PDA

View Full Version : No need to break up the Broncos’ band



Denver Native (Carol)
03-03-2014, 11:46 AM
Four weeks removed, the sting of 43-8 still remains. Losing is never fun; doing it on the game’s biggest stage, in epic fashion, is even more painful.

But that’s no reason to overreact, which is what many think the Broncos should do.

The calls for change have come from all corners, in all various forms. Some on the lunatic fringe have called for Denver to pull the plug on the Peyton Manning “experiment,” as though it has somehow been a failure during the past two years. While a more sensible lot – one with good, albeit misguided, intentions – wants John Elway and the rest of the Broncos brass to focus on rebuilding the defense instead of surrounding their aging quarterback with more and more weapons.

No matter where people fall on the “blow it up” spectrum, they have one giant thing in common: They’re wrong.

rest - http://milehighsports.com/2014/03/03/no-need-to-break-up-the-broncos-band/

Northman
03-03-2014, 11:48 AM
Yea, we are wrong. 43-8 was a nailbiter.

Mike
03-03-2014, 11:59 AM
No need to blow it up. But improving significantly in specific areas of need on both sides of the ball are needed. That will require Denver consider cost-saving moves at some positions. If they press forward with what they have, which resulted in two very good regular season records (which includes a big number of mediocre to bad teams) and a poor post season record against good-to-elite teams, then Denver shouldn't expect different results next year.

silkamilkamonico
03-03-2014, 12:03 PM
Do people that write these articles stop to consider that signing Decker to a deal worth keeping him likely means Denver loses DThomas after next year? They would seriously risk losing Thomas just for 1 more shot at a SuperBowl when it wouldn't even guarantee anything more that we'd be good on offense again?

silkamilkamonico
03-03-2014, 12:05 PM
No need to blow it up. But improving significantly in specific areas of need on both sides of the ball are needed. That will require Denver consider cost-saving moves at some positions. If they press forward with what they have, which resulted in two very good regular season records (which includes a big number of mediocre to bad teams) and a poor post season record against good-to-elite teams, then Denver shouldn't expect different results next year.

I agree, and cost saving moves very likely may not mean better on the field. I've said this time and time again, I think there's a good chance Denver will not be close to being as good next year as they were this year on paper, but the reality of it means all Denver needs to do is get through a lethargic AFC again and they will have a 1 game - 1 opportunity in the SuperBowl again which is all a team like Denver can really ask for right now.

BroncoWave
03-03-2014, 12:11 PM
I'm sorry, but I lost him at this line:


While a more sensible lot – one with good, albeit misguided, intentions – wants John Elway and the rest of the Broncos brass to focus on rebuilding the defense instead of surrounding their aging quarterback with more and more weapons.

If he thinks this is a misguided approach, he's just wrong IMO. :noidea:

Lancane
03-03-2014, 12:43 PM
Problem is that most columnists and reporters have about as much experience as a ballerina does playing football, hell they barely grasp the basic concepts and rules of the game. I've found that our media here in Denver with covering football has been going down hill for awhile now give a few noteworthy individuals. Anyone else notice their hyperbolic quips or their contradicting brain-farts?

I don't expect the Manning era in Denver to survive beyond this season for various reasons, and the team has to be able to continually compete despite whatever may happen on both sides of the ball. That means evolving the roster, no matter the strength of the team.

Timmy!
03-03-2014, 12:50 PM
God I hate the offseason.

DenBronx
03-03-2014, 01:40 PM
Yea, we are wrong. 43-8 was a nailbiter.

Lol all the way till the very end.

I keep hearing from other fans that we ruined their super bowl. If it were other teams playing I would have felt the same way. 43-8 on SB Sunday isn't fun to watch. Unless you are our rival.

DenBronx
03-03-2014, 01:42 PM
Do people that write these articles stop to consider that signing Decker to a deal worth keeping him likely means Denver loses DThomas after next year? They would seriously risk losing Thomas just for 1 more shot at a SuperBowl when it wouldn't even guarantee anything more that we'd be good on offense again?

I dont buy that first statement for one second. They can always release someone else if needed. No way the Broncos let DT walk if Deckee is signed this year.

Lancane
03-03-2014, 01:53 PM
I dont buy that first statement for one second. They can always release someone else if needed. No way the Broncos let DT walk if Deckee is signed this year.

DB, next year will be a horrendous off-season for the Broncos, they'll have a number of starters entering free agency and only a handful will likely be kept, keeping Decker at the price he'll demand even if low could cost the team elsewhere. We're talking Von Miller, Terrance Knighton, Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Orlando Franklin, Kevin Vickerson, Rahim Moore, not including a ****load of our depth. You expect Denver to trim more fat and be even more unstable when it comes to the roster? And that doesn't include Harris or Ihenacho depending on this off-season or any one-year deals that Elway is so fond of.

Mike
03-03-2014, 02:13 PM
I dont buy that first statement for one second. They can always release someone else if needed. No way the Broncos let DT walk if Deckee is signed this year.

How much do you sink in to one position and at what cost to the rest of the team?

Dreadnought
03-03-2014, 02:16 PM
Do people that write these articles stop to consider that signing Decker to a deal worth keeping him likely means Denver loses DThomas after next year? They would seriously risk losing Thomas just for 1 more shot at a SuperBowl when it wouldn't even guarantee anything more that we'd be good on offense again?

If you think its a matter of keeping Decker for $8 million a year or DT for $8 million a year you are very mistaken. Thats an EZ choice (DT, duh), but not one we will actually be offered. It may cost double that to keep DT next year. I doubt we can do it, frankly. If its Decker for $8 million or DT for 16$ million I'd rather keep Decker and let DT go, frankly.

Lancane
03-03-2014, 02:32 PM
If you think its a matter of keeping Decker for $8 million a year or DT for $8 million a year you are very mistaken. Thats an EZ choice (DT, duh), but not one we will actually be offered. It may cost double that to keep DT next year. I doubt we can do it, frankly. If its Decker for $8 million or DT for 16$ million I'd rather keep Decker and let DT go, frankly.

Demaryius Thomas is worth more then Eric Decker, you could pretty much ask anyone in the league and they'll agree. You think Elway would have kept McCaffrey over Smith? Also, you have to look at the bigger picture, Manning isn't long left in this league, who is the bigger asset for the next starting quarterback? Decker isn't as sure handed as Thomas is or as big a playmaker, not to mention that money to Decker could allow the Broncos to keep the likes of Julius Thomas (who is also an unrestricted free agent after the season) and a better asset going forward. As much as I like Decker it's time to part ways unless he comes back for peanuts which he will not. Plus true number one receivers are worth and cost more period, is Denver suppose to let Demaryius go next off-season or franchise tag him and trade him, if they can even find a trade partner and maybe they get a compensation pick in 2016. Whereas Denver could sign someone like Brandon LeFell for half the cost and who could be just as effective and retain more in the end.

Dreadnought
03-03-2014, 03:04 PM
Demaryius Thomas is worth more then Eric Decker, you could pretty much ask anyone in the league and they'll agree. You think Elway would have kept McCaffrey over Smith? Also, you have to look at the bigger picture, Manning isn't long left in this league, who is the bigger asset for the next starting quarterback? Decker isn't as sure handed as Thomas is or as big a playmaker, not to mention that money to Decker could allow the Broncos to keep the likes of Julius Thomas (who is also an unrestricted free agent after the season) and a better asset going forward. As much as I like Decker it's time to part ways unless he comes back for peanuts which he will not. Plus true number one receivers are worth and cost more period, is Denver suppose to let Demaryius go next off-season or franchise tag him and trade him, if they can even find a trade partner and maybe they get a compensation pick in 2016. Whereas Denver could sign someone like Brandon LeFell for half the cost and who could be just as effective and retain more in the end.

That's not the question I asked though. DT > Decker, agreed. Is DT at $16 million a year better than Decker at $8 million a year? That's another issue, and I don't think DT is that much better.

Northman
03-03-2014, 03:19 PM
That's not the question I asked though. DT > Decker, agreed. Is DT at $16 million a year better than Decker at $8 million a year? That's another issue, and I don't think DT is that much better.

Agreed. And its a massive stretch to say DT is more sure handed than Deck as DT has more fumbles in his career than Decker does.

Lancane
03-03-2014, 03:22 PM
Agreed. And its a massive stretch to say DT is more sure handed than Deck as DT has more fumbles in his career than Decker does.

Not really, he is more sure handed, Decker has more drops then Thomas does, fumbles are a different story but completions make a bigger difference to a quarterback!

;)

Dreadnought
03-03-2014, 03:26 PM
Not really, he is more sure handed, Decker has more drops then Thomas does, fumbles are a different story but completions make a bigger difference to a quarterback!

;)

Not correct. DT had 8 drops in 142 targets in 2013, for a 5.6% rate. Decker had 7 drops in 136 targets, or a 5.1% rate. Near enough to not be worth quibbling over, but like everything else their performance was pretty near identical last season

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2013/

Lancane
03-03-2014, 03:41 PM
That's not the question I asked though. DT > Decker, agreed. Is DT at $16 million a year better than Decker at $8 million a year? That's another issue, and I don't think DT is that much better.

I think some are getting confused, it's not like I'm advocating letting Decker go, I'd prefer to keep him. He may not be as physically talented as Demaryius Thomas, but I do like his toughness, he is also better after the catch then some would credit him for. Thomas is a bigger playmaker and has better hands which will count for something in the eyes of the team, that is my opinion at least. Some forget that I posted earlier this off-season that 'Denver would be smart to trade Demaryius Thomas for a first round pick now'; my thought is that Decker while not a true number one could still be effective as such with Wes Welker and Julius Thomas in the mix, Denver could easily add another capable veteran for the season and draft someone to fill the void. I just don't believe Elway will see it that way and it would be dumb to hash out that kind of money to Decker then walk into next off-season with no option but to tag Demaryius Thomas in order not to lose the value in him, whereas doing so now the Broncos would receive fair compensation and it's a deep wide receiver draft, Denver could use that pick trade the 31st to add more or add two first round talents to the squad and still take a receiver later and be safe. However, I believe Demaryius Thomas is the bigger asset going forward with another quarterback because what he brings and his overall size is a plus.

Lancane
03-03-2014, 03:43 PM
Not correct. DT had 8 drops in 142 targets in 2013, for a 5.6% rate. Decker had 7 drops in 136 targets, or a 5.1% rate. Near enough to not be worth quibbling over, but like everything else their performance was pretty near identical last season

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2013/

Okay, then my bad. I thought Decker had a higher rate then that, or maybe it was Welker and I confused the two.

Dreadnought
03-03-2014, 03:46 PM
Okay, then my bad. I thought Decker had a higher rate then that, or maybe it was Welker and I confused the two.

Decker started horribly last year, but was very reliable after that Ratbirds game. I think 3 of his 7 drops occurred in that one game. Welker had much more of a drop issue

broncofaninfla
03-03-2014, 03:58 PM
Elway and company have earned my respect and trust. Whatever happens I have faith that they will do whats best for the franchise.

silkamilkamonico
03-03-2014, 04:34 PM
That's not the question I asked though. DT > Decker, agreed. Is DT at $16 million a year better than Decker at $8 million a year? That's another issue, and I don't think DT is that much better.

Then you're stuck going into the following yer as Eric Decker as your #1 WR making $8 million a year. That's an even worse scenario then all of the above.

dogfish
03-03-2014, 05:16 PM
If you think its a matter of keeping Decker for $8 million a year or DT for $8 million a year you are very mistaken. Thats an EZ choice (DT, duh), but not one we will actually be offered. It may cost double that to keep DT next year. I doubt we can do it, frankly. If its Decker for $8 million or DT for 16$ million I'd rather keep Decker and let DT go, frankly.

calvin johnson's deal averages sixteen, and it's crippling his team. . . same with larry fitzgerald. . . as far as i know, revis is the only other non-QB to ever hit that number, and two teams in a row have quickly come to regret that deal. . . brandon marshall averages under nine mil, and andre johnson is under ten. . . demaryious is a damn nice receiver-- he's NOT calvin johnson or larry fitzgerald. . . if DT gets more than twelve or thirteen (absolute tops, i would say less in this economic era), i will eat my keyboard and post it to youtube. . .

i keep telling north and den to relax-- they'll get over decker when we still throw 45 or 50 TDs without him next year, and can actually afford some NFL talent on defense. . .

Superchop 7
03-03-2014, 11:27 PM
Of all stupid ideas on earth....gotta be kidding me....we have a few good guys and a crap defense. Keep em together? Who wrote this crap? Is your marriage going bad? I am gonna blow it up and take names....Jesus H Christ.

Lancane
03-04-2014, 12:31 AM
Then you're stuck going into the following yer as Eric Decker as your #1 WR making $8 million a year. That's an even worse scenario then all of the above.

Not in the scenario I presented, let's say that Denver signs Decker to a four year 35 million dollar deal, now that is roughly 8.75 mil a year (includes signing bonus), and let's say that Denver traded Demaryius Thomas to Pittsburgh with the 15th overall pick, Denver could keep that pick and have a higher chance to get a playmaker or trade down for more picks in what is a very deep draft where Denver has needs, wide receiver being one. Denver could take a wide receiver with the 31st Pick who could replace D. Thomas, someone like Benjamin or Beckham or even wait till their next pick and still have a good shot at a good wide receiver who would cost them a mere 6 to 7 mil over the next four seasons. However, I don't see it happening...it's just that if the Broncos are going to trade Demaryius Thomas it would be smarter done this year instead of Denver wasting their tag next year when it would be better used elsewhere and all in order to trade him at that point.

But as I mentioned, I don't see it happening. Demaryius Thomas is a bigger playmaker then Decker and a better receiver for an untested quarterback or one with little experience because of what he brings and I believe replacing a number two is easier then doing the same for a number one. As Dog pointed out as well, D. Thomas isn't likely to be a 16 million dollar wide receiver, we'll see how it plays out but Denver has options.

luckyseven
03-04-2014, 12:55 AM
Not in the scenario I presented, let's say that Denver signs Decker to a four year 35 million dollar deal, now that is roughly 8.75 mil a year (includes signing bonus), and let's say that Denver traded Demaryius Thomas to Pittsburgh with the 15th overall pick, Denver could keep that pick and have a higher chance to get a playmaker or trade down for more picks in what is a very deep draft where Denver has needs, wide receiver being one. Denver could take a wide receiver with the 31st Pick who could replace D. Thomas, someone like Benjamin or Beckham or even wait till their next pick and still have a good shot at a good wide receiver who would cost them a mere 6 to 7 mil over the next four seasons. However, I don't see it happening...it's just that if the Broncos are going to trade Demaryius Thomas it would be smarter done this year instead of Denver wasting their tag next year when it would be better used elsewhere and all in order to trade him at that point.

But as I mentioned, I don't see it happening. Demaryius Thomas is a bigger playmaker then Decker and a better receiver for an untested quarterback or one with little experience because of what he brings and I believe replacing a number two is easier then doing the same for a number one. As Dog pointed out as well, I D. Thomas isn't likely to be a 16 million dollar quarterback, we'll see how it plays out but Denver has options. one could always dream about being able to move up in the draft like that.

While DT is a play maker his cap value next year could be a problem with little or no increase in production.

IF he could be replaced this year with a talented WR, Decker, WW and JT (who really is only going into his second season) could bring the rookie along and take up most of the slack that we lose with DT gone.

again one can only dream, it would delay having to pay the really big buck for a WR for another 5 years.

Maybe you should drop John a note.

dogfish
03-04-2014, 01:24 AM
cane, cut it out. . . :lol:


don't even rile the natives up, we're not trading DT, and you know that shit!

Lancane
03-04-2014, 01:38 AM
cane, cut it out. . . :lol:


don't even rile the natives up, we're not trading DT, and you know that shit!

I like riling the natives up, it soooo much fun! :D

Superchop 7
03-04-2014, 01:44 AM
Lancane, another wanna be....never will be.

Dapper Dan
03-04-2014, 02:37 AM
Lancane, another wanna be....never will be.

All Day!! Every Day!! You ever go Nighty Night nigga? You ever go Nighty Night?!

Dapper Dan
03-04-2014, 02:37 AM
You ever go Nighty Night, Super Chump?!

Superchop 7
03-04-2014, 03:06 AM
Generally speaking, when I get upset.....I threaten death.....on Internet......I am 12.....tough as nails.

Dapper Dan
03-04-2014, 03:06 AM
Generally speaking, when I get upset.....I threaten death.....on Internet......I am 12.....tough as nails.

Can you twerk?

Superchop 7
03-04-2014, 03:08 AM
and then, I wake up.

Dapper Dan
03-04-2014, 03:10 AM
and then, I wake up.

No. This isn't inception.

Lancane
03-04-2014, 03:38 AM
Lancane, another wanna be....never will be.

Wannabe what? Never be what?

Lancane
03-04-2014, 03:39 AM
Generally speaking, when I get upset.....I threaten death.....on Internet......I am 12.....tough as nails.

That explains a lot now.