Are we a 4-12 team without Manning

[alexasgaudet87]

Without Manning, we are no different than Jets or Giants. Our defense and STs are pathetic. We hardly got good positions against Indy. While they were starting at 40-50 yard line.

Might win against OAK or split.

Win against JAX

Win against Giants.

We are facing the same problem we faced with Tebow. Defense would give up huge yards, scores against good scoring teams like Lions, Pats.

No different now. Just that we have offense to match those scores.

[NightTrainLayne]

Welcome to the board.

I don't know about 4-12 just losing Manning, but you might have an argument without both Manning and Woodyard.

[silkamilkamonico]

I would imagine most teams in the NFL are around a 4-12 team if they are missing the QB's and captains of both units. I don't believe you would have any more than a handful of exceptions throughout the NFL.

[slim]

No, 8-8.

To use your own example, we were 8-8 with Tebow as QB.

[Lancane]

I'd say 10-6, I believe Brock would be good enough to manage the offense and sustain some winning drives but the lack of defense would have cost us as much as his inexperience - but then add in our offensive line issues and the whole aspect changes, we'd likely fall to 8-8.

[Joel]

Indys offense scored no more points on us than they did on Seattle; are the Seahawks a 4-12 team without Wilson? Without Manning we were 8-8 champs of a division with just ONE losing team (7-9.) Some say the QB did it despite the team; some say the team did it despite the QB, but saying it was all just dumb luck despite the WHOLE team is belied by beating the #1 D in the playoffs.

[rationalfan]

Without Manning, we are no different than Jets or Giants. Our defense and STs are pathetic. We hardly got good positions against Indy. While they were starting at 40-50 yard line.

you sure about that? most teams envy a return game like the one holiday provides. prater hasn't missed a field goal/extra point this year, i believe. and colquitt is pretty good for hardly ever getting on the field.

i get your theory, but it would be more credible without the hyperbole, and using more than one game to assess the team's quality.

just sayin', not hatin'.

[tripp]

If you think the Pats are struggling this year... where would they be without Brady? They've fashioned wins this year purely because of Tom Brady.

Where would we be? That's a hard question to ask considering our back up is still raw and has little to no NFL experience. We'd be .500 at best with Oz at the moment. I haven't even seen enough of him to think he is the QB of the future although the front office claims he is. Anything/Everything can change every off-season.

[wayninja]

The difference between 4-12 and 8-8 can be razor thin. You only have to lose by a single point to lose.

[tripp]

The difference between 4-12 and 8-8 can be razor thin. You only have to lose by a single point to lose.

Or in the Chiefs case, 7-0. :shocked:

[wayninja]

Or in the Chiefs case, 7-0. :shocked:

The chiefs definitely walk that line. They almost let a 3rd stringer in his first start beat them last week.

[weazel]

The chiefs definitely walk that line. They almost let a 3rd stringer in his first start beat them last week.

I dont know why but while reading this I kept thinking about the fact that Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl

[DenBronx]

This thread makes no sense at all.


We were 8-8 without Manning, WITH a QB who couldnt throw. We were mostly a running team and would swallow up alot of clock.


With Brock we would still have won 8 games or more.

[Lancane]

I dont know why but while reading this I kept thinking about the fact that Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl

Trent Dilfer won on a team that was built to win despite their quarterback, Denver is suppose to be much in the same position incase Manning goes down, but the team right now is broken with offensive line and key defensive issues. Take away Dilfer's offensive line and give him a struggling defense and he never gets that ring, whereas Manning is good enough to make up for such deficiencies...to a degree.

[OrangeHoof]

The dropoff at QB varies from team to team. I would think it would be almost catastrophic for the Broncos to lose Manning since the whole offense is designed for him and his precision passing. Man, if our OL can't protect him and he goes down often, we're in a world of hurt.

[nevcraw]

this team is completely the opposite than when Tebow was QB. Offensive fire power galore, quick scoring and super skilled WR's and TE's. but no running game. Defense during Tebow ket the other team from scoring to keep it close to a comeback. That Defense clearly is far superior to what we are playing with today... Can't get off the field on 3rd down and can't stop the big play.
but to answer your question this team would be be in world of hurt without Peyton with the current subpar running attack and very bendy defense.

[ShaneFalco]

we were also the #1 rushing team in the NFL, but hey Broncos are nothing without manning!

[Lancane]

we were also the #1 rushing team in the NFL, but hey Broncos are nothing without manning!

Of course we were number one in rushing, we couldn't pass the ball consistently for the life of us.

[tripp]

LOL how were we not the #1 rushing team in the NFL, that's all we did! Teams were surprised when we threw it.

[Dzone]

so did the 1st sack by Mathis affect Peytons arm strength? Some people were talking on the radio that his passing was poor after the sack. That he got hit hard on the shoulder by mathis. I dont recall..

[Simple Jaded]

we were also the #1 rushing team in the NFL, but hey Broncos are nothing without manning!

Couldn't score or pass but boy could they run.

[Simple Jaded]

Of course we were number one in rushing, we couldn't pass the ball consistently for the life of us.

They were pretty consistent from where I sat.

[Lancane]

They were pretty consistent from where I sat.

Wrong kind of consistency bro! :lol: