW teams were really bad last season).

MOtorboat
10-17-2012, 05:39 PM
They don't have to. Our offense will stop themselves (for at least 1/2 the game).

Well then. Denver is making progress. Last year they couldn't play offense for 55 of 60 minutes. Now they can't play offense for 30 of 60 minutes.

I'd have to say that's quite the upgrade. Look out world in 2013!

Ravage!!!
10-17-2012, 06:11 PM
Also, Cincy is the ultimate (as Bill Simmons calls it) good-bad team. Meaning they are good enough to beat bad teams but can't beat anyone good. Look at their wins last season and this year: Last year: Cleveland, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Indy, Seattle, Tennessee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Arizona. This year: Cleveland, Washington, Jacksonville

Where is an impressive win there? (keep in mind that all those NFCW teams were really bad last season).

The "Great" defense in KC that was mentioned earlier...has given up 35 or more points in 4 of 6 games (40, 35, 37, 38). The team that took over the AFC (according to the same person) when Houston had its "collapse"... scored a whopping nine points on that defense.

Joel
10-17-2012, 07:15 PM
This couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you DO need some of what he's smoking, because if you think the Chiefs have a great D, then you aren't watching ANY football at all this season. Their defense is bad...flat... out.... bad. Now it may get better, but they don't pressure the QB, and they dn't stop the run. I have NO clue where you get any idea that they have a great D unless you like looking at news articles from last season to make your opinion for you.
Perhaps the Chiefs D isn't as good as everyone expected coming into the season, but it's better than it's played. Atlanta put a few points on us, too, IIRC, and holding Brees and Co. to 24 was good enough for KC to beat them. Like I say though, I think they're our best chance for a division sweep, so saying 4-2 in the division was our best case scenario counted two wins against KC.


True
And the biggest obstacle to sweeping KC; IIRC, they have trouble at Mile High (which made last years loss the more embarrassing) and we have trouble at Arrowhead (which made last years win more satisfying.)


Which doesn't really mean much at all. If you can't get motivated to WIN against a division team, than the "we were embarrassed last game" motivation doesn't mean Jack Squat.
It is a different kind of motivation though, because instead of just wanting a vital win against a division rival there is the defiant refusal to let history repeat itself, and the memory of past mistakes that will not be repeated. Don't expect Rivers to hand us another pair of TDs; he's not THAT incompetent. Divisional games are tough, because the teams get to know each other VERY well; sweeping one divisional foe is tough, and sweeping several almost impossible unless you're VERY good. We aren't; we aren't terrible, but we aren't great either.


Uhmm.. through 2010, 2011, and this season...the Raiders are 9-11 at home with five of those losses being to division games (out of 7 so far). Its not like the Black Hole is this "scary" place to go play....despite the crowd wearing all their Halloween costumes.
I believe they're 9-9 at home since 2010 (since they've only played twice there this year,) and with a win and loss against us. The crowd will still be loud on our third downs and quiet on theirs, they still know their field better than we and still don't need a plane to reach it. Plus our visit will remind them of the drubbing they got at Mile High, so they'll be out for blood.


Once again, you are showing that you don't watch very much football. What Houston collapse?? Losing to GB?? Who has the Ravens beat, and have you seen them play?? They aren't that good, and teams are running on them like never before. Losing Ray Lewis is ABSOLUTELY a huge loss for them. Its like losing their starting QB from that team. It's Huge.
Yes, Houstons collapse was losing to GB; I said that, didn't I? I sure watched that game, and it was an embarrassment almost from the start; it looked like the vaunted Texans D switched placed with the Joe Mays Broncos, refusing to get off the field on third down even if they had to commit penalty after penalty to keep the Packs TD drives alive. The vaunted Texans offense couldn't get Arian Foster to 100 yards even with half the Packers starting D out hurt. The only reason it was as "close" as 42-24 was because Houston blocked a punt for a TD in the fourth quarter, but the team that took a 20 second half lead on us (well, one of the FOUR teams that have done that) got demolished by a 2-3 squad.

Six weeks in "who have they played?" applies to many teams, but the Ravens destroyed a divisional foe that made the playoffs last year (Cincy, 44-13) and beat the defending AFC champs (one of the four teams that took a 20 point lead on us.) Losing Lewis is only "huge" if the next guy up isn't as good; I guess we will see. They'll have Terrell Suggs back before we face them though, and I'm more concerned about him.


Horse Shit. Why SHOULD they beat us? Because you want to believe this team isn't any good without Tebow? Cincy isn't better than we are. Sure they COULD win the game, but I absolutely see NOTHING from that team that makes them a team that "should" beat us whatsoever. This is the remarks from someone that just likes to believe we are much worse than we are.
WTF does Tebow have to do with anything outside NY? If getting rid of him were enough to win the Super Bowl there'd be 31 champions this year.

After weeks of folks wishing we'd taken Burfict or Maualuga so we weren't stuck with Mays at MLB you see nothing that makes a team with BOTH of them better than us? How 'bout this: They made the playoffs with a better record than us last year despite 4 games against the Steelers and Ravens. I don't think last years AFCW as bad as most do (its only losing team was 7-9 and gave GB its only loss,) but 9-7 in the AFCN>8-8 in the AFCW. Unless you think Cedric Benson is a LOT better than Benjarvus Green-Ellis it's hard to say they're worse than last year, which was good enough to make the playoffs despite finishing third in their division.


:lol: :lol: Again, why, because you say so? A LOT of stars are needed to get to the post season??? Seriously? No, that was what was needed with Tebow was QB. YOu are by far the biggest BS downer I've ever seen. You just hate hate hate that your Tebow is playing special teams on NY and just can't stand to believe and see that this team is already MUCH MUCH better than it was last year.... MUCH.
Again, Tebow is irrelevant, except that we won the division with him and now have a division winners schedule with a .500 team. Refusing to expect we sweep our whole freaking division (because teams post 6-0 division records every year... :rolleyes:) or go 7-3 in our last 10 despite going .500 in the first 6 doesn't mean I'm a Teboi, it means I'm not a homer. He wasn't the only thing preventing victory (more often than not, he was the opposite) but if you want to believe we'll be undefeated from here on out and cruise to a Super Bowl, fine. Just try not to get too mad when it doesn't happen, because we have far too many holes for that to be realistic. We had them last year and most are still there; when we face reality and address them we might be a contender, but until then expecting a deep playoff run is just a delusion that may end by Christmas.

BroncoWave
10-17-2012, 07:36 PM
but if you want to believe we'll be undefeated from here on out and cruise to a Super Bowl, fine. Just try not to get too mad when it doesn't happen, because we have far too many holes for that to be realistic. We had them last year and most are still there; when we face reality and address them we might be a contender, but until then expecting a deep playoff run is just a delusion that may end by Christmas.

Uummmm, no one is saying that bro. I said we could win double digit games and probably the division. How is that the same as winning out and winning the SB?

You say it's unrealistic to expect us to go 7-3 after starting 3-3. Well if you look at our first 6 games schedule and last 10 games it's totally reasonable. We started 1-5 and finished 7-3 last year with Tim Tebow as our QB. You don't think we can do the same with Manning?

Joel
10-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Uummmm, no one is saying that bro. I said we could win double digit games and probably the division. How is that the same as winning out and winning the SB?

You say it's unrealistic to expect us to go 7-3 after starting 3-3. Well if you look at our first 6 games schedule and last 10 games it's totally reasonable. We started 1-5 and finished 7-3 last year with Tim Tebow as our QB. You don't think we can do the same with Manning?
I had in mind how quickly the thread progressed from "will we make the playoffs?" to "of COURSE we make the playoffs, but just the Conference Championship against this inferior talent, or can we do more?" Double digit wins is the absolute most I expect—and that requires a 7-3 finish. Anything less and we're at 9-7 or worse looking for help to make the postseason most people seem to treat as a foregone conclusion.

Sure, we made it with Tebow, and a TON of luck, and the Faders and Bolts blowing their final games as badly as we did. Had SD not lost to Detroit AND beaten Chokeland we have no postseason. Last year we had a 31st place schedule; this year we have a division winners. Manning doesn't make us two games better against a much tougher schedule unless he

1) Run blocks so McGahee and Hillman aren't constantly hit multiple times behind the line (as they are now,)
2) Catches his own passes without fumbling them or tripping over his own feet,
3) Covers Pro Bowl tight ends,
4) Covers deep passes and, apparently,
5) Returns kickoffs and punts without fumbling them.

This team had a lot more problems than QB last year, and still has most of them. Heaven help us if we have any more injuries like Warrens (people complaining about McGahee getting hurt should take a look at our run blocking.) This isn't Madden; it takes more than a HoF QB and a couple sackmonsters to win a title. We've got 3 playoff teams and 4 division games, and must win the majority to reach 10 wins even if we don't screw it up with a needless loss against Tampa, Cleveland or Carolina. It's not impossible, but is unlikely, and I find it absurd so many people evidently think 10-6 is our worst rather than best case scenario.

You know the biggest thing I learned from last year? Fans of mediocre teams have the luxury the players don't of keeping expectations low to avoid disappointment and savor success.

ikillz0mbies
10-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Honestly all those games are winnable. Will they win them all? Probably not. But they certainly have a chance to go undefeated. NO could put up points real fast, but their defense is atrocious. I don't think the Panthers are as tough as most think simply because Cam Newton is weak mentally. If the Broncos could get a couple of hits on him early or force a couple of turnovers such as INTs, then Newton is going to be rattled and see that pouty, unsportsman-like body language we've seen this season. The only games I am worried about are the Bengals, who have a stout defense and AJ Green, the Ravens because they have Ray Rice (but their defense is crumbling), and possibly the game in Kansas City (Jamaal Charles anyone?).

shank
10-17-2012, 08:44 PM
Uummmm, no one is saying that bro. I said we could win double digi
yeah

t games and probably the division. How is that the same as winning out and winning the SB?

You say it's unrealistic to expect us to go 7-3 after starting 3-
take

3. Well if you look at our first 6 games schedule and last 10 games it's to
that

tally reasonable. We started 1-5 and finished 7-3 last year w
joel

ith Tim Tebow as our QB. You don't think we can do the same with Manning?
!

igoe4broncos
10-17-2012, 09:31 PM
It will be tough to win back-to-back road games @Cincy and @Carolina. I say we split those, lose to Baltimore (when was the last time Denver was competitive in Baltimore?), and drop a divisional game we shouldn't.

Final record: 10-6 - good enough for a division crown and a No. 3/4 seed.

tubby
10-17-2012, 09:46 PM
13-3 home field advantage

CrazyHorse
10-17-2012, 10:39 PM
As much as I like to look ahead to remaining games it's a bad policy. I feel we could finish anywhere from 8-8 to 13-3 with 10-6 being the most realistic. I think we have a good shot at winning the division and if not at worst a wild card.

TimHippo
10-17-2012, 11:00 PM
I still say we lose to NO and possibly to the panthers and bengals. The rest of the games should all be wins.

No way we lose to Cam Newton. That thief is an emotional wreck this year.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRU9iJACd0bzsBQsy7O6ehywFHLNZQMx QdkcE29H-WzeV5ax22U7A

TimHippo
10-17-2012, 11:00 PM
Like I said a couple weeks ago we will finish 12-4 and beat the Ravens.

I Eat Staples
10-18-2012, 12:44 AM
Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. The Chiefs have a great D and no offense, but we nearly always have trouble in Arrowhead. That's still our best shot at sweeping a division team though; the next time we play the Bolts and Faders each will be out to avenge humiliation, and the next game against Oakland is in the Black Hole. 4-2 in the division is probably the best we can expect, and that means at least 5 losses if we beat everyone else. In other words, if we go 8-2 in our remaining games we finish 11-5, and anyone who thinks this team will win 8 of its last 10 is nuts.

Since the Texans collapse against GB the Ravens are arguably the best AFC team, and losing Ray Lewis didn't suddenly make them the kind of .500 team we can expect to beat. Now we're down to 10-6, best case scenario. Just because Cincy lost to Cleveland doesn't mean they suck; divisional games are usually tough, but Cincy's still a good team that should beat us. That's 9-7 even if we beat NO, Carolina and Tampa. If we lose any of those three games we must either sweep multiple division opponents or upset the Ravens/Bengals.

This team doesn't reach the postseason unless a LOT of stars align, and won't be there long even then. The sooner fans accept that the sooner we will sit back and enjoy the ride; the sooner the FO accepts it the sooner they will start patching all the many holes that make us a .500 team (at best.) Clock's ticking; Manning, Champ, Stokley, Brooking, Koppen, Adams and DJ are all on the wrong side of 30.

I think you're the one smoking here...you expect us to lose two divisional games? Sure, any given Sunday, but we'll be favored in every divisional game this year. I could see us dropping one to a team like SD or Carolina, but I highly, highly doubt we'd lose to KC or Oakland.

TXBRONC
10-18-2012, 11:13 AM
Perhaps the Chiefs D isn't as good as everyone expected coming into the season, but it's better than it's played. Atlanta put a few points on us, too, IIRC, and holding Brees and Co. to 24 was good enough for KC to beat them. Like I say though, I think they're our best chance for a division sweep, so saying 4-2 in the division was our best case scenario counted two wins against KC.


And the biggest obstacle to sweeping KC; IIRC, they have trouble at Mile High (which made last years loss the more embarrassing) and we have trouble at Arrowhead (which made last years win more satisfying.)


It is a different kind of motivation though, because instead of just wanting a vital win against a division rival there is the defiant refusal to let history repeat itself, and the memory of past mistakes that will not be repeated. Don't expect Rivers to hand us another pair of TDs; he's not THAT incompetent. Divisional games are tough, because the teams get to know each other VERY well; sweeping one divisional foe is tough, and sweeping several almost impossible unless you're VERY good. We aren't; we aren't terrible, but we aren't great either.


I believe they're 9-9 at home since 2010 (since they've only played twice there this year,) and with a win and loss against us. The crowd will still be loud on our third downs and quiet on theirs, they still know their field better than we and still don't need a plane to reach it. Plus our visit will remind them of the drubbing they got at Mile High, so they'll be out for blood.


Yes, Houstons collapse was losing to GB; I said that, didn't I? I sure watched that game, and it was an embarrassment almost from the start; it looked like the vaunted Texans D switched placed with the Joe Mays Broncos, refusing to get off the field on third down even if they had to commit penalty after penalty to keep the Packs TD drives alive. The vaunted Texans offense couldn't get Arian Foster to 100 yards even with half the Packers starting D out hurt. The only reason it was as "close" as 42-24 was because Houston blocked a punt for a TD in the fourth quarter, but the team that took a 20 second half lead on us (well, one of the FOUR teams that have done that) got demolished by a 2-3 squad.

Six weeks in "who have they played?" applies to many teams, but the Ravens destroyed a divisional foe that made the playoffs last year (Cincy, 44-13) and beat the defending AFC champs (one of the four teams that took a 20 point lead on us.) Losing Lewis is only "huge" if the next guy up isn't as good; I guess we will see. They'll have Terrell Suggs back before we face them though, and I'm more concerned about him.


WTF does Tebow have to do with anything outside NY? If getting rid of him were enough to win the Super Bowl there'd be 31 champions this year.

After weeks of folks wishing we'd taken Burfict or Maualuga so we weren't stuck with Mays at MLB you see nothing that makes a team with BOTH of them better than us? How 'bout this: They made the playoffs with a better record than us last year despite 4 games against the Steelers and Ravens. I don't think last years AFCW as bad as most do (its only losing team was 7-9 and gave GB its only loss,) but 9-7 in the AFCN>8-8 in the AFCW. Unless you think Cedric Benson is a LOT better than Benjarvus Green-Ellis it's hard to say they're worse than last year, which was good enough to make the playoffs despite finishing third in their division.


Again, Tebow is irrelevant, except that we won the division with him and now have a division winners schedule with a .500 team. Refusing to expect we sweep our whole freaking division (because teams post 6-0 division records every year... :rolleyes:) or go 7-3 in our last 10 despite going .500 in the first 6 doesn't mean I'm a Teboi, it means I'm not a homer. He wasn't the only thing preventing victory (more often than not, he was the opposite) but if you want to believe we'll be undefeated from here on out and cruise to a Super Bowl, fine. Just try not to get too mad when it doesn't happen, because we have far too many holes for that to be realistic. We had them last year and most are still there; when we face reality and address them we might be a contender, but until then expecting a deep playoff run is just a delusion that may end by Christmas.

Joel your logicl leaves me scratching my head. It makes no sense to me because it comes across to like you think these things exist in a vacuum. The Raiders and Chargers will beat us because they'll be motviated by being beaten by us previously. Yet the Chiefs are Denver's best chance for going 2-0 against a division rival. Now like the Chargers our first meeting against will be at Arrowhead yet they wont be as motivated as the Chargers will for their meeting against Denver in Denver? According to you they have a good defense even though they played poorly. If this really your logic it's laughable. If I were you I would be embarrassed that I didn't think through better than this. So you may not be a Teboi or a homer, but you're also not being logical. Btw who said we're going cruise to the Super Bowl? BTB said he thinks we'll have double digit wins and that we'll make some noise in the playoffs that's a far cry from predicting a Super Bowl. What he said possible. It doesn't mean he'll right but with 10 games left schedule they have a legitimate shot at it.

NightTerror218
10-18-2012, 11:25 AM
it is still any given sunday...I prefer to be the underdog going into games then to be the favorite.

blamkin86
10-18-2012, 11:36 AM
vs. New Orleans (Could go either way)
@ Cincy (Win)
@ Carolina (Win)
vs. SD (Win)
@ KC (Win)
vs. TB (Win)
@ Oakland (Win)
@ Baltimore (Could go either way)
vs. Cleveland (Win)
vs. KC (Win)

Depending that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot i think we can at worse go 11-5. Bmore is hurting and NO's defense is atrocious. But both have other elements that can hurt us so it can go either way. IMO

I agree with everything - except - somehow we always manage to lose one against KC - despite the reality of us being the better team. So that last game, esp if we already have it wrapped up, is in doubt.

Rest of them I think are spot on.

Day1BroncoFan
10-18-2012, 11:39 AM
it is still any given sunday...I prefer to be the underdog going into games then to be the favorite.

I agree with this. I'll be happy if we get to 10-7 or better but I see us more as a 9-7 team the way we're playing right now. If we can put some complete games together the sky is the limit. Starting out with 20 points or more in the hole isn't going to get us there. We need to stop dropping TD's and tripping over blades of grass. We could have just as easily been down by 28 or more points at the half on MNF but the D saved our ass.

swaiy
10-18-2012, 12:44 PM
Why do debby downers think Rivers "gifted" us with those turnovers? I guess the Broncos shouldnt pay any of those bums on defense since they had nothing to do with any of those plays. If anybody was handing out gifts you should look no further than Holliday and Bolden.

Ravage!!!
10-18-2012, 01:15 PM
I personally would like to be the favorite because it means we are the better team. As BTB said in his opening post, looking at the schedule there aren't any games (other than Baltimore) that we shouldn't be the FAVORITE for. He didn't say we would win all the way out.

I think Joel's logic is failing on several fronts and just don't believe that teams like Cinci "should" beat us. He brags about Baltimore "destroying" a divisional rival team 44-13, yet only beats Cleveland (another rival) 23-16. 4 out of 6 teams put 35+ points on the Chiefs, but the Ravens only put up 9. He brags about the Chiefs defense because the Saints only put 24 on them (when the Saints have lost every other game they played), but Tampa Bay put up 38.

I Eat Staples
10-18-2012, 01:58 PM
The Chiefs are absolutely horrible this year. If we lose to them it'll be because we already clinched and just didn't give a shit.

T.K.O.
10-18-2012, 02:08 PM
worst case scenario....9-7 with another afcw title:salute:

Ravage!!!
10-18-2012, 02:09 PM
The Chiefs are absolutely horrible this year. If we lose to them it'll be because we already clinched and just didn't give a shit.

The Chiefs are bad. But, I never take a game against them guaranteed. We usually split with them...even when having a Super Bowl winning caliber team (meaning back in '97). Seems they always have the game of the year against us, and they certainly step it up on Bronco week.

Dzone
10-18-2012, 03:18 PM
expecting a winning streak of about 10 games

TXBRONC
10-18-2012, 03:50 PM
I agree with everything - except - somehow we always manage to lose one against KC - despite the reality of us being the better team. So that last game, esp if we already have it wrapped up, is in doubt.

Rest of them I think are spot on.

In Denver that's true we've lost two of the last three at home. Ironically the reverse is true at Arrowhead we've two of the last three.

TXBRONC
10-18-2012, 03:59 PM
I agree with this. I'll be happy if we get to 10-7 or better but I see us more as a 9-7 team the way we're playing right now. If we can put some complete games together the sky is the limit. Starting out with 20 points or more in the hole isn't going to get us there. We need to stop dropping TD's and tripping over blades of grass. We could have just as easily been down by 28 or more points at the half on MNF but the D saved our ass.

No doubt given horrible position special teams put them. If the special teams doesn't make those mistakes I have a hard time believing that the would have given up those 17 points.

OrangenBlue80
10-20-2012, 11:39 PM
I personally believe that Denver will be the hands down favorites in every game the rest of the season, except Baltimore, and New Orleans. Those games will be knock down drag out fights. Our offense is continually evolving and changing and we could very easily come up on a stumbling block in our own division. Our rivals seem to have a way to bite us in the ass when we least expect it. We should finish the season with a record no worse than 13-3 if everything falls into place perfectly, but realistically, 11-5 is looking more likely. Still a division title and possibly a first round bye sounds nice.

Ravage!!!
10-21-2012, 10:37 PM
The Chiefs have a great D and no offense,
I'll give you this, the Chiefs weren't scored on this week.

the next game against Oakland is in the Black Hole.
Thats true! Did you see how they whipped a Jacksonville team, at home, when Jax lost their starting QB and starting RB by half! Wow, did they show dominance at the "black hole."


Since the Texans collapse against GB the Ravens are arguably the best AFC team, and losing Ray Lewis didn't suddenly make them the kind of .500 team we can expect to beat.
*cough*


Now we're down to 10-6, best case scenario. Just because Cincy lost to Cleveland doesn't mean they suck; divisional games are usually tough, but Cincy's still a good team that should beat us.

Just a terrible week for your statements. Everything you've said so far has proved to be wrong. They played yet another division rival, against a pretty poor Pittsburgh team, and couldn't do squat.


the sooner the FO accepts it the sooner they will start patching all the many holes that make us a .500 team (at best.)

yeah, 8-8 at best. I'm glad you are here to warn us since you obviously have a handle on the NFL.

Chef Zambini
10-23-2012, 12:44 PM
I personally believe that Denver will be the hands down favorites in every game the rest of the season, except Baltimore, and New Orleans. Those games will be knock down drag out fights. Our offense is continually evolving and changing and we could very easily come up on a stumbling block in our own division. Our rivals seem to have a way to bite us in the ass when we least expect it. We should finish the season with a record no worse than 13-3 if everything falls into place perfectly, but realistically, 11-5 is looking more likely. Still a division title and possibly a first round bye sounds nice.... AND YET , IN every game this year we have been OUR OWN WORST ENEMY !
and i think our own team will be there every week!
so each week we face our greatest opponent, ourselves !
until we end this "plaxico scenario"
no game is going to be easy !

NightTerror218
10-23-2012, 01:01 PM
this coming up game against NO is going to be tough. It will be similar to the NE. It will be a race. Can get some out of the gates and get ahead? Because we will not shut down NO in the second half this week.

BroncoWave
10-23-2012, 01:02 PM
We open as a 6 point favorite over New Orleans and with Baltimore possibly falling apart we could find ourselves favored in that one by then as well.

NightTerror218
10-23-2012, 01:02 PM
We open as a 6 point favorite over New Orleans and with Baltimore possibly falling apart we could find ourselves favored in that one by then as well.

as long was we can hold Ray Rice keep him down.

BroncoWave
10-23-2012, 01:03 PM
this coming up game against NO is going to be tough. It will be similar to the NE. It will be a race. Can get some out of the gates and get ahead? Because we will not shut down NO in the second half this week.

Their defense is BAD and I mean BAD. Freeman put up 420 yards on them. If we just stop Brees a couple of times we should win. This is the worst defense we will have faced all season IMO.

NightTerror218
10-23-2012, 01:46 PM
Their defense is BAD and I mean BAD. Freeman put up 420 yards on them. If we just stop Brees a couple of times we should win. This is the worst defense we will have faced all season IMO.

even a bad defense can capitalize on mental errors (fumbles).

TXBRONC
10-23-2012, 02:49 PM
Their defense is BAD and I mean BAD. Freeman put up 420 yards on them. If we just stop Brees a couple of times we should win. This is the worst defense we will have faced all season IMO.

If the Broncos don't turn the ball but if Dener gives them kind of chances we gave the Chargers they're good enough on offense to bury us.

NightTerror218
10-23-2012, 02:50 PM
so far only good news is graham is still considered out. Even thought the Bounty Hunter may play.

BroncoWave
10-23-2012, 03:13 PM
If the Broncos don't turn the ball but if Dener gives them kind of chances we gave the Chargers they're good enough on offense to bury us.

There offense can also disappear during points in games too. It's certainly not as good as it was last season. There is a reason Vegas has us as a 6 point favorite.

I Eat Staples
10-23-2012, 04:12 PM
Their defense is BAD and I mean BAD. Freeman put up 420 yards on them. If we just stop Brees a couple of times we should win. This is the worst defense we will have faced all season IMO.

Their offense scares me, though. They're exactly the type of team we struggle with. Sure, their defense is awful, but usually it's us that stop us, not the opposing defense. Our defense plays well against average and below offenses, but we absolutely suck against a great offense.

We can definitely win, but I think this will be our hardest game until Baltimore.

BroncoWave
10-23-2012, 04:19 PM
Their offense scares me, though. They're exactly the type of team we struggle with. Sure, their defense is awful, but usually it's us that stop us, not the opposing defense. Our defense plays well against average and below offenses, but we absolutely suck against a great offense.

We can definitely win, but I think this will be our hardest game until Baltimore.

Did our D "suck" against Atlanta? I seem to remember them keeping us in it while our offense was blowing chunks. Football outsiders DVOA rankings has our defense rated 6th in the league. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.

People need to forget last season's Saints offense. This is not the same one. They are still really good, but they have regressed a bit. And Graham is injured, which definitely helps us.

Day1BroncoFan
10-23-2012, 06:50 PM
I say we beat the saints in our house on NTL.

TXBRONC
10-23-2012, 08:19 PM
There offense can also disappear during points in games too. It's certainly not as good as it was last season. There is a reason Vegas has us as a 6 point favorite.

Sure it can but my point is that if we make mistakes on special teams or on offense and putting our defense in hole the Saints more than capable of capitalizing on it. The Saints' offense is a lot more explosive than the Chargers' offense and much more capable of putting us in a bigger hole.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 11:07 AM
Sure it can but my point is that if we make mistakes on special teams or on offense and putting our defense in hole the Saints more than capable of capitalizing on it. The Saints' offense is a lot more explosive than the Chargers' offense and much more capable of putting us in a bigger hole.

Depending if Vilma knocks Manning out for the season on a bounty hit.

MasterShake
10-24-2012, 11:09 AM
Their defense is BAD and I mean BAD. Freeman put up 420 yards on them. If we just stop Brees a couple of times we should win. This is the worst defense we will have faced all season IMO.

My friend lives in New Orleans and tells me we have this game, but I am still nervous as hell. I'm still at a point where our Defense has someone on a third and long and I just expect them to make it.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Depending if Vilma knocks Manning out for the season on a bounty hit.

Dude, stop that shit. The kind of "bounties" that went on goes on in EVERY locker room. They didn't do anything different than the rest of the NFL. Lets cut that kind of insulting now, as every team in the NFL has their black-eyes.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 11:24 AM
My friend lives in New Orleans and tells me we have this game, but I am still nervous as hell. I'm still at a point where our Defense has someone on a third and long and I just expect them to make it.

Yeah, and our offense has to step it up on the first possessions. Seems we start off with run run run.... and don't let Manning just take over on the first drive to give us points. If nothing else, somewhat of a drive so we can punt deep to them would be a good start.

BroncoWave
10-24-2012, 11:29 AM
Yeah, and our offense has to step it up on the first possessions. Seems we start off with run run run.... and don't let Manning just take over on the first drive to give us points. If nothing else, somewhat of a drive so we can punt deep to them would be a good start.

Agreed. If we can't start out well on offense against an awful defense, at home, with 2 weeks to prepare, I will lose almost any hope that McCoy will ever have this offense ready for a first half. This game sets up perfectly for us to run out of the gates hot.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 11:34 AM
Agreed. If we can't start out well on offense against an awful defense, at home, with 2 weeks to prepare, I will lose almost any hope that McCoy will ever have this offense ready for a first half. This game sets up perfectly for us to run out of the gates hot.

It seems, and it probably is a lot with Manning as well, that after the ATL game....they aren't willing to come out with the no-huddle early and want Manning to get a feel for what the defense is doing, first. I get that logic. ATL seems to has Manning a bit gun-shy in getting out there and thinking he knows the other teams defense too early...thus.... starting off conservative and letting Manning get a complete read on exactly what they are trying to do.

I understand that, but man, its basically just putting us on "hold" early on. I miss the Shanahan scripted plays for the first drive that would nt only score, but the diffferent formations would give us the read on exactly how they had planned on stopping our offense.

I thought that Elway might push for something like that since his teams had such a benefit from that while he was playing. However, if Fox and the coachign staff isn't used to that kind of prep and coaching, then trying to change things to fit him (elway) isn't the best path, either. I just miss those first drives putting teams in the hole, and almost dictating the game from that point forward.

MasterShake
10-24-2012, 11:43 AM
Agreed. If we can't start out well on offense against an awful defense, at home, with 2 weeks to prepare, I will lose almost any hope that McCoy will ever have this offense ready for a first half. This game sets up perfectly for us to run out of the gates hot.

I'd love to see 10-14 points in the first quarter. I loved the Raider game when I could just sit back and watch. Playing from ahead is fun!

Chef Zambini
10-24-2012, 11:48 AM
not only is the starting gameplan suspect, but our 'plaxicocomplex' early in each game has to be addressed as well.
this team does not seem mentally prepared to start the game, and discipline is an apparent issue as well, spiking the ball and holding it up like a loaf of stolen bread before getting to the end-zone, that kind of CRAP needs to be addressed !

BroncoWave
10-24-2012, 11:49 AM
I'd love to see 10-14 points in the first quarter. I loved the Raider game when I could just sit back and watch. Playing from ahead is fun!

Even in that game our offense didn't start well. It was only 10-6 at halftime.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 11:51 AM
Even in that game our offense didn't start well. It was only 10-6 at halftime.

Yeah, that was the game that sticks out (probably because more recent)...that our first couple of drives were just determined to run run run. Was irritating.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 11:52 AM
Dude, stop that shit. The kind of "bounties" that went on goes on in EVERY locker room. They didn't do anything different than the rest of the NFL. Lets cut that kind of insulting now, as every team in the NFL has their black-eyes.

Uh huh sure. what ever you say. Saints were proven to have the bounty program for creating injuries. Other teams have different incentives besides knocking players out of the game. Do you not remember the retired players coming out and talking about the different incentive programs they had. None of them involved injuring a playing, but embarrassing them more.

so you can get your panties in a twist all you want. But vilma was a leader on that saints defense and they have records of him putting up money for bounties.

underrated29
10-24-2012, 11:56 AM
Agreed. If we can't start out well on offense against an awful defense, at home, with 2 weeks to prepare, I will lose almost any hope that McCoy will ever have this offense ready for a first half. This game sets up perfectly for us to run out of the gates hot.


Shit man, I did almost 3 years ago.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 11:58 AM
Agreed. If we can't start out well on offense against an awful defense, at home, with 2 weeks to prepare, I will lose almost any hope that McCoy will ever have this offense ready for a first half. This game sets up perfectly for us to run out of the gates hot.

I really hope McCoy is not doing what he did last sesaon. run vanilla offense and tweak at half time. Because so far almost every game the offense has came rumbling back in the second half.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 11:59 AM
Uh huh sure. what ever you say. Saints were proven to have the bounty program for creating injuries. Other teams have different incentives besides knocking players out of the game. Do you not remember the retired players coming out and talking about the different incentive programs they had. None of them involved injuring a playing, but embarrassing them more.

so you can get your panties in a twist all you want. But vilma was a leader on that saints defense and they have records of him putting up money for bounties.

Uh.. no. They didn't prove SHIT. The bounty programs that the Saints had were no different than any other program. I'm sorry that your image of the NFL may have changed a lit bit, but there is absolutely NO proof.. none..zero.. zilch.... that these players were trying to INJURE anyone. That's why its still through the repeal process.

Vilma isn't a dirty player. But different discussion for a different thread. But keep that crap for "other teams" forum if you want to make stupid comments like the ones you did.... TIA

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 12:07 PM
Uh.. no. They didn't prove SHIT. The bounty programs that the Saints had were no different than any other program. I'm sorry that your image of the NFL may have changed a lit bit, but there is absolutely NO proof.. none..zero.. zilch.... that these players were trying to INJURE anyone. That's why its still through the repeal process.

Vilma isn't a dirty player. But different discussion for a different thread. But keep that crap for "other teams" forum if you want to make stupid comments like the ones you did.... TIA

If there was none then the coaches would not have been suspended and the player suspension would have been dropped but nope all have been upheld. There is the speach from former defensive coach telling team to injury Alex Smith last season. I am sorry if you have blinders but there is plenty of evidence. Some of it is weak against the players but they had the program and i feel bad for the NFL players besides the 4 who are being suspended cause the union is all about opposing the NFL and is not willing to stand up for the players being injured by the Saints.

I think the fact that VILMA IS POSSIBLY PLAYING THIS WEEKEND MAKES IT VALID. Cause I dont trust him. Thank you thread police. But the fact Saints are playing Broncos.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 12:17 PM
If there was none then the coaches would not have been suspended and the player suspension would have been dropped but nope all have been upheld.
you are embarrassing yourself and you don't even realize it. There has been ZERO evidence provided by the commissioner. None. Which is why the suspensions are still under appeal. Please, do some research and read something up to date.

The Saints were doing nothing different, OTHER, than the coaches simply getting in on it. Other than that, bounties for "taking out players" isn't meant to injure them. I know that for someone like you, that has never played football, wouldn't understand the difference. But when you tell a player, or a teammate, to take out the QB.... its not due to INJURY, but to hitting them HARD and hitting them often. We ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS tried to take out the other teams big time players, and gave pats on the back when it happened. But we didn't set out to INJURE the player. Same thing here. Sorry that you can't understand the difference.

But, last I'm talking about this with you, here. Perhaps you can do some research in the meantime and see that the NFL (and the commissioner) have provided zero proof.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 12:31 PM
you are embarrassing yourself and you don't even realize it. There has been ZERO evidence provided by the commissioner. None. Which is why the suspensions are still under appeal. Please, do some research and read something up to date.

The Saints were doing nothing different, OTHER, than the coaches simply getting in on it. Other than that, bounties for "taking out players" isn't meant to injure them. I know that for someone like you, that has never played football, wouldn't understand the difference. But when you tell a player, or a teammate, to take out the QB.... its not due to INJURY, but to hitting them HARD and hitting them often. We ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS tried to take out the other teams big time players, and gave pats on the back when it happened. But we didn't set out to INJURE the player. Same thing here. Sorry that you can't understand the difference.

But, last I'm talking about this with you, here. Perhaps you can do some research in the meantime and see that the NFL (and the commissioner) have provided zero proof.

I have played football so maybe you should put foot into mouth. Goodwell also provided hundreds of pages with of documents, including interviews. If he had nothing then we would have had to let the suspensions go after the last court ruling but he upheld them. he even has the former commissioner doing the appeals so he is not involved in the appeals. I do plenty of research why don't pull head out of ass and do some. because players are still getting suspensions, they were upheld. Fujita is the only one who should not get one since his is for not stopping it when knowing it was going on.

Playing football we always tried to put a good hit on their best players but with no intention to injury like was recorded by the defensive coach. If anything we made it so that they would be intimidated and WRs would think twice about making a catch ( i was a CB, WR, Punter and place kicker). They have all the proof they needed about the program to suspend the coaches. The fact they had month offered for "cart offs" is something that is beyond what "other teams" did.

I am sorry you have to try and act better then others try to demeaning by being passive aggressive. I forgot that personal attacks are not below you.

BroncoWave
10-24-2012, 12:33 PM
If nothing actually happened why aren't Payton, Vitt, or Williams challenging their suspensions at all? The fact that a few meathead players are fighting it because they are mad they got caught doesn't really change my mind.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 12:42 PM
If nothing actually happened why aren't Payton, Vitt, or Williams challenging their suspensions at all? The fact that a few meathead players are fighting it because they are mad they got caught doesn't really change my mind.

they dont want to lose pay. but i dont trust Vilma.

TXBRONC
10-24-2012, 12:44 PM
My friend lives in New Orleans and tells me we have this game, but I am still nervous as hell. I'm still at a point where our Defense has someone on a third and long and I just expect them to make it.

I was watching a video clip this moring on DPO and Legwold went through some of stats on the Saints and one that popped out at me was that Saints have zero rushing attempts in 3rd and 4 or longer and overall they throw 55% of time on 3rd down.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 12:46 PM
I was watching a video clip this moring on DPO and Legwold went through some of stats on the Saints and one that popped out at me was that Saints have zero rushing attempts in 3rd and 4 or longer and overall they throw 55% of time on 3rd down.

I saw that yesterday. They rushing attack and defense is horrible. But they do a good amount of screen passes to sproles.

they are also one of the highest percentage conversions on 3rd down

underrated29
10-24-2012, 12:52 PM
I saw that yesterday. They rushing attack and defense is horrible. But they do a good amount of screen passes to sproles.

they are also one of the highest percentage conversions on 3rd down



This! Oh this so much!
And I just pray to tebow that Mike Mccoy will finally see what it is like to call a screen, especially to a fast or shifty player. Hey- we have two of those on our team. Guys great in space. Maybe we should take advantage of that.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 12:56 PM
This! Oh this so much!
And I just pray to tebow that Mike Mccoy will finally see what it is like to call a screen, especially to a fast or shifty player. Hey- we have two of those on our team. Guys great in space. Maybe we should take advantage of that.

would much rather screen pass to Hillman or Moreno and see what they can do then to ball.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 01:01 PM
If nothing actually happened why aren't Payton, Vitt, or Williams challenging their suspensions at all? The fact that a few meathead players are fighting it because they are mad they got caught doesn't really change my mind.

They got suspended, but the biggest problem has been that there has not been ANY proof. Thats why Vilma won the initial appeal. The reason the other players, are waiting is simply because Vilma has been fighting and thus they can 'ride' off his findings. They could very well then sue for their money back if/when Vilma wins his case. Fajita and the others aren't missing playing time since their suspensions have been put on hold.

The coaches aren't apart of the players union.

Vilma, very well, could sue the NFL (and is sueing Goodell) for defamation, and has a good case so far because Goodell hasn't provided ANY proof of his accusations.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 01:08 PM
I have played football so maybe you should put foot into mouth.
Sorry, not counting HS football


Goodwell also provided hundreds of pages with of documents, including interviews. If he had nothing then we would have had to let the suspensions go after the last court ruling but he upheld them. he even has the former commissioner doing the appeals
:lol: Seriously? HE upheld his own suspension. Shocking..and you think this is because HE has the proof yet has decided NOT to share them with anyone in court? Also, you think that having the former commish rule on the appeal is so Goodell would NOT have anything to do with the ruling? How naive can you be?


Playing football we always tried to put a good hit on their best players but with no intention to injury like was recorded by the defensive coach. If anything we made it so that they would be intimidated and WRs would think twice about making a catch ( i was a CB, WR, Punter and place kicker). They have all the proof they needed about the program to suspend the coaches.
This is just wrong. They haven't shown ANY proof to the accusations of which they are made. Thats been the problem since day 1, and nothing has been provided. Goodell keeps saying he has the proof, but has shown ZERO. This is fact. This isn't a guess. This isn't something i'm making up. This is WHY Goodell is being pushed into court to MAKE Goodell provide the proof he SAYS he has. So far, NOTHING has been shown. NOTHING.

BroncoWave
10-24-2012, 01:10 PM
They got suspended, but the biggest problem has been that there has not been ANY proof. Thats why Vilma won the initial appeal. The reason the other players, are waiting is simply because Vilma has been fighting and thus they can 'ride' off his findings. They could very well then sue for their money back if/when Vilma wins his case. Fajita and the others aren't missing playing time since their suspensions have been put on hold.

The coaches aren't apart of the players union.

Vilma, very well, could sue the NFL (and is sueing Goodell) for defamation, and has a good case so far because Goodell hasn't provided ANY proof of his accusations.

So if this bounty thing didn't really exist, why did the 3 coaches take their suspensions without challenging them? If someone kicked you out of your job for a year for something you didn't do, you'd just sit back and take it with no fight?

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 01:19 PM
Sorry, not counting HS football


:lol: Seriously? HE upheld his own suspension. Shocking..and you think this is because HE has the proof yet has decided NOT to share them with anyone in court? Also, you think that having the former commish rule on the appeal is so Goodell would NOT have anything to do with the ruling? How naive can you be?


This is just wrong. They haven't shown ANY proof to the accusations of which they are made. Thats been the problem since day 1, and nothing has been provided. Goodell keeps saying he has the proof, but has shown ZERO. This is fact. This isn't a guess. This isn't something i'm making up. This is WHY Goodell is being pushed into court to MAKE Goodell provide the proof he SAYS he has. So far, NOTHING has been shown. NOTHING.

I did play in football in high school and soccer/rugby in college. They have enough to suspend 3 coaches. If they had no proof why would they be suspended and not fight it. 1 of the coaches is suspended for LIFE. if NFL has no evidence they why not fight the suspensions.

Chef Zambini
10-24-2012, 01:28 PM
So if this bounty thing didn't really exist, why did the 3 coaches take their suspensions without challenging them? If someone kicked you out of your job for a year for something you didn't do, you'd just sit back and take it with no fight?.
first, RAVAGE IS RIGT, all nfl tems do this kind of stuff, BUT...
the SAINTS were warned about their activity specificly ! the coaches and organization/ owner took their punishmnet because they knew what they were told by the commish and they IGNORED his demands!
they are guilty as hell!
but..
these same coaches and rganization FAILED to properly notify and warn the players!
the players waent about busness as usualcash for big hits, and the NFL says, we mustpunish the players, your failurew to inform them CANT be their defense!
otherwaise every team will just ignore the dictates of the NFL office and every player can plead ignorance!
were the players blindsided/ perhaps. is it the fault of the NFL that they were not warned, NO !

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 01:43 PM
So if this bounty thing didn't really exist, why did the 3 coaches take their suspensions without challenging them? If someone kicked you out of your job for a year for something you didn't do, you'd just sit back and take it with no fight?

Guys, have you not been reading/hearing the reports on this?? Its been going on all year long. The suspensions came from Goodell, who is the judge, jury, and execusioner. There is no questioning whether there was a "bounty program"..because that's not a question. But Goodell doesn't have proof as to who was involved in partaking in the program, and certainly has no proof that there was intention to do harm.

Goodell has said that he has PROOF that the players were intentionally INJURING players on other teams, and he has proof that Vilma was involved in the program. Having a bounty program is no different than any other team in the NFL, and he could have probably targeted any team. However, since the saints were on the show "hard knocks"..they had video of the coaches involved and that changed since the NFL is being sued. They ALLLLLL have done it (meaning NFL teams), and honestly, between players I'm betting they absolutely still are. Goodell has provided ZERO proof of his accusations against players, and has stated that he has absolute proof that they were out to injure. If that's true, then show the proof. He has none. He doesn't have proof that this bounty program was any different than any other. He doesn't have proof as to which players "participated" in any program. He's purely making guesses and throwing out names (naming Vilma because he was the "captain" of the defense).

The Saint's coaches/team is being made to be an example. Goodell wanted to show the courts that they are doing everything possible to eliminate this from the NFL and that "this will not be tolerated" (although it was tolerated before they got sued). Goodell doesn't need proof to suspend players/coaches. Vilma is fighting because he's being accused of something that has NO proof. They can't even prove he was involved in the system. Then, he's suing for defamation, and has a good chance of winning.

The coaches are being suspended for purely having a bounty system. Thats undeniable. But there is NO proof that the players were trying to injure players or if they were even involved. Thats completely different. Its a joke that Goodell "annointed" Tagliabue to hear the appeal (:lol:) as if its fair that he recuses himself from the case and then appoints someone to hear it :lol: Yeah, that's fair.

(the other players suspended didn't "fight" it because their suspension were for 4 games. Plus, their case is directly tied to Vilma's and they could/would get compensation for missed pay if/when Vilma wins his case. Fajita had is suspension "lowered" because Goodell labeled it as being detrimental to the NFL for NOT standing up to his coaches. He didn't have proof that Fajita participated in the program (will smith did say he helped fund), thus changed the wording to something that he did have "proof" of, and that was Fajita not standing up against it. What a joke.

Chef Zambini
10-24-2012, 01:51 PM
ravage, who do you think should hear the appeal?

Chef Zambini
10-24-2012, 01:57 PM
i think it should be a 3 man panel made up of guys who were players/ coaches and maybe also admi nistrators.
herm edwards would be a good panelist, mike holmgren, warren moon, maybe even steve young.
matt millen, has a good perspective as well.
3 of these guys, hear the evidence make a decision.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 02:05 PM
ravage, who do you think should hear the appeal?


i think it should be a 3 man panel made up of guys who were players/ coaches and maybe also admi nistrators.
herm edwards would be a good panelist, mike holmgren, warren moon, maybe even steve young.
matt millen, has a good perspective as well.
3 of these guys, hear the evidence make a decision.

I think it should be a neutral judge. Someone that can be agreed upon by both parties, like they had when they were going through the NFLPA process. It should be someone qualified in hearing appeals in sports matters. It should be someone that is familiar with the legal needs of PROOF, and not just accusations. It should be someone that understands the laws so that Vilma's case in defamation can move forward.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 02:08 PM
Guys, have you not been reading/hearing the reports on this?? Its been going on all year long. The suspensions came from Goodell, who is the judge, jury, and execusioner. There is no questioning whether there was a "bounty program"..because that's not a question. HOWEVER, their case is directly tied to Vilma's case....thus... if/when Vilma wins his case then the other's have rights to THAT verdict.

Goodell has said that he has PROOF that the players were intentionally INJURING players on other teams, and he has proof that Vilma was involved in the program. Having a bounty program is no different than any other team in the NFL, and he could have probably targeted any team. However, since the saints were on the show "hard knocks"..they had video of the coaches involved and that changed since the NFL is being sued. They ALLLLLL have done it (meaning NFL teams), and honestly, between players I'm betting they absolutely still are. Goodell has provided ZERO proof of his accusations against players, and has stated that he has absolute proof that they were out to injure. If that's true, then show the proof. He has none. He doesn't have proof that this bounty program was any different than any other. He doesn't have proof as to which players "participated" in any program. He's purely making guesses and throwing out names.

The Saint's coaches/team is an example. Goodell wanted to show the courts that they are doing everything possible to eliminate this from the NFL and that "this will not be tolerated" (although it was tolerated before they got sued). Goodell doesn't need proof to suspend players/coaches. Vilma is fighting because he's being accused of something that has NO proof. They can't even prove he was involved in the system. Then, he's suing for defamation, and has a good chance of winning.

The coaches are being suspended for purely having a bounty system. Thats undeniable. But there is NO proof that the players were trying to injure players or if they were even involved. Thats completely different. Its a joke that Goodell "annointed" Tagliabue to hear the appeal (:lol:) as if its fair that he recuses himself from the case and then appoints someone to hear it :lol: Yeah, that's fair.

(the other players suspended didn't "fight" it because their suspension were for 4 games. Plus, their case is directly tied to Vilma's and they could/would get compensation for missed pay if/when Vilma wins his case. Fajita had is suspension "lowered" because Goodell labeled it as being detrimental to the NFL for NOT standing up to his coaches. He didn't have proof that Fajita participated in the program (will smith did say he helped fund), thus changed the wording to something that he did have "proof" of, and that was Fajita not standing up against it. What a joke.

Former players/HOFers came out and said that this was beyond what they did in the past. They never intended to hurt. Saints intended to hurt. They have proof of "cart off" compensation. Goodwell has interviews and signed affidavits against Vilma as being a money contributor, that is why he has been using.

Key word to your argument is IF vilma wins.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 03:33 PM
Former players/HOFers came out and said that this was beyond what they did in the past. They never intended to hurt. Saints intended to hurt. They have proof of "cart off" compensation. Goodwell has interviews and signed affidavits against Vilma as being a money contributor, that is why he has been using.

Key word to your argument is IF vilma wins.

They don't have proof of anything other than the coach had a bounty system :lol: What is so hard about this? Its pretty simple and is VERY documented. MANY MANY ex-players have said that they know of systems like this on all teams (being very careful never to name players or coaches, but being sure to let everyone know that EVERYONE does it). Hell, its done in locker rooms of NCAA as well.

You aren't even using the right words, which is taking away from you. Players hit to HURT all the time. Period. They don't go out with intent to injure. Goodell doesn't even have proof that Vilma participated in the bounty system, and certainly doesn't have proof of intent to injure. He has NO proof of anything other than there was a bounty system... which is what he's been asked to provide in EVERY courtroom they have entered, and Goodell has not yet provided ANY proof. None. Zero... Zilch. If he had the proof that he says he has, then he would have provided it. But he hasn't. Why is that?

Why is it that Goodell destroyed the tape evidence in the Patriots tape-scape? Because he knew that if there was no evidence, then there was nothing people could dissect. Goodell made his decision, and then got rid of the proof so nothing more could be discussed. Right now, Goodell has made up his mind and wants the ability to punish without providing proof. Hence why people have complained about him being the judge, jury, and executioner. He has absolutely no checks and balances. He doesn't think he needs to provide proof for his decisions....which is complete crap.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 04:12 PM
They don't have proof of anything other than the coach had a bounty system :lol: What is so hard about this? Its pretty simple and is VERY documented. MANY MANY ex-players have said that they know of systems like this on all teams (being very careful never to name players or coaches, but being sure to let everyone know that EVERYONE does it). Hell, its done in locker rooms of NCAA as well.

You aren't even using the right words, which is taking away from you. Players hit to HURT all the time. Period. They don't go out with intent to injure. Goodell doesn't even have proof that Vilma participated in the bounty system, and certainly doesn't have proof of intent to injure. He has NO proof of anything other than there was a bounty system... which is what he's been asked to provide in EVERY courtroom they have entered, and Goodell has not yet provided ANY proof. None. Zero... Zilch. If he had the proof that he says he has, then he would have provided it. But he hasn't. Why is that?

Why is it that Goodell destroyed the tape evidence in the Patriots tape-scape? Because he knew that if there was no evidence, then there was nothing people could dissect. Goodell made his decision, and then got rid of the proof so nothing more could be discussed. Right now, Goodell has made up his mind and wants the ability to punish without providing proof. Hence why people have complained about him being the judge, jury, and executioner. He has absolutely no checks and balances. He doesn't think he needs to provide proof for his decisions....which is complete crap.

you are very good at being wrong. Which is awesome part of the time. There is proof there was a PLAY TO INJURE system with the Saints. Plenty of players have said there are systems BUT NOT WITH INTENT TO INJURE. How is this not making it through to you. I forgot you only hear what you want to. Typical with many subjects. The video of the DC talk about injuring Smith. There are documents about pay for injuries AKA HITS WITH INTENT TO INJURE. The thing about the suspended players is the proof they were SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED. The proof they are asking is proof that Vilma was actually involved with the injuring or funding. Which Goodman say he has.

Let me see if this makes you feel better :lol: :lol: :lol: me laughing at you

I Eat Staples
10-24-2012, 04:41 PM
There's no proof that Vilma ever offered any player money to injure another player. That's why his suspension is being appealed and he's suing the NFL for defamation of character.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 04:49 PM
There's no proof that Vilma ever offered any player money to injure another player. That's why his suspension is being appealed and he's suing the NFL for defamation of character.

Goodwell said he has a signed affidavit that says he offered money. That was why he upheld it. Being the NFL trying not to name people and provide proof they are making themselves look bad. They turned in some stuff as long as the person's name would not be released. But the defamation suit is still out there and we will see how that goes. Since he is still being suspended for his role in Bountygate. They must have enough on him since they are not settling the lawsuit and lifting the suspension.

Cugel
10-24-2012, 06:03 PM
we also have not spent the huge money they did on FA. Nor have the crap record for years to draft high enough to build it up.

We had 6 first round draft picks in 2009 & 2010 and threw them away, so you can't say that Denver didn't have the ABILITY to totally re-stock it's team. We did, but totally BLEW it.

2009: Denver had 5 first and second round picks: #12 (theirs) used to draft Knowshon who is now sitting on the bench, instead of Brian Orakpo or Percy Harvin,
#18 (Chicago's for Cutler) used to draft Robert Ayers instead of Clay Matthews,
#37 (5th pick of the 2nd round) obtained from Seattle for Denver's 2010 1st round pick (#14 overall) used to draft Alphonso Smith, one of worst deals in Broncos history.
#48 (their own) used to draft worthless S Darcel McBath
#63 (last pick of the 2nd round) obtained from Pittsburgh for Denver's two 3rd rounders and used to draft TE Robert Quinn who caught 1 pass in his Denver career before being waived in 2011.

2010: Denver had the #11 pick (from the Bears) and the #14 pick (theirs). They traded #11 to the to Eagles for the #13 pick, plus a 4th rounder, which they gave to the Patriots who then drafted TE Aaron Hernandez with Denver's pick! The #14 pick was thrown away in the Alphonso Smith deal in 2009.

They then traded the #13 pick for the #24 pick instead of drafting DE Jason Pierre-Paul. (They wound up with Demaryius Thomas, but could have had both players).

Denver then traded their second, third and 4th round picks to Baltimore in order to move up to #25 and grab Tim Tebow. A few selections later the Patriots drafted Rob Gronkowski.

Bottom Line: The reason the Broncos are struggling for depth at a number of positions is that they thew away 6 first and second round picks. It's normal to miss on 1 or 2 players in the draft who later become good. But, when you could have drafted Brian Orakpo or Percy Harvin AND Clay Matthews, AND Jason Pierre Paul, AND Aaron Hernandez AND Rob Gronkowski, (all players who were selected after or WITH Broncos draft picks as well as several other players who should be playing a significant role but who aren't even on the team anymore -- that hurts.

It will take many years to get over the gaping hole left by the McMoron drafts.

With all the draft picks they threw away, Denver had the chance to be one of the youngest and deepest teams in the NFL right now.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 06:10 PM
you are very good at being wrong. Which is awesome part of the time. There is proof there was a PLAY TO INJURE system with the Saints. Plenty of players have said there are systems BUT NOT WITH INTENT TO INJURE. How is this not making it through to you. I forgot you only hear what you want to. Typical with many subjects. The video of the DC talk about injuring Smith. There are documents about pay for injuries AKA HITS WITH INTENT TO INJURE. The thing about the suspended players is the proof they were SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED. The proof they are asking is proof that Vilma was actually involved with the injuring or funding. Which Goodman say he has.

Let me see if this makes you feel better :lol: :lol: :lol: me laughing at you

Dude... you are so wrong its not even funny. You are obviously out of the loop, haven't done your research, and haven't been listening to all the reports on ESPN radio that has followed this from day one. IF Goodell has proof, he hasn't said what he has, and hasn't shown it ONE time... NOT ONCE. He continues to say he has proof but has NEVER SHOWN AN OUNCE OF PROOF. Which is why the appeals is going through, because as of right now, the Commish is prosecuting without evidence.

There are no documents, if there were "documents" that proved ANYTHING that you are saying, they would have been shown in court. Why hasn't Goodell provided the proof that he says he has?

They were suspended FROM GOODELL Suspension from the person that CLAIMS to have proof, is NOT proof that there is evidence!!! :lol: Get your head out and realize that the presence of suspensions does NOT PROVE that he has an ounce of proof on anything. It just proves again that Goodell is willing to suspend, at his leisure, by being the judge, jury, and executioner, without the need to PROVIDE proof. It's been the biggest point about this entire ordeal, and you just want to hide your head in teh sand and actually take the word that there is proof, despite not a SINGLE piece of evidence has been given. Not one. Its why Goodell "lessened" the suspension against Fajita, because he said "you didn't stand up and stop anyone!" :lol: Talk about a LAME way to go around the lack of proof!!

Seriously, do some reading on the back-round of this case, and you will see that Goodell has not given one single document of proof. He doesn't have proof. He only has his speculations.... and thats ALL he needs to give out suspensions when you aren't challenged as to the need for proof. Which is what Vilma is doing through the court system.

Cugel
10-24-2012, 06:14 PM
Goodwell said he has a signed affidavit that says he offered money. That was why he upheld it. Being the NFL trying not to name people and provide proof they are making themselves look bad. They turned in some stuff as long as the person's name would not be released. But the defamation suit is still out there and we will see how that goes. Since he is still being suspended for his role in Bountygate. They must have enough on him since they are not settling the lawsuit and lifting the suspension.

"Enough on him" to do what? The NFL doesn't have to settle. They have POWER and don't have to care. What's Vilma going to do? He can sue them, but they can stone-wall him and meanwhile he's wasting his career. The court slapped them down once and overturned their punishment. What did they do? Went through the motions of a new hearing -- and re-imposed virtually the same exact penalties. A total charade.

Believe me they are not "weighing the evidence" they are looking at who has the power. And it's not the players! The NFL attitude is "we'll do whatever we want and you can't stop us with these puny court actions. In the end we'll win."

And they're right. They will. :coffee:

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Goodwell said he has a signed affidavit that says he offered money. That was why he upheld it.
He upheld the appeal to his own ruling. Shocking that he didn't change it...truly.


Being the NFL trying not to name people and provide proof they are making themselves look bad. They turned in some stuff as long as the person's name would not be released. But the defamation suit is still out there and we will see how that goes. Since he is still being suspended for his role in Bountygate. They must have enough on him since they are not settling the lawsuit and lifting the suspension.

So they want to say "this guy said it, but we can't tell you who that guy is." Thats convienent. Nothing like not giving the accused the ability to cross examine the "evidence" or his accusers. Thats right out of law 101. Goodell the lawyer is trying to keep the evidence to himself..... just as he did in spygate. Again, shocking.

You want to say that Goodell "must have enough" since they are holding up...but don't want to give Vilma the same consideration at the fact that he's not giving up his lawsuit/defense and pursuit of the truth on this case.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 06:19 PM
Dude... you are so wrong its not even funny. You are obviously out of the loop, haven't done your research, and haven't been listening to all the reports on ESPN radio that has followed this from day one. IF Goodell has proof, he hasn't said what he has, and hasn't shown it ONE time... NOT ONCE. He continues to say he has proof but has NEVER SHOWN AN OUNCE OF PROOF. Which is why the appeals is going through, because as of right now, the Commish is prosecuting without evidence.

There are no documents, if there were "documents" that proved ANYTHING that you are saying, they would have been shown in court. Why hasn't Goodell provided the proof that he says he has?

They were suspended FROM GOODELL Suspension from the person that CLAIMS to have proof, is NOT proof that there is evidence!!! :lol: Get your head out and realize that the presence of suspensions does NOT PROVE that he has an ounce of proof on anything. It just proves again that Goodell is willing to suspend, at his leisure, by being the judge, jury, and executioner, without the need to PROVIDE proof. It's been the biggest point about this entire ordeal, and you just want to hide your head in teh sand and actually take the word that there is proof, despite not a SINGLE piece of evidence has been given. Not one. Its why Goodell "lessened" the suspension against Fajita, because he said "you didn't stand up and stop anyone!" :lol: Talk about a LAME way to go around the lack of proof!!

Seriously, do some reading on the back-round of this case, and you will see that Goodell has not given one single document of proof. He doesn't have proof. He only has his speculations.... and thats ALL he needs to give out suspensions when you aren't challenged as to the need for proof. Which is what Vilma is doing through the court system.

so all of a sudden hundreds of documents released by the NFL are nothing? The NFL has released plenty but the NFLPA always asks for more. If Goodwell had NO PROOF like you claim then he would not fight the vilma suit in court. Taking the thing all the way means he has what he thinks is enough proof. He is not going to let this go. So signed affidavits form formed DC, former players, and others are not proof. Video of the speach to hurt Smith not proof. Documents of the prices paid for different injuries and players to target. These are all documents Goodwell has. It was more then enough to suspend a DC for the rest of his life and ruin his career and more then enough to fine the HC. There is more then enough evidence of the Bounty Scandal.

Sign affidavits are evidence/proof. So are documents. Or when did a document not become evidence. We will see when this plays out. If Goodell has no proof then why keep fighting if he is going to lose in court? Him and NFL believe there is more then enough proof to warrant the suspensions to stay.

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 06:20 PM
"Enough on him" to do what? The NFL doesn't have to settle. They have POWER and don't have to care. What's Vilma going to do? He can sue them, but they can stone-wall him and meanwhile he's wasting his career. The court slapped them down once and overturned their punishment. What did they do? Went through the motions of a new hearing -- and re-imposed virtually the same exact penalties. A total charade.

Believe me they are not "weighing the evidence" they are looking at who has the power. And it's not the players! The NFL attitude is "we'll do whatever we want and you can't stop us with these puny court actions. In the end we'll win."

And they're right. They will. :coffee:

Exactly. Vilma has won TWICE in court because Goodell doesn't show any evidence. Yet.... "he must have enough...."

Ravage!!!
10-24-2012, 06:21 PM
so all of a sudden hundreds of documents released by the NFL are nothing? The NFL has released plenty but the NFLPA always asks for more. If Goodwell had NO PROOF like you claim then he would not fight the vilma suit in court. Taking the thing all the way means he has what he thinks is enough proof. He is not going to let this go. So signed affidavits form formed DC, former players, and others are not proof. Video of the speach to hurt Smith not proof. Documents of the prices paid for different injuries and players to target. These are all documents Goodwell has. It was more then enough to suspend a DC for the rest of his life and ruin his career and more then enough to fine the HC. There is more then enough evidence of the Bounty Scandal.

Sign affidavits are evidence/proof. So are documents. Or when did a document not become evidence. We will see when this plays out. If Goodell has no proof then why keep fighting if he is going to lose in court? Him and NFL believe there is more then enough proof to warrant the suspensions to stay.

Dude.. then how come Vilma keeps winning in court? You are so wrong I want to call you Zam.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 06:21 PM
He upheld the appeal to his own ruling. Shocking that he didn't change it...truly.



So they want to say "this guy said it, but we can't tell you who that guy is." Thats convienent. Nothing like not giving the accused the ability to cross examine the "evidence" or his accusers. Thats right out of law 101. Goodell the lawyer is trying to keep the evidence to himself..... just as he did in spygate. Again, shocking.

You want to say that Goodell "must have enough" since they are holding up...but don't want to give Vilma the same consideration at the fact that he's not giving up his lawsuit/defense and pursuit of the truth on this case.

They submitted the signed affidavits to the court on the premisses that the names are no released.

Vilma is just denying any wrong doing. He wants to get paid the greedy SOB he is. He does not want to miss out on a paycheck.

TXBRONC
10-24-2012, 06:22 PM
I saw that yesterday. They rushing attack and defense is horrible. But they do a good amount of screen passes to sproles.

they are also one of the highest percentage conversions on 3rd down

If we can avoid a slow start and limit the mistakes I like our chances.

NightTerror218
10-24-2012, 06:35 PM
If we can avoid a slow start and limit the mistakes I like our chances.

I hope we can turn around our fumbling issue

TXBRONC
10-24-2012, 10:00 PM
I hope we can turn around our fumbling issue

They do have something positive to build on. In the second half of game against the Chargers they collected four turnovers two of which went for scores.

MOtorboat
10-25-2012, 07:22 AM
In the vein of yesterday's conversation:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8546955/reggie-bush-miami-dolphins-rb-owes-darrelle-revis-new-york-jets-apology-rex-ryan-says


As for Ryan's players, well, they just want Bush, period.

"We want to knock him out, but we're out to do it legally," linebacker Aaron Maybin said.


Bush couldn't finish the first meeting because of a second-quarter knee injury. Safety LaRon Landry, who made the initial hit on the play, said Bush will be haunted by it when the teams meet again Sunday at MetLife Stadium.

"Every time he sees me, he will remember that hit," Landry said. "If I'm in the box or I'm going downhill, he'll remember that hit."

Landry has been called for three personal-foul penalties this season, but he said he's not about to change his physical style of play.

"If I get penalized, I'm not going to stop head-hunting," he said. "I'm not going to stop the way I play."

That's full proof evidence that Aaron Maybin and Laron Landry are out to hurt Reggie Bush. Come on, Roger, if its really about player safety...

Aaron Maybin and Laron Landry deserve a suspension, right? Four games? That would be consistent, right?

NightTerror218
10-25-2012, 11:02 AM
In the vein of yesterday's conversation:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8546955/reggie-bush-miami-dolphins-rb-owes-darrelle-revis-new-york-jets-apology-rex-ryan-says





That's full proof evidence that Aaron Maybin and Laron Landry are out to hurt Reggie Bush. Come on, Roger, if its really about player safety...

Aaron Maybin and Laron Landry deserve a suspension, right? Four games? That would be consistent, right?

but are they getting paid is the question.

MOtorboat
10-25-2012, 11:06 AM
but are they getting paid is the question.

So, its not a player safety issue?

NightTerror218
10-25-2012, 11:37 AM
So, its not a player safety issue?

it is but they are doing an incentive program paying for players to injure others.

you should know what trash talking is

BroncoNut
10-25-2012, 11:39 AM
we have the saints and then who? Pittsburgh? I'll check with the 1st post brb

Ravage!!!
10-25-2012, 11:56 AM
we have the saints and then who? Pittsburgh? I'll check with the 1st post brb

we played pitt in week one. Was a good game, you should have seen it!

Dapper Dan
10-26-2012, 10:26 PM
Ugh oh. Entire schedule evaluation has changed. Brady Quinn takes over in Kansas City. I guess we'll settle for second in the West and hope for a wildcard. :sad: