PDA

View Full Version : Seahawks didn’t beat the Broncos’ “A” team in Super Bowl



Denver Native (Carol)
02-09-2014, 11:03 PM
If the Seattle Seahawks played the Super Bowl without left tackle Russell Okung, cornerback and best defensive player Richard Sherman, safety Earl Thomas, defensive end/tackle Michael Bennett, defensive ends Cliff Avril and Chris Clemons and center Max Unger, would they have beat the Broncos?

Because that’s essentially what the Broncos had to do as they played without left tackle Ryan Clady, top defensive back Chris Harris, safety Rahim Moore, best pass rusher Von Miller, defensive end/tackle Derek Wolfe, defensive tackle Kevin Vickerson and center Dan Koppen/J.D. Walton.

rest - http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2014/02/09/seahawks-didnt-beat-broncos-team-super-bowl/26447/

BroncoWave
02-09-2014, 11:03 PM
No shit?

topscribe
02-09-2014, 11:27 PM
The Broncos were without several starters.

The Seahens were/are without class from top to bottom.

I'm glad I'm a Broncos fan. :coffee:
.

DenBronx
02-09-2014, 11:36 PM
They didnt beat our A+ team rather they beat our A- team.



Still, we shouldnt have lost 43-8. Don't tell me 8 points is ok from a historical record breaking offense.

Simple Jaded
02-09-2014, 11:37 PM
The Broncos were without several starters.

The Seahens were/are without class from top to bottom.

I'm glad I'm a Broncos fan. :coffee:
.

The Broncos aren't the only team Seattle plays next season, the more they shoot their mouths off the further they get from repeating.

BroncoWave
02-09-2014, 11:40 PM
The Broncos aren't the only team Seattle plays next season, the more they shoot their mouths off the further they get from repeating.

It didn't seem to hurt them this season. Honestly, I think they feed off of talking so much, and if they were suddenly to be quiet they would not have the same swagger and would not play as well because of it.

They remind me of "The U" teams from the 80s. They talked and talked and talked and pissed off all their opponents, yet they kept winning national titles.

chazoe60
02-09-2014, 11:43 PM
It doesn't matter. We played the guys we had that were healthy and got the shit kicked out of us and we get to listen to whatever the Seahawks say now, they're the champs and we're just the franchise that is better than any other franchise at losing SBs. :sad:

Simple Jaded
02-09-2014, 11:44 PM
It didn't seem to hurt them this season. Honestly, I think they feed off of talking so much, and if they were suddenly to be quiet they would not have the same swagger and would not play as well because of it.

They remind me of "The U" teams from the 80s. They talked and talked and talked and pissed off all their opponents, yet they kept winning national titles.

Absolutely, but what I'm thinking is that it's already difficult to repeat, you have a bullseye on your back, you get everybody's best game, all those cliches, but it's gets even harder when you're a colossal bag of douche.

BroncoWave
02-09-2014, 11:46 PM
Absolutely, but what I'm thinking is that it's already difficult to repeat, you have a bullseye on your back, you get everybody's best game, all those cliches, but it's gets even harder when you're a colossal bag of douche.

I still think that suddenly shutting up would hurt them more than keeping on talking will. They absolutely feed off of it. It gives them an edge and makes them play better IMO.

I agree they likely won't repeat just because it's so hard to do, but I don't think it will be because they talk too much.

BroncoWave
02-09-2014, 11:49 PM
All the chatter from their defense leading up to the Super Bowl pissed off our offense so much they scored a whopping 8 points. I think people really overstate the motivation that pregame chatter gives the other team. Once the game actually starts, I think people are more worried about doing their jobs than what players on the other team said during the week.

Dzone
02-09-2014, 11:56 PM
Seattle beat us mentally and physically. The way that game went, it wouldnt have mattered who we had playing.

Simple Jaded
02-10-2014, 12:06 AM
I still think that suddenly shutting up would hurt them more than keeping on talking will. They absolutely feed off of it. It gives them an edge and makes them play better IMO.

I agree they likely won't repeat just because it's so hard to do, but I don't think it will be because they talk too much.

Agreed on all counts, but fwiw teams do use bulletin board material and Seattle is the mother load.

Hawgdriver
02-10-2014, 12:20 AM
It doesn't matter. We played the guys we had that were healthy and got the shit kicked out of us and we get to listen to whatever the Seahawks say now, they're the champs and we're just the franchise that is better than any other franchise at losing SBs. :sad:

I'm with you. Seahawks had injuries too. Let's just move on and get ready to kick some ass next season.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 01:09 AM
I'm with you. Seahawks had injuries too. Let's just move on and get ready to kick some ass next season.
Oh? So did the Seehawks lose their best offensive lineman, best defensive end,
best linebacker, best cornerback, and best safety? Yes, we need to move on,
but that's not the issue here. The issue is their chest-thumping and putting the
Broncos down as they did, from the HC down to their little cornerback.

I just hope that when Denver goes to Seattle this year they will have all those
players back and will remember how the Seahawks flapped their lips.
.

Joel
02-10-2014, 01:14 AM
Starting QB played.
Starting RB played.
Starting #1-3 WRs played.
Starting TE played.
Starting RT played.
Starting RG played.
Starting C played (yes, Ramirez is the starter; the former starter was healthy by midseason: We still CUT him.)
Starting LG played.
Starting LT did not.

So 91% of our record-setting offense played; they still couldn't get a first down till their FOURTH drive, in the SECOND quarter. Yes, half our defensive starter were out: So what? Even playing practically the whole first half they only gave up ONE TD, near the end, and even then it took a third down PI in the end zone on Carter to get Seattle in; if Harris were healthy our half-strength D stops them a third time. The SBs leading rusher had <50 yds, and that's on a power run team killing the clock the entire second half. The unit missing all its starters more than did its job.

The record-setting offense, missing just ONE starter, got DOMINATED from kickoff to final gun, only managing to score ONCE at the the end of the THIRD quarter. They beat our best team: Period.

DenBronx
02-10-2014, 01:25 AM
2-5 in SuperBowls is pathetic!

I am not happy with those results and wish we could have won at least ONE more during our attempts. Hearing Oakland fans talk about their 3 rings is so annoying!!!

topscribe
02-10-2014, 01:27 AM
Starting QB played.
Starting RB played.
Starting #1-3 WRs played.
Starting TE played.
Starting RT played.
Starting RG played.
Starting C played (yes, Ramirez is the starter; the former starter was healthy by midseason: We still CUT him.)
Starting LG played.
Starting LT did not.

So 91% of our record-setting offense played; they still couldn't get a first down till their FOURTH drive, in the SECOND quarter. Yes, half our defensive starter were out: So what? Even playing practically the whole first half they only gave up ONE TD, near the end, and even then it took a third down PI in the end zone on Carter to get Seattle in; if Harris were healthy our half-strength D stops them a third time. The SBs leading rusher had <50 yds, and that's on a power run team killing the clock the entire second half. The unit missing all its starters more than did its job.

The record-setting offense, missing just ONE starter, got DOMINATED from kickoff to final gun, only managing to score ONCE at the the end of the THIRD quarter. They beat our best team: Period.
The point is, how much difference would it have made for the Broncos to have
their best (All-Pro) offensive lineman, their best (All-Pro) linebacker, their best
(Pro Bowl) cornerback, their best safety, their best DE, and their starting DT?

On the other side, how much difference would it have made for Seattle NOT to
have their best offensive lineman, their best linebacker, their best cornerback,
their best safety, their best DE, and a starting DT?

Once again, the issue of this thread is not about the team the Broncos had out
there. Go back to the OP and read it again. It is about Seattle's braggadocio
and how they dissed the Broncos, when they did NOT play the Bronco's best
team. In other words, this thread would not even exist, were the Seahawks a
bit more gracious about it.
.

Hawgdriver
02-10-2014, 01:28 AM
The point is, how much difference would it have made for the Broncos to have
their best (All-Pro) offensive lineman, their best (All-Pro) linebacker, their best
(Pro Bowl) cornerback, their best safety, their best DE, and their starting DT?

On the other side, how much difference would it have made for Seattle NOT to
have their best offensive lineman, their best linebacker, their best cornerback,
their best safety, their best DE, and a starting DT?

Once again, the issue of this thread is not about the team the Broncos had out
there. Go back to the OP and read it again. It is about Seattle's braggadocio
and how they dissed the Broncos, when they did NOT play the Bronco's best
team. In other words, this thread would not even exist, were the Seahawks a
bit more gracious about it.
.

Well I guess we'll have to shut them up, huh?

topscribe
02-10-2014, 01:30 AM
2-5 in SuperBowls is pathetic!

I am not happy with those results and wish we could have won at least ONE more during our attempts. Hearing Oakland fans talk about their 3 rings is so annoying!!!
Of course, you could be, say, a Detriot Lions fan and be saying that never having
been to the Super Bowl is pathetic. :nod:

topscribe
02-10-2014, 01:33 AM
Well I guess we'll have to shut them up, huh?
Exactly. I'm really eager to see how the Seahawks do against the Broncos A Team.
.

Simple Jaded
02-10-2014, 01:35 AM
I don't know a single person that considered Ramirez the starting C, it was well into the season before we stopped replacing him with the likes of Kuper, Lilja and Vallos. Shit, there are still people trying to replace him.

DenBronx
02-10-2014, 01:49 AM
Of course, you could be, say, a Detriot Lions fan and be saying that never having
been to the Super Bowl is pathetic. :nod:


We are better than that or them. At least I thought we were. Losing that many SBs and in emabrrassing fashion isn't good enough Top. I remember us getting torched during the Elway years but our teams werent as talented as the one we had this year. Just not happy with those results and want us to be world champs again.

DenBronx
02-10-2014, 01:51 AM
Exactly. I'm really eager to see how the Seahawks do against the Broncos A Team.
.


There is a chance we won't even be as good next year with all of the free agents we have.

Last year was our best chance because that 49ers team wasnt as good as this years Seahawks team.

Joel
02-10-2014, 01:54 AM
The point is, how much difference would it have made for the Broncos to have
their best (All-Pro) offensive lineman, their best (All-Pro) linebacker, their best
(Pro Bowl) cornerback, their best safety, their best DE, and their starting DT?

On the other side, how much difference would it have made for Seattle NOT to
have their best offensive lineman, their best linebacker, their best cornerback,
their best safety, their best DE, and a starting DT?

Once again, the issue of this thread is not about the team the Broncos had out
there. Go back to the OP and read it again. It is about Seattle's braggadocio
and how they dissed the Broncos, when they did NOT play the Bronco's best
team. In other words, this thread would not even exist, were the Seahawks a
bit more gracious about it.
.
Return all our missing defensive starters and Seattle still stomps the Hell out of us from kickoff to final gun. Take their starting LT and Seattle still stomps the Hell out of us from kickoff to final gun.

The point is rationalizing getting humiliated in front of the world: Seattle didn't "really" beat us because we had tons of injuries. Except the supposedly useless D played exceptionally well (especially being at half-strength) and the record-setting offense missing just ONE starter got destroyed the entire game. They beat our starting offensive line: DO something about it (Note: Making excuses doesn't qualify as doing something; that's why all the rationalization and the world can't take away Seattles Lombardi Trophy.)

DenBronx
02-10-2014, 01:59 AM
It was more than just our OL Joel. IMO, alot more than just that.


We got punched in the face and didn't punch back.

Joel
02-10-2014, 02:00 AM
I don't know a single person that considered Ramirez the starting C, it was well into the season before we stopped replacing him with the likes of Kuper, Lilja and Vallos. Shit, there are still people trying to replace him.
So which game this season did Kuper, Lilja OR Vallos replace him? We cut Lilja in camp, IIRC, and Kuper replaced VASQUEZ for all of two games when Vasquez took Franklins spot due to injury. Walton was the starter till he got hurt, then we coaxed Koppen out of retirement and he tore his ACL, so Ramirez started every game. I think we put Walton on the PUP list, but he came back midseason, hung around deactivated for a month, then we cut him, and I frankly wondered why it took so long. Koppen's not un-retiring again, so Ramirez is our best C. Fer real.

Simple Jaded
02-10-2014, 02:02 AM
So which game this season did Kuper, Lilja OR Vallos replace him? We cut Lilja in camp, IIRC, and Kuper replaced VASQUEZ for all of two games when Vasquez took Franklins spot due to injury. Walton was the starter till he got hurt, then we coaxed Koppen out of retirement and he tore his ACL, so Ramirez started every game. I think we put Walton on the PUP list, but he came back midseason, hung around deactivated for a month, then we cut him, and I frankly wondered why it took so long. Koppen's not un-retiring again, so Ramirez is our best C. Fer real.

You're right Joel, as always.

Joel
02-10-2014, 02:06 AM
It was more than just our OL Joel. IMO, alot more than just that.

We got punched in the face and didn't punch back.
There's some truth to that, but when Avril's punching Manning in the face there's not much he can do about it; same with Moreno and Ball. Demaryius Thomas separated his shoulder early in that game but kept playing and fighting till he broke Jerry Rices SB receptions record—then added another. Yet the guys who do most of EVERY offenses figurative and literal punching did neither, so we got stomped. We can tell ourselves it would've been vastly different with Clady and all our defensive starters, but I just don't see how that would make Franklin or Beadles block.

Joel
02-10-2014, 02:08 AM
You're right Joel, as always.
I'm 99% sure Lilja was only on the roster briefly, in camp, and Kuper only played 2 games, for Vasquez when Franklin was hurt. But if you've got tape or something of them or Vallos playing C in a regular season of playoff game, you're welcome and encouraged to share it.

Simple Jaded
02-10-2014, 02:59 AM
I'm 99% sure Lilja was only on the roster briefly, in camp, and Kuper only played 2 games, for Vasquez when Franklin was hurt. But if you've got tape or something of them or Vallos playing C in a regular season of playoff game, you're welcome and encouraged to share it.

I said nobody I know considered Ramirez the starter at C, you may not care but the Broncos installed Koppen with the 1's the day he signed, ahead of Ramirez.

But you're right with whatever you said. :golfclap:

Btw, when I actually say "we", I mean us fans, not "we" as in the Broncos.

Northman
02-10-2014, 05:37 AM
Meh, just more excuses which i cant stand. We got to the big game without a lot of those guys so trying to blame the injury bug just will not fly with me. We simply got our asses kicked, simple as that.

Northman
02-10-2014, 05:41 AM
The issue is their chest-thumping and putting the
Broncos down as they did, from the HC down to their little cornerback.


.

They have every right too. They destroyed us on national tv. If the roles were reversed and had we blown them out of the building i would be talking shit too. lol

EastCoastBronco
02-10-2014, 08:00 AM
The Broncos team that "showed up" (and I use that term loosely) at the SB was even more flat than the one that "showed up" in December against San Diego in that Thursday night game.
No fire.
No Drive.
No Spirit.
Nothing...
How a "professional" team can be that uninspired and unprepared for what is most likely the biggest game of their lives is beyond belief.
Starters missing is just a lame excuse to try and obscure the plain and simple fact that we were woefully unprepared for that "game".

MasterShake
02-10-2014, 10:10 AM
In times like these I just try and remember that just a few years ago we had the number 2 pick in the draft and now going into this next season we need to focus on a new attitude and get some depth. I would still rather fall short in the Super Bowl than be 8 games out of even qualifying for the playoffs.

I believe we are closer as a team than that score indicated and we are still an elite team. I'd be shocked if we didn't punch Seattle right back in the mouth next season when we play them (not necessarily win the game, but at least make it competitive to put them on notice). If not, THEN I will panic.

vettesplus
02-10-2014, 10:21 AM
Oh? So did the Seehawks lose their best offensive lineman, best defensive end,
best linebacker, best cornerback, and best safety? Yes, we need to move on,
but that's not the issue here. The issue is their chest-thumping and putting the
Broncos down as they did, from the HC down to their little cornerback.

I just hope that when Denver goes to Seattle this year they will have all those
players back and will remember how the Seahawks flapped their lips.
.


we have to play in seattle? that might get ugly!!!!

Ziggy
02-10-2014, 10:32 AM
The Broncos were outmanned, outplayed, and most importantly outcoached. Seattle came in with confidence, swagger and a nasty attitude. Denver came in with confusion, timidness, and fear. It wasn't injuries that lost this game. The Broncos were humiliated, and so were their fans.

MasterShake
02-10-2014, 10:34 AM
The Broncos were outmanned, outplayed, and most importantly outcoached. Seattle came in with confidence, swagger and a nasty attitude. Denver came in with confusion, timidness, and fear. It wasn't injuries that lost this game. The Broncos were humiliated, and so were their fans.

Outcoached is definitely the keyword there to me. It seemed like they were running the routes with our receivers.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 10:41 AM
I rewatched the game and the offensive line really did a pretty good job of protecting manning. He had time. Peyton missed a few opportunities probably, but Seattle secondary just outplayed us. Defense was pretty solid cept the corner coverage at times.

TXBRONC
02-10-2014, 10:56 AM
They didnt beat our A+ team rather they beat our A- team.



Still, we shouldnt have lost 43-8. Don't tell me 8 points is ok from a historical record breaking offense.

I don't think the majority of Bronco fans would even attempt to make that excuse.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 11:33 AM
Return all our missing defensive starters and Seattle still stomps the Hell out of us from kickoff to final gun. Take their starting LT and Seattle still stomps the Hell out of us from kickoff to final gun.

The point is rationalizing getting humiliated in front of the world: Seattle didn't "really" beat us because we had tons of injuries. Except the supposedly useless D played exceptionally well (especially being at half-strength) and the record-setting offense missing just ONE starter got destroyed the entire game. They beat our starting offensive line: DO something about it (Note: Making excuses doesn't qualify as doing something; that's why all the rationalization and the world can't take away Seattles Lombardi Trophy.)
Joel, the difference is that I speculated and treated it as speculation. You're
speculating and treating it as fact.

You're constantly off-topic with your posts in this thread. This thread has nothing
to do with rationalization or excuses. It is about the chest-thumping and dissing.
It has to do with the big, ungracious, belittling, braggadocio mouths of certain
members of the Seahens. At least, that's what I'm trying to post about because
I read and understood the OP.
.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 11:39 AM
They have every right too. They destroyed us on national tv. If the roles were reversed and had we blown them out of the building i would be talking shit too. lol
I wouldn't.

I guess we just have different values. I appreciate a gracious loser, which
the Broncos were, and a gracious winner, which the Seahawks were not.

The issue is not whether they had a "right." Maybe they did. And I have the
right to point out the classless way they did it. All I said is that I'm eager for
the Broncos to go into Seattle healthy this year and shut their mouths for
them. I don't know why people here are taking exception to that. I thought
this was a Denver Broncos board? :confused:
.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't.

I guess we just have different values. I appreciate a gracious loser, which
the Broncos were, and a gracious winner, which the Seahawks were not.

The issue is not whether they had a "right." Maybe they did. And I have the
right to point out the classless way they did it. All I said is that I'm eager for
the Broncos to go into Seattle healthy this year and shut their mouths for
them. I don't know why people here are taking exception to that. I thought
this was a Denver Broncos board? :confused:
.

I'll tell you why Top. Because North needs to be pissed off. what you call pissed off North calls breathing

topscribe
02-10-2014, 11:46 AM
I'll tell you why Top. Because North needs to be pissed off. what you call pissed off North calls breathing
I guess that's why I like the cute little guy. :D
.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 11:53 AM
I guess that's why I like the cute little guy. :D
.

He's kinda like a laid back stallion. what was this thread about again? oh yeah. we didn't bring our A game to New York. newsflash

topscribe
02-10-2014, 11:56 AM
He's kinda like a laid back stallion. what was this thread about again? oh yeah. we didn't bring our A game to New York. newsflash
Hey, anyone who loves music as he does is a man in my corner. :beer:
.

Mike
02-10-2014, 11:57 AM
I wouldn't.

I guess we just have different values. I appreciate a gracious loser, which
the Broncos were, and a gracious winner, which the Seahawks were not.

The issue is not whether they had a "right." Maybe they did. And I have the
right to point out the classless way they did it. All I said is that I'm eager for
the Broncos to go into Seattle healthy this year and shut their mouths for
them. I don't know why people here are taking exception to that. I thought
this was a Denver Broncos board? :confused:
.

I'd take some of those ungracious winners on Denver any day.

Buff
02-10-2014, 12:00 PM
Klis isn't wrong... But nobody wants to hear it. Just comes off as a sour grapes argument at this point.

silkamilkamonico
02-10-2014, 12:02 PM
Definitely sour grapes.

No excuses, period.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 12:10 PM
Hey, anyone who loves music as he does is a man in my corner. :beer:
.

passions are admirable. I like music too. but not like the North type of people.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 12:13 PM
Klis isn't wrong... But nobody wants to hear it. Just comes off as a sour grapes argument at this point.


Definitely sour grapes.

No excuses, period.
I can understand that. I just don't want anyone stuffing the grapes into my mouth . . .
.

silkamilkamonico
02-10-2014, 12:34 PM
I can understand that. I just don't want anyone stuffing the grapes into my mouth . . .
.

Agreed, which is why we should shame Mike Klis for even thinking about writing an article like this.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-10-2014, 12:35 PM
Klis isn't wrong... But nobody wants to hear it. Just comes off as a sour grapes argument at this point.

I look at it as Klis stating the facts, not as a sour grapes argument

weazel
02-10-2014, 12:38 PM
43-8... quit wit the ******* excuses

MOtorboat
02-10-2014, 12:42 PM
43-8... quit wit the ******* excuses

Just out of curiosity, and not that I disagree, but what exactly are they supposed to say?

And Carol, the fact that Klis doesn't acknowledge the absence of Brandon Browner makes it come across as sour grapes.

MasterShake
02-10-2014, 12:43 PM
I look at it as Klis stating the facts, not as a sour grapes argument

Normally I would agree, but going into the game no one was making excuses for Denver and many actually felt (including myself) that we were playing our best football even with the injuries. Most people were picking Denver to win and there was no mention of how depleted as a team we were. The fact is that as big of a homer as I am, I can find no reason to believe we lost that game other than we just got our asses handed to us. That tells me that no matter what Seattle is the better team this year. We didn't get to the big dance because our defense was playing lights out, we got there because we had a HISTORIC NFL Offense... until it met an all-time great defense.

Now is the time to make corrections in personnel and attitude, not excuses.

Lancane
02-10-2014, 12:45 PM
Klis simply wrote a column to help the grieving fan base, when the reality is that it probably wouldn't have mattered who was playing that day. Despite the loss of Wolfe and Vickerson, the defensive front pretty much held Lynch in check, what Wolfe and Big Vick are both good at. Von Miller would have helped create pressure and might have aided in keeping Wilson honest, but by the time Wilson could even really accomplish anything the life had been drained completely out of the Broncos on both fronts. Harris is a step up from Bailey at this point, but I'd have been more concerned without DRC in the lineup, Moore and the safeties have continued to be hot and cold, so no real surprise. As for the offensive side of the ball... Manning is Manning, we still had our entire receiving group and running back stable, Clady has missed most of the season as had Koppen the rest of our centers, and Ramirez was his typical self. This same unit of men won more games then lost despite being lackluster in talent for the most part, in the end I believe it was a lack of talent as well as a matter of preparation and coaching which effectively lost us the game, adjustments couldn't be made, they felt that their game plan was going to be effective and by the time they realized otherwise, their sails had no wind.

MasterShake
02-10-2014, 12:47 PM
Klis simply wrote a column to help the grieving fan base, when the reality is that it probably wouldn't have mattered who was playing that day. Despite the loss of Wolfe and Vickerson, the defensive front pretty much held Lynch in check, what Wolfe and Big Vick are both good at. Von Miller would have helped create pressure and might have aided in keeping Wilson honest, but by the time Wilson could even really accomplish anything the life had been drained completely out of the Broncos on both fronts. Harris is a step up from Bailey at this point, but I'd have been more concerned without DRC in the lineup, Moore and the safeties have continued to be hot and cold, so no real surprise. As for the offensive side of the ball... Manning is Manning, we still had our entire receiving group and running back stable, Clady has missed most of the season as had Koppen the rest of our centers, and Ramirez was his typical self. This same unit of men won more games then lost despite being lackluster in talent for the most part, in the end I believe it was a lack of talent as well as a matter of preparation and coaching which effectively lost us the game, adjustments couldn't be made, they felt that their game plan was going to be effective and by the time they realized otherwise, their sails had no wind.

Totally agree about Von Miller being missed to keep Wilson in check. I remember what he did to Cam Newton in Carolina and kept thinking we were really missing him when Russel would break his contain.

weazel
02-10-2014, 12:48 PM
Just out of curiosity, and not that I disagree, but what exactly are they supposed to say?

don't say anything, why did this article have to be written. Its an article full of excuses, excuses are for losers. His article could have just said, the better team won and the Broncos need a lot of fixing if they want to be near the Seahawks level.

MOtorboat
02-10-2014, 12:50 PM
don't say anything, why did this article have to be written. Its an article full of excuses, excuses are for losers. His article could have just said, the better team won and the Broncos need a lot of fixing if they want to be near the Seahawks level.



Last two times I tried to engage you in actual discussion I never got a reply.

Nomad
02-10-2014, 12:57 PM
I guess Denver needs to figure out how to keep their players healthy. I'm not big on the excuses either. Seattle did everything right, which championship teams do. BRONCOS should of at least made the game competitive.

Nomad
02-10-2014, 12:58 PM
Normally I would agree, but going into the game no one was making excuses for Denver and many actually felt (including myself) that we were playing our best football even with the injuries. Most people were picking Denver to win and there was no mention of how depleted as a team we were. The fact is that as big of a homer as I am, I can find no reason to believe we lost that game other than we just got our asses handed to us. That tells me that no matter what Seattle is the better team this year. We didn't get to the big dance because our defense was playing lights out, we got there because we had a HISTORIC NFL Offense... until it met an all-time great defense.

Now is the time to make corrections in personnel and attitude, not excuses.

Spot on, MS!!

GEM
02-10-2014, 01:08 PM
No consolation. Whether they beat our A team or our F team...they beat us in the big dance. That don't make me feel any better.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 01:19 PM
Totally agree about Von Miller being missed to keep Wilson in check. I remember what he did to Cam Newton in Carolina and kept thinking we were really missing him when Russel would break his contain.
I just hope Von will be back down to his normal weight. That weight-gaining
experiment (or excuse, whichever it was) was a colossal failure, IMO. He needs
to get his speed back.
.

Lancane
02-10-2014, 01:32 PM
I just hope Von will be back down to his normal weight. That weight-gaining
experiment (or excuse, whichever it was) was a colossal failure, IMO. He needs
to get his speed back.
.

I'm sort of concerned and was thinking about the trouble with Von. Has anyone else noticed that the issues with him have near doubled since the team lost Dumervil? It's almost the loss of direct leadership is shaking Miller at his core. I hope someone can help him deviate from a destructive path, but this could point to a lack of needed leadership, even the weight gain, sometimes even elite talent needs a mentor of sorts.

GEM
02-10-2014, 01:42 PM
Can the 2 guys having the piss contest knock it off. Thanks.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 01:54 PM
Can the 2 guys having the piss contest knock it off. Thanks.

who?

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 02:00 PM
I'm sort of concerned and was thinking about the trouble with Von. Has anyone else noticed that the issues with him have near doubled since the team lost Dumervil? It's almost the loss of direct leadership is shaking Miller at his core. I hope someone can help him deviate from a destructive path, but this could point to a lack of needed leadership, even the weight gain, sometimes even elite talent needs a mentor of sorts.

totally. I've lost track of the man. didn't realize he was having a weight issue. anyway, just thought I would post that fyi

topscribe
02-10-2014, 02:48 PM
who?
That's a reasonable question.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 02:52 PM
Normally I would agree, but going into the game no one was making excuses for Denver and many actually felt (including myself) that we were playing our best football even with the injuries. Most people were picking Denver to win and there was no mention of how depleted as a team we were. The fact is that as big of a homer as I am, I can find no reason to believe we lost that game other than we just got our asses handed to us. That tells me that no matter what Seattle is the better team this year. We didn't get to the big dance because our defense was playing lights out, we got there because we had a HISTORIC NFL Offense... until it met an all-time great defense.

Now is the time to make corrections in personnel and attitude, not excuses.
I don't understand these continual allusions to excuses. I don't believe any one
of us would even be discussing this, were it not for the bloviating of Sherman,
Carroll, et al. That's not excuses. That's reactions. Which is entirely understandable.
.

Northman
02-10-2014, 03:10 PM
I don't understand these continual allusions to excuses. I don't believe any one
of us would even be discussing this, were it not for the bloviating of Sherman,
Carroll, et al. That's not excuses. That's reactions. Which is entirely understandable.
.

If its out of retaliation for Sherman and company just talking junk than we arent reacting very well by saying we lost because of injury. I think the general consensus with some of us who are saying its just an excuse is that we just simply got our ass kicked. No need to sugarcoat it or try and say the Seahawks didnt play our "A" team, etc. Its just better to call it what it was and accept that the other team is going to smack talk because they have the right to do so. All this article does is make us look like sore losers.

GEM
02-10-2014, 03:23 PM
who?

The 2 who had to have their comments cleaned up.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 03:35 PM
If its out of retaliation for Sherman and company just talking junk than we arent reacting very well by saying we lost because of injury. I think the general consensus with some of us who are saying its just an excuse is that we just simply got our ass kicked. No need to sugarcoat it or try and say the Seahawks didnt play our "A" team, etc. Its just better to call it what it was and accept that the other team is going to smack talk because they have the right to do so. All this article does is make us look like sore losers.
No, it makes us respondents to classless bloviating, IMO.

I am of the same opinion as you, regarding the Super Bowl loss. I guess the puke
coming out of Sherman's mouth, in itself, didn't bother me all that much. The guy
is a lowlife frimp, so that's to be expected. What got me were Carroll's remarks.
I've never heard such public statments from another head coach. Not even in
any one of the three losses back in the '80s.

But since the gate has been opened on the subject, I will make the analysis,
FWIW, that if the Broncos had just Von Miller in playing form, the Seahawks
would have had a far less easy time in beating the Broncos, IMO. That's not
excuses. That's simply a realistic analysis.

It's just like the Super Bowl against the Cowboys in 1978. What a lot of
people don't know is that the Broncos' best lineman, Tom Glassic, was so ill
during that game that his weight was clear down to about 180, IIRC. The
Cowboys knew this, so they put Randy White and Too Tall Jones over him
and kept Craig Morton on his backside for most of the game.

But that game and this last one both go down in history as losses. It doesn't
matter why. They're losses, and that's how they will be viewed. I understand
this. But some of us like to analyze why things happen, and we don't view it
as excuses. We view it as analysis. *shrugs*
.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 04:24 PM
Last two times I tried to engage you in discussion on hooking up sometime soon, I never got a reply.

man Mo, take a hint already.

BroncoNut
02-10-2014, 04:24 PM
The 2 who had to have their comments cleaned up.

ok, I like games, mo and who else? give me a hint

Northman
02-10-2014, 04:24 PM
No, it makes us respondents to classless bloviating, IMO.

I am of the same opinion as you, regarding the Super Bowl loss. I guess the puke
coming out of Sherman's mouth, in itself, didn't bother me all that much. The guy
is a lowlife frimp, so that's to be expected. What got me were Carroll's remarks.
I've never heard such public statments from another head coach. Not even in
any one of the three losses back in the '80s.

Meh, doesnt really bother me. Its their persona and while i dont care for the Seahawks and their mouths they backed it all up 100%. Nothing can be done until we have another shot at them to make our own statement.


But since the gate has been opened on the subject, I will make the analysis,
FWIW, that if the Broncos had just Von Miller in playing form, the Seahawks
would have had a far less easy time in beating the Broncos, IMO. That's not
excuses. That's simply a realistic analysis.

But that game and this last one both go down in history as losses. It doesn't
matter why. They're losses, and that's how they will be viewed. I understand
this. But some of us like to analyze why things happen, and we don't view it
as excuses. We view it as analysis. *shrugs*
.

So are you of the opinion that we overachieved this year? Thats what it kind of sounds like when you make this statement. Problem is, every team deals with injuries and i would be hard pressed to think that we just "lucked" our way into the SB because of some guys being out. I mean shit dude, Von didnt even play that much this year and we still had a 13-3 record so i just cant all of a sudden agree that somehow Miller was the missing link. I mean, your free to use the excuse (my term) that injuries did us in but im just not going to ride that and accept that we were flat out beaten in every phase of the game from coaching on down. I just dont agree that we somehow lucked our way into the SB only to lose because those same said players were not around while we were making our run. I just cant see that way because it makes zero sense.

weazel
02-10-2014, 04:38 PM
hey jsut seen this thread, what's going on in here?

topscribe
02-10-2014, 04:38 PM
So are you of the opinion that we overachieved this year? Thats what it kind of sounds like when you make this statement. Problem is, every team deals with injuries and i would be hard pressed to think that we just "lucked" our way into the SB because of some guys being out. I mean shit dude, Von didnt even play that much this year and we still had a 13-3 record so i just cant all of a sudden agree that somehow Miller was the missing link. I mean, your free to use the excuse (my term) that injuries did us in but im just not going to ride that and accept that we were flat out beaten in every phase of the game from coaching on down. I just dont agree that we somehow lucked our way into the SB only to lose because those same said players were not around while we were making our run. I just cant see that way because it makes zero sense.
No, now you're putting words into my mouth.

It's just that Denver played a better team in a more intense game than at any
other time last year. They were clearly better than all the other teams they
played (even the losses), but they weren't clearly better than the Seahawks.
(Probably would be the same with SF, for that matter.) But the Seahawks were
relatively healthy, and the Broncos were missing two All-Pros, a Pro Bowler,
and two other starters. So my personal opinion -- and it's just an opinion -- is
that a healthy Broncos team can be at least as good as a healthy Seahawks
team.

We may get the chance to see that this year . . .
.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 04:39 PM
hey jsut seen this thread, what's going on in here?
Get out.
.

Joel
02-10-2014, 04:41 PM
Exactly. I'm really eager to see how the Seahawks do against the Broncos A Team.
We saw that last week, on a neutral field; it was a horror from start to finish. It's not speculating to say the presence of all our missing defensive starters wouldn't have prevented Seattles defense mercilessly pummelling our starting offense for 3˝ unrelenting hours: What and why would it have been different with Harris, Miller, Moore, Vickerson and Wolfe? They trounce us 29-8?

topscribe
02-10-2014, 04:44 PM
We saw that last week, on a neutral field; it was a horror from start to finish. It's not speculating to say the presence of all our missing defensive starters wouldn't have prevented Seattles defense mercilessly pummelling our starting offense for 3˝ unrelenting hours: What and why would it have been different with Harris, Miller, Moore, Vickerson and Wolfe? They trounce us 29-8?
Joel, I like you a lot. You know that. But the glass could be half full, and you would
never refer to it as half empty. You would refer to it as bone dry. :lol:
.

Joel
02-10-2014, 04:51 PM
I said nobody I know considered Ramirez the starter at C, you may not care but the Broncos installed Koppen with the 1's the day he signed, ahead of Ramirez.
About a week after we re-signed Koppen he tore his ACL and Ramirez was the starter for the rest of camp and throughout the season. The coaches evidently considered him the starter when they cut a healthy Walton (i.e. the previous starter) midseason.


But you're right with whatever you said. :golfclap:

Btw, when I actually say "we", I mean us fans, not "we" as in the Broncos.
Why are you talking down to ME because YOU made a demonstrably false statment (i.e. that "well into the season" Ramirez split time with a guy we cut in camp, a guy who never played a down at C, and a STer)? If this is pigeon chess, tell me now and I'll leave you to it.

Northman
02-10-2014, 04:52 PM
No, now you're putting words into my mouth.

It's just that Denver played a better team in a more intense game than at any
other time last year. They were clearly better than all the other teams they
played (even the losses), but they weren't clearly better than the Seahawks.
(Probably would be the same with SF, for that matter.) But the Seahawks were
relatively healthy, and the Broncos were missing two All-Pros, a Pro Bowler,
and two other starters. So my personal opinion -- and it's just an opinion -- is
that a healthy Broncos team can be at least as good as a healthy Seahawks
team.

We may get the chance to see that this year . . .
.


Well, i would also say that while Denver had some injuries (at least more than Seattle) that the Seahawks had a lot more youth and inexperience. So in a way, it really balances its way out in that regard. We pretty stormed our way through the year up until that game which i believe just came down to attitude and desire.

Joel
02-10-2014, 04:53 PM
Joel, I like you a lot. You know that. But the glass could be half full, and you would
never refer to it as half empty. You would refer to it as bone dry. :lol:
I worry about serious problems more than non-problems; non-problems need no solutions. Our line's a problem serious enough it got us a Super Beatdown, even with all but one starter.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 05:38 PM
I worry about serious problems more than non-problems; non-problems need no solutions. Our line's a problem serious enough it got us a Super Beatdown, even with all but one starter.
That was one game, Joel. We had a far bigger sample of teams not getting near Peyton.
.

ShaneFalco
02-10-2014, 06:00 PM
Broncos played the Shehawks they wanted to be played. Shotgun set, etc.

Any team that stands a chance versus them, runs only deep play action passes and strong outside runs.

weazel
02-10-2014, 06:12 PM
Broncos didn’t beat the Patriots' “A” team in AFC Championship Game

7DnBrnc53
02-10-2014, 06:20 PM
Broncos didn’t beat the Patriots' “A” team in AFC Championship Game

Besides Gronk and Wilfork, they pretty much did. Those two wouldn't have made too much difference anyway because their DE's couldn't get to Manning like Seattle's did.

weazel
02-10-2014, 06:24 PM
Besides Gronk and Wilfork, they pretty much did. Those two wouldn't have made too much difference anyway because their DE's couldn't get to Manning like Seattle's did.

I would say gronk, wilfork and inmate #29374972 were pretty important parts of that team but I guess only missing Broncos players make a difference. Other teams cant make excuses, just the Broncos

topscribe
02-10-2014, 06:26 PM
I would say gronk, wilfork and inmate #29374972 were pretty important parts of that team but I guess only missing Broncos players make a difference. Other teams cant make excuses, just the Broncos
I haven't heard any excuses out of the Broncos . . .
.

weazel
02-10-2014, 06:28 PM
I haven't heard any excuses out of the Broncos . . .
.

you're right top... I should have worded that differently. Broncos fans and media hanger-ons.

topscribe
02-10-2014, 06:48 PM
you're right top... I should have worded that differently. Broncos fans and media hanger-ons.
BTW, how'ya doing Weaz? Still hanging out over at MHR? I go there once in a while . . .
.

Joel
02-10-2014, 07:26 PM
That was one game, Joel. We had a far bigger sample of teams not getting near Peyton.
Other teams couldn't get pressure without a blitz and play press coverage like Seattle; I know no other team that runs practices with WRs shielded neck to knees so their DBs learn how to pulverize guys without getting flagged. Manning kept our sack total down with quick reads and throws, but couldn't do that against Seattle because of their coverage and rush. He STILL only got sacked once, and completed almost 70% of his passes, but they rushed enough that the other 30% and our inability to run gave them the game.

If we'd been able to run, they couldn't have teed off on Manning, and Chancellor would've been to busy tackling RBs to play robber when they forced a pass off target and/or prevented WRs reaching it. It was one game, but we had the same problem @Indy, and to a lesser extent both times we played SD. Just 4 games, but 3 of our 4 losses this year.

It's a real problem, and ignor/rationalizing problems can't solve them, nor can pounding the perennial defensive whipping boy s'more while ignoring their consistently fine playoff performance.

Joel
02-10-2014, 07:30 PM
I would say gronk, wilfork and inmate #29374972 were pretty important parts of that team but I guess only missing Broncos players make a difference. Other teams cant make excuses, just the Broncos
Plus Tommy Kelly; they lost BOTH starting DTs early in the year. And a good starting OT in Vollmer. And Jared Mayo. And Brandon Spikes (though Belichick cut him, so has only himself to blame.) So they were missing 7 starters (8 when Talib left early) to our 6; they're as much/little entitled to make the "didn't beat our A team" argument. On the other hand, if it's B team vs. B team it's fair.

By the way: You'll be hearing from my lawyers about stealing the "inmate #" joke; I don't ask much, just a little attribution and the occasional royalty fee. :tongue:

whiteniko
02-10-2014, 08:58 PM
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

Dzone
02-10-2014, 10:35 PM
At least Russell Wilson is a class act. He sets an outstanding example. He has a lot of the young Peyton Manning in his ability to project his positive energy. He is a likable kid. He isnt full of himself. Humble. He deserves it. He is a good ambassador for the league. He is much more articulate than Kaepernick or some of the other quarterbacks who are like robots in interviews. Boring. R Wilson is the future of the NFL. Just hope we can beat them next year.

Simple Jaded
02-11-2014, 12:47 AM
About a week after we re-signed Koppen he tore his ACL and Ramirez was the starter for the rest of camp and throughout the season. The coaches evidently considered him the starter when they cut a healthy Walton (i.e. the previous starter) midseason.


Why are you talking down to ME because YOU made a demonstrably false statment (i.e. that "well into the season" Ramirez split time with a guy we cut in camp, a guy who never played a down at C, and a STer)? If this is pigeon chess, tell me now and I'll leave you to it.

Ramirez was not considered the starting C until two other C's went down, not by fans, not by the Broncos, fact. We, as in fans, were never sold on the dude until midway thru the season. Had Walton or Koppen stayed healthy Ramirez would've been in the same role he's been in for the majority of his career. According to your ****** up logic, Chris Clark is 1-2 games from being considered a "starter" as well.

However, you're right in your "Broncos best, Period" rant, in the sense that Ramirez turned out to be better anyways, but he was a replacement. You're right Joel, you are correct and validated and vindicated and anything else your fragile sensibilities desperately need. If I could post this where Kim Jon Wu and Vladimir Putin could read it I would, I'd do that just for you.

Unless "pigeon chess" is slang for more Joel bullshit I can confidently say this probably isn't pigeon chess.

TXBRONC
02-11-2014, 07:45 AM
I look at it as Klis stating the facts, not as a sour grapes argument

I've been reading Klis' stuff for years and he's never come across someone who would make a sour grapes argument.

Hawgdriver
02-11-2014, 10:52 AM
Last two times I tried to engage you in actual discussion I never got a reply.



Last two times I tried to engage you in discussion on hooking up sometime soon, I never got a reply. man Mo, take a hint already.

There is a Department of Information job waiting for you, Gapster.

4297

Joel
02-11-2014, 04:22 PM
Ramirez was not considered the starting C until two other C's went down, not by fans, not by the Broncos, fact. We, as in fans, were never sold on the dude until midway thru the season. Had Walton or Koppen stayed healthy Ramirez would've been in the same role he's been in for the majority of his career. According to your ****** up logic, Chris Clark is 1-2 games from being considered a "starter" as well.

However, you're right in your "Broncos best, Period" rant, in the sense that Ramirez turned out to be better anyways, but he was a replacement. You're right Joel, you are correct and validated and vindicated and anything else your fragile sensibilities desperately need. If I could post this where Kim Jon Wu and Vladimir Putin could read it I would, I'd do that just for you.

Unless "pigeon chess" is slang for more Joel bullshit I can confidently say this probably isn't pigeon chess.
The situation won't be the same until/unless we cut Clady because Clark's so much better; don't hold your breath. Ramirez didn't secure the job till well into the season, but didn't rotate with anyone—certainly no one who wasn't even on the team. You said something not only untrue, but impossible; that's neither my fault nor responsibility, so why get pissy with me? That's like saying a stormy day is clear, then getting mad at the rain when you get wet. http://penguinpetes.com/gallery/MyWalls/pigeon_chess.png

BroncoNut
02-11-2014, 05:25 PM
Other teams couldn't get pressure without a blitz and play press coverage like Seattle; I know no other team that runs practices with WRs shielded neck to knees so their DBs learn how to pulverize guys without getting flagged. Manning kept our sack total down with quick reads and throws, but couldn't do that against Seattle because of their coverage and rush. He STILL only got sacked once, and completed almost 70% of his passes, but they rushed enough that the other 30% and our inability to run gave them the game.

If we'd been able to run, they couldn't have teed off on Manning, and Chancellor would've been to busy tackling RBs to play robber when they forced a pass off target and/or prevented WRs reaching it. It was one game, but we had the same problem @Indy, and to a lesser extent both times we played SD. Just 4 games, but 3 of our 4 losses this year.

It's a real problem, and ignor/rationalizing problems can't solve them, nor can pounding the perennial defensive whipping boy s'more while ignoring their consistently fine playoff performance.

I like this take. what is the solution? I rewatched the game and pass protection was adequate to substantially solid throughout. I put the loss a bit more on Peyton than before I had rewatched, but just a bit. it was the press coverage, but we just didn't convert those 3rd downs in the 1st half that we needed to do (imo)

but enough on that, what is the solution in your opinion, cause I am onboard with you here.

Joel
02-11-2014, 10:51 PM
I'll have to take your word for it on Manning bearing more of the blame than it first seemed; I wouldn't watch that game again at gunpoint.

I like this take. what is the solution? I rewatched the game and pass protection was adequate to substantially solid throughout. I put the loss a bit more on Peyton than before I had rewatched, but just a bit. it was the press coverage, but we just didn't convert those 3rd downs in the 1st half that we needed to do (imo)

but enough on that, what is the solution in your opinion, cause I am onboard with you here.
Well, get Clady healthy for starters, then get a top LG and RT by any means necessary. The bible says love covers a multitude of sins; in football a good offensive line does the same thing.

weazel
02-11-2014, 11:00 PM
BTW, how'ya doing Weaz? Still hanging out over at MHR? I go there once in a while . . .
.

top I dont know what MHR is...

topscribe
02-11-2014, 11:12 PM
top I dont know what MHR is...
Mile High Report (http://www.milehighreport.com/) - the only Broncos site I go to besides this one (well, except for DenverBroncos.com).
.

Northman
02-12-2014, 06:25 AM
Mile High Report (http://www.milehighreport.com/) - the only Broncos site I go to besides this one (well, except for DenverBroncos.com).
.

Why you two timing bitch...... lol

BroncoNut
02-12-2014, 10:40 AM
I'll have to take your word for it on Manning bearing more of the blame than it first seemed; I wouldn't watch that game again at gunpoint.

Well, get Clady healthy for starters, then get a top LG and RT by any means necessary. The bible says love covers a multitude of sins; in football a good offensive line does the same thing.
knowing what was going to happen wasn't near as painful as watching it live for me. as painful as it may be at times Joel, I'm a problem solver. and to be an effective one, I need to get to root causes of problems. again, that is just me. (a little tongue in cheek)

capt. Jack
02-14-2014, 05:47 AM
As Jim Mora would say, "We couldn't do didley poo against them"!