PDA

View Full Version : Super Bowl XLVIII: Denver Broncos vs. Seattle Seahawks



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 09:50 PM
Discuss amongst yourselves.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 09:51 PM
Let's do this shit! Can't wait. Seattle is not the same team away from their noisebox. I like our chances.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 09:54 PM
Who was that Seattle player they just tried to interview?????

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 09:56 PM
Who was that Seattle player they just tried to interview?????

Richard Sherman, cornerback. He's good, but not as good as he thinks he is.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 09:57 PM
What a complete faggot. Can't wait to see Peyton smoke him.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 09:57 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 1m

Didn't Richard Sherman attend Stanford? What the hell was that?

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 2m

Is Richard Sherman drunk?

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 3m

Seahawks up next. They beat the Broncos in the preseason. The redemption tour continues.

Edmonton Bronco Fan (2)
01-19-2014, 09:58 PM
DT needs to shut Sherman the **** up. What a classless bitch.

GO BRONCOS!

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 09:58 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 1m

The Seahawks are a running team. The Patriots were supposed to be a running team. Hmmmm.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 09:59 PM
Richard Sherman, cornerback. He's good, but not as good as he thinks he is.

What was his problem?

Foochacho
01-19-2014, 09:59 PM
Bring it on "Jerry Curl" Wilson. Let your soul glow.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 10:00 PM
Game Over ‏@Gme0vr 1m

@VicLombardi did Sherman go to North Korea with Rodman??
Retweeted by Vic Lombardi

LawDog
01-19-2014, 10:00 PM
Class v. crass

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:00 PM
What was his problem?

His problem is that he's an idiot. He says stupid shit like that all the time.

Ziggy
01-19-2014, 10:00 PM
The Seahawks are a running team because their QB can't throw the ball. The refs have saved the Seahawks 2 weeks in a row. Nothing will save them in the super bowl.

TXBRONC
01-19-2014, 10:00 PM
I like Denver's chances and Richard Sherman is a jackass.

Army Bronco
01-19-2014, 10:01 PM
Richard Sherman, cornerback. He's good, but not as good as he thinks he is.

What was his problem? What did Sherman say?? I missed the interview.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 10:01 PM
His problem is that he's an idiot. He says stupid shit like that all the time.

That interview pretty much single-handedly explains why Stanford is so good at football. Their clearly waive any and all academic standards for football players.

Ziggy
01-19-2014, 10:01 PM
What was his problem?

Either Crabtree of Boldin told the media that he's not the best corner in the league. Sherman has proclaimed himself the best for 2 years now.

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:03 PM
That interview pretty much single-handedly explains why Stanford is so good at football. Their clearly waive any and all academic standards for football players.

Whoa. Let's not put this on Stanford. They have some of the highest acceptance standards in the country, including for athletes.

chazoe60
01-19-2014, 10:03 PM
They can't score on us. They may keep us to 21 points but where are their points going to come from? I think we win 27-10

sneakers
01-19-2014, 10:04 PM
http://i.minus.com/ibq6ZUAMrb7OAX.gif

smith49
01-19-2014, 10:04 PM
Richard Sherman is a very good corner....in coverage. Not sure about his tackling abilities. However, he is the cockiest douche bag in the nfl for sure. He also just showed how big a POS he is.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 10:05 PM
Whoa. Let's not put this on Stanford. They have some of the highest acceptance standards in the country, including for athletes.

Clearly Sherman slipped through the cracks then.

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:06 PM
Clearly Sherman slipped through the cracks then.

I think Sherman is a brilliant idiot.

He does this shit on purpose. I thought you liked his dumb ass and Carol?

UnderArmour
01-19-2014, 10:07 PM
Clearly Sherman slipped through the cracks then.
...But he's accomplished more than Skip Bayless. He's the top of his field!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6x-O3kb1sI

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 10:08 PM
I think Sherman is a brilliant idiot.

He does this shit on purpose. I thought you liked his dumb ass and Carol?

I do like Carol. I'm pretty sure I have never provided an opinion on Sherman on here before today. I have no problem with arrogant players, but he's an idiot poking the bear like that before playing the best passing attack of all time. Not that our offense needs it, but I'm sure that interview will give them a little extra motivation.

BigDaddyBronco
01-19-2014, 10:09 PM
Every time they talk about the 12th man I think about how they ripped that off from Texas A&M. It is typical of Seattle, no history or tradition of their own. Pretty blah sports town.

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:10 PM
...But he's accomplished more than Skip Bayless. He's the top of his field!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6x-O3kb1sI

As much as I hate Bayless, Sherman doesn't know what he's talking about.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 10:11 PM
As much as I hate Bayless, Sherman doesn't know what he's talking about.

That might be the first ever clip that made Bayless look like the more reasonable person in a conversation.

VonDoom
01-19-2014, 10:11 PM
Sherman and that defense haven't seen any offense like ours. Let's see if he still thinks he's the best after DT burns him multiple times.

Broncolingus
01-19-2014, 10:12 PM
I love Denver's chances...

I think Denver can take Breast Mode out of the game and force Wilson to beat us throwing...just like we did with Alice Smith. The Seac0cks WRs shouldn't scare Denver at all...

Seattle's defense is good...

...I'm just not sure they can shut Manning and our offense down for enough drives they'll need to win, and I see Denver scoring right around 30 in this game (+ or -).

JMO...

LawDog
01-19-2014, 10:18 PM
Fox Sports sure went out of their way to try and rehabilitate Sherman. That's just wimp TV.

ShaneFalco
01-19-2014, 10:19 PM
Seagurls almost got beat by Kellen Clemens, No way broncos should lose this game.

Simple Jaded
01-19-2014, 10:24 PM
Seagurls almost got beat by Kellen Clemens, No way broncos should lose this game.

Why do you hate Clemens? After all he's done for you.

Army Bronco
01-19-2014, 10:29 PM
Go Broncos!!!! Peyton will tear up that Defense and Champ will get revenge

OrangeHoof
01-19-2014, 10:29 PM
Clearly Sherman slipped through the cracks then.

...or maybe the crackhouse.

Dapper Dan
01-19-2014, 10:31 PM
It's the good guys versus the bad guys. Go Broncos! Old AFCW matchup. The Broncos should win this. It's a pretty epic match-up. The best WR core in the NFL versus probably the best DB group in the NFL. We'll see who wins. Thankfully, a guy from work is going to switch days with me so I don't have to watch the game at work. I'm super excited. I can't believe this. I can't wait 2 more weeks.

I don't remember Super Bowls 32 and 33. I was young. This is the first time a team I'm for has made it to the title game.

FanInAZ
01-19-2014, 10:32 PM
...But he's accomplished more than Skip Bayless. He's the top of his field!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6x-O3kb1sI

Could we please have Manning torch him for about 3 or 4 TDs

Ottokar Prohaska
01-19-2014, 10:33 PM
I am rapidly coming to dislike the Seabags. They spend a lot of time talking. As a Saints fan I had to listen to the noise about how the Seabags defense dominated Brees last week. 300 yards passing and they outgained the seabags by 150yds. Now I hope Manning rings up 50 plus on those d-bags. I think the Denver receivers match up nicely.

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 10:33 PM
It's the good guys versus the bad guys. Go Broncos! Old AFCW matchup. The Broncos should win this. It's a pretty epic match-up. The best WR core in the NFL versus probably the best DB group in the NFL. We'll see who wins. Thankfully, a guy from work is going to switch days with me so I don't have to watch the game at work. I'm super excited. I can't believe this. I can't wait 2 more weeks.

I don't remember Super Bowls 32 and 33. I was young. This is the first time a team I'm for has made it to the title game.I'd argue when healthy our DB's are every bit as good as Seattle's. But they have not played together healthy as a full unit all season it seems. Just as Champ finally looks like himself we lose Harris.

OrangeHoof
01-19-2014, 10:39 PM
Back to the game. It's the #1 pass offense against the #1 pass defense. But the Seahawks are a better running team than the Broncos are a run defense (the last two weeks notwithstanding) and that's what scares me. The Seahawks have amazing team speed and nastiness even if they don't have as many big names as the 49ers have.

First blush: Seattle 27, Denver 21.

Hope I'm wrong but I'm just happy we got the Patriot monkey off our backs. The Super Bowl is like gravy to me. I'll be thrilled to win but I'm not crushed if we don't. IMO, today's game vindicated all the organization has done with signing Manning and putting veterans all around him instead of rebuilding slowly around draft picks like we probably would have done with Tebow.

Joel
01-19-2014, 10:40 PM
That interview pretty much single-handedly explains why Stanford is so good at football. Their clearly waive any and all academic standards for football players.
Johns Elway and Lynch say hi—and that they'll be waiting for you in the parking lot with a lead pipe. :tongue:


Every time they talk about the 12th man I think about how they ripped that off from Texas A&M. It is typical of Seattle, no history or tradition of their own. Pretty blah sports town.
A&M actually sued them over it, but made an out-of-court settlement and licensed them to use it. So I guess Seattle going to the SB means more money for Aggieland. Personally, I think they should've put a subclause in the licensing agreement that says, "If ANY fan sits down at ANY point during ANY home game Seattles right to call their fans 'The Twelfth Man' is immediately forfeit: Anyone unpreprared to enter the game at a moments notice ANYTIME the teams needs them isn't a twelfth man, just a drunken loudmouth (hereafter referred to as 'the Seahawks fanbase.'"

Frankly, the way things have gone in Denver this season we could use a guy like E. King Gill (or two or three.)

Best offense against best secondary, but Seattle's been vulnerable to the run a few times, playing the run is our Ds sole strength, and I'd rather face their receivers than SFs. Champ and DRC lockdown Baldwin and Tate and then Carter (or whoever) must do their job against Kearse (all three Seattle WRs had 40 times in the low 4.4s.) If our offensive line plays as well as the last two games, I like our chances, and don't think Wilson nor his young team ready for the global stage.

I'd LMFAO if tomorrows headline were half the Seahawks secondary popping for 'roids again, and the best part is it's totally plausible. This easily my favorite Richard Sherman comment: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9364711/richard-sherman-seems-seattle-seahawks-ped-problem Basically, "yes, our team seems to have a problem with performance-enhancing drugs—but not me; nope, never." Yeah, you had 6 guys suspended for 'roids in just 2 years, and at least 2 more I recall THIS year, but YOUR suspension (only) was bogus. Sure.

aberdien
01-19-2014, 10:40 PM
Sherman is a shit talker, but he is absolutely intelligent. It's part of his whole schtick. He and the whole Seahawks team are arrogant and harbor that same "we are the best, those who don't think so are disrespecting us, it's us against the world" mentality. Peyton is gonna #murderdance all over them.




I don't remember Super Bowls 32 and 33. I was young.

I was between ages 6-8, so me neither. I hope we kick Seattle's ass and make it one to remember.

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 10:45 PM
Betting lines showing us as 1-2 point dogs opening up. Interesting that I thought it would be bigger than that.

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:49 PM
Betting lines showing us as 1-2 point dogs opening up. Interesting that I thought it would be bigger than that.

I didn't. Denver should be the favorite.

FanInAZ
01-19-2014, 10:50 PM
Sherman is a shit talker, but he is absolutely intelligent. It's part of his whole schtick. He and the whole Seahawks team are arrogant and harbor that same "we are the best, those who don't think so are disrespecting us, it's us against the world" mentality. Peyton is gonna #murderdance all over them.



I was between ages 6-8, so me neither. I hope we kick Seattle's ass and make it one to remember.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it. That's why he had such a meltdown over Crabtree's trash talking.

BroncoWave
01-19-2014, 10:50 PM
Denver is the favorite in some sports books by as many as 2.5. I think it's mostly going to hover around a pickem.

Nomad
01-19-2014, 10:52 PM
Us against my in-laws (they're from WaState).... Gonna be fun.

Sherman doesn't bother me, though I laughed when he was talking to Andrews.

Simple Jaded
01-19-2014, 10:52 PM
Back to the game. It's the #1 pass offense against the #1 pass defense. But the Seahawks are a better running team than the Broncos are a run defense (the last two weeks notwithstanding) and that's what scares me. The Seahawks have amazing team speed and nastiness even if they don't have as many big names as the 49ers have.

First blush: Seattle 27, Denver 21.

Hope I'm wrong but I'm just happy we got the Patriot monkey off our backs. The Super Bowl is like gravy to me. I'll be thrilled to win but I'm not crushed if we don't. IMO, today's game vindicated all the organization has done with signing Manning and putting veterans all around him instead of rebuilding slowly around draft picks like we probably would have done with Tebow.

You actually needed this game to vindicate Manning over Tebow?

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 10:53 PM
I didn't. Denver should be the favorite.Everything I heard heading into this week from the national media made it seem like they thought the NFC champion would win the super bowl. So I guess I expected national perception to give a bigger edge to the winner of that conference. I absolutely think Denver is the better team.

igoe4broncos
01-19-2014, 10:54 PM
Denver's WRs vs. Seattle's DBs should be an incredible matchup. But I do like how our D matches up against their run-first attack. And I also like Peyton Manning to outperform Russell Wilson. And it's hard not to like how the Seahawks aren't the best road team.

If Denver goes out, plays a pretty crisp football game and avoids multiple turnovers, I think we take home our third Lombardi trophy.

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 10:55 PM
Denver is the favorite in some sports books by as many as 2.5. I think it's mostly going to hover around a pickem.Interesting. The site I was looking at did say this is the closest opening line in Superbowl history.

aberdien
01-19-2014, 10:56 PM
He can dish it out, but he can't take it. That's why he had such a meltdown over Crabtree's trash talking.

Yeah, but he is the best corner in the game. Until somebody shuts him up, you can't really disagree with what he's saying. He proved that tonight, on that last play.

So let's hope DT shows up to shut him up.

Joel
01-19-2014, 10:57 PM
Back to the game. It's the #1 pass offense against the #1 pass defense. But the Seahawks are a better running team than the Broncos are a run defense (the last two weeks notwithstanding) and that's what scares me. The Seahawks have amazing team speed and nastiness even if they don't have as many big names as the 49ers have.

First blush: Seattle 27, Denver 21.

Hope I'm wrong but I'm just happy we got the Patriot monkey off our backs. The Super Bowl is like gravy to me. I'll be thrilled to win but I'm not crushed if we don't. IMO, today's game vindicated all the organization has done with signing Manning and putting veterans all around him instead of rebuilding slowly around draft picks like we probably would have done with Tebow.
We had the #1 run D the first month and a half, were top five after, and finished in the top ten even after we lost Vickerson AND Wolfe. In fact, we're tied with Seattle for 7th least total yards allowed (though they're slightly better in yds/att: 7th to our 10th.) We must stop Lynch first, definitely, and will likely be unable to do more than contain rather than completely stuff him, but I like our chances. Yes, Lynch is a stud, but we DID face the NFL rushing leader and TWICE face the guy with most yds/att EVER: And stuffed them.

Also, I'm SO sick of Seattle strutting around like the NFLs entire 90 year history was solely to justify them coming along to be the greatest thing since sliced bread this year. That team was consistently craptastic from Day One till JUST LAST YEAR, but none of their new bandwagon fans remember Seattle being the AFCWs whipping boy every season, because THEY weren't around then. Most will tell you all about Beast Quakes but know NOTHING about the rest of the season: When moving to the NFLs WORST division made them the only LOSING playoff team EVER.

Again I say, it's ironic that, of all the teams in conference championship games, the one LEAST full of itself is the one that just smashed over half a dozen season scoring records. We just tied NE for 2nd most SB appearances (7, just 1 behind Dallas and Pitt) and have won two; Seattle's only BEEN to two (counting this one) and NEVER won. Yet they've spent this whole season telling anyone who'll listen (and everyone who won't) this one's in the bag. On top of all that, the NFL doesn't need a vacated SB championship to got with Carrolls vacated college "championship."

VonDoom
01-19-2014, 10:57 PM
Denver is the favorite in some sports books by as many as 2.5. I think it's mostly going to hover around a pickem.

The lines I've seen have Seattle favored by somewhere between 1 and 2. Which is fine by me. Put us as underdogs in this game, please.

MOtorboat
01-19-2014, 10:57 PM
Everything I heard heading into this week from the national media made it seem like they thought the NFC champion would win the super bowl. So I guess I expected national perception to give a bigger edge to the winner of that conference. I absolutely think Denver is the better team.

Who said that?

Nomad
01-19-2014, 10:58 PM
My son has a point....he'll have a championship sweatshirt regardless........either from the grandparents (Seahawks) or me (BRONCOS):lol:

tomjonesrocks
01-19-2014, 10:59 PM
Denver wins.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 11:00 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 4m

Broncos now favored in most books. Hmm.. I guess defense wins championships unless that defense is up against the #1 offense of all time.

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 11:01 PM
Who said that?Did not pay close enough attention to care. But I think the guys on NFL am this morning or one of the other early morning pre game things definitely said that. It was kind of on in the background and that caught my attention. Also the feeling I had gotten from most of the shows I listened to this week. Though the ones this morning may have been the only ones to say it.

Day1BroncoFan
01-19-2014, 11:03 PM
Broncos FTW!!!

gregbroncs
01-19-2014, 11:06 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 4m

Broncos now favored in most books. Hmm.. I guess defense wins championships unless that defense is up against the #1 offense of all time.Yep the search I did now shows the lines changing in favor of Denver saying most of the money is coming in for them.

NightTerror218
01-19-2014, 11:09 PM
Yep the search I did now shows the lines changing in favor of Denver saying most of the money is coming in for them.

Probably because Denver defense has shown up

DenBronx
01-19-2014, 11:15 PM
I believe the Broncos own the overall record vs the Seabirds. Something like 34-19....which should be pretty close to the final score. Denver wins and Sherman can suck it.

aberdien
01-19-2014, 11:18 PM
If the defense plays as well as they have been this month, I am happy about our chances. Peyton ain't falling for these chumps.

DenBronx
01-19-2014, 11:19 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 4m

Broncos now favored in most books. Hmm.. I guess defense wins championships unless that defense is up against the #1 offense of all time.


That's correct. Why? because the modern day rules favor the offense.


Here's another thing. Denvers offense is the best in NFL history. Seattle hasn't played an offense like ours in a very long time. They also arent as good on the road. Denver has an arsenal of WRs ...it's going to take a HELL of alot more than Sherman. They also don't have jack shit for WRs and really only feed off their run game on offense. We know how to stuff the run. Advantage Broncos!

Simple Jaded
01-19-2014, 11:21 PM
Pervy Harvin will play, he's kinda scary.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-19-2014, 11:24 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 12m

Oh yeah, @Tom_Helmer says the temp in Jersey never goes above 30 for the next ten days.

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 13m

Twitter tells me Broncos are the home team. #orange #westside

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
01-19-2014, 11:26 PM
This feels more like the Broncos-Falcons Super Bowl than the Broncos-Packers Super Bowl…

Joel
01-19-2014, 11:35 PM
Probably because Denver defense has shown up
They really have. I'm a little concerned about how many times we settled for FGs today, but, bad as a host of key injuries made NEs D, they DID finish 10th in least points allowed. Our D, which has been strong against the run all year, just shut down two pretty highly regarded rushing attacks; hopefully that has them ready to play Lynch, because I don't Wilson ready or his WR corps good enough to beat us if forced to pass. San Francisco nearly beat them in Seattle by forcing that very thing, and if not for the refs and Kaep being Kaep they probably would've.

Joel
01-19-2014, 11:39 PM
This feels more like the Broncos-Falcons Super Bowl than the Broncos-Packers Super Bowl…
No way; the Falcons D wasn't as good as Seattles, and Moreno only had about half as many yards this season as Davis did then. This feels far more like Broncos-Packers to me, except Seattles passing game is a lot worse (and their rushing much better) than Green Bays.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
01-19-2014, 11:44 PM
No way; the Falcons D wasn't as good as Seattles, and Moreno only had about half as many yards this season as Davis did then. This feels far more like Broncos-Packers to me, except Seattles passing game is a lot worse (and their rushing much better) than Green Bays.

No argument here, Joel; it's more of an intuition thing.

I really felt the 49ers were destined to make it back to the Super Bowl; now, I feel like Anderson missed that kick again.


Does it makes sense? No, but to me I just have one of those feelings.

Army Bronco
01-19-2014, 11:53 PM
Probably because Denver defense has shown up
They really have. I'm a little concerned about how many times we settled for FGs today, but, bad as a host of key injuries made NEs D, they DID finish 10th in least points allowed. Our D, which has been strong against the run all year, just shut down two pretty highly regarded rushing attacks; hopefully that has them ready to play Lynch, because I don't Wilson ready or his WR corps good enough to beat us if forced to pass. San Francisco nearly beat them in Seattle by forcing that very thing, and if not for the refs and Kaep being Kaep they probably would've. Remember, JT dropped an easy TD and he also got mugged in the first drive with no PI call. Those are 2 TDs we SHOULD have had.

CrazyHorse
01-20-2014, 12:06 AM
The Cannabis Bowl!

OrangeHoof
01-20-2014, 03:40 AM
You actually needed this game to vindicate Manning over Tebow?

No, but if Manning did not lead Denver to a Super Bowl, his signing should have been considered a failure.I think if he were candid, Peyton himself would tell you the same thing. What I am saying is that the Manning signing changed the team's emphasis from building through the draft to "win it all now". With Manning's age and small window, that's the only reason you'd sign him is to win now. I think our personnel would look considerably different had Manning signed elsewhere.

BigAL56
01-20-2014, 04:29 AM
for those of you who missed it

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/1/19/5326100/richard-sherman-screaming-seahawks-49ers-michael-crabtree

sneakers
01-20-2014, 04:29 AM
I was more worried that SF would win, I think the broncos would have a harder time with them

Joel
01-20-2014, 04:34 AM
Remember, JT dropped an easy TD and he also got mugged in the first drive with no PI call. Those are 2 TDs we SHOULD have had.
Those were separate plays on separate drives; neither should've singlehandedly prevented a TD—and neither did. Part of what concerns me is it often feels like we shrug off bad plays because, when you've got PFM and our receivers, if you toss it out there enough times you'll eventually get a huge pass play, and it only takes ONE to reach the red zone; then Prater practically guarantees points as long as we don't do something stupid and lose the ball. Against average defenses, our offense is good enough to get away with that.

Seattle's not average. If we MUST live off a periodic big pass plopping us in the red zone, then give the ball back before we have time to rest our D OR tire theirs, we need 7, not 3.

Again I go back to our last score: Denver ball on our 25, up 23-10 with 9:26 left. That should be the drive that finishes NE, as we plod downfield never throwing incompletes or going out of bounds to leave them with no time for anything but a 2:00 drill WHETHER WE SCORE OR NOT! Instead, we DO score, thanks to a 37 yd pass play that puts us in FG range; great, right? Wrong: That "drives" other 4 plays gained just 2 yds, 2 incompletes stopped the clock and we tried a 50 yd FG just 2:26 after we got the ball—then NE got it BACK with 7:00 left, still down just 2 scores.

That one-play scoring "drive" contributed NOTHING to our victory. Zero, zilch, nada. The Patriots SCORING A TD did more to help us win than US SCORING A FG, because it burned TWICE as much time and after we fielded the onside kick we did what we should've the first time: Run 6 plays without throwing an incomplete or going out of bounds until we exhausted all their time outs, passed the 2:00 warning and our second conversion (more than we got on the FG drive) let us run out the clock.

Joel
01-20-2014, 04:43 AM
No, but if Manning did not lead Denver to a Super Bowl, his signing should have been considered a failure.I think if he were candid, Peyton himself would tell you the same thing. What I am saying is that the Manning signing changed the team's emphasis from building through the draft to "win it all now". With Manning's age and small window, that's the only reason you'd sign him is to win now. I think our personnel would look considerably different had Manning signed elsewhere.
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.

BigAL56
01-20-2014, 04:49 AM
Couple funny vines on Sherman's rant...enjoy!

https://vine.co/v/hlULMMVKld6

https://vine.co/v/hlUdaz0tzjF

atwater27
01-20-2014, 09:25 AM
I'd argue when healthy our DB's are every bit as good as Seattle's. But they have not played together healthy as a full unit all season it seems. Just as Champ finally looks like himself we lose Harris.

That is just blind homerism there, man. Their safeties are all world. We don't even have an single all AFC west safety. We will be in for more of a battle than you think vs their secondary.

gregbroncs
01-20-2014, 11:07 AM
That is just blind homerism there, man. Their safeties are all world. We don't even have an single all AFC west safety. We will be in for more of a battle than you think vs their secondary.I guess I meant CB's. I know little to nothing about their safeties but ours are a little weak.

Dzone
01-20-2014, 11:18 AM
SO now its Broncos by 3 according to vegas...

OrangeHoof
01-20-2014, 11:21 AM
SO now its Broncos by 3 according to vegas...

Vegas is reacting to the incoming wagers. The general public will back Peyton Manning against a young, erratic Russell Wilson and their depth of thought stops about there.

jlarsiii
01-20-2014, 11:35 AM
I like our chances if we play relatively mistake free football. However, the only thing that will give me pause is the weather. If it is windy with rain/snow I do think that will favor Seattle and cancel our ability to attack them deep via the pass. They will jump all the short routes and mug the players as it will likely go uncalled just like the Thomas play near the end zone. Could make things very interesting...

olathebroncofan
01-20-2014, 11:46 AM
They just went over the Richard Sherman interview on NFL AM and explained that the beef goes back to a charity event last summer. In this instance, I dint think his interview was that big a deal especially since they just finished playing, the emotions that are running though him, just made a game saving, and super bowl saving play. You knew exactly what you were gonna get especially with the bad blood between the organization's. Andrews should have waited until they had cooled off before interviewing him. But she wouldn't have been doing her job if she didn't. I get that. It's a catch 22.

Nomad
01-20-2014, 12:31 PM
Oh oh! BRONCOS facing another black QB in the Superbowl::eek::lol:

UnderArmour
01-20-2014, 02:31 PM
Oh oh! BRONCOS facing another black QB in the Superbowl::eek::lol:

Irrelevant. The year is 2014 and skin color in professional sports is nothing of importance in this day and age.


We played Seattle in the preseason and moved the ball pretty effectively on them until Hillman had a goal line fumble. For Seattle to win this game, they will have to 1-on-1 every player on the Broncos offense. The Seahawks have not played an offense with as many weapons of diverse skill-sets as the Broncos have and they may not have the talent to hold Orange Julius, Demaryius, Welker, and Decker in check. The Colts were able to beat the Seahawks earlier in the year with the deep passing game. Andre Johnson was burning Sherman for 10+ yard gains up until Schaub threw the game-winning interception right into his hands. The Falcons with Julio, Roddy White, and Tony Gonzales drove down the field last year for the game-winning field goal. As long as Peyton isn't afraid to hand the rock off to Montee Ball and Moreno, I think our offense will not struggle to move the chains.

New Orleans was able to beat Peyton Manning on his last try because they were outcoached and the Indy D was outmatched. Our defense has played its best football these last two weeks and held San Diego and New England in check. I'm not worried about Russell Wilson's arm and I expect Champ Bailey to handle Percy Harvin. The question mark is how much read-option the Seahawks will decide to mix into their game-plan against us. The Seahawks also have a pretty good TE in Zach Miller they may feature more in the passing game like they did against Atlanta's 4-3 front last year. I would expect Seattle to score 21-28 points.

Prediction: Broncos 34 Seahawks 28

Army Bronco
01-20-2014, 03:24 PM
No, but if Manning did not lead Denver to a Super Bowl, his signing should have been considered a failure.I think if he were candid, Peyton himself would tell you the same thing. What I am saying is that the Manning signing changed the team's emphasis from building through the draft to "win it all now". With Manning's age and small window, that's the only reason you'd sign him is to win now. I think our personnel would look considerably different had Manning signed elsewhere.
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era. Why are you sooooo negative? I'm sure you can get some enjoyment from this last game.

pulse
01-20-2014, 03:29 PM
4161

tomjonesrocks
01-20-2014, 03:39 PM
They just went over the Richard Sherman interview on NFL AM and explained that the beef goes back to a charity event last summer. In this instance, I dint think his interview was that big a deal especially since they just finished playing, the emotions that are running though him, just made a game saving, and super bowl saving play. You knew exactly what you were gonna get especially with the bad blood between the organization's. Andrews should have waited until they had cooled off before interviewing him. But she wouldn't have been doing her job if she didn't. I get that. It's a catch 22.

Players are going to enjoy Sherman in a few years after he loses a step due to age or injury. He'll get his.

But agree about interviewing players seconds off the field. Surprised it doesn't go bad more often. At the least some profanity is eventually going to go over the air.

Dzone
01-20-2014, 03:44 PM
What did Crabtree say about Sherman?

Denver Native (Carol)
01-20-2014, 03:53 PM
LAS VEGAS -- Oddsmakers had trouble picking the favorite in what figures to be one of the most evenly matched -- and heavily bet -- Super Bowls ever.

Bettors knew who they wanted, though, putting early money on Denver and making the Broncos a slight favorite to beat the Seattle Seahawks in most of this city's legal betting parlors.

Denver was favored by 1 point at several books in the early betting, while others had the Broncos as high as a 3-point pick. The move to the Broncos came after some books had initially made the Seahawks as much as a 2-point pick in the game.

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10321081/2013-nfl-playoffs-bettors-favor-denver-broncos-early-super-bowl-seattle-seahawks

aberdien
01-20-2014, 03:54 PM
I think Sherman is hilarious. Can't wait to see what he says after DT gets 2 TDs against him.

tomjonesrocks
01-20-2014, 03:59 PM
What did Crabtree say about Sherman?

According to ESPN Sherman tried to shake Crabtree's hand at a charity event and was snubbed, with Crabtree saying they were going to beat them and whatnot.

Before the game he just said he didn't think Sherman was the best corner in the game.

aberdien
01-20-2014, 04:02 PM
Sherman said he was miked up for yesterday's game, so eventually we'll get to hear all the fuss.

BroncoFanatic
01-20-2014, 04:19 PM
My favorite pic of the Sherman interview:
4162

Edmonton Bronco Fan (2)
01-20-2014, 04:49 PM
Sherman dishes it out, he needs to learn how to take it. He reminds me of Jay in that regard; could always dish it but threw temper tantrums whenever he got it given back to him, at least during his time here. Jay has (sort of) grown up maturity wise, so if it's possible for him, maybe it's possible for Sherman too. Dude definitely needs a dose or two of humility though.

tomjonesrocks
01-20-2014, 05:02 PM
Sherman dishes it out, he needs to learn how to take it. He reminds me of Jay in that regard; could always dish it but threw temper tantrums whenever he got it given back to him, at least during his time here. Jay has (sort of) grown up maturity wise, so if it's possible for him, maybe it's possible for Sherman too. Dude definitely needs a dose or two of humility though.

Sherman reminds you of Jay Cutler.

Okay then.

Apollo
01-20-2014, 05:05 PM
This is going to be a long 2 weeks, every day I will wakeup thinking of the big game coming up. I really think we can do this, I feel more confident about this game than I did about the Patriots.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-20-2014, 05:15 PM
Mike Klis ‏@MikeKlis 1h

You gotta like it: #Broncos will wear their home orange jerseys for Super Bowl XLVIII.

NightTerror218
01-20-2014, 05:30 PM
Just saw this on DP. Awesome.

DenBronx
01-20-2014, 06:00 PM
Oh oh! BRONCOS facing another black QB in the Superbowl::eek::lol:

Russel Wilsons black? I think hes mixed. Sort of like Tiger Woods.

weazel
01-20-2014, 06:10 PM
Russel Wilsons black? I think hes mixed. Sort of like Tiger Woods.

except Wilson is from the Shire

Tebowtime2011
01-20-2014, 06:25 PM
Pervy Harvin will play, he's kinda scary.
I hope del rio will have a good plan for this, I don't know who we can put on him besides DRC because harvin is too fast for our other cbs.

tubby
01-20-2014, 06:45 PM
Super Bowl!

VonDoom
01-20-2014, 06:48 PM
I hope del rio will have a good plan for this, I don't know who we can put on him besides DRC because harvin is too fast for our other cbs.

I was thinking about this today. Harvin worries me in an x-factor kind of way. They ran that one play in the Saints game with him that was unlike anything else they did this year, as far as I know. There's just no film on him this year, so they can literally pull out anything.

7DnBrnc53
01-20-2014, 07:07 PM
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.

I have a few things to say about this garbage:

1. The Broncos were 4-12 in 2010 not because they had a complete lack of talent, but because of McChild. The Fluktriot way was a complete and utter failure. Elway and Fox changed the culture, and that, plus a better D (with Elvis Dumervil's return) and some Tebow Time, led to a four win improvement and a playoff win.

2. I take it that you are a Brandon Weeden fan. Cause guess what? Without Manning, he is our QB. They were still going to dump Tebow even without Manning.

3. This team has a talented replacement in Brock Osweiler with, quite possibly, the strongest arm in the NFL and good mobility for his, or any size. Plus, he is learning at the feet of the GOAT. We are like the Packers in 2007, not the 83 Steelers, who didn't have much success in the years after Bradshaw's retirement, and had an aging team.

4. Denver isn't mortgaging the future to win now. Champ ($10.75m cap hit) is going to retire after the Broncos beat Seattle in 2 weeks. If not, he's not coming back at that cap figure. There's nearly $11m in savings and, the way contracts are structured, that allows us to re-sign 2 of our key free agents or maybe even 3, depending on the terms. When Peyton retires, either this year or next, that's another $20m in savings. That's $33m off the books in 2 years thanks to just 2 players! $33m is 1/4 of the cap - you can sign A LOT of players to fair contracts with 1/4 of your cap room available.

Sure guys like DT and Von are going to cost a lot but it's not like we're suddenly going to stop adding talent or end up in salary cap hell. Is Elway going to suddenly start having bad drafts? I doubt it; he's had 3 pretty good ones so far and I don't see a reason that won't continue. Even if Elway decides to step down we have Russell and Heckert who by all indications appear to be two pretty darn good personnel men themselves.

MOtorboat
01-20-2014, 07:19 PM
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.

Jesus H. Christ.

VonDoom
01-20-2014, 07:57 PM
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.


I have a few things to say about this garbage:

1. The Broncos were 4-12 in 2010 not because they had a complete lack of talent, but because of McChild. The Fluktriot way was a complete and utter failure. Elway and Fox changed the culture, and that, plus a better D (with Elvis Dumervil's return) and some Tebow Time, led to a four win improvement and a playoff win.

2. I take it that you are a Brandon Weeden fan. Cause guess what? Without Manning, he is our QB. They were still going to dump Tebow even without Manning.

3. This team has a talented replacement in Brock Osweiler with, quite possibly, the strongest arm in the NFL and good mobility for his, or any size. Plus, he is learning at the feet of the GOAT. We are like the Packers in 2007, not the 83 Steelers, who didn't have much success in the years after Bradshaw's retirement, and had an aging team.

4. Denver isn't mortgaging the future to win now. Champ ($10.75m cap hit) is going to retire after the Broncos beat Seattle in 2 weeks. If not, he's not coming back at that cap figure. There's nearly $11m in savings and, the way contracts are structured, that allows us to re-sign 2 of our key free agents or maybe even 3, depending on the terms. When Peyton retires, either this year or next, that's another $20m in savings. That's $33m off the books in 2 years thanks to just 2 players! $33m is 1/4 of the cap - you can sign A LOT of players to fair contracts with 1/4 of your cap room available.

Sure guys like DT and Von are going to cost a lot but it's not like we're suddenly going to stop adding talent or end up in salary cap hell. Is Elway going to suddenly start having bad drafts? I doubt it; he's had 3 pretty good ones so far and I don't see a reason that won't continue. Even if Elway decides to step down we have Russell and Heckert who by all indications appear to be two pretty darn good personnel men themselves.

This guy pretty much hit it spot on, but I wanted to add that your point is basically moot now - we're IN THE SUPER BOWL. So the move DID work out, right? Why are we trying to second guess something that worked? Manning is on the GOAT short list and we had an opportunity to get him. A lot of other teams wanted him too, but he chose Denver and I've never been worried or upset about that for one second of my life.

I still just can't believe your negativity here, Joel. We manhandled that Patriots team yesterday. We put up more yards than anyone EVER has against a Belichick team. At any point yesterday, were you truly worried we were losing that game? Even at 13-3 at the half, sure we left points on the field, but our defense had played so well that I wasn't that concerned. Then we ate up 7:00 of clock and went up 20-3. It was all over but the shouting at that point. Yet you, either in this thread or the championship game one, spend paragraphs talking about how we moved the ball too quickly in the third quarter and should have grinded more clock. We had a 35 minute TOP and two seven minute drives. If we had turtled up and run every play after a big lead, everyone here would have blasted Fox, including you, I assume. If Manning has an opportunity to score quickly, why wouldn't he take it? At either 23-3 or 27-3 if we had scored a TD there, the Pats would have had to score a ton of points quickly and stop us multiple times. Who cares that it only took two minutes of clock? That's how our offense has worked ALL YEAR.

FanInAZ
01-20-2014, 09:04 PM
Joel & Orangehoof, I know that Elway & Fox had the audacity to have difference of opinion with the 2 of you, but we're in the SB.

You 2 believe that the only way to build a winning team is slowly, rather than with big name FA signings.

1) How did the work out for the Texans & Falcons.

2) The Bengals have also been building into a solid team, but they can't win a playoff game. King believes that they never will until the get a new HC & QB. If that happens, then much of what they've built will be torn down.

3) Up to that point, many on this site were ripping Elway for being cheep because he didn't even try to sign any of the big name FAs until they signed Manning. Instead, Elway & Fox looked at FAs that were the right fit for what they wanted to do. Manning was such a player & that's why they signed him.

4) What's Manning done over the past 2 season that suggest that there's no chance of him playing for another 5+.

Army Bronco
01-20-2014, 09:53 PM
NFL conspiracy

OrangeHoof
01-20-2014, 10:09 PM
Joel & Orangehoof, I know that Elway & Fox had the audacity to have difference of opinion with the 2 of you, but we're in the SB.

Yes, we are. I'm thrilled. I never said there was a wrong way or a right way, only that it was a risk. We took the risk and it worked. But it was still a risk that could have blown up as spectacularly as the Texans or Falcons did.


You 2 believe that the only way to build a winning team is slowly, rather than with big name FA signings.

Never said this. Maybe Joel did. Only that, when you are coming off a 4-12 season, blowing your wad on high-cost free agents is a very risky ploy because you may not have the talent available to make it work.




4) What's Manning done over the past 2 season that suggest that there's no chance of him playing for another 5+.

I'll let John Elway answer that question for you.

tomjonesrocks
01-21-2014, 12:24 AM
They can't score on us. They may keep us to 21 points but where are their points going to come from? I think we win 27-10

I am expecting Denver to win (although weather is a huge wildcard) Seattle's regular season doesn't really suggest they're going to get beat like that. They haven't faced this offense but all their losses were tight. Down the stretch points came *very* tough against them.

Simple Jaded
01-21-2014, 12:40 AM
No, but if Manning did not lead Denver to a Super Bowl, his signing should have been considered a failure.I think if he were candid, Peyton himself would tell you the same thing. What I am saying is that the Manning signing changed the team's emphasis from building through the draft to "win it all now". With Manning's age and small window, that's the only reason you'd sign him is to win now. I think our personnel would look considerably different had Manning signed elsewhere.

The Broncos plan is "to win from now on", that plan started long before the Broncos signed Manning, in those terms the Manning signing was an instant success, worth every penny before the ink on his contract was dry.

The fact that the Broncos had to succeed to the level of Tebow fans approval is one of the more obscene realities of Tebowmania, the fact of the matter is the Broncos were moving on from Tebow regardless of the Manning signing so lets not get over dramatic about the gravity of reaching this SB.

I Eat Staples
01-21-2014, 12:45 AM
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.

We're in the Superbowl and you're still going on about this? What in the world?

Simple Jaded
01-21-2014, 12:46 AM
This was one of the many things I disliked about that: We were in rebuild mode (just one year removed from the NFLs second worst team at 4-12) and I didn't think we could assemble the many OTHER vital missing pieces before Manning hit his expiration date. For one thing, the price tag severely restricted the means to do so. And since Mannings retirement was VERY imminent even on the day we signed him, a poor team sinking all its cash into one HoFer who'd be gone in 2-3 years would leave them BROKE in terms of money AND talent when he left.

Right back to 4-12 because we signed an expensive aging mercenary instead of finishing the rebuild that would've made us a powerhouse for the next decade. It's still a strong possibility once Manning retires; Champ will be gone, Welker probably will, too, we're gonna get killed in FA with our young talent over the next two years, and most of our best defenders are FAs on short term contracts (Phillips isn't far from retirement either.) We're in Win Now mode on many levels, and I'm still trying not to think about the Post Manning Era.

Utterly pathetic, Joel

Magnificent Seven
01-21-2014, 01:22 AM
Dudes,

Our offense is going to destroy their secondary. Serious Biz!

Army Bronco
01-21-2014, 01:47 AM
Dudes,

Our offense is going to destroy their secondary. Serious Biz! FO Sho!!!!

Joel
01-21-2014, 02:02 AM
Why are you sooooo negative? I'm sure you can get some enjoyment from this last game.
Whether I'm negative or positive at this point depends on whether we're talking about right now or a year or two from now. One reason I want to win a SB with Manning is because I think the bottom will drop out once he retires and I dread this place when it does. Right now, today, we're in the Super Bowl, which won't be an easy win, but is just ONE win from our first title in 15 years.

Simple Jaded
01-21-2014, 02:08 AM
Whether I'm negative or positive at this point depends on whether we're talking about right now or a year or two from now. One reason I want to win a SB with Manning is because I think the bottom will drop out once he retires and I dread this place when it does. Right now, today, we're in the Super Bowl, which won't be an easy win, but is just ONE win from our first title in 15 years.

So instead of the rebuilding period they were in before Manning they'll be in a rebuilding period when Manning retires, what's the difference?

I don't get it, you're pissed off because the Broncos prematurely ended a process you are dreading anyway?

Joel
01-21-2014, 02:14 AM
This guy pretty much hit it spot on, but I wanted to add that your point is basically moot now - we're IN THE SUPER BOWL. So the move DID work out, right? Why are we trying to second guess something that worked? Manning is on the GOAT short list and we had an opportunity to get him. A lot of other teams wanted him too, but he chose Denver and I've never been worried or upset about that for one second of my life.

I still just can't believe your negativity here, Joel. We manhandled that Patriots team yesterday. We put up more yards than anyone EVER has against a Belichick team. At any point yesterday, were you truly worried we were losing that game? Even at 13-3 at the half, sure we left points on the field, but our defense had played so well that I wasn't that concerned. Then we ate up 7:00 of clock and went up 20-3. It was all over but the shouting at that point. Yet you, either in this thread or the championship game one, spend paragraphs talking about how we moved the ball too quickly in the third quarter and should have grinded more clock. We had a 35 minute TOP and two seven minute drives. If we had turtled up and run every play after a big lead, everyone here would have blasted Fox, including you, I assume. If Manning has an opportunity to score quickly, why wouldn't he take it? At either 23-3 or 27-3 if we had scored a TD there, the Pats would have had to score a ton of points quickly and stop us multiple times. Who cares that it only took two minutes of clock? That's how our offense has worked ALL YEAR.
Okay, first off I said it WAS one of my concerns about the signing. More specifically, I repeatedly said we had 2 or MAYBE 3 years to reach a SB before Manning hit his expiration date, and that this place would meltdown in the ensuing carnage if it didn't. Well, guess what: 2 years and we're in the Super Bowl; that a lot of vindication, and winning it would be the corker.

In addition, I NEVER ONCE said we didn't move the ball well in the third quarter of the AFCCG: We had our longest drive of the year to open the half and finished in the end zone; the next time we got the ball we kept it until 3 minutes into the FOURTH quarter. So where the heck did you get the notion I complained we weren't finishing or sustaining drives in the third: That's when we won the game by doing EXACTLY THAT!

Joel
01-21-2014, 03:12 AM
I have a few things to say about this garbage:

1. The Broncos were 4-12 in 2010 not because they had a complete lack of talent, but because of McChild. The Fluktriot way was a complete and utter failure. Elway and Fox changed the culture, and that, plus a better D (with Elvis Dumervil's return) and some Tebow Time, led to a four win improvement and a playoff win.
Elway and Fox may have changed the culture, but McDumbass changed the ROSTER, purging many Pro Bowlers and starters to make room for his hand-picked stars. Unless we were going to be the first All Rookie SB team, we were in rebuild mode if only because our new coach DELIBERATELY PUT US THERE. And if Fox and Tebow Time took us to a division title and a playoff win against a good team, they did it with the team McDumbass was only half done rebuilding.

Note: The preceding should not in any way be construed as a defense of our vain, lying, cheating, petulant former coach.


2. I take it that you are a Brandon Weeden fan. Cause guess what? Without Manning, he is our QB. They were still going to dump Tebow even without Manning.
Maybe, maybe not; either way, we weren't going to be shopping for the starter of the next decade within two years, let alone IMMEDIATELY.


3. This team has a talented replacement in Brock Osweiler with, quite possibly, the strongest arm in the NFL and good mobility for his, or any size. Plus, he is learning at the feet of the GOAT. We are like the Packers in 2007, not the 83 Steelers, who didn't have much success in the years after Bradshaw's retirement, and had an aging team.
This team has a great big question mark in Brock Osweiler, the guy who's thrown a total of 20 passes in the NFL. Have you SEEN Mannings former backups? The great thing about Manning is his work ethic and mind, but it means the backups get about as much first team practice time as they do game time, and when he's down, it shows. Andrew Luck didn't just magically make Indy 9 wins better as a roookie: They had a decent team, but his predecessor was awful.


4. Denver isn't mortgaging the future to win now. Champ ($10.75m cap hit) is going to retire after the Broncos beat Seattle in 2 weeks. If not, he's not coming back at that cap figure. There's nearly $11m in savings and, the way contracts are structured, that allows us to re-sign 2 of our key free agents or maybe even 3, depending on the terms. When Peyton retires, either this year or next, that's another $20m in savings. That's $33m off the books in 2 years thanks to just 2 players! $33m is 1/4 of the cap - you can sign A LOT of players to fair contracts with 1/4 of your cap room available.
Unless he wins in two weeks, then rides off into the sunset, we must re-sign most or all our best players while still paying Manning $20 million/year. Restructuring Champ will help a lot, but having a guy like PFM means paying his worth, which in turn means NOT paying many others. I'm just glad we locked in Clady; Osweiler (or whoever) will need him as badly as Manning does.


Sure guys like DT and Von are going to cost a lot but it's not like we're suddenly going to stop adding talent or end up in salary cap hell. Is Elway going to suddenly start having bad drafts? I doubt it; he's had 3 pretty good ones so far and I don't see a reason that won't continue. Even if Elway decides to step down we have Russell and Heckert who by all indications appear to be two pretty darn good personnel men themselves.
Until we know how well Miller, Wolfe and Quanterus Smith recover we can't really be sure how well Elways drafts have gone. We could easily loose HALF the first and second round draft picks Elways had; in that case, his drafts, through no fault of his own, haven't been great.

We'll see. All that said, the virtues of the whole thing hinged on whether we could beat Mannings clock to a Super Bowl; we did, and that makes all the difference. If we punch it in, Elway's a freakin' genius who took the NFLs second worst team to a championship in just 3 years, surpassing even Jerry Jones' turnaround with the '89 Cowboys. If not, it's still a pretty good run if we at least reach next years AFCCG. The danger was repeatedly crapping out without reaching any AFCCGs, then watching the team implode (and fanbase) when Manning retired.


Joel & Orangehoof, I know that Elway & Fox had the audacity to have difference of opinion with the 2 of you, but we're in the SB.

You 2 believe that the only way to build a winning team is slowly, rather than with big name FA signings.

1) How did the work out for the Texans & Falcons.
Dunno yet; they each had ONE very bad season thanks to many key injuries and FA hits, but we don't know what the next season or two will bring. The nice thing about building a strong core team is having more than 2-3 years to win a SB before the whole thing scatters to the four winds. In Houstons case, the big (or moderate) FA signing was PRECISELY THE PROBLEM; especially two years ago, that was a championship roster at every position EXCEPT SCHAUBS.

I love it; when Elway took over and said he'd build through the draft everyone was all, "Hooray, build through the draft! That's what the Pats, Pack and Steelers do, and look at them. Elway's a genius!" Then he pounced on Manning, dumped Tebow and everyone smoothly pivoted; "Hooray, new sheriff's in town! The draft's a crap shoot for suckers. Elway's a genius!" Meanwhile, ya'll have done a good job of reminding me what Jonestown did with people who refused to drink the Kool Aid. :tongue:


2) The Bengals have also been building into a solid team, but they can't win a playoff game. King believes that they never will until the get a new HC & QB. If that happens, then much of what they've built will be torn down.
Why? Did Gruden tear down the Bucs D? Did Dungy tear down the Colts offense? Only a (Mc)dumbass would do something that stupid.


3) Up to that point, many on this site were ripping Elway for being cheep because he didn't even try to sign any of the big name FAs until they signed Manning. Instead, Elway & Fox looked at FAs that were the right fit for what they wanted to do. Manning was such a player & that's why they signed him.
Losers should use their very high draft picks to build a core team based on key HoFers; draft picks like that are (hopefully) rare and painfully earned, so make them count with guys who'll anchor the franchise for a decade and will have an immediate impact REGARDLESS of position, because crap teams don't HAVE anyone good for draft picks to replace. Unfortunately, after 2-3 seasons like that they're not getting top draft picks anymore, and THAT'S when they must go for the top FAs who provide the key pieces still missing. Separate discussion though.


4) What's Manning done over the past 2 season that suggest that there's no chance of him playing for another 5+.
Seriously? Manning's gonna play till he's AT LEAST 42?! He's already the second oldest SB starter in history, and it only took arguably the greatest QB since Jim Thorpe to set the record. Manning would tie it with a SB appearance next year; are you seriously suggesting he's going to be a title contender 3 (or MORE) years later?


We're in the Superbowl and you're still going on about this? What in the world?
No, someone pointed out one reason the Manning signing was a big gamble AT THE TIME. No one's going to complain about a big gamble that pays off well.

Joel
01-21-2014, 03:16 AM
So instead of the rebuilding period they were in before Manning they'll be in a rebuilding period when Manning retires, what's the difference?

I don't get it, you're pissed off because the Broncos prematurely ended a process you are dreading anyway?
Because I just went through TWO rebuilds in THREE seasons; pardon me if I'm not champing at the bit for a THIRD rebuild just 2-3 years later. Wouldn't it be awfully nice to use some of those choice draft picks that were the only consolation for the 4-12 embarrassment and build a strong core that makes us a contender for the next DECADE? Y'know, instead of just going through a perpetual cycle of building it up for 2-3 years, watching it come crashing down, and starting all over indefinitely? What are we, the Browns? Or maybe just the Lions?

7DnBrnc53
01-21-2014, 04:22 AM
Joel, I have some things to say:

1. You said that Ronald McDonald purged many Pro Bowlers from the roster. Who? Jay Cutler? Brandon Marshall? Peyton Hillis? Tony Scheffler? Give me a break. Marshall has been traded twice now. Cutler has only won one playoff game, and that was against a 7-9 team at home. Hillis is a backup with the Giants, if they even keep him next year. Scheffler was cut by the Lions.

In addition, I also remember how McDaniels purged a lot of crappy players off of our defense when he arrived, like DeWayne Robertson, John Engleberger, Nate Webster, Niko Koutouvides, Marquand Manuel, Marlon McCree, and Dre' Bly.

2. It looks like the Browns are shopping for a new starter after two years of the Brandon Weeden failure. That could have been the Broncos. And, Elway never said that the draft was a crapshoot after signing Manning. Guys drafted the last two years like Trevathan, Jackson, Williams, Ball, and Webster either started or played at least some yesterday.

BroncoWave
01-21-2014, 07:10 AM
What are we, the Browns? Or maybe just the Lions?

:lol: Wow. You really just out-dumbassed yourself with that one. Just stop, Joel. Just stop.

Nomad
01-21-2014, 10:39 AM
Irrelevant. The year is 2014 and skin color in professional sports is nothing of importance in this day and age.




:lol: OK....Mr.Serious. I didn't think anyone would take it literally.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-21-2014, 11:23 AM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 2h

Trevor Pryce says "Pot Roast" is the reason the Broncos will win this game. He will singlehandedly control the Seahawks running game.

Nomad
01-21-2014, 11:25 AM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 2h

Trevor Pryce says "Pot Roast" is the reason the Broncos will win this game. He will singlehandedly control the Seahawks running game.

Look for the Seahawks oline to cut block quite often.

VonDoom
01-21-2014, 01:09 PM
In addition, I NEVER ONCE said we didn't move the ball well in the third quarter of the AFCCG: We had our longest drive of the year to open the half and finished in the end zone; the next time we got the ball we kept it until 3 minutes into the FOURTH quarter. So where the heck did you get the notion I complained we weren't finishing or sustaining drives in the third: That's when we won the game by doing EXACTLY THAT!

I went back and read the post I was thinking about again, and you were talking about the fourth quarter. My mistake. Though the first line of the below quote says "we hadn't moved the ball well all day either." It was the "all day" part that made me think you were referring to any given drive, not just one from the first half. Still, these two quotes (one from this thread, one from another) that I was responding to were as follows:

Meanwhile, we hadn't moved the ball well all day either; we had lots of big plays, but only TWO led to TDs, with a lot of help from more big plays on the same drives. The rest of the time we'd get a play that got us in FG range, then NEs D stiffened as ours did all game or we made a few consecutive errors, and settled for a FG four times. I'm glad we did, each and every time, even the debatable long FG on 4th and short just before the half; those FGs are the reason we won by 10 instead of losing by 2. The failed 4th and 3 meant a third Denver FG just ONE big play later.

Again I go back to our last score: Denver ball on our 25, up 23-10 with 9:26 left. That should be the drive that finishes NE, as we plod downfield never throwing incompletes or going out of bounds to leave them with no time for anything but a 2:00 drill WHETHER WE SCORE OR NOT! Instead, we DO score, thanks to a 37 yd pass play that puts us in FG range; great, right? Wrong: That "drives" other 4 plays gained just 2 yds, 2 incompletes stopped the clock and we tried a 50 yd FG just 2:26 after we got the ball—then NE got it BACK with 7:00 left, still down just 2 scores.

Your implication seems to be that we only moved the ball due to big plays and if you took those away, we would have done nothing. My contention was simply that a) we lived on big plays all year, so there would be no reason to stop now and b) we had two drives in this game that were the opposite of the "big play" drive.

OrangeHoof
01-21-2014, 01:52 PM
The Broncos plan is "to win from now on", that plan started long before the Broncos signed Manning...

This is the NFL. NOBODY wins "from now on", not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the Patriots, not the 49ers, not the Packers and certainly not the Broncos. All of them have up and down cycles.

Ask the Jets and Vikings if it was worth mortgaging their futures for a couple of years of Brett Favre. Manning was a similar situation. Nobody was sure if he could come back from his neck surgery after sitting out a year. In retrospect, it was a great deal to sign him *because* we got to the Super Bowl but if we had the Favre outcome, everyone but Tebow haters like you would be asking themselves why we went down this road.

Dzone
01-21-2014, 01:58 PM
Heard talk this morning of the preseason game against Seattle back in august. 2nd preseason game. How seattle played like it was the super bowl. Several Broncos went down in that game with injuries. Cant remember who all got injured in that game. Bailey injured his foot. Wolfe hurt his neck. There were other injuries from that game I cant remember. Anyone remember who else was injured in that game against seattle?

underrated29
01-21-2014, 02:09 PM
Heard talk this morning of the preseason game against Seattle back in august. 2nd preseason game. How seattle played like it was the super bowl. Several Broncos went down in that game with injuries. Cant remember who all got injured in that game. Bailey injured his foot. Wolfe hurt his neck. There were other injuries from that game I cant remember. Anyone remember who else was injured in that game against seattle?



No I dont. But I do remember that starters vs starters we were tied with them for points I believe....That includes us fumbling once or twice I think too.....The game was close until the backups came in.

BroncoJoe
01-21-2014, 02:23 PM
No I dont. But I do remember that starters vs starters we were tied with them for points I believe....That includes us fumbling once or twice I think too.....The game was close until the backups came in.

It was 33-7 at the half. Manning played 1 1/2 quarters.


Manning appeared just as ready, with Denver rolling up 209 offensive yards in the first half, mostly against Seattle's starting defense and most of that coming from Manning. He finished 11 of 16 for 163 yards and his TD toss to Welker, but neither Ronnie Hillman (13 carries for 34 yards) nor Montee Ball (six carries, 28 yards) was able to establish much in the run game.

The turnovers led to Seattle making this one a blowout.

Brock threw an INT and fumbled (lost).

Hillman fumbled twice, losing one.

Ball fumbled once (lost).

We also gave up a return-for-touchdown.

Preseason doesn't really mean squat, IMO anyway. Manning was on target though.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-21-2014, 02:25 PM
Renée Fleming, perhaps the biggest star in American opera, will sing the National Anthem at Super Bowl XLVIII.

Fleming, a soprano, has a long list of international credits and is a regular with the Metropolitan Opera, the country's most respected vocal company.

She is known for her wholesome looks and a voice that is versatile enough to to handle the most difficult works by Mozart, Strauss and Handel. She has enhanced her career and popularity by singing off the classical repertoire with the contemporary music of pop composers such as Leonard Cohen.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_24957434/superbowl-anthem-be-sung-by-ren-eacute-e

Joel
01-21-2014, 03:20 PM
This is the NFL. NOBODY wins "from now on", not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the Patriots, not the 49ers, not the Packers and certainly not the Broncos. All of them have up and down cycles.

Ask the Jets and Vikings if it was worth mortgaging their futures for a couple of years of Brett Favre. Manning was a similar situation. Nobody was sure if he could come back from his neck surgery after sitting out a year. In retrospect, it was a great deal to sign him *because* we got to the Super Bowl but if we had the Favre outcome, everyone but Tebow haters like you would be asking themselves why we went down this road.
Yeah, I made the Favre comparison a lot at the time, too; it's quite apt (especially when people talk about Manning playing "5+ more years.") I'm a pessimist by nature, because I prefer pleasant surprises and prepared for disasters to unpleastand unprepared surprises. Even were I not though, the vivid recent memories of Favres epic flameout were hard to forget, and from the moment we signed Manning I couldn't stop thinking about what this place would be like if it went the same way.

Well, we're in the Super Bowl, which at the very least gives us encouragement and something to build on and finish the job with next year if we don't win (though we REALLY need to win; last years lesson, like '96s, is that SB chances too rare and costly to afford missing ANY: You may not get another for a looong time, if ever; ask Minnesota and Buffalo.) As you say, in RETROSPECT it was great deal BECAUSE we reached the SB; had we gone out like the Vikes (or the poor freakin' JETS, remember, Favre went there a year, then split for Minnesota)....

Let's just say that in that case I wouldn't have hung around much saying, "I told ya so." More often than I'd like, I end up hoping I'm wrong, but hope for the best and plan for the worst.

MOtorboat
01-21-2014, 03:26 PM
It sure is a damn shame Denver didn't even make the playoffs this season, eh Joel?

BroncoWave
01-21-2014, 03:33 PM
Out of Knowshon Moreno, Montee Ball, and Marshawn Lynch can any of you guess who had the fewest YPC in 2013? I will give you a hint: It's the one whose ballsack the media loves to swing from the most out of the three.

Ravage!!!
01-21-2014, 03:40 PM
Well.. as of right now it's apparent that Marshawn is the most talented RB of the three, no questions asked. Ours had the benefit of having the most prolific passing season in NFL history to soften up the defense.

underrated29
01-21-2014, 03:44 PM
Out of Knowshon Moreno, Montee Ball, and Marshawn Lynch can any of you guess who had the fewest YPC in 2013? I will give you a hint: It's the one whose ballsack the media loves to swing from the most out of the three.



Tom Brady does not play Runningback.

Joel
01-21-2014, 03:52 PM
:lol: Wow. You really just out-dumbassed yourself with that one. Just stop, Joel. Just stop.
Hyperbole, remember? Nothing wrong with it unless used literally: I assume you knew I wasn't literally putting us on par with the Browns/Lions, but saying I expect us to act better.


Look for the Seahawks oline to cut block quite often.
Well, if they do, we really can't bitch about, all things considered. ;)

Ravage!!!
01-21-2014, 04:08 PM
This is the NFL. NOBODY wins "from now on", not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the Patriots, not the 49ers, not the Packers and certainly not the Broncos. All of them have up and down cycles.

Ask the Jets and Vikings if it was worth mortgaging their futures for a couple of years of Brett Favre. Manning was a similar situation. Nobody was sure if he could come back from his neck surgery after sitting out a year. In retrospect, it was a great deal to sign him *because* we got to the Super Bowl but if we had the Favre outcome, everyone but Tebow haters like you would be asking themselves why we went down this road.

I don 't think so. I think that Elway saw the workout tapes and had long serious talks with Manning before making the decisions. BECAUSE of the injury to Manning, the in-depth analysis of whether he could come back, and if he was healthy enough to come back, was looked into MUCH deeply than had he been purely a FA on the free market.

But the "risk" of taking a shot at Manning, and his health, was WAyyyyyyyyy better than trying to continue the risk with Tebow behind center. Their literally was NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain by giving the best FA EVER to hit the market a shot. Had we not made it to the SUper Bowl, we were/are STILL much much better off for had taken that chance than to let it pass us by. Even if we lost in the playoffs this season, the signing of Manning has absolutelyl MORE than proved to be the right decision.

Joel
01-21-2014, 04:09 PM
I went back and read the post I was thinking about again, and you were talking about the fourth quarter. My mistake. Though the first line of the below quote says "we hadn't moved the ball well all day either." It was the "all day" part that made me think you were referring to any given drive, not just one from the first half. Still, these two quotes (one from this thread, one from another) that I was responding to were as follows:
No, I said, "all day," specifically to be clear I meant the whole game, not any one drive. And we HADN'T moved it well all day; the two TD drives were (very) nice and the kind of thing I've been wanting to see more of all year. BOTH surpassed a drive last week for our longest of the year. Yet if you'd told me before the season we'd make the playoffs without ANY drives >7:00, and make the SB with only 3 JUST >7:00, I wouldn't have given us much chance.


Your implication seems to be that we only moved the ball due to big plays and if you took those away, we would have done nothing. My contention was simply that a) we lived on big plays all year, so there would be no reason to stop now and b) we had two drives in this game that were the opposite of the "big play" drive.
Take away the big plays and we WOULD have done nothing; we had big plays on the TD drive, too: We just had MORE than big plays, and multiple big plays. Not



1st and 10 at DEN 25
(Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete short right to D.Thomas.




2nd and 10 at DEN 25
(Shotgun) P.Manning pass deep left to J.Thomas to NE 38 for 37 yards (J.Collins).




1st and 10 at NE 38
(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Moreno left tackle to NE 37 for 1 yard (Chr. Jones).




2nd and 9 at NE 37
(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Moreno left tackle to NE 36 for 1 yard (J.Collins).




3rd and 8 at NE 36
(No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete deep left to D.Thomas.




4th and 8 at NE 36
M.Prater 54 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-A.Brewer, Holder-B.Colquitt.
10
26



M.Prater kicks 65 yards from DEN 35 to end zone, Touchback.




DRIVE TOTALS: NE 10, DEN 26, 6 plays, 39 yards, 2:26 elapsed


Well, hooray for us; we got a FG. Now, we only ran FIVE plays, and all but ONE managed just TWO yards COMBINED (0.5 yds/play) but ONE picked up 37 and got us in range for a score. Which is a darned good thing since we didn't gain ANYTHING on the 2 plays before that and only gained 2 yds more on the 2 plays after that. And to top it all off, we burned just 2:26 off the clock, then kicked off with 7:00 left and the same 3 score lead as when we started.

I PROMISE I didn't deliberately grab this drive because it supports points (textbook example, really.) It probably stuck in my mind because I'd been thinking about the issue for a few months, and throughout that game where we leapt into FG range on one or two plays no less than FOUR times, and few others where the big play was short of FG range, so we punted. The problem is, I didn't NEED to look hard for supporting evidence.

There were exceptions; there've been more in each of our playoff games, and that's encouraging. The two TD drives were each an example, and our two longest drives all year: We MUST do that a LOT in the SB, or are patchwork, soft and fast-but-small D will either wear down, get hurt or both. I'm not saying we need a TD everytime either; the drive before the one above, we also settled for a FG—from the NE 1, no less—but took 5:33 and 11 plays doing it, even though we STARTED on our 39.

That was the drive after Knighton sacked Brady on 4th down, which is to say, only our SECOND drive of the half, but combined with our first 7:00 drive, and NE helpfully burning off 5:27 when they were down 3 scores and STILL getting NOTHING (plus giving us good field position,) well, those three drives got us to a 20 pt lead with 12:00 left in the fourth quarter; the rest was just mopping up with Prevent, and as badly as we played Prevent, it was still enough.

That 5 play, 2:26 drive that got 35 of its 37 yds in just a single play, then sputtered out into a FG? Didn't do a darned thing to help us. Maybe NE needs 3 TDs instead of 2 TD and a FG, but our win probability already hit 100% after the LONG FG drive. If it HADN'T, NE did more to ice our win when they spent 4:00 SCORING A TD ON US than we did spending 2:26 scoring a FG on them.

The underappreciated downside of fast quick-strike offenses and fast small Ds vs. power running and smashmouth is that if the power running team protects the ball (which the run does well) and that fast small D never stops it, you end up trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives. Guess which D wears out first? The team missing HALF its starting front seven; you think Mitch Unrein will keep Marshawn Lynch from running up the gut for a TD any better than he did against Brady? Oh, and when trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives, guess who probably has the ball last?

We MUST sustain our drives. A pair of 10 play drives that eat 6-7 minutes but end in FGs would be a LOT better than a 3 play 1:30 TD drive. Of course, a pair of 10 play 7 minute drives that end in TDs would be best; if we do that a couple times Seattle's not built to come back, our D stays fresh (and safe from injury) and our hurry up wears their hulks down till they collapse.

If our D was better, or at least deeper, I'd say light those big-talkers up—it's not. Even in the '70s—the Golden Age of the deep ball—the Mad Bomber never won a Super Bowl, and neither did Fouts with Air Coryell. Stabler needed the thugs in his secondary to put him over the top, and the Chargers never had that, so: Too bad.

Joel
01-21-2014, 04:23 PM
Seriously, guys, the Seahawks D is as good as advertised: 1st in passing yds/att and 7th in rushing yds/att. Their safeties are great, their starting CBs are great (though I'm less impressed with their nickel and dimebacks,) their pass rush is great, their LBs are great in coverage, run stopping and blitzing. We're not going to just bowl them over like we did a lot of teams (and looking over the regular season, it really wasn't as many as it seemed like during the record runs; most of those game were close until very late, and we trailed too often against too many weak teams.)

This game will most likely be decided by our mediocre D vs. their mediocre offense, and perhaps the most ominous stat there is that, though they seldom WANTED or NEEDED to throw, they averaged MORE yds/att than us when they did. Think about that for a second: We're facing a team that had more passing yds/att than the 2013 Denver Broncos. The place their most vulnerable is, ironically, considered one of their greatest strengths: As BroncoWave alluded to, Beast Mode finished just 12th in rushing yds/att.

Our D will probably win or lose this game for us. Our run D's 10th in rushing yds/att; not great, but pretty good. Our pass rush is thin, but so's their offensive line, a vulnerability running AND passing. If we can get any pressure at all on a second year QB in his first SB, well, you saw what happened on the first scrimmage play of the NFCCG. Meanwhile, OUR line must win the battle in the other trench, protecting Manning as well as they ever have, and opening at least enough holes for Moreno and Ball to slow the blitz and thin the secondary by drawing down the safety.

These are both very good teams, with lots of moving parts that all mesh (or grind) on their counterparts as if designed for it. We must do our job across the board, because the game may come down to who's most prepared for the grandest stage. That also favors us, but we must keep our heads and not loose containment, take our shots and avoid turnovers. It's fascinating matchup; it'll either be a beatdown or incredibly close, but for my part I can't tell which one or which way right now.

7DnBrnc53
01-21-2014, 04:27 PM
The team missing HALF its starting front seven; you think Mitch Unrein will keep Marshawn Lynch from running up the gut for a TD any better than he did against Brady? Oh, and when trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives, guess who probably has the ball last?

No, I expect Terrance Knighton and Sylvester Williams to do that, and they will.


If our D was better, or at least deeper, I'd say light those big-talkers up—it's not. Even in the '70s—the Golden Age of the deep ball—the Mad Bomber never won a Super Bowl, and neither did Fouts with Air Coryell. Stabler needed the thugs in his secondary to put him over the top, and the Chargers never had that, so: Too bad.

Our defense is solid. It's the coordinator that sucks. And, Stabler didn't go to the SB because of the thugs in his secondary. He went because of a bad call in the Patriot game, and Franco and Rocky being out the next week.

CoachChaz
01-21-2014, 04:34 PM
I would also argue that outside of New Orleans and Atlanta (no Julio Jones)...the best passing offense they faced all year was Arizona. And even in the NO and ATL games, they went up early and forced two teams with bad run games to leave the run altogether.

So...it's easier to profile them as the BEST pass defense in the NFL when the toughest competition they are facing is Carson Palmer, Mike Glennon (who took them to OT), Kellen Clemens, Ryan Fitzpatrick, etc., etc.

I'm not saying we'll light them up...but they havent exactly been tested this year either.

Broncolingus
01-21-2014, 05:18 PM
If Manning gets pass protection like he's had all post season...

...and if it's not blowing 3279845346 miles an hour, I think Denver wins.

(stop Lynch too of course)

weazel
01-21-2014, 05:38 PM
Only a couple things worry me a about this game.

1. The Seattle secondary is very opportunistic and Manning has had some lame duck throws recently that could have easily been picked off and weren't.

2. Wilson's ability to scramble around and make a play out of nothing. The Broncos aren't the worst pass rushing team in the league but it's not like they get to the QB at a steady clip. If Wilson can scramble around back there with the amount of time he had last week, he is going to have receivers open against our secondary. I will say that the times that the rush gets to Wilson, he is way too free with the ball and we could get a turnover there.

I do feel that if Denver doesn't turn the ball over, it's a win.

FanInAZ
01-21-2014, 05:50 PM
Joel, it would make it a lot easier to respond to responces if you didn't respond to so many different members' posts in the same post.

TIA


Joel & Orangehoof, I know that Elway & Fox had the audacity to have difference of opinion with the 2 of you, but we're in the SB.

You 2 believe that the only way to build a winning team is slowly, rather than with big name FA signings.

1) How did the work out for the Texans & Falcons.


Dunno yet; they each had ONE very bad season thanks to many key injuries and FA hits, but we don't know what the next season or two will bring. The nice thing about building a strong core team is having more than 2-3 years to win a SB before the whole thing scatters to the four winds. In Houstons case, the big (or moderate) FA signing was PRECISELY THE PROBLEM; especially two years ago, that was a championship roster at every position EXCEPT SCHAUBS.

I love it; when Elway took over and said he'd build through the draft everyone was all, "Hooray, build through the draft! That's what the Pats, Pack and Steelers do, and look at them. Elway's a genius!" Then he pounced on Manning, dumped Tebow and everyone smoothly pivoted; "Hooray, new sheriff's in town! The draft's a crap shoot for suckers. Elway's a genius!" Meanwhile, ya'll have done a good job of reminding me what Jonestown did with people who refused to drink the Kool Aid. :tongue:

My fault for not elaborating on my point. For all the work those 2 teams put into building their respective teams, it all came crashing down in one season do to an epidemic of injuries to their key player. Will they be able to return to what they were the previous seasons? We don't know. The point that I was making was in response to your assertion that building a winner always takes time & is through the draft. You may be right most of the time, but sometimes you just get lucky & have a once in a lifetime opportunity drop right in your lap. When that opportunity comes along, you just take it and enjoy the results.


2) The Bengals have also been building into a solid team, but they can't win a playoff game. King believes that they never will until the get a new HC & QB. If that happens, then much of what they've built will be torn down.


Why? Did Gruden tear down the Bucs D? Did Dungy tear down the Colts offense? Only a (Mc)dumbass would do something that stupid.

1) No they didn't. Did the Bengals hire Gruden as their DC or Dungy as their OC? No, so what's your point? The Bengals hire Hue Jackson as their OC & I've no idea who they have, if they have at all, hired as their DC. Will they be a good fit with the players they will have once the 2014 season start? The answer is supposed to be yes, but things don't always work out like they're supposed to.

2) Many owners have a tendency to get impatient with mediocrity. The Bengals can win the NFCN both of the next 2 years, but if they don't win a playoff game, then there's a good chance that HC & QB will be kicked to the curb & the O will be rebuilt from scratch.


3) Up to that point, many on this site were ripping Elway for being cheep because he didn't even try to sign any of the big name FAs until they signed Manning. Instead, Elway & Fox looked at FAs that were the right fit for what they wanted to do. Manning was such a player & that's why they signed him.


Losers should use their very high draft picks to build a core team based on key HoFers; draft picks like that are (hopefully) rare and painfully earned, so make them count with guys who'll anchor the franchise for a decade and will have an immediate impact REGARDLESS of position, because crap teams don't HAVE anyone good for draft picks to replace. Unfortunately, after 2-3 seasons like that they're not getting top draft picks anymore, and THAT'S when they must go for the top FAs who provide the key pieces still missing. Separate discussion though.

Nothing in your response has anything to do with my post that your responding to.


4) What's Manning done over the past 2 season that suggest that there's no chance of him playing for another 5+.


Seriously? Manning's gonna play till he's AT LEAST 42?! He's already the second oldest SB starter in history, and it only took arguably the greatest QB since Jim Thorpe to set the record. Manning would tie it with a SB appearance next year; are you seriously suggesting he's going to be a title contender 3 (or MORE) years later?

Actually, I find it highly doubtful that he will. It more likely that he'll do what Elway did, win a couple SBs & go out on top. The was the most I hoped for when we signed him. However, things don't always go according to plan. Sometimes that good & sometimes that's bad. In either case, you adapt to what's actually happening rather than what you though would happen. So if someone you thought was the future of your franchise isn't working out, like Tebow, do you not let them go? If someone that you thought would be with you for just 2 or 3 years is tearing up the league, & he decides he wants to play longer, do you kick him to the curb just to remain inflexibly enslaved to your original plan?

So what if he decided to be like Favre & play as long as he could. Favre played until he was 41 while leading the Vikings to a 12-4 record & within 3 points of a SB at age 40. So lets compare their respective 15th & 16th seasons. To make Favre look better, I'll extend his stats into his 19th season.

Favre
2005: 4-12 record (with the Packers), 372-607 for 3881 yards, 20 TDs & 27 Ints
2006: 8-8 record (with the Packers), 343-613 for 3885 yards, 18 TDs & 18 Ints
2007: 13-3 record (with the Packers), 356-535 for 4155 yards, 28 TDs & 15 Ints
2008: 9-7 record (with the Jets), 343-522 for 3472 yards, 22 TDs & 22 Ints
2009: 12-4 record (with the Vikings), 363-531 for 4202 yards, 33 TDs & 7 Ints

Manning
2012: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 400-583 for 4659 yards, 37 TDs & 11 Ints
2013: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 450-659 for 5477 yards, 55 TDs & 10 Ints

So if Manning is putting up superior numbers to Favre at this stage of their respective careers, & Favre played until he's 41, why couldn't Manning play until he's 42 if he felt like it? I'm not saying he will, I'm saying that you need to stop enslaving yourself to inflexible ways of doing things.

MOtorboat
01-21-2014, 06:18 PM
No, I said, "all day," specifically to be clear I meant the whole game, not any one drive. And we HADN'T moved it well all day; the two TD drives were (very) nice and the kind of thing I've been wanting to see more of all year. BOTH surpassed a drive last week for our longest of the year. Yet if you'd told me before the season we'd make the playoffs without ANY drives >7:00, and make the SB with only 3 JUST >7:00, I wouldn't have given us much chance.


Take away the big plays and we WOULD have done nothing; we had big plays on the TD drive, too: We just had MORE than big plays, and multiple big plays. Not



1st and 10 at DEN 25
(Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete short right to D.Thomas.




2nd and 10 at DEN 25
(Shotgun) P.Manning pass deep left to J.Thomas to NE 38 for 37 yards (J.Collins).




1st and 10 at NE 38
(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Moreno left tackle to NE 37 for 1 yard (Chr. Jones).




2nd and 9 at NE 37
(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Moreno left tackle to NE 36 for 1 yard (J.Collins).




3rd and 8 at NE 36
(No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete deep left to D.Thomas.




4th and 8 at NE 36
M.Prater 54 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-A.Brewer, Holder-B.Colquitt.
10
26



M.Prater kicks 65 yards from DEN 35 to end zone, Touchback.




DRIVE TOTALS: NE 10, DEN 26, 6 plays, 39 yards, 2:26 elapsed


Well, hooray for us; we got a FG. Now, we only ran FIVE plays, and all but ONE managed just TWO yards COMBINED (0.5 yds/play) but ONE picked up 37 and got us in range for a score. Which is a darned good thing since we didn't gain ANYTHING on the 2 plays before that and only gained 2 yds more on the 2 plays after that. And to top it all off, we burned just 2:26 off the clock, then kicked off with 7:00 left and the same 3 score lead as when we started.

I PROMISE I didn't deliberately grab this drive because it supports points (textbook example, really.) It probably stuck in my mind because I'd been thinking about the issue for a few months, and throughout that game where we leapt into FG range on one or two plays no less than FOUR times, and had a few drives peter out just short of FG range when we couldn't muster a second big play to get there. The problem is, I didn't NEED to look hard for supporting evidence.

There were exceptions; there've been more in each of our playoff games, and that's encouraging. The two TD drives were each an example, and our two longest drives all year: We MUST do that a LOT in the SB, or are patchwork, soft and fast-but-small D will either wear down, get hurt or both. I'm not saying we need a TD everytime either; the drive before the one above, we also settled for a FG—from the NE 1, no less—but took 5:33 and 11 plays doing it, even though we STARTED on our 39.

That was the drive after Knighton sacked Brady on 4th down, which is to say, only our SECOND drive of the half, but combined with our first 7:00 drive, and NE helpfully burning off 5:27 when they were down 3 scores and STILL getting NOTHING (plus giving us good field position,) well, those three drives got us to a 20 pt lead with 12:00 left in the fourth quarter; the rest was just mopping up with Prevent, and as badly as we played Prevent, it was still enough.

That 5 play, 2:26 drive that got 35 of its 37 yds in just a single play, then sputtered out into a FG? Didn't do a darned thing to help us. Maybe NE needs 3 TDs instead of 2 TD and a FG, but our win probability already hit 100% after the LONG FG drive. If it HADN'T, NE did more to ice our win when they spent 4:00 SCORING A TD ON US than we did spending 2:26 scoring a FG on them.

The underappreciated downside of fast quick-strike offenses and fast small Ds vs. power running and smashmouth is that if the power running team protects the ball (which the run does well) and that fast small D never stops it, you end up trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives. Guess which D wears out first? The team missing HALF its starting front seven; you think Mitch Unrein will keep Marshawn Lynch from running up the gut for a TD any better than he did against Brady? Oh, and when trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives, guess who probably has the ball last?

We MUST sustain our drives. A pair of 10 play drives that eat 6-7 minutes but end in FGs would be a LOT better than a 3 play 1:30 TD drive. Of course, a pair of 10 play 7 minute drives that end in TDs would be best; if we do that a couple times Seattle's not built to come back, our D stays fresh (and safe from injury) and our hurry up wears their hulks down till they collapse.

If our D was better, or at least deeper, I'd say light those big-talkers up—it's not. Even in the '70s—the Golden Age of the deep ball—the Mad Bomber never won a Super Bowl, and neither did Fouts with Air Coryell. Stabler needed the thugs in his secondary to put him over the top, and the Chargers never had that, so: Too bad.

Every ounce of this is hogwash.

Of COURSE if they didn't have the 37 yard play they wouldn't have had the field goal. How do we know this? Because the 37 yard pass play ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It wasn't a figurative play, it HAPPENED. It can't be undone, no matter how hard you try for that play to be undone, it can't happen, because the PLAY ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

One of the absolute dumbest analysis in football is "if they hadn't have had the big play, they wouldn't have..." That is the dumbest ******* statement in football. Why? Because the big play HAPPENED. It can't be undone. Unless they call a penalty, of course. But in this case, we have the beautiful option of hindsight, and they didn't call a penalty.


We MUST sustain our drives. A pair of 10 play drives that eat 6-7 minutes but end in FGs would be a LOT better than a 3 play 1:30 TD drive.

And then the team coached by Joel loses by a point, because they settled for six points instead of 7. Hilarious.

Slick
01-21-2014, 08:09 PM
I would love it if Denver played the exact same game as the AFC Championship. I think 26 points would be enough to beat the Seahawks.

We had a few nice, long, time consuming drives. We ran the ball effectively enough. Many runs got stuffed for minimal gains, but we still made them play the run. Peyton did't throw deep a whole lot. His passes were all pretty high percentage throws. The longer the ball is in the air, it gives more of a chance for their secondary to make a play on the ball.

Mix in some screens to slow them down a bit.

Most importantly, protect the ball. No turnovers. It's the only thing that has slowed Denver down all year. Settling for a field goal instead of forcing a throw and coming up empty is how we beat the Pats.

I don't think Seattle is going to light our defense up. Wilson will scramble and make some plays, some first downs with his legs, but they won't score more that 24 points against us if we don't give them a cheap score.

I doubt the officials want to be the star of the show, so our skill guys are going to have to win the hand battles. I think they can. They have toughened up since that meltdown in Foxboro.

Man, this is going to be a long wait. So excited!

VonDoom
01-21-2014, 08:31 PM
No, I said, "all day," specifically to be clear I meant the whole game, not any one drive. And we HADN'T moved it well all day; the two TD drives were (very) nice and the kind of thing I've been wanting to see more of all year. BOTH surpassed a drive last week for our longest of the year. Yet if you'd told me before the season we'd make the playoffs without ANY drives >7:00, and make the SB with only 3 JUST >7:00, I wouldn't have given us much chance.

I see what you're saying, but I think I'll have to agree to disagree here. To me "not moving the ball well" doesn't mean putting up 507 yards against the Pats, the most Belichick has ever allowed. We've developed a more methodical offense in the playoffs by design, but we will probably still have a lot of shorter drives. My one complaint about this offense all year was that they were feast or famine, and the "famine" was a one minute, two yard, three and out. There haven't been any of those drives in the playoffs. We've punted ONCE in two games. We punted on the first drive on Sunday and scored on every other possession. Every single one. Even if there were more FG's than I wanted, I will take that every time. We held the ball for 35 minutes.


The team missing HALF its starting front seven; you think Mitch Unrein will keep Marshawn Lynch from running up the gut for a TD any better than he did against Brady? Oh, and when trading 2:00 drives for 8:00 drives, guess who probably has the ball last?

Lynch is good, but he's not the best back we've faced this year and I have no reason to believe we can't stop him. Even when our defense was playing poorly, we were able to stop the run for the most part (I believe we only allowed one 100 yard rusher all year).


This game will most likely be decided by our mediocre D vs. their mediocre offense

I would tend to agree, but consider that our defense is hitting their stride at the right time. We held the number five and number seven offenses respectively to 33 points in two games. (The Seahawks held the number four and number 24 offenses to similar numbers by comparison). The Seahawks number 17 offense doesn't scare me that much. If we stop Lynch, and again, I think we will, then I'm not all that worried about Wilson. Our LB's are fast and can spy him. He'll try some big plays down the field (hence the yards/attempt stat you quoted) but that's about the only danger I can think of. On a side note, everyone keeps talking about how bad weather would hurt the Broncos. I say it hurts the Seahawks more, as more of our offense is based on short passes.

The real unknown is whether their number one defense can stop our number one (of all time) offense. No one really knows the answer to that yet and that's what makes this game fascinating to outsiders. If they can pressure Manning by rushing four, it will be a long night for us. Otherwise, I see us getting our opportunities and hopefully making the most of them. It's unlikely this team scores more than 20 on us, so can we do more than that against their defense? Honestly, I think so.

OrangeHoof
01-21-2014, 10:06 PM
Our best way to stop the run is to build up a big lead so teams stop trying to run.

FanInAZ
01-21-2014, 10:09 PM
Our best way to stop the run is to build up a big lead so teams stop trying to run.

Much easier against teams with bad D then the #1 D in the league.

OrangeHoof
01-21-2014, 10:52 PM
Much easier against teams with bad D then the #1 D in the league.

No doubt, but it is the main reason our run defense has such great numbers. We usually get the other team into situations where they have to pass to stay in the game. Our run defense hasn't had to play a game for all four quarters other than the Thursday nighter against San Diego. Even in the loss at Indy I don't think we were really concerned with Indy's running game.

Hawgdriver
01-22-2014, 01:58 AM
Take away the big plays ...

Gase refers to big plays in a particular way. They aren't lucky plays. They are "explosive" play opportunities. They are the haymaker that the cunning boxer built his whole fight around. A lot of jabs, feints, false-telegraphs, and so on. Then you are suddenly knocked the **** out wondering what happened because you just bit on the feint.

The yardage gained among NFL plays has a Pareto distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution). There are no 80 yard drives that consist of 20 4-yard rushes. Very few are crazy long, many are super short.

dogfish
01-22-2014, 04:10 AM
not sure if it's been posted, but i thought this was a solid article (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000315645/article/peyton-manning-vs-seahawks-d-tops-super-bowl-storylines) . . .

dogfish
01-22-2014, 04:12 AM
Gase refers to big plays in a particular way. They aren't lucky plays. They are "explosive" play opportunities. They are the haymaker that the cunning boxer built his whole fight around.

do you think he mutters "it's ass-whoopin' time" under his breath when he calls one of them?

Hawgdriver
01-22-2014, 04:28 AM
do you think he mutters "it's ass-whoopin' time" under his breath when he calls one of them?

Either that or he gives one of his megafrowns that makes all the grass in the stadium imperceptibly wilt.

Northman
01-22-2014, 08:19 AM
https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1505163_1509916492567396_98425851_n.png

Nomad
01-22-2014, 08:42 AM
Just WIN the game, BRONCOS! That's all.

Dzone
01-22-2014, 09:28 AM
Seattle played the 4 worst offenses in the NFL...most of their games were against crappy offenses. In preseason game against seattle, Demaryious Thomas beat Richard Sherman one on one...It will be so excellent to see DT school sherman and shut his big fat mouth. If Seattle wins the sb, then we will never see the end of richard thomas. We just cant let that happen.

Dapper Dan
01-22-2014, 09:33 AM
Seattle played the 4 worst offenses in the NFL...most of their games were against crappy offenses. In preseason game against seattle, Demaryious Thomas beat Richard Sherman one on one...It will be so excellent to see DT school sherman and shut his big fat mouth. If Seattle wins the sb, then we will never see the end of richard thomas. We just cant let that happen.

Yeah. **** that Richard Thomas guy.

Hawgdriver
01-22-2014, 11:17 AM
I've been doing my catch-up surfing on Dick Sherman. He seems like a hell of a competitor. I hope his trash talk doesn't get under Manning's or DT's, or anyone else's skin.

I mean, the fewest targets but the most picks? Good grief.

So I'd really love to see him get owned.

CoachChaz
01-22-2014, 12:25 PM
I dont even care if we stay away from Sherman all day. I think we'll do fine in match-ups with Maxwell and Thurmond. This game is going to be completely about match-ups. Moving DT around will be key because I just dont see Sherman following him all day. Yes, Sherman can play left, right and slot...but I dont know that Maxwell and Thurmond can. So, if DT slides to the slot and Sherman stays on him, there will be some serious mis-matches going on at other places.

weazel
01-22-2014, 12:34 PM
it's not Sherman I'm scared of, its the blatant holding and pass interference that the whole defense gets away with on that team. It's going to be a frustrating day watching that go uncalled for 4 quarters.

Lancane
01-22-2014, 12:55 PM
Actually, I am not worried at all. There is a lot of talk about how good the Seachicken's defense is, but looking at stats their defense isn't even in the Top Five for the postseason, the 49ers had the 3rd best on the post-season and guess who is ranked above them? Denver has fielded the 2nd best defense of the post-season and will be facing an offense which was ranked 9th overall for the whole off-season, their offense has been rather mediocre. San Francisco nearly beat them and Denver right now is playing better both offensively and defensively then the 9ers despite injuries, etc. Seattle sort of reminds me of Atlanta during the 98' season, a so-so offense led by this elite defense that sort of just was, till Denver lit them up like a Birthday Cake.

OrangeHoof
01-22-2014, 12:55 PM
Indy essentially shut us down doing the same grabbing and clawing that the Seahawks do and got away with it. I do wonder, though, with all the attention and the multitude of angles and replays at the SB whether the refs will allow it. Depends on the league office.

I honestly think the NFL is not above playing up the story lines and making the SB an event about, for example, Bettis returning to Detroit or the first black head coach, yada yada. In that regard, I think the NFL prefers the "Peyton Manning Best Offense Ever" storyline to the Seattle "Thugs from Grunge City" storyline.

But the NFL also may look at that they "owe" the Seahawks for the 2005 debacle but, one way or the other, the league is probably instructing the refs how they want the flow of the game to go and what calls to emphasize and what to overlook. That will have a large bearing on which side plays well.

Bullgator
01-22-2014, 12:56 PM
IMO this game is going to come down to the Denver front seven stopping the seahawks run game on first and sometimes second down.

Getting Seattle off schedule is key. If the get to play their style of ball control its going to be hard to beat. Manning cant throw TDs from the sideline. They shorten the game and wear out defenses late and that's when Marshon Lynch just starts churning those tree trunks and trampling people.

So if you can win the run downs I think Denver and PM are going to change the style of play to their liking and blow out Seattle. Because there is no way they can win in a shoot out.

dogfish
01-22-2014, 01:02 PM
I dont even care if we stay away from Sherman all day. I think we'll do fine in match-ups with Maxwell and Thurmond. This game is going to be completely about match-ups. Moving DT around will be key because I just dont see Sherman following him all day. Yes, Sherman can play left, right and slot...but I dont know that Maxwell and Thurmond can. So, if DT slides to the slot and Sherman stays on him, there will be some serious mis-matches going on at other places.

i expect welker to have a big day working against against those younger corners. . .

weazel
01-22-2014, 01:12 PM
Okay I guess I have to get this out of the way... I'm kind of superstitious so here is my pessimistic prediction that will lead to a Broncos win! Seattle 30 - Denver 23

I also cannot wear the orange jersey's because every time I have worn the orange in the last few years the Broncos have lost. The blue one works well though.

Lancane
01-22-2014, 01:14 PM
Okay I guess I have to get this out of the way... I'm kind of superstitious so here is my pessimistic prediction that will lead to a Broncos win! Seattle 30 - Denver 23

I also cannot wear the orange jersey's because every time I have worn the orange in the last few years the Broncos have lost. The blue one works well though.

You know Weazel that if the Seachicken's beat Denver and that is the score that you'll have to take a year or so off from this board, because everyone and their momma will blame your ***! ROFLMAO

Day1BroncoFan
01-22-2014, 01:18 PM
Indy essentially shut us down doing the same grabbing and clawing that the Seahawks do and got away with it. I do wonder, though, with all the attention and the multitude of angles and replays at the SB whether the refs will allow it. Depends on the league office.

I honestly think the NFL is not above playing up the story lines and making the SB an event about, for example, Bettis returning to Detroit or the first black head coach, yada yada. In that regard, I think the NFL prefers the "Peyton Manning Best Offense Ever" storyline to the Seattle "Thugs from Grunge City" storyline.

But the NFL also may look at that they "owe" the Seahawks for the 2005 debacle but, one way or the other, the league is probably instructing the refs how they want the flow of the game to go and what calls to emphasize and what to overlook. That will have a large bearing on which side plays well.

You're joking right? Please don't tell me the refs are swinging on seatle.

CoachChaz
01-22-2014, 01:27 PM
My creepy encounter is still holding true, so I feel confident about a Denver win. But if I were forced to put money on the game...I'd go with Seattle. If we had guys like Miller, Clady, Harris and Vick in this game...I'd feel different. But I think our depth will be an issue as the game wears on in the elements and we'll tire out.

However...the creepy bum told me otherwise, so I still feel good.

Joel
01-22-2014, 01:38 PM
No, I expect Terrance Knighton and Sylvester Williams to do that, and they will.
Not for 40 minutes they won't; they won't last that long: We MUST get them off the field so they stay fresh and we aren't forced to rotate in guys like Unrein. Best case scenario is Knighton and Williams start, then take turns getting breathers from Unrein, but if Seattle has the ball so much they BOTH need a break and Lynch is running on Unrein and Fua... ugh. Not to mention that the less our D is on the field the less opportunities they have to get hurt; we're already missing three starters for that game, and can't afford to lose more before it ends.


Our defense is solid. It's the coordinator that sucks. And, Stabler didn't go to the SB because of the thugs in his secondary. He went because of a bad call in the Patriot game, and Franco and Rocky being out the next week.
That didn't get them to the playoffs, and it didn't beat the Vikings. What repeatedly DID beat the Vikings in SBs was DBs mugging their excellent receivers so Tarkenton had to run around waiting for someone to get open, and was frequently forced to just tuck it away and run. It's part of why the NFL banned PI between Minnesotas back-to-back SB appearances, but it wasn't enough then nor two years later against Tatum and the "Just cheat, baby" Raiders. Holy Rollers and Ghosts to the Posts are all well, but the hockey players on the Raiders D won their SBs.

weazel
01-22-2014, 01:52 PM
You know Weazel that if the Seachicken's beat Denver and that is the score that you'll have to take a year or so off from this board, because everyone and their momma will blame your ***! ROFLMAO

no chance the Broncos lose.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-22-2014, 02:08 PM
Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 22h

The Broncos media availability Super Bowl week is on a ship called Cornucopia Majesty. Jersey jokes just write themselves.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-22-2014, 02:09 PM
Mike Klis ‏@MikeKlis 21h

It's official: The Broncos aren't headin' to New York. They're flying to Newark, arriving at 3:30 Sunday. Then heading to their NJ hotel.

Joel
01-22-2014, 02:46 PM
Joel, it would make it a lot easier to respond to responces if you didn't respond to so many different members' posts in the same post.

TIA
Unfortunately, responding to each person with separate posts means a header, footer, avatar and sig on each one; takes up more screen, so I try not to do it when multiple people are commenting on the same subject, but just respond to everyone at once. It makes each response longer, but prevents making half a dozen that take up even more space. No one wants to load a whole page that consists of nothing but my face posted 7-8 times. ;)


My fault for not elaborating on my point. For all the work those 2 teams put into building their respective teams, it all came crashing down in one season do to an epidemic of injuries to their key player. Will they be able to return to what they were the previous seasons? We don't know. The point that I was making was in response to your assertion that building a winner always takes time & is through the draft. You may be right most of the time, but sometimes you just get lucky & have a once in a lifetime opportunity drop right in your lap. When that opportunity comes along, you just take it and enjoy the results.
Well, I won't fault you; folks around here seem to dislike elaboration for clarity. The thing about building a team of young talented players through the draft is that it almost CAN'T ALL come crashing down in just a single season of injuries. Sure, a really unlucky season can lead to a record like the Texans and Falcons, but unless those injuries are career-ending/diminishing, odds are that yes, the team will come roaring back next season; the only difference is they'll have a top five pick and two more in the top fifty with which to do it.

Load up in just one year with a bunch of top mercenaries in their early 30s and you BETTER go all the way, because you've only got a year or two before age and/or the cap blows up your whole roster.

You can (sometimes) build this years champion through FA (though it's a lot harder if the team is average or worse) IF you don't mind half a decade of embarrassment when that top gun gets his Ring and rides off into the sunset, taking most of the teams talent with him. Dynasties, however, are built through the draft, and have the invaluable asset of knowing they don't have to beat the clock.

That's why this year's much bigger for us than for Seattle: Seattles last season was a warning shot acrosss the NFLs bow, saying, "we're coming...." Even if they don't win this year, they'll have more chances; even if they're decimated by injuries and FA next year, they'll still head into 2015 with nearly all their best players still in their 20s. If half aren't thrown out for 'roids, that team's gonna be scary for a while.

Meanwhile, I'm watching Denver hoping we can win ONE SB before Manning, Champ, Phillips, Vickerson (all over 30) Knighton and DRC (late 20s) hit their expiration date, and trying not to think about post-Manning Denver.


1) No they didn't. Did the Bengals hire Gruden as their DC or Dungy as their OC? No, so what's your point? The Bengals hire Hue Jackson as their OC & I've no idea who they have, if they have at all, hired as their DC. Will they be a good fit with the players they will have once the 2014 season start? The answer is supposed to be yes, but things don't always work out like they're supposed to.
No, the Bengals didn't hire those guys as ASSISTANTS, the Buc and Colts hired them as HEAD coaches: My point is that if new HEAD coaches didn't tear down contenders they took to SB wins, why would others? ASSISTANTS won't tear down ANY team without approval from the owner, GM and head coach, which is to say: Assistants won't tear down any team.


2) Many owners have a tendency to get impatient with mediocrity. The Bengals can win the NFCN both of the next 2 years, but if they don't win a playoff game, then there's a good chance that HC & QB will be kicked to the curb & the O will be rebuilt from scratch.
Most owners get impatient with mediocrity, which is often the biggest obstacle to championships. I'll spare us all the litany and just say any owner who gives a new GM and head coach <4 (preferrably 5) seasons screws their team more than the GM/coach, because WHOEVER'S coaching will perpetually be trying to convert their predecessors roster into their own. The mark of a good coach is tailoring his team design and game plan to maximize talent and minimize lack of it, whatever the teams particular strengths/weaknesses, but every coach has strengths and weaknesses of his own.

Unfortunately for most teams, the owners are nearly all billionaires, so few of them are accustomed to even brief periods of adversity. They didn't get to the level of being able to buy an NFL team by passively watching their executives make their company near or at the bottom 3-4 years in a row; they'd have gone under if they had, especially in the modern era of day traders, junk bonds, downsizing, outsourcing and hostile takeovers, where profit-taking after 6-18 months is typically prioritized over being an industry leader for 6-18 years.

Funny thing though, the most successful businesses and teams, the one's that leap to everyones mind first when asked "who's the best?" don't play that game. I wish Bob McNair had remembered that; too bad.


Nothing in your response has anything to do with my post that your responding to.
Sure it does: You said people ripped Elway and Fox for seeking "best-fit" FAs instead of big name hired guns, then they went after Manning. That's all about FA and draft strategy, which is all about where a team is (or rather, how far it has to go.) It's tangential to this discussion, but not wholly separate; remember, a true tangent has a point of intersection (that's why it's not just a non sequitur.)


Actually, I find it highly doubtful that he will. It more likely that he'll do what Elway did, win a couple SBs & go out on top. The was the most I hoped for when we signed him. However, things don't always go according to plan. Sometimes that good & sometimes that's bad. In either case, you adapt to what's actually happening rather than what you though would happen. So if someone you thought was the future of your franchise isn't working out, like Tebow, do you not let them go? If someone that you thought would be with you for just 2 or 3 years is tearing up the league, & he decides he wants to play longer, do you kick him to the curb just to remain inflexibly enslaved to your original plan?

So what if he decided to be like Favre & play as long as he could. Favre played until he was 41 while leading the Vikings to a 12-4 record & within 3 points of a SB at age 40. So lets compare their respective 15th & 16th seasons. To make Favre look better, I'll extend his stats into his 19th season.

Favre
2005: 4-12 record (with the Packers), 372-607 for 3881 yards, 20 TDs & 27 Ints
2006: 8-8 record (with the Packers), 343-613 for 3885 yards, 18 TDs & 18 Ints
2007: 13-3 record (with the Packers), 356-535 for 4155 yards, 28 TDs & 15 Ints
2008: 9-7 record (with the Jets), 343-522 for 3472 yards, 22 TDs & 22 Ints
2009: 12-4 record (with the Vikings), 363-531 for 4202 yards, 33 TDs & 7 Ints

Manning
2012: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 400-583 for 4659 yards, 37 TDs & 11 Ints
2013: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 450-659 for 5477 yards, 55 TDs & 10 Ints

So if Manning is putting up superior numbers to Favre at this stage of their respective careers, & Favre played until he's 41, why couldn't Manning play until he's 42 if he felt like it? I'm not saying he will, I'm saying that you need to stop enslaving yourself to inflexible ways of doing things.
There are many things I like about Favre, but he was the NFLs Iron Man; Manning isn't. Whether he had protection or not, Favre started every week even when BADLY hurt; Manning doesn't have that kind of constitution or mobility. And before anyone makes the argument Manning overcame awful protection to reach 2 SB: No; just... no. If we had Tarik Glenn rather than Clark going at Avril I'd feel much better about the SB, Jeff Saturday was Jeff Saturday, Ryan Lilja nearly made THIS years roster 9 years after he joined Manning en route to a pair of SBs, Ryan Diem and Dylan Gandy were both studs... just, no.

Manning's already joining Unitas as second oldest SB starter, just a year shy of the record; we all know who holds that record, so if we're to compare anyone to Manning, those are the comparisons (dangerous as they are.) Whether or not he retires with another Ring, Manning CAN'T play 2 years longer than Favre and Unitas and 4 years longer than Elway and Montana, and no one would WANT him if he tried. The suggestion the NFLs Iron Man playing in an NFCCG at 40 proves Manning can be competitive till he's 42 is cherry-picking of the worst sort.

Yeah, Favre played till he was 41, even starting 13 games—he also posted a 69.9 PR and his team finished 6-10. If we MUST compare Manning to the Iron Man, I doubt he'll be any better at 42 than Favre was at 41.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-22-2014, 02:49 PM
http://photos.denverpost.com/2014/01/22/photos-crews-clear-snow-from-metlife-stadium-ahead-of-super-bowl-xlviii/#1

BroncoNut
01-22-2014, 02:51 PM
Lancane for President

Joel
01-22-2014, 02:58 PM
Every ounce of this is hogwash.

Of COURSE if they didn't have the 37 yard play they wouldn't have had the field goal. How do we know this? Because the 37 yard pass play ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It wasn't a figurative play, it HAPPENED. It can't be undone, no matter how hard you try for that play to be undone, it can't happen, because the PLAY ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

One of the absolute dumbest analysis in football is "if they hadn't have had the big play, they wouldn't have..." That is the dumbest ******* statement in football. Why? Because the big play HAPPENED. It can't be undone. Unless they call a penalty, of course. But in this case, we have the beautiful option of hindsight, and they didn't call a penalty.
No championship team can live off big plays: They need drives, or their D will wear out while their opponents stay fresh. That's especially true when the opposing D is the NFLs best and ours is one of the worst, plus missing half its starters. We can't afford for them to get tired out and/or have their few remaining good players hurt. We're not going to bomb the Seahawks secondary into submission or turn 7 yd receptions into 30 yarders because we break (or they miss) lots of tackles. We must line up and play pro football, not a sandlot game, all day long.


And then the team coached by Joel loses by a point, because they settled for six points instead of 7. Hilarious.
Would it be any better with a dozen 2:00 drives getting points on less than half of them? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I maintain the only way we beat Seattle is with long drives keeping our weak patchwork D fresh and healthy while tiring theirs. If we go into the 4th sucking wind with Unrein, Fua and Mincey taking lots of snaps against Lynch and Wilson, it will be ugly.

Joel
01-22-2014, 03:41 PM
it's not Sherman I'm scared of, its the blatant holding and pass interference that the whole defense gets away with on that team. It's going to be a frustrating day watching that go uncalled for 4 quarters.
A thousand times this, with much concern about 'roid rage for good measure. All season, our guys have been reluctant to fight through jams yet drew as many OFFENSIVE PI flags as defensive, even with every DB we faced mugging them because we'd always win clean matchups. So now we face a bunch of doped up guys brazenly calling themselves "Legion of Boom" despite an NFL that's practically outlawed defense, ESPECIALLY in the secondary, and Belicheat bitches about our 5'9" 185. double-concussed WR making illegal contact, so SI urges refs to watch US.

Yeah, this is gonna be a blast.... :rolleyes:


Indy essentially shut us down doing the same grabbing and clawing that the Seahawks do and got away with it. I do wonder, though, with all the attention and the multitude of angles and replays at the SB whether the refs will allow it. Depends on the league office.
That's been my take ever since that Indy game. Looking at our offense before and after is like night and day; after that, EVERY DB mugged our WRs, because Indy gave us our first loss doing it. Now, there was more to it than that (i.e. Mathis and Redding running amok against a line that couldn't protect Manning or open holes for Ball, leading to 2 of our 4 turnovers.) Yet Indy put the breaks on us when no one could, playing coverage the way Seattle plays EVERY game.

Meanwhile, Seattle DID play every game that way, as if it were still 1970 and PI didn't exist. With all 31 other teams forced to play under CURRENT rules outlawing pass coverage and sacks, naturally Seattle outperformed. Much depends on whether the NFL's willing to tolerate a team winning a SB doing exactly what they don't want ANY team doing in ANY game.


I honestly think the NFL is not above playing up the story lines and making the SB an event about, for example, Bettis returning to Detroit or the first black head coach, yada yada. In that regard, I think the NFL prefers the "Peyton Manning Best Offense Ever" storyline to the Seattle "Thugs from Grunge City" storyline.

But the NFL also may look at that they "owe" the Seahawks for the 2005 debacle but, one way or the other, the league is probably instructing the refs how they want the flow of the game to go and what calls to emphasize and what to overlook. That will have a large bearing on which side plays well.
I personally think there's a lot to that as well, just like when the Ravens got some hinky calls against Indy in last years wildcard game and a BUNCH of hinky ones against us: The League Office clearly had a hard on for giving Stabby McGee another SB Ring as some kind of gold watch, and before the playoffs ever started I wondered about the timing of his retirement announcement (what team leader tells his fellows, "I ain't comin' back, ya'll" going INTO the playoffs?!) After they beat us, their SB win was a foregone conclusion and I just quit watching.

VonDoom
01-22-2014, 05:28 PM
No championship team can live off big plays: They need drives, or their D will wear out while their opponents stay fresh. That's especially true when the opposing D is the NFLs best and ours is one of the worst, plus missing half its starters. We can't afford for them to get tired out and/or have their few remaining good players hurt. We're not going to bomb the Seahawks secondary into submission or turn 7 yd receptions into 30 yarders because we break (or they miss) lots of tackles. We must line up and play pro football, not a sandlot game, all day long.

I think we've done a good job in the playoffs of having long, soul crushing drives. I know you disagree with this assessment, and still say that we live only off the big play. So let's say you're right. In that case, I can't agree with your point here that "no championship team can live off big plays." If that's how we've lived for 18 games, why change what we're doing now? It got us this far, right? Is Seattle SOOOO much better than everyone else that we have to drastically change our approach? I say we'll play how we'll play and they'll play how they'll play and we'll truly see who's better. I hope the Bronco offense isn't as scared of Seattle as you are.

MOtorboat
01-22-2014, 06:06 PM
Denver had a higher time of possession percentage than Seattle this season. The idea that you need these long drives to win is just absolute hogwash. It's not true. At all.

You need points.

You know what no one talks about with Seattle? They were tied for eighth in points. Points are what matter, not time of possession.

Joel
01-22-2014, 06:49 PM
I think we've done a good job in the playoffs of having long, soul crushing drives. I know you disagree with this assessment, and still say that we live only off the big play. So let's say you're right. In that case, I can't agree with your point here that "no championship team can live off big plays." If that's how we've lived for 18 games, why change what we're doing now? It got us this far, right? Is Seattle SOOOO much better than everyone else that we have to drastically change our approach? I say we'll play how we'll play and they'll play how they'll play and we'll truly see who's better. I hope the Bronco offense isn't as scared of Seattle as you are.
You're right, we have done a much better job of producing long championship drives in the playoffs; a drive against SD was our first >7 minutes all year, and thus our longest all year—until we bettered it twice against NE the following week. Also, while injury decimation made NEs D statistically weak in nearly every category this season, one big exception was their 10th best scoring D: Teams gained lots of yards against NE (especially on the ground,) but the Pats toughened up in the red zone against everyone else just as they did against us, so it's hard to punch it on them.

That said, Seattles D IS that much better than anyone we've played. The Chiefs looked like they might be in the same ballpark the first half of the season, when they were creating turnovers that accounted for about a third of all the teams points, but playing us was pretty much the beginning of the end for them: It was their first loss, and they were pretty flat for most of the rest of the season. Even at their best though, I don't think the Chiefs secondary or pass rush was on par with Seattles; they just don't have the same secondary depth.

It's not a matter of being scared of Seattle, but of realizing their strengths/weaknesses and ours. Except at DT, our D is built for speed at the expense of size, and is missing half its starters: It can't afford to stay on the field long, because that will tire it out and each snap increases the risk of yet another key injury that forces to scrape MORE off the bottom of the barrel. If ToP is lopsided in Seattles favor going into the fourth quarter they could well go Beast Mode on us and only give us the ball once.

Realistically, we'll probably face the same gameplan as we did against NE and SD, but if the opposing QB isn't as good, he's also not as vital to that game plan: The opposing RB and D are both much better. We need to make each of our drives count, because we won't get many and our fast-but-small patchwork D can't hold up if THEY sustain many drives. In both our playoff games, we were much better at all the things we must do in NYC: Protect Manning, get positive runs even if we don't break any, and get off the field fast on D.

Those weren't SB teams though; we must raise our game again, one last time.

MOtorboat
01-22-2014, 07:39 PM
Meet the 1999 Denver Broncos.

Up 9-3, and moving the ball poorly, and facing the No. 4 ranked defense featuring All-Pro cornerback Ray Buchanan, John Elway hits Rod Smith for an 80-yard, 1 play drive to go up 15-3.

Still up, but now 15-6, going into the 4th quarter, still struggling to put up more than fields goals cornerback Darrien Gordon intercepts Chris Chandler and runs it back 58 yards to the Falcon 24-yard line, five plays later 21-6.

Now, for the nail in the coffin. Darrien Gordon intercepts Chris Chandler in the endzone on the ensuing drive (just four plays after Howard Griffith's TD run), returns the ball 50 yards and sets up a 39-yard Terrell Davis run down to the Falcon 9 yardline. Two plays later John Elway scores for a 27-6 lead, Mark Schlereth and Elway get their picture taken for posterity and Denver cruises to a Super Bowl win.

Now...about those big plays not happening for a Championship team...

Joel
01-22-2014, 07:50 PM
Denver had a higher time of possession percentage than Seattle this season. The idea that you need these long drives to win is just absolute hogwash. It's not true. At all.

You need points.

You know what no one talks about with Seattle? They were tied for eighth in points. Points are what matter, not time of possession.
Gameplans must fit teams, and quick plays that let them dominate ToP play right into their hands.


Meet the 1999 Denver Broncos.

Up 9-3, and moving the ball poorly, and facing the No. 4 ranked defense featuring All-Pro cornerback Ray Buchanan, John Elway hits Rod Smith for an 80-yard, 1 play drive to go up 15-3.

Still up, but now 15-6, going into the 4th quarter, still struggling to put up more than fields goals cornerback Darrien Gordon intercepts Chris Chandler and runs it back 58 yards to the Falcon 24-yard line, five plays later 21-6.

Now, for the nail in the coffin. Darrien Gordon intercepts Chris Chandler in the endzone on the ensuing drive (just four plays after Howard Griffith's TD run), returns the ball 50 yards and sets up a 39-yard Terrell Davis run down to the Falcon 9 yardline. Two plays later John Elway scores for a 27-6 lead, Mark Schlereth and Elway get their picture taken for posterity and Denver cruises to a Super Bowl win.

Now...about those big plays not happening for a Championship team...
Our D isn't as good as it was 15 years ago, while Seattles offense AND defense are better than Atlantas was 15 years ago. There's a reason Atlanta only scored 6 points through 3 quarters and, as you've just helpfully demonstrated, it wasn't because our offense kept theirs off the field. Wilson ain't Chandler, but if he throws DRC or Champ a couple picks, sure, we can win with a few similarly big plays by our offense. I doubt that'll happen, if only because he can throw at Carter or Webster if we manage to shutdown Lynch as well as the '98 Broncos did Anderson.

Let's be clear though: I said one-play TD drives are dangerous because they don't keep a fast-but-small weak D running out of players off the field, and that's true. HOWEVER, the other key part of having more than ONE big play in a drive is that if it DOESN'T reach the end zone we settle for a FG—maybe not even that if a 40 yd pass play just takes us from our 20 to their 40 so we can go 4 yd run, 2 yd run, incomplete, punt. Living on one-play drives is dangerous even when they're scoring TDs, and long FG drives are better if a team can produce them consistently.

But a one-play drive that doesn't rest/protect our D or tire theirs AND only gets a FG—or nothing—because we can't muster MULTIPLE big plays on the same drive, that's lethal.

WE MUST SUSTAIN DRIVES. I could write a book on all the reasons why, but the bottom line is we must do it.

Spartan
01-22-2014, 09:28 PM
Go Broncos!! I think when Peyton unleashes his precision passes, his targets other than Welker will have the advantage in a capacity to catch his passes in coverage - they're all big and strong more so than fine receivers like Crabtree. Sherman can stay with them, but Peyton's spot-on accuracy and their sizes should preclude he and the rest of the Seahawks' secondary from breaking them up more so than not. The alleged 'cheating' their defense perpetrates will be more difficult for Sherman & Co. against the likes of Thomas, Thomas and Decker. Optimistically speaking, we may very we'll see a series of scenarios reflective of Peyton's virtuoso performances (against Baltimore, Philadelphia, 1st half at NE, etc.). Peyton doesn't rely on his guys creating substantial separation, IMO. Seahawks fans are regurgitating that we are over-confident (we know who Richard Sherman is, you dummies who proclaimed such otherwise nonsense!), yet express their confidence across the board with connotative 'truths' as to why they will win. Ignorance overtly appears bliss for many of them on the 12th Man forums. A valid point made earlier - they are away from their substantial home stadium, so brilliantly cantilevered to encapsulate the crowd noise. I thought Kaepernick & Co. hung in there pretty well for a while. It's low percentage to expect Lynch to run for 40 yd TD runs. 31-17 Broncos!

Go Broncos! James :)

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 09:36 PM
This is the NFL. NOBODY wins "from now on", not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the Patriots, not the 49ers, not the Packers and certainly not the Broncos. All of them have up and down cycles.

Ask the Jets and Vikings if it was worth mortgaging their futures for a couple of years of Brett Favre. Manning was a similar situation. Nobody was sure if he could come back from his neck surgery after sitting out a year. In retrospect, it was a great deal to sign him *because* we got to the Super Bowl but if we had the Favre outcome, everyone but Tebow haters like you would be asking themselves why we went down this road.

Nobody with an once of common sense is wondering why Denver went down this road, regardless of making this SB or Favre outcome. If Manning never played a down it would have been a great deal and a gamble worth taking, the Broncos had absolutely nothing to lose. Absolutely Nada!

As for the "win from now on", take it up with John Elway, his words not mine.

Btw, the Vikings and Jets didn't mortgage shit to sign Favre, they also had nothing to lose.

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 09:49 PM
Because I just went through TWO rebuilds in THREE seasons; pardon me if I'm not champing at the bit for a THIRD rebuild just 2-3 years later. Wouldn't it be awfully nice to use some of those choice draft picks that were the only consolation for the 4-12 embarrassment and build a strong core that makes us a contender for the next DECADE? Y'know, instead of just going through a perpetual cycle of building it up for 2-3 years, watching it come crashing down, and starting all over indefinitely? What are we, the Browns? Or maybe just the Lions?

So since the most incompetent HC/GM in recent memory set in motion the most recent rebuilding cycle the new regime has to see it through so it doesn't upset your delicate sensibilities? Sounds like a can't miss recipe for a "powerhouse" if I've ever heard one.

OrangeHoof
01-22-2014, 10:02 PM
You're joking right? Please don't tell me the refs are swinging on seatle.

I'm saying they will be coached. I think the league huddled with the refs the week of the 2006 game in Detroit and said "Look, guys, this is Jerome Bettis' big retirement party so we want it to be a good game but if there's a toss-up call, let's see the edge go to the Steelers. It's a better story here."

Then you look at all the replays and all the flags that went for the Steelers, it was ridiculous. The league doesn't tell them to actually throw the game but the message got across and they did a terrible job hiding which side they were for.

Don't think it doesn't happen because it happens in the NBA.

Hawgdriver
01-22-2014, 10:04 PM
So you are saying I'm a WWF fan but I'm in the dark about it?

7DnBrnc53
01-22-2014, 10:08 PM
So since the most incompetent HC/GM in recent memory set in motion the most recent rebuilding cycle the new regime has to see it through so it doesn't upset your delicate sensibilities? Sounds like a can't miss recipe for a "powerhouse" if I've ever heard one.

Joel's just mad because he thinks that we are mortgaging the future because of the Manning signing. Never mind that the Broncos had complete drafts the last two years, and drafted a potential replacement for Peyton two years ago. Since Elway signed Manning, he is now like George Allen (lol).

OrangeHoof
01-22-2014, 10:08 PM
If Manning never played a down it would have been a great deal and a gamble worth taking.

Seriously?? $20 million pissed away and never plays a down and you'd STILL say it was worth it?

Pardon me. I thought I was discussing this with someone whose IQ was above invertebrate.

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 10:23 PM
Joel's just mad because he thinks that we are mortgaging the future because of the Manning signing. Never mind that the Broncos had complete drafts the last two years, and drafted a potential replacement for Peyton two years ago. Since Elway signed Manning, he is now like George Allen (lol).

Joel doesn't give a shit about mortgaging the future, he'd be just fine with every single move they've made just as long as they didn't sign/draft a QB. He never liked the direction they went with the QB position, from Day 1 he's been Stage 5 butthurt, that's what this is all about.

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 10:25 PM
Seriously?? $20 million pissed away and never plays a down and you'd STILL say it was worth it?

Pardon me. I thought I was discussing this with someone whose IQ was above invertebrate.

Abso-*******-lutely, they had NOTHING to lose and everything to gain! It's not your money and they protected themselves contractually in the case that Manning was done. Plus it got them out from under Tebowmania. There was literally no downside to this gamble.

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 10:33 PM
Stop looking at it from a fans point of view, looking at it from the Broncos point of view there was zero downside to signing Manning.

Zero.

Zilch.

Nada.

It was a Win/Win proposition from the second Manning was released by the Colts.

MOtorboat
01-22-2014, 10:53 PM
If we're really going to do this, after it's now 100 percent clear Manning was the right move, then let's do this.

Quarterbacks cost $20 million per year. That's what they cost. Period. End of discussion.

So, if Tebow was everything Joel wanted him to be, Denver would now be paying him $20 million because his contract would be up. Kaepernick and Wilson are coming up too, and they'll get paid $20 million like every other damn quarterback out there. If it wasn't Tebow, and it was someone else other than Manning, it would be a $20 million price tag.

That's not "mortgaging the future." That's doing what you need to do to win and getting a big time quarterback who will win big time games. That man costs $20 million. Unless you can find someone in the draft who in years 2-4 can take you to a Super Bowl (Kaepernick and Wilson are not the norm), you're going to pay $20 million.

The fact we're talking about this in Super Bowl week with the Broncos in the game, is absurd.

dogfish
01-22-2014, 11:02 PM
peyton effin' manning!!!

Hawgdriver
01-22-2014, 11:14 PM
Remember trolling? Now it's Joelling.

Joel
01-22-2014, 11:44 PM
So you are saying I'm a WWF fan but I'm in the dark about it?
I wonder more and more about that each season, especially after last year. What kind of defensive captain tells his teammates he's retiring before their first playoff game? The kind who knows that's the kind of thing that makes the NFL say, "This is an irresistible ratings narrative: Make it happen." Then they get some dubious calls in a wildcard win vs. Indy, then a LOT of awful calls against us, and I quit watching because the SB winner's a foregone conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong; all I know is who did, in fact, win that SB.


Joel's just mad because he thinks that we are mortgaging the future because of the Manning signing. Never mind that the Broncos had complete drafts the last two years, and drafted a potential replacement for Peyton two years ago. Since Elway signed Manning, he is now like George Allen (lol).
I WAS mad, and that was one of several reasons, yes. Now, well, we reached the AFCCG within 2 years, which was the minimum necessary to convince me it was worth it. Then we dominated a team that's tormented us for two straight seasons, and now we're in the SB, where any team can beat any other on any given Sunday to bring home a third Lombardi. Even if, heaven forbid, those 'roid-raging thugs beat us, we've got a solid foundation to build on next year when we get a lot of key stellar players back from season-ending injury.

At the time though, there was substantial reason to worry about dropping $20 million on a 36 year old QB coming off 4 spinal surgeries, whose old Rockies buddy (as we found out much later) laughed when he one-hopped a ball to first base from home plate, because he thought Manning was making a joke. That was $20 million I'd have rather have spent filling the many holes on a team that had noneless just made the playoffs and beaten the #1 D, so we could establish a dynasty to compete for the next decade.

It's working out fine, so I won't complain; quite the opposite. But POTENTIAL replacements don't mean jack; Testaverde was the potential replacement for the failure of Steve Young, and we saw how that worked. The draft's such a crap shoot teams not only can't be sure who they drafted till he plays sometimes they can't even be sure THEN; that's why Young and Favre got traded.


Joel doesn't give a shit about mortgaging the future, he'd be just fine with every single move they've made just as long as they didn't sign/draft a QB. He never liked the direction they went with the QB position, from Day 1 he's been Stage 5 butthurt, that's what this is all about.
Actually, I've complained annually since '05 about not drafting a MLB or DT. I'm just not "looking at it from a fans point of view" that makes me eager to drop $20 million on an aging HoFer just to get rid of a guy I hate for dragging us to our first playoff game in 6 years, then winning it.


If we're really going to do this, after it's now 100 percent clear Manning was the right move, then let's do this.

Quarterbacks cost $20 million per year. That's what they cost. Period. End of discussion.

So, if Tebow was everything Joel wanted him to be, Denver would now be paying him $20 million because his contract would be up. Kaepernick and Wilson are coming up too, and they'll get paid $20 million like every other damn quarterback out there. If it wasn't Tebow, and it was someone else other than Manning, it would be a $20 million price tag.

That's not "mortgaging the future." That's doing what you need to do to win and getting a big time quarterback who will win big time games. That man costs $20 million. Unless you can find someone in the draft who in years 2-4 can take you to a Super Bowl (Kaepernick and Wilson are not the norm), you're going to pay $20 million.

The fact we're talking about this in Super Bowl week with the Broncos in the game, is absurd.
The difference is IF he'd been everything I thought he MIGHT BECOME and his contract were up now we wouldn't be talking about whether he retires at 27: We'd have a franchise QB for the next decade instead of hoping Osweiler can take over NEXT YEAR or the one after that. We're not talking about $20 million/year for Luck, but $20 million/year for Manning fresh off 4 spinal surgeries. We never had a choice between THOSE two options, but the team that did made it pretty quickly.

In that sense (and maybe he meant that and just expressed it badly) Irsay was right: Given a choice between the closest the draft gets to a sure thing that'll help you compete for SBs for the next 15 years, or HOPING Manning recuperates well enough to compete for one or two more before he hits 40, that's no choice at all.

Signing Manning solved NONE of the MANY other problems that kept us from winning a SB in 2011 (and, believe it or not, our QB didn't give up 5 TDs in ONE HALF in the playoffs,) we had no idea if he'd be able to play even adequately just after 4 spinal surgeries, and even if he played as well as, well, THIS, he's still gonna be gone in just a few seasons. Those are facts, like 'em or not.


Remember trolling? Now it's Joelling.
Newsflash: I didn't bring up the topic, and have repeatedly said my concerns were mooted by Denver doing exactly what I feared we might NOT do when we signed Manning: Reach a SB or AT LEAST a Conference Championship within 2 years.

It helps, too, that Elway filled many of those other holes, though in several cases with guys who are either >30, on short contracts, or both. I'm still concerned about the bottom dropping out when Manning retires, which will be soon whatever happens in two weeks. However, having another Lombardi Trophy by the third rebuild in a decade would soothe a lot of its pain.

I've just to learn that when someone brings up one of these flame-seeking topics I should stay the HELL away from it, or this is what I'll always get for my trouble.

MOtorboat
01-22-2014, 11:55 PM
The difference is IF he'd been everything I thought he MIGHT BECOME and his contract were up now we wouldn't be talking about whether he retires at 27: We'd have a franchise QB for the next decade instead of hoping Osweiler can take over NEXT YEAR or the one after that. We're not talking about $20 million/year for Luck, but $20 million/year for Manning fresh off 4 spinal surgeries. We never had a choice between THOSE two options, but the team that did made it pretty quickly.

You know what.

You were wrong. And since you intend to bitch during Super Bowl week, I just might rub your nose in it. You were WRONG.

Tebow was SO bad, he is out of the league after three seasons and one training camp. Spearheading the SEC Network as an analyst, not as a player, because his eligibility is up. That's not building a contender for a decade. In fact, that's the exact opposite. If we had stuck by Tebow, we'd have hit rock bottom with a worthless, overhyped quarterback whose best quality was speaking to a crowd about his religion.

Instead, the Broncos are in the Super Bowl. And you were WRONG.

Simple Jaded
01-22-2014, 11:59 PM
I don't hate Tebow, Joel, I hated watching him pretend to play QB but I don't hate him. But that's beside the point, looking at it from the Broncos point of view, they actually had no choice but to go all-in on Peyton Manning. They literally had nothing to lose, and you know it.

Oh, and btw, while you didn't bring up Tebow you sure didn't waste any time joining the pity party when Hoof brought him up.

TXBRONC
01-23-2014, 12:10 AM
No, but if Manning did not lead Denver to a Super Bowl, his signing should have been considered a failure.I think if he were candid, Peyton himself would tell you the same thing. What I am saying is that the Manning signing changed the team's emphasis from building through the draft to "win it all now". With Manning's age and small window, that's the only reason you'd sign him is to win now. I think our personnel would look considerably different had Manning signed elsewhere.

That's not accurate OH. Elway and Fox have been continuing to build this team through the draft.

dogfish
01-23-2014, 12:38 AM
You know what.

You were wrong. And since you intend to bitch during Super Bowl week, I just might rub your nose in it. You were WRONG.

Tebow was SO bad, he is out of the league after three seasons and one training camp. Spearheading the SEC Network as an analyst, not as a player, because his eligibility is up. That's not building a contender for a decade. In fact, that's the exact opposite. If we had stuck by Tebow, we'd have hit rock bottom with a worthless, overhyped quarterback whose best quality was speaking to a crowd about his religion.

Instead, the Broncos are in the Super Bowl. And you were WRONG.

lol. . .

hobbit raaaage!

:heh:

Hawgdriver
01-23-2014, 01:16 AM
I've just to learn that when someone brings up one of these flame-seeking topics I should stay the HELL away from it, or this is what I'll always get for my trouble.

Sorry to dish out the hate Joel, but it's just too much for me man. Channel J is bringing me down. Or maybe it's everyone's reaction to readings from the Book Of Joel. Either way, I gotta change the channel.

Joel
01-23-2014, 01:22 AM
You know what.

You were wrong. And since you intend to bitch during Super Bowl week, I just might rub your nose in it. You were WRONG.

Tebow was SO bad, he is out of the league after three seasons and one training camp. Spearheading the SEC Network as an analyst, not as a player, because his eligibility is up. That's not building a contender for a decade. In fact, that's the exact opposite. If we had stuck by Tebow, we'd have hit rock bottom with a worthless, overhyped quarterback whose best quality was speaking to a crowd about his religion.

Instead, the Broncos are in the Super Bowl. And you were WRONG.
I said this place would meltdown if we didn't reach an AFCCG within two years of signing Manning, so we'll never know if I was wrong. And I'm not bitching: You're bitching at me. As usual.

Timmy!
01-23-2014, 03:41 AM
we'll never know if I was wrong. And I'm not bitching

Yes, you were......and yes, you are.

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 08:20 AM
I said this place would meltdown if we didn't reach an AFCCG within two years of signing Manning, so we'll never know if I was wrong. And I'm not bitching: You're bitching at me. As usual.

No.

You said you wanted Laron Landry over Peyton Manning.

LOL. Now **** off. This is a thread about Denver in a Super Bowl with Manning. Not Tebow.

Tned
01-23-2014, 08:46 AM
You know what.

You were wrong. And since you intend to bitch during Super Bowl week, I just might rub your nose in it. You were WRONG.

Tebow was SO bad, he is out of the league after three seasons and one training camp. Spearheading the SEC Network as an analyst, not as a player, because his eligibility is up. That's not building a contender for a decade. In fact, that's the exact opposite. If we had stuck by Tebow, we'd have hit rock bottom with a worthless, overhyped quarterback whose best quality was speaking to a crowd about his religion.

Instead, the Broncos are in the Super Bowl. And you were WRONG.

Not only wrong, but still trying to justify his anti-Manning ranting. Fans wanted to spend $20 million on an old, broken necked QB. Last time I checked, Elway, Fox and Bowlen made that call, not the fans. Amazin.

chazoe60
01-23-2014, 10:36 AM
So we're going to the SB and some people are still arguing back and forth whether signing Manning was a good idea or not? We really are ******* stupid aren't we?

Joel
01-23-2014, 10:44 AM
No.

You said you wanted Laron Landry over Peyton Manning.

LOL. Now **** off. This is a thread about Denver in a Super Bowl with Manning. Not Tebow.
No, I said I wanted 3-4 Pro Bowlers who had >2-3 years left over a guy who might never play again, because the fanbase would implode unless Manning got us to an AFCCG within 2 years.

Since Manning DID get us to an AFCCG within 2 years, no one knows what would've happened if he HADN'T. If you wanna claim clairvoyance so you can tell me to f--k off, your prerogative.

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 10:46 AM
Remember trolling? Now it's Joelling.

I like that Hawg. good one.

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 10:59 AM
No, I said I wanted 3-4 Pro Bowlers who had >2-3 years left over a guy who might never play again, because the fanbase would implode unless Manning got us to an AFCCG within 2 years.

Since Manning DID get us to an AFCCG within 2 years, no one knows what would've happened if he HADN'T. If you wanna claim clairvoyance so you can tell me to f--k off, your prerogative.

Lol, no you didn't. You wanted Laron Landry, Curtis Lofton and two other dudes (an offensive guard was one of them) instead of Manning because you wanted the Broncos to keep your shitty quarterback.

Now you're backtracking because someone is calling you on it.

You were WRONG about Manning. You've been wrong all god damn year too, and have spammed the board with utter drivel. And I am telling you to **** off already.

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 11:38 AM
this Joel/Mo cokwrestling gig has gone on long enough. Somethings going to explode

Northman
01-23-2014, 11:49 AM
I said this place would meltdown if we didn't reach an AFCCG within two years of signing Manning, so we'll never know if I was wrong.

Uuuuhhhh, no bud. You were wrong. There is no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". We are in the SB so the Manning signing paid off handsomely. It was the right move because he did exactly what he was brought in here to do.

7DnBrnc53
01-23-2014, 01:15 PM
It's working out fine, so I won't complain; quite the opposite. But POTENTIAL replacements don't mean jack; Testaverde was the potential replacement for the failure of Steve Young, and we saw how that worked. The draft's such a crap shoot teams not only can't be sure who they drafted till he plays sometimes they can't even be sure THEN; that's why Young and Favre got traded.


Testaverde was a rookie who was drafted #1 overall (even though he shouldn't have been) by a crappy organization with a cheapskate owner that really didn't care about winning.

Manning is a veteran who was replacing someone who cannot throw the football, and he came into an organization with a much better owner that cares about winning, and John Elway, who Mike Evans of 104.3 The Fan called the Vice President of Awesome. Huge difference.

Joel
01-23-2014, 01:49 PM
Lol, no you didn't. You wanted Laron Landry, Curtis Lofton and two other dudes (an offensive guard was one of them) instead of Manning because you wanted the Broncos to keep your shitty quarterback.

Now you're backtracking because someone is calling you on it.
No, you're remembering something that NEVER HAPPENED because you (for some reason) enjoy busting my balls for things I never said (except in your mind.) So, standard response: Fill in whatever you THINK I said and argue with that: As usual.

I said I wanted Landry, who was coming off a Pro Bowl, Lofton, Carl Nicks, who was coming off back-to-back Pro Bowls, and another Pro Bowler (I forget which,) the FOUR of which played for about as much COMBINED as we paid Manning. And (except for Lofton) coming off Pro Bowls instead of 4 spinal surgeries that cost them the whole previous season. None of them was >35 either; I don't think any were even >30.


You were WRONG about Manning. You've been wrong all god damn year too, and have spammed the board with utter drivel. And I am telling you to **** off already.
Yes, I noted you telling me to f--k off. Regardless, no one CAN be wrong about what would result from something that didn't happen. If you say, "No one would die if another planet hit Earth tomorrow," I can't come back this weekend and say, "YOU WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG #$@#!!" if we don't get hit tomorrow.


this Joel/Mo cokwrestling gig has gone on long enough. Somethings going to explode
Someone already did; swearing and caps is a big red flag.

Joel
01-23-2014, 01:51 PM
Uuuuhhhh, no bud. You were wrong. There is no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". We are in the SB so the Manning signing paid off handsomely. It was the right move because he did exactly what he was brought in here to do.
I said at the time it would be vindicated if we reached and AFCCG within 2 years, but the place would meltdown if he retired without us getting that far. Since we DID reach the AFCCG, the only way I could be wrong is if that didn't vindicate signing Manning. Is anyone saying signing Manning was/might have been a mistake? No? Then my sole verifiable statement was accurate.

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 01:53 PM
Mo gets really defensive and will resort to making things up that people say when he feels his football intelligence is threatened Joel. I'd take it as a compliment.

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 01:54 PM
No, you're remembering something that NEVER HAPPENED because you (for some reason) enjoy busting my balls for things I never said (except in your mind.) So, standard response: Fill in whatever you THINK I said and argue with that: As usual.

I said I wanted Landry, who was coming off a Pro Bowl, Lofton, Carl Nicks, who was coming off back-to-back Pro Bowls, and another Pro Bowler (I forget which,) the FOUR of which played for about as much COMBINED as we paid Manning. And (except for Lofton) coming off Pro Bowls instead of 4 spinal surgeries that cost them the whole previous season. None of them was >35 either; I don't think any were even >30.


Yes, I noted you telling me to f--k off. Regardless, no one CAN be wrong about what would result from something that didn't happen. If you say, "No one would die if another planet hit Earth tomorrow," I can't come back this weekend and say, "YOU WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG #$@#!!" if we don't get hit tomorrow.

I can tell you to **** off again, if you want me to? Because I know I'm not the only one sick and tired of your worthless rants. Now you're trying to retroactively qualify them. It's cute.

But. You were wrong about Manning.

Joel
01-23-2014, 01:56 PM
Testaverde was a rookie who was drafted #1 overall (even though he shouldn't have been) by a crappy organization with a cheapskate owner that really didn't care about winning.

Manning is a veteran who was replacing someone who cannot throw the football, and he came into an organization with a much better owner that cares about winning, and John Elway, who Mike Evans of 104.3 The Fan called the Vice President of Awesome. Huge difference.
Just because a radio station in Denver called the local teams VP awesome doesn't mean Osweiler will ever be a decent NFL player. Doesn't mean he won't either, but right now he's a 2nd round draft pick who's played 20 snaps in 2 years. Elway's more qualified than most to pick a QB, but then again he didn't get his first (or probably even top three) choice in 2012. He's not infalliable, regardless: The draft's never better than a crapshoot and I'll believe the guy can play when I see him do it, no sooner.

Joel
01-23-2014, 02:00 PM
I can tell you to **** off again, if you want me to? Because I know I'm not the only one sick and tired of your worthless rants. Now you're trying to retroactively qualify them. It's cute.

But. You were wrong about Manning.
You can say, "You're wrong; f--k off," all day if it makes you feel better, or even if it doesn't. Doesn't change anything, and the latest instalment of "respond to something I'm sure Joel said even though he never did" is no more impressive than the host of others. Saying I wanted 4 Pro Bowlers who were playing for as much COMBINED as Manning was ALONE isn't saying, "I wanted LaRon Landry instead of Manning," any more than saying, "I'd rather have the Steel Curtain than Staubach," means "Jack Ham>Staubach."

Do what you like, as always; I wash my hands of it: Just don't mistake my silence for concession or agreement.

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 02:03 PM
that's the best thing to do Joel. He'll keep coming at you though I bet. I can't believe he threatened to tell you to **** off though. my gosh he's really losing it.

dogfish
01-23-2014, 02:16 PM
I said at the time it would be vindicated if we reached and AFCCG within 2 years, but the place would meltdown if he retired without us getting that far. Since we DID reach the AFCCG, the only way I could be wrong is if that didn't vindicate signing Manning. Is anyone saying signing Manning was/might have been a mistake? No? Then my sole verifiable statement was accurate.

any chance both of you guys could just agree to DROP these ridiculous, f**ktarded hypotheticals?

none of that stuff DID happen, it just plain doesn't matter anymore. . .


we DID sign peyton f. manning, and we ARE playing in the super bowl with him next week!

:defense:

dogfish
01-23-2014, 02:17 PM
that's the best thing to do Joel. He'll keep coming at you though I bet.

MOseph is half spider monkey and half honeybadger. . . people shouldn't get him riled up. . . :heh:

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 02:21 PM
MOseph is half spider monkey and half honeybadger. . . people shouldn't get him riled up. . . :heh:

he hates me, so I dont' communicate enough with him to notice. but I have observed (and to some extent experienced) his persistent hatred towards some people and ideas

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 02:21 PM
I loved McDaniels.

At least I own it.

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 02:24 PM
MOseph is half spider monkey and half honeybadger. . . people shouldn't get him riled up. . . :heh:

Have I told you about Andre Miller?


he hates me, so I dont' communicate enough with him to notice. but I have observed (and to some extent experienced) his persistent hatred towards some people and ideas

You lie! I love you nut.

powderaddict
01-23-2014, 02:25 PM
Are some really arguing that signing Manning was a bad idea?

LOL

Tned
01-23-2014, 02:26 PM
I loved McDaniels.

At least I own it.

Well, that's only because the Cowboys called up, asked about Cutler, and he said "No." The Browns called up, and he said no. The Bills called up and he said no.... ;)

Hawgdriver
01-23-2014, 02:28 PM
Regardless, no one CAN be wrong about what would result from something that didn't happen. If you say, "No one would die if another planet hit Earth tomorrow," I can't come back this weekend and say, "YOU WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG #$@#!!" if we don't get hit tomorrow.

Joel, are you saying Planet Tebow is imaginary?

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 02:28 PM
Well, that's only because the Cowboys called up, asked about Cutler, and he said "No." The Browns called up, and he said no. The Bills called up and he said no.... ;)

He was late to the party...

:coffee:

Denver Native (Carol)
01-23-2014, 02:43 PM
Peyton Manning is heading to New Jersey next week with the Denver Broncos to play the Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium, and he'll get a helpful scouting report from his little brother.

New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning, who plays his home games at MetLife Stadium, said he'd be offering Peyton tips on the stadium's quirks, especially as they pertain to potential winter weather conditions such as strong winds.

"I might have a few things for him, but I don't want to reveal that, because I don't want to give it to [Seahawks quarterback] Russell Wilson," Eli Manning said on a conference call Thursday. "So any tips I may have wind-wise, I would tell him in private."

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10339452/eli-manning-offer-peyton-manning-tips-metlife-stadium

Tned
01-23-2014, 02:50 PM
He was late to the party...

:coffee:

As bad as the little egomaniac was (just to be clear, I'm talking about McDaniels), those who say everything happens for a reason, we would not be where we are today, if it wasn't for those two horrible, worst in franchise history, years that McD created.

BroncoNut
01-23-2014, 02:52 PM
As bad as the little egomaniac was (just to be clear, I'm talking about McDaniels), those who say everything happens for a reason, we would not be where we are today, if it wasn't for those two horrible, worst in franchise history, years that McD created.

lol tned

OrangeHoof
01-23-2014, 03:05 PM
Yeah, that's the hell of it. Without McDiapers, we don't get Manning because we would have had Cutler. We wouldn't have Demaryious or Knowshon and we wouldn't have drafted Tebow, eventually playing him over Orton.

Also, Elway doesn't come back to save the day.

Kinda like saying if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan's economy never would have roared back like it did.

Simple Jaded
01-23-2014, 04:50 PM
Yeah I wanted them to sign Carl Nicks too, but two things, 1) they still had plenty of cap space to sign him AFTER signing Manning, so Manning had nothing to do with missing out on Nicks, and B) Nicks (AND Landry) has turned out to be the broken down waste of cap space Joel thought Manning would be. I love Irony.

Oh, and once more for the Millionth time, these FA's wanted nothing to do with signing with Denver before they fixed what was the single worst QB situation in the league at the time.

Simple Jaded
01-23-2014, 05:04 PM
Just because a radio station in Denver called the local teams VP awesome doesn't mean Osweiler will ever be a decent NFL player. Doesn't mean he won't either, but right now he's a 2nd round draft pick who's played 20 snaps in 2 years. Elway's more qualified than most to pick a QB, but then again he didn't get his first (or probably even top three) choice in 2012. He's not infalliable, regardless: The draft's never better than a crapshoot and I'll believe the guy can play when I see him do it, no sooner.


You are so inconsistent, you complain about the bottom falling out from under the Broncos after Manning retires in one post and then bitch about their main "build for the future" draft pick in the next.

Joel
01-23-2014, 05:45 PM
rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10339452/eli-manning-offer-peyton-manning-tips-metlife-stadium
I HAVE wondered about that a bit, I'm just not sure how big a difference it'll make, if any. Although, Eli DID win a SB in Peytons home stadium (then again, he won his first in AZ, and posted a PR just under 90 against a very good D; maybe he's just a good QB.) In a winner-take-all final game this big, between two teams this good, even the slightest edge could help, it's just hard to imagine there's enough unique but unknown about the Giants new stadium to make the difference for us, or, if there is, that Eli can brief Peyton on all of it in 2 weeks.

Tned
01-23-2014, 05:47 PM
Does being the home team mean the Broncos get the home team locker room? If like at Mile High, the home team has a great locker room, and the visiting team a drab, piece of crap with sub par equipment.

MOtorboat
01-23-2014, 05:47 PM
Does being the home team mean the Broncos get the home team locker room? If like at Mile High, the home team has a great locker room, and the visiting team a drab, piece of crap with sub par equipment.

Problem solved...doesn't MetLife have TWO home uniforms?

Tned
01-23-2014, 05:49 PM
Problem solved...doesn't MetLife have TWO home uniforms?

As I was typing that and almost typed Giant's locker room, I thought about the Jets. I wonder if they have three locker rooms, two nice home lockers and one visiting, or if the Giants/Jets share a single home locker room. No clue.

Simple Jaded
01-23-2014, 06:00 PM
Just because a radio station in Denver called the local teams VP awesome doesn't mean Osweiler will ever be a decent NFL player. Doesn't mean he won't either, but right now he's a 2nd round draft pick who's played 20 snaps in 2 years. Elway's more qualified than most to pick a QB, but then again he didn't get his first (or probably even top three) choice in 2012. He's not infalliable, regardless: The draft's never better than a crapshoot and I'll believe the guy can play when I see him do it, no sooner.

This is complaining.

This also brings to mind another inconsistency of yours, building through the draft. You're fine with expensive FA's and building around young QB's as long as it's your choice of expensive FA's and young QB's.

You're worried about the this place if Manning failed but had zero apprehension over what happened if Tebow failed. You were convinced that the Broncos were years away from SB talent level but have been saying anything less than AFCC is a failure.

That's just to name a few.

You are a contradiction personified.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-23-2014, 06:06 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 1h

Getting some hilarious stories from Broncos players talking about Super Bowl requests. Bolden says random dude keeps asking for five.

Joel
01-23-2014, 07:26 PM
This is complaining.
No, it's stating the reality no one knows where Osweiler is the next Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf or Aaron Rodgers. I like the pick, because it is planning for the imminent day Manning hangs it up for good, but it comes with no more guarantees than any draft pick. Whether because the stakes are so high or some other reason, QB draft picks, even when universally and highly regarded by the draft pundits, are busts as often as booms. I'm not complaining about the pick; I like it, given the circumstances.

I just think it homerish when people pretend we don't have to worry about who succeeds Manning because it's Osweiler; done deal, no worries. Fingers crossed, much as with Manning.


This also brings to mind another inconsistency of yours, building through the draft. You're fine with expensive FA's and building around young QB's as long as it's your choice of expensive FA's and young QB's.
I don't like 36 year old FAs coming off 4 spinal surgeries unless joining a championship roster. Elway's done a phenomenal job adding tons of other good FAs to get us there. They're still rentals; even most who aren't already >30 are on short term deals, like Phillips and DRC, two critical components in this years title run. At the risk of invoking Irsay, I'd rather build a dynasty through the draft, be an annual contender for the decade and bring home 3-4 SBs than go all-in on Manning getting us 1 or 2 before he retires.

If he DOES get us 1 or 2 before he retires though, I'm not gonna argue with success, because even ONE SB is an achievement hard to come by and to be cherished forever. If we'd spent 3 years watching other people play AFCCGs, then Manning rode off into the sunset while we still had all the holes we never filled because we spent it all on him, that would've been a colossal failure. Hence "we must reach the AFCCG within 2 years." We did; all is well.


You're worried about the this place if Manning failed but had zero apprehension over what happened if Tebow failed. You were convinced that the Broncos were years away from SB talent level but have been saying anything less than AFCC is a failure.
If we'd drafted a team of young stars to play around He Who Must Not Be Named and he'd failed, we'd have still had all those young stars under contract for years, and gone out and found the guy who WAS our franchise QB, not for 2-3 seasons, but 10-15. Even if we suffered through a few 4 win seasons first, that's just a pair of Top 5 draft picks and two more in the top 40.

Before you say it: Yes, the draft would still be a crap shoot, but the more lottery tickets you buy the better your chance of winning, even if the chances still aren't good.


That's just to name a few.

You are a contradiction personified.
You're reading in to make this about a first ballot HoFer in his final years vs. He Who Must Not Be Named. Again. As if those were the only alternatives.

Simple Jaded
01-23-2014, 07:44 PM
For one thing, had Manning failed they'd still have all the talent currently around him too, to go along with the QB they currently plan to build around when he retires. The Broncos still signed a ProBowl G, boast a SB caliber roster that includes 3 QB's better than the one they had when you were the single most positive poster around. The only thing missing is a definitive starter at MLB. So again, they're doing basically the exact things you're upset that they supposedly didn't do, building thru the draft and signing ProBowl FA's, they're just not doing it to your satisfaction.

Btw, all that other crap sounds so much better than signing an MVP QB.

ShaneFalco
01-23-2014, 07:46 PM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/23/super-bowl-snowstorm-one-weather-model-suggests-something-major/


Super Bowl Snowstorm? One Model Suggests Something ‘Major’ On Way

Joel
01-23-2014, 07:53 PM
For one thing, had Manning failed they'd still have all the talent currently around him too, to go along with the QB they currently plan to build around when he retires. The Broncos still signed a ProBowl G, boast a SB caliber roster that includes 3 QB's better than the one they had when you were the single most positive poster around. The only thing missing is a definitive starter at MLB. So again, they're doing basically the exact things you're upset that they supposedly didn't do, building thru the draft and signing ProBowl FA's, they're just not doing it to your satisfaction.
When did I say I wasn't satisfied? If Manning returns, I won't be satisfied with reaching a SB NEXT year unless we win, because it wouldn't be improvement, but right now I'm quite satisfied. Well, maybe "satisfied" isn't quite the right word; I DO want to win it all, and WOULD be disappointed if we don't, but I assume you take my meaning.


Btw, all that other crap sounds so much better than signing an MVP QB.
Singing a championship calibre TEAM we'll have for the next 5-10 years sounds better than signing a QB fresh off 4 spinal surgeries who'll be gone in 2-3 years no matter what? Sure does.

I'm sorry, I just don't think we're drafting that championship calibre team to just slot an automatically All Pro Osweiler into and win a bunch more SBs after Manning retires. I don't care what kind of draft guru Elway is, you can't do that with bottom 10 and bottom 5 picks, especially not when your last years second rounders coming off an ACL tear, the previous years second rounder might never play again and the previous years first rounder's coming off an ACL tear following a 6 game pot suspension.

The FAs are nice, but, again, most are >30 and/or on 1 year contracts: They're not long term either. The FA question is more how we can keep the young proven stars who ARE performing since their contracts are running out either next season or the following one. The meltdown's still a real possibility, but if we get a SB—maybe even TWO STRAIGHT—I won't care.