SI: Can the Broncos avenge Super Bowl loss?

[VonDoom]

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/27/denver-broncos-return-super-bowl-xlix-miami-dolphins/

Kind of a same old, same old article, but I did like how for ONCE, someone mentioned how the Broncos were banged up going into the playoffs last year. Most people have a tendency to assume that only the Patriots had to deal with injuries last year.


Denver was simply battered last season. Sure, plenty of its starters were inexperienced, but the iron fist of Manning kept them focused in New York, and much of the team’s youth was a result of injuries to its starting lineup. In fact, if the Broncos can stay healthy and make it to the Super Bowl, they will have 11 different starters from the group they trotted out last February, thanks to free agent acquisitions and players returning from injuries

[Joel]

It's really all anyone will talk about this year, unless the SB loser jinx bites us (heaven forbid.) We're running out of second chances, and last year was one of the all time epic Super Blowouts. 2-5 in Super Bowls, on the wrong side of its most lopsided scores. We need to get it done this time or there'll be a lot more of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPT1jny2eN0

[Northman]

Meh, no excuses. We just got our asses kicked. Hopefully we can get back and get a ring this year.

[Shazam!]

Broncos will need a legit running game like they had in the 90s to be Championship caliber. If they had a true feature Back with Manning winging it all over the Field they'd be unstoppable.

[BroncoWave]

Broncos will need a legit running game like they had in the 90s to be Championship caliber. If they had a true feature Back with Manning winging it all over the Field they'd be unstoppable.

Look at the running backs of the last 10-15 super bowl champs and tell me how many were big time stud running backs. Not very many of them did. Now look at which ones had really good qbs. Most of them did. I'd rather have a great passing game than running game if I had to pick.

[Magnificent Seven]

Meh, no excuses. We just got our asses kicked. Hopefully we can get back and get a ring this year.

Disagreed. Sorry, dude. Super Bowl was a hoax. Broncos have lost 7 key players and they were all inactive for Super Bowl. That was Seattle's huge advantage and I felt that Coach Carroll has been dishonest with NFL. They cheated on Niners in NFC Championship match with referee's help, etc.

(7 Broncos Players were inactive for Super Bowl: Derek Wolfe, Von Miller, Ryan Clady, Kevin Vickerson, Rahim Moore, Chris Harris Jr, and Joel Dreessen.)

[Northman]

Disagreed. Sorry, dude. Super Bowl was a hoax. Broncos have lost 7 key players and they were all inactive for Super Bowl. That was Seattle's huge advantage and I felt that Coach Carroll has been dishonest with NFL. They cheated on Niners in NFC Championship match with referee's help, etc.

(7 Broncos Players were inactive for Super Bowl: Derek Wolfe, Von Miller, Ryan Clady, Kevin Vickerson, Rahim Moore, Chris Harris Jr, and Joel Dreessen.)


Sorry to disagree with your disagreement. Not having all the players doesnt help but getting your ass whooped in all facets of the game 43-8 is more than just a few missing players. Not too mention the Broncos play calling was predictable and the Oline didnt do Manning any favors either. And unfortunately, the list you provided really only had one impact player who "maybe" would of made a difference and that is a big maybe (because he was out of shape and missed half the season) would be Von Miller. Wolfe has yet to show he can be a consistent force, Moore and Harris are ok but not world beaters and Dressen was the worse TE we had in our stable.

[BroncoJoe]

Look at the running backs of the last 10-15 super bowl champs and tell me how many were big time stud running backs. Not very many of them did. Now look at which ones had really good qbs. Most of them did. I'd rather have a great passing game than running game if I had to pick.

He didn't say he'd rather have the RB - just a productive, featured back. In fact, I'll quote him:


If they had a true feature Back with Manning winging it all over the Field they'd be unstoppable.

[Canmore]

He didn't say he'd rather have the RB - just a productive, featured back. If fact, I'll quote him:

We definitely need some more balance in our attack. Can Ball be the back to keep defenses honest and pick up tough yards. The jury is out.

[BroncoJoe]

We definitely need some more balance in our attack. Can Ball be the back to keep defenses honest and pick up tough yards. The jury is out.

I hope they make a decision soon.

[Dzone]

If they have a stud running back this year it wont be Hillman.

[BroncoWave]

Look at the running backs of the last 10-15 super bowl champs and tell me how many were big time stud running backs. Not very many of them did. Now look at which ones had really good qbs. Most of them did. I'd rather have a great passing game than running game if I had to pick.

He didn't say he'd rather have the RB - just a productive, featured back. In fact, I'll quote him:


If they had a true feature Back with Manning winging it all over the Field they'd be unstoppable.

Thanks Joe. I'm sure Shazam can defend his own position.

[BroncoJoe]

Thanks Joe. I'm sure Shazam can defend his own position.

There was nothing for him to defend. Just you being your normal self, arguing a point that didn't exist; and me enjoying pointing it out.

[Ravage!!!]

It's really all anyone will talk about this year, unless the SB loser jinx bites us (heaven forbid.) We're running out of second chances, and last year was one of the all time epic Super Blowouts. 2-5 in Super Bowls, on the wrong side of its most lopsided scores. We need to get it done this time or there'll be a lot more of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPT1jny2eN0

But we've been to 7 SUper Bowls. Not many teams in the NFL can say that. YEs, many like YOU want to say we are running out of second chances (not sure that really makes sense). Personally, I'm glad we are a team that doesn't go 30 years between SUper Bowl appearances and isn't considered to be relevant. As far as "we need to get it done or there will be more of these".... I don't care if there are more of those. I never see those until soeone like you posts them. I always want to win, but I certainly don't want to win becuase there might be more of "those."

[Joel]

Look at the running backs of the last 10-15 super bowl champs and tell me how many were big time stud running backs. Not very many of them did. Now look at which ones had really good qbs. Most of them did. I'd rather have a great passing game than running game if I had to pick.
Yeah, who needs Ray Rice when you've got Joe Flacco, right? And Eli Manning's so consistently excellent it's not like they needed MULTIPLE stud RBs to win their last 2 SBs.

C'mon, Elways whole CAREER is like a case study in why a HoF QB with a great D but NO run game will always get shelled in SBs.

Without run game: 0-3, all of them blowouts, including the worst beating in 48 Super Bowls.
With run game: 2-0, back-to-back, making the defending champs play catch up for all but the first series of the first one before romping over a good Falcons team.

Re-watch the losses (if you dare) and it's easy to see the problem: Great defenses (which all the teams who beat us had) facing one-dimensional offenses can sell out on stopping that ONE thing they do well, knowing they have NO Plan B. Even if the QB's Elway or Manning, if stopping the offense just means stopping them, the D can blitz and drop everyone else in coverage every down, because they never need worry about the running game that isn't THERE. Why did Baltimore have 0:40 for a tying Hail Mary at the end of regulation 2 years ago?

Because we couldn't run for just TWO first downs. Northman said our SB playcalling was "predictable:" No kidding; how could it NOT be? Wilson's no star, but good enough Seattle has more options than "feed it to Lynch 40 times and hope their DC's braindead." What kept us in the game @NE, then lost it when Moreno got hurt after racking up 220 yds and leaving us with no one but fumblers? Why'd we win our low-scoring games against KC? Because Charles isn't an offense and their WRs had dropsy the first time, while Moreno ran over them the second time.

[Ravage!!!]

If they have a stud running back this year it wont be Hillman.

Hillman is going fine and will have a very defined role this year for this team. Look for Hillman to have a bigger role than imagined if Ball goes down.

[BroncoWave]

Thanks Joe. I'm sure Shazam can defend his own position.

There was nothing for him to defend. Just you being your normal self, arguing a point that didn't exist; and me enjoying pointing it out.

It's funny how you try to act like you aren't every bit the troll you like to accuse me of being.

[Joel]

But we've been to 7 SUper Bowls. Not many teams in the NFL can say that. YEs, many like YOU want to say we are running out of second chances (not sure that really makes sense). Personally, I'm glad we are a team that doesn't go 30 years between SUper Bowl appearances and isn't considered to be relevant. As far as "we need to get it done or there will be more of these".... I don't care if there are more of those. I never see those until soeone like you posts them. I always want to win, but I certainly don't want to win becuase there might be more of "those."
What, you've never seen the Simpsons? It's a pretty popular TV show tens of millions have watched weekly for decades; maybe ask your friends about it. :tongue:

Yes, we've been to 7 Super Bowls, more than all but 2 other teams—who both have MUCH better SB records. 6-2 Pittsburgh and 5-3 Dallas are tied for most SB, Conference Championship and playoff appearances, and the SOLE separation between the most and second most sucessful post-merger teams is their record against each other. We are... not that.

We're more like the Bills or Vikings, except some of their Super Bowl losses were close; ours have always been beatdowns: All FIVE of them; we got THAT record. LOSING more SBs than anyone is a dubious record in itself, but much worse when one considers the only reason last years humiliation isn't tied for the Worst. Loss. EVER! is because the 'Skins beat us by 10 pts MORE.

The world keeps turning, so this isn't the franchises last chance, but Peyton Manning's 38 (the same age Elway was when he set the record for oldest starting QB to win a SB, then immediately retired,) Welker's 33 and just had his 3rd concussion in <1 year, Champ's gone and we've got some big names due big money next season (e.g. TD, Harris.) We can't just keep throwing "win now" bank vaults at Talibs, Wards and Wares forever. When they and Manning go, we're back in rebuild mode. Last year was our second chance; this is the third, and the clock's ticking....

[Joel]

It's funny how you try to act like you aren't every bit the troll you like to accuse me of being.
Sorry, I couldn't help chuckling over how much that sounded like "It's ironic that you called us monsters, because I think you're actually the monster." Just goes to show, WHATEVER'S discussed on the internet, ALL internet debates pretty much go the same way. Someone needs to compare McDumbass to Hitler now. :tongue: http://chrisbucholz.com/2006/10/25/so-i-guess-i-got-kicked-off-another-my-little-pony-forum/

[Magnificent Seven]

Sorry to disagree with your disagreement. Not having all the players doesnt help but getting your ass whooped in all facets of the game 43-8 is more than just a few missing players. Not too mention the Broncos play calling was predictable and the Oline didnt do Manning any favors either. And unfortunately, the list you provided really only had one impact player who "maybe" would of made a difference and that is a big maybe (because he was out of shape and missed half the season) would be Von Miller. Wolfe has yet to show he can be a consistent force, Moore and Harris are ok but not world beaters and Dressen was the worse TE we had in our stable.

I understand your point.

[7DnBrnc53]

Yeah, who needs Ray Rice when you've got Joe Flacco, right? And Eli Manning's so consistently excellent it's not like they needed MULTIPLE stud RBs to win their last 2 SBs.

C'mon, Elways whole CAREER is like a case study in why a HoF QB with a great D but NO run game will always get shelled in SBs.

Without run game: 0-3, all of them blowouts, including the worst beating in 48 Super Bowls.
With run game: 2-0, back-to-back, making the defending champs play catch up for all but the first series of the first one before romping over a good Falcons team.

Re-watch the losses (if you dare) and it's easy to see the problem: Great defenses (which all the teams who beat us had) facing one-dimensional offenses can sell out on stopping that ONE thing they do well, knowing they have NO Plan B. Even if the QB's Elway or Manning, if stopping the offense just means stopping them, the D can blitz and drop everyone else in coverage every down, because they never need worry about the running game that isn't THERE. Why did Baltimore have 0:40 for a tying Hail Mary at the end of regulation 2 years ago?

Because we couldn't run for just TWO first downs. Northman said our SB playcalling was "predictable:) No kidding; how could it NOT be? Wilson's no star, but good enough Seattle has more options than "feed it to Lynch 40 times and hope their DC's braindead." What kept us in the game @NE, then lost it when Moreno got hurt after racking up 220 yds and leaving us with no one but fumblers? Why'd we win our low-scoring games against KC? Because Charles isn't an offense and their WRs had dropsy the first time, while Moreno ran over them the second time.

Joel, I don't even think that two of those teams that Elway took to the SB (the 1986 and 87 teams) had good defenses, let alone great ones.

The 1986 defense was good statistically, but those defenses were smoke and mirror units that needed to force turnovers to have success.

Also, this one guy I know said that Joe Collier stopped stunting his D-linemen as the 86 season went on, and they just looked like ordinary, try-hard guys after that.

The 1989 defense was the best of the three D's that Denver had. And, they did have a running game with Humphrey. However, SF was in a zone, and the Broncos didn't have any confidence at all going into that one (there were fans that didn't want to go that year). One mistake, and that game was going to get out of hand. And, Bobby Humphrey's fumble was that mistake. People forget that Denver was only down 7-3 near the end of quarter 1, and had just stopped the Niners. They also had the ball at midfield. Then, disaster struck, and it was over after that.

[DenBronx]

Funny how we could of got Eddie Lacy but passed.

[tomjonesrocks]

Funny how we could of got Eddie Lacy but passed.

Big mistake.

[Shazam!]

Look at the running backs of the last 10-15 super bowl champs and tell me how many were big time stud running backs. Not very many of them did. Now look at which ones had really good qbs. Most of them did. I'd rather have a great passing game than running game if I had to pick.

He didn't say he'd rather have the RB - just a productive, featured back. In fact, I'll quote him:


If they had a true feature Back with Manning winging it all over the Field they'd be unstoppable.

Thanks Joe. I'm sure Shazam can defend his own position.

Ummm, there is nothing to 'defend'. Jesus. Joe got my point, you just over analyzed it to death.

[Dzone]

Funny how we could of got Eddie Lacy but passed.
Ya but we have Hillman. lol

[MOtorboat]

Yeah, who needs Ray Rice when you've got Joe Flacco, right? And Eli Manning's so consistently excellent it's not like they needed MULTIPLE stud RBs to win their last 2 SBs.

Really?

Joe Flacco, 287 yards, 3 TDs
Ray Rice, 59 yards, 1.97 YPC, 0 TDs

It doesn't take a running game to win a Super Bowl anymore. The Ravens were ground and pound in 2000. They aren't now. It's not 1998 anymore, let alone 1986. There's no one formula. Actually, there is one formula. Score more points.

Guess whose in the best position to score more points? Denver. You can't team build any better than Elway has.

[7DnBrnc53]

Really?

Joe Flacco, 287 yards, 3 TDs
Ray Rice, 59 yards, 1.97 YPC, 0 TDs

It doesn't take a running game to win a Super Bowl anymore. The Ravens were ground and pound in 2000. They aren't now. It's not 1998 anymore, let alone 1986. There's no one formula. Actually, there is one formula. Score more points.

Guess whose in the best position to score more points? Denver. You can't team build any better than Elway has.

Well, then why aren't we World Champs, then?

And, why haven't the Pats won anything since they slowly changed the focus from running game to passing game?

[MOtorboat]

Well, then why aren't we World Champs, then?

And, why haven't the Pats won anything since they slowly changed the focus from running game to passing game?

Well, they aren't world champs because they didn't score more points than the team they played in the Super Bowl. I really don't mean that to sound how it does (smartass), but it's true.

Do you really believe Seattle is a better team? I don't. Is it close, and could a debate be had, sure. But any four of those championship teams could win the Super Bowl on any given day. The trick is being in the conversation.

But, again there's no definitive formula.

Since you mentioned the Patriots had more rushing yards last year than in 2001.
2014:
Rushing: 2065, 19.
Passing: 4087, 25
2001:
Rushing: 1793, 15.
Passing: 3089, 21.

And
2003:
Rushing: 1607, 9
Passing: 3432, 23

[VonDoom]

Really?

Joe Flacco, 287 yards, 3 TDs
Ray Rice, 59 yards, 1.97 YPC, 0 TDs

It doesn't take a running game to win a Super Bowl anymore. The Ravens were ground and pound in 2000. They aren't now. It's not 1998 anymore, let alone 1986. There's no one formula. Actually, there is one formula. Score more points.

Guess whose in the best position to score more points? Denver. You can't team build any better than Elway has.

I wanted to respond to that last night, but I forgot. You pretty much made my point. I don't remember what Rice did in the playoffs as a whole, but Flacco threw 11 TDs and 0 INT, and he got (over)paid for it. I wouldn't have used the 2012 Ravens as an example of a running game leading to a Super Bowl.

[Ravage!!!]

Joel, I don't even think that two of those teams that Elway took to the SB (the 1986 and 87 teams) had good defenses, let alone great ones.

The 1986 defense was good statistically, but those defenses were smoke and mirror units that needed to force turnovers to have success.

Also, this one guy I know said that Joe Collier stopped stunting his D-linemen as the 86 season went on, and they just looked like ordinary, try-hard guys after that.

The 1989 defense was the best of the three D's that Denver had. And, they did have a running game with Humphrey. However, SF was in a zone, and the Broncos didn't have any confidence at all going into that one (there were fans that didn't want to go that year). One mistake, and that game was going to get out of hand. And, Bobby Humphrey's fumble was that mistake. People forget that Denver was only down 7-3 near the end of quarter 1, and had just stopped the Niners. They also had the ball at midfield. Then, disaster struck, and it was over after that.

Joel doesn't know because he wasn't a Bronco fan then *cough*.... like he is today *cough*

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Funny how we could of got Eddie Lacy but passed.


There are reasons Lacy dropped. Fortunately for him he proved his skeptics wrong. I was happy with the pick of Ball, and I still am. It is way to early to make judgements about whether or not Ball was a good pick.

[VonDoom]

There are reasons Lacy dropped. Fortunately for him he proved his skeptics wrong. I was happy with the pick of Ball, and I still am. It is way to early to make judgements about whether or not Ball was a good pick.

Yeah, they've each played ONE year, and Ball wasn't even our feature back last year. Maybe a little too early to gnash our teeth about not taking Lacy ...

[tomjonesrocks]

Yeah, they've each played ONE year, and Ball wasn't even our feature back last year. Maybe a little too early to gnash our teeth about not taking Lacy ...

Yeah, I don't think it is. Lacy has a punishing running style that would have been ideal last season.

He might have a short career with the hits he takes, but Denver is all in for the short term anyway.

Denver took a RB with an average ceiling over a game changer. Have to call it when they blow it.

[Dzone]

Yeah, I don't think it is. Lacy has a punishing running style that would have been ideal last season.

He might have a short career with the hits he takes, but Denver is all in for the short term anyway.

Denver took a RB with an average ceiling over a game changer. Have to call it when they blow it.
Well said. I love M Ball and hope he produces lacy type numbers, but at this point it is hard to make an argument that we got the better back. Might change my mind if Ball goes nuts this year

[MOtorboat]

Way too early to judge. Way too early.

[Joel]

Joel, I don't even think that two of those teams that Elway took to the SB (the 1986 and 87 teams) had good defenses, let alone great ones.

The 1986 defense was good statistically, but those defenses were smoke and mirror units that needed to force turnovers to have success.

Also, this one guy I know said that Joe Collier stopped stunting his D-linemen as the 86 season went on, and they just looked like ordinary, try-hard guys after that.
They had mutiple guys with multiple Pro Bowl appearances, back when coaches alone made the call. Not just Mecklenburg, but Louis Wright and Dennis Smith, plus Rulon Jones had a couple.


The 1989 defense was the best of the three D's that Denver had. And, they did have a running game with Humphrey. However, SF was in a zone, and the Broncos didn't have any confidence at all going into that one (there were fans that didn't want to go that year). One mistake, and that game was going to get out of hand. And, Bobby Humphrey's fumble was that mistake. People forget that Denver was only down 7-3 near the end of quarter 1, and had just stopped the Niners. They also had the ball at midfield. Then, disaster struck, and it was over after that.
Humphrey was only marginally better than Winder, still nothing special. It probably didn't matter anyway, because the NFC consistently owned the AFC for the first 30 years after the merger, before Denver FINALLY established parity with back-to-back wins. Montana had Roger Craig to go with great D and WRs, so whoever they played was usually toast.

[Joel]

Joe Flacco, 287 yards, 3 TDs
Ray Rice, 59 yards, 1.97 YPC, 0 TDs
Flacco has a great 2012 postseason, pretty much the only time in his pro career anyone referred to him as "great." Ever think that had to do with a Ravens offense so one-dimensional every WEEK for YEARS that teams just sold out on stopping Rice and dared Flacco to beat them with his arm? Wasn't that our playoff gameplan, just like everyone else? He needed Hail Maries at the end of BOTH halves to stay in it, and a Manning DOT Int to win, or Flaccos great postseason would've ended before it began. But why was our great offense in DOUBLE OT at home?

Because Hillman could only get ONE first down on our final regulation drive. That ONE conversion would've been enough to end Flaccos season if Rahim "the Nightmare" were capable of the easiest most basic part of his job, but if Hillman manages a second first conversion once the Ravens are out of TOs and there's <1:00, Moore never gets the chance to be the goat: Baltimore loses, Brady plays the AFCCG at Mile High, where he's WINLESS in the playoffs, then we payback SF for 1989. Oh, well....


It doesn't take a running game to win a Super Bowl anymore. The Ravens were ground and pound in 2000. They aren't now. It's not 1998 anymore, let alone 1986. There's no one formula. Actually, there is one formula. Score more points.
Right; that's THE "point:" There are LOTS of ways to score points, so a team capable of ONLY one or two of them gives opponents a huge advantage.

Unlike Rahim Moore, MOST people even vaguely familiar with football know teams down a TD 70 yds from the end zone with 0:40 ALWAYS lose unless a safety lets someone get behind him.

Like Manning and Harbaugh, MOST people even vaguely familiar with football know teams up a TD with 3:00 left run the opponents out of TOs and always win if they get a first down.

If nothing else, those two routine endgames requires an offense be not only good, but BALANCED. If it's not, pretty much the WHOLE GAME becomes those situations, trying the ONE thing they do well while the D tries to STOP that one thing, because they know all the many other ways to score are beyond their limited opponents.


Guess whose in the best position to score more points? Denver. You can't team build any better than Elway has.
Guess which record-shattering passing only scored ONCE in the whole SB. On the LAST play of the 3rd quarter: Our great "offense" was SHUTOUT for 45:00.


Joel doesn't know because he wasn't a Bronco fan then *cough*.... like he is today *cough*
Still a football fan though; it's not like I stopped watching once the Oilers were out of the playoffs.

Incidentally, in terms of the whole "scoring the most points wins games," I think it's like 4 or 5 times in 48 SBs the seasons top scoring team was there, and NONE of them won. Offense wins games, but defense wins championships—so what wears down opposing defenses while resting ones own? Two minute drills that put your D right back on the field?

[Ravage!!!]

Yeah, I don't think it is. Lacy has a punishing running style that would have been ideal last season.

He might have a short career with the hits he takes, but Denver is all in for the short term anyway.

Denver took a RB with an average ceiling over a game changer. Have to call it when they blow it.

Thats a pretty ridiculous statement based on 1 season. NO WAY I would dare claim Lacy to be a "game changer".. for one. 2) Your "average ceiling" is a pretty strong statement with such a limited knowledge base.

I"m glad Elway isn't drafting for the "short term."

[7DnBrnc53]

They had mutiple guys with multiple Pro Bowl appearances, back when coaches alone made the call. Not just Mecklenburg, but Louis Wright and Dennis Smith, plus Rulon Jones had a couple.

Humphrey was only marginally better than Winder, still nothing special. It probably didn't matter anyway, because the NFC consistently owned the AFC for the first 30 years after the merger, before Denver FINALLY established parity with back-to-back wins. Montana had Roger Craig to go with great D and WRs, so whoever they played was usually toast.

They also had guys like Andre Townsend, Jim Ryan, Tony Lilly, Tony Colorito, Rick Dennison, and Jeremiah Castille who were either starters or major contributors in 1986 and 87. Those guys never sniffed a Pro Bowl. Those defenses were undersized, and they would get bullied by a team like Washington when it really counted.

As for Bobby Humphrey, he was more than marginally better than Winder. He had two 1,000 yards seasons his first two years. Winder only had one in nine years. I would take him over Roger Craig, who was an overrated system back that was washed up by 1989, and should have been traded after SB 24.

[Simple Jaded]

Joel I think you have Bobby Humphrey confused with Gerald Wilhite.

[Joel]

He had two decent years where he managed just over 1000 yds and right at 4.0/att; that's only marginally better than Winder. As for the '80 D, three All Pros ought to be enough unless the team expects Elway to be a one man offense; that always ends badly WHOEVER the HoF QB is.

[Joel]

NFL.com just reviewed teach teams expectations; for ut it boiled down to "reloaded D, but is Ball ready now that the SB proved teams still need to run to win championships?"

Our offense reminds me a lot of Landrys (ironic given how Broncos fans screamed that Reeves BLANDLY copied Landry,) except without a TD, Calvin Hill nor even a Dan Reeves. But, like Landrys Razzle Dazzle, there are many moving parts and subtle formation differences to totally confuse unfamiliar players, whether opposing teams or new arrivals on ours.

It's always spectacular, which was and is great for MNF. But against DCs with the experience to cover all bases so surprise twists(most of which they've seen before) don't burn them, that spectacle can look more like the Hindenburg than Apollo 11. Without a solid running game, even if it's only at an undazzling Joseph Addai level, the DCs job gets MUCH easier; it's basically taking no risks, keeping WRs in front of him, then waiting for Manning/Elway to get frustrated/hurrid and throw a pick. Weather the first surge, and you're OK.

Super Bowl XLVIII was hardly a first, as Elway knows better than anyone; we've seen plenty of teams take that approach with Manning. It takes a very talented D, but teams that had it (e.g. the Pats dynasties, last years Seahawks, the Saints' champs) have done pretty well against him, and the only one he beat on the biggest stage was a Bears team that just didn't have ANY offense to complement a D that played exceptionally against Mannings Colts. As in "if Chicago hadn't turned it over as many times as Indy, they win that game."

[MOtorboat]

One game doesn't "prove" shit.

[Joel]

One game doesn't "prove" shit.
Alright, what's the minimum quota then? Remember, SB XLVIII wasn't the worst beating in SB history: SB XXIV was. 4 of the top 10 SB beatings EVER are Broncos teams.

So how many championship games does it take to prove a pattern?

[MOtorboat]

Alright, what's the minimum quota then? Remember, SB XLVIII wasn't the worst beating in SB history: SB XXIV was. 4 of the top 10 SB beatings EVER are Broncos teams.

So how many championship games does it take to prove a pattern?

What pattern?

[7DnBrnc53]

He had two decent years where he managed just over 1000 yds and right at 4.0/att; that's only marginally better than Winder. As for the '80 D, three All Pros ought to be enough unless the team expects Elway to be a one man offense; that always ends badly WHOEVER the HoF QB is.

You really must not have watched the two play that much. Humphrey>>>>Winder (and I liked Sammy, but he was not a star).

Also, Elway was a one-man offense in 1986 and 87. That is why he won NFL MVP (although there are fools on this one board I go on that think Rice [The master of the two-yard TD catch] should have been MVP and not Elway) in 1987.

[Simple Jaded]

He had two decent years where he managed just over 1000 yds and right at 4.0/att; that's only marginally better than Winder. As for the '80 D, three All Pros ought to be enough unless the team expects Elway to be a one man offense; that always ends badly WHOEVER the HoF QB is.

Oh you were talking about stats? I thought you meant in reality, sorry to waste your time.

[BroncoWave]

What pattern?


Apparently Super Bowls that happened in the 80s are somehow relevant to how we build our team today. :lol:

[Simple Jaded]

Broncos offense = Tom Landry's offense = Dan Reeves offense?

That's an odd way of subversively promoting "the Broncos are better equipped to win a SB with Tebow's offense than Manning's" agenda but you gets points for creativity.

[Shazam!]

Joel, what the hell are you even talking about??

[Joel]

What pattern?
The pattern of pretty much every champion in nearly a century of NFL seasons needing a solid running game. This is FOOTBALL; do you seriously need to be TOLD running's VITAL?! Passing doesn't put seal narrow wins in the 4th quarter; it opens the door to comebacks. It doesn't keep the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys impotently watching their defenses exhausted by better teams resting their own and not allowing >4-5 chances for the game-winning 2:00 drills that make great QBs famous.

Living by the pass is for teams who aren't good enough to live by the run, and teams doing that have often been LUCKY enough to get away with it vs. semirandom regular season schedules, but their luck usually ran out quick when the playoffs started and ALL their opponents were GOOD enough Hail Maries couldn't cut it. In 90+ years, the exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one hand; pretty much Arnie Herbers Pack (4 championships, 2 before championship games existed,) '68 Jets and '76 Raiders.

[MOtorboat]

The pattern of pretty much every champion in nearly a century of NFL seasons needing a solid running game. This is FOOTBALL; do you seriously need to be TOLD running's VITAL?! Passing doesn't put seal narrow wins in the 4th quarter; it opens the door to comebacks. It doesn't keep the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys impotently watching their defenses exhausted by better teams resting their own and not allowing >4-5 chances for the game-winning 2:00 drills that make great QBs famous.

Living by the pass is for teams who aren't good enough to live by the run, and teams doing that have often been LUCKY enough to get away with it vs. semirandom regular season schedules, but their luck usually ran out quick when the playoffs started and ALL their opponents were GOOD enough Hail Maries couldn't cut it. In 90+ years, the exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one hand; pretty much Arnie Herbers Pack (4 championships, 2 before championship games existed,) '68 Jets and '76 Raiders.

OK? What does that have to do with Denver's Super Bowl losses. Nothing worked offensively in the last one, so I'm not really following anything you're saying.

Denver was above average in the run game last year, btw, so I'm not exactly sure what the **** it is you want.

[BroncoWave]

The pattern of pretty much every champion in nearly a century of NFL seasons needing a solid running game. This is FOOTBALL; do you seriously need to be TOLD running's VITAL?! Passing doesn't put seal narrow wins in the 4th quarter; it opens the door to comebacks. It doesn't keep the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys impotently watching their defenses exhausted by better teams resting their own and not allowing >4-5 chances for the game-winning 2:00 drills that make great QBs famous.

I hate to burst your bubble Joel, but here are some actual facts.

Since 2003, Super Bowl champions were, on average, ranked 11th in passing offense. They were ranked 16th in rushing offense. Dead middle of the pack. I'm sorry the actual facts go against what you are trying to argue, but it's simply not true that you need a great running game to win championships. It's much more vital to have a great passing attack.

Here is my source BTW:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-05/super-bowl-2012-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks

[Joel]

You really must not have watched the two play that much. Humphrey>>>>Winder (and I liked Sammy, but he was not a star).
Well, Humphrey only played 4 seasons, so I dare say MOST people haven't watched him play much. And I freely admit I only watched him play 3 games: The '89 playoffs, because neither Houston nor Dallas played Denver in '88 or '89, and he was hurt for most of his last season in Denver win Elway led The Drive II to beat Houston in the playoffs. Humphreys best season was '90, when he ran 288 times for 1202 yds (4.2 avg) and 7 TDs, with another 24 catches for 152 yds and 0 TDs. Those are pretty mediocre numbers; better than Winder, but not much.


Also, Elway was a one-man offense in 1986 and 87. That is why he won NFL MVP (although there are fools on this one board I go on that think Rice [The master of the two-yard TD catch] should have been MVP and not Elway) in 1987.
Right: And Doug freakin' Williams was SB MVP. A one-man offense and great D may be enough to reach the playoffs, even the SB if that one man's a first ballot HoFer—but CAN'T WIN SBs.

[Joel]

OK? What does that have to do with Denver's Super Bowl losses. Nothing worked offensively in the last one, so I'm not really following anything you're saying.
Nothing worked because there was only ONE thing that COULD'VE worked, so Seattle sold out on stopping it and ignored the running game that was no threat even if we went to it. Being one-dimensional can and certainly has cut both ways; a great running team that can't pass finds itself up against a lot of 8 men boxes, and when that leaves them down 2+ scores at the end of the 4th, there's not much they can do about it 3 yards and a cloud of dust at a time: They need to pass, and if they can't, they're boned.

NO one-dimensional offense can win a SB though, because SB defenses take away that ponys one trick, then beat it to death. It can only choose the MANNER of demise, NEVER avert it.


Denver was above average in the run game last year, btw, so I'm not exactly sure what the **** it is you want.
Denver was WELL BELOW average in running last year: 20th our of 32 in rushing average. We were right in the middle for TOTAL yardage (15th out of 32) because we were 7th in ATTEMPTS, but just because we ran a LOT doesn't mean we were getting much for it. We often found ourselves trying to kill the clock with 4th quarter leads, but rarely did it well.


I hate to burst your bubble Joel, but here are some actual facts.

Since 2003, Super Bowl champions were, on average, ranked 11th in passing offense. They were ranked 16th in rushing offense. Dead middle of the pack. I'm sorry the actual facts go against what you are trying to argue, but it's simply not true that you need a great running game to win championships. It's much more vital to have a great passing attack.

Here is my source BTW:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-05/super-bowl-2012-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks
You don't need a GREAT running game, but do need a RELIABLE one; it has to be good enough defenses respect it enough they don't sell out on stopping the pass, knowing you can't hurt them with the run even if they INVITE you to do so. And, again, that cuts both ways; if you pass so poorly they can shut you out by just selling out on the run, they'll do that just as quickly and effectively. The bottom line is a predictable offense is a dead offense, however good its players are at the ONLY thing their offense can do.

[MOtorboat]

You'd think Denver had the first pick of the draft if you read this shit.

[BroncoWave]

You don't need a GREAT running game, but do need a RELIABLE one;

Our running game was ranked 15th this past season, right in line with other recent Super Bowl champs. I would define that as reliable.

[Joel]

Our running game was ranked 15th this past season, right in line with other recent Super Bowl champs. I would define that as reliable.
In TOTAL yardage, yes; run enough times, you get lots of yards, and only 6 teams ran more than we did—but 19 AVERAGED more. Our TOTAL just shows we had a lot of second half leads.

[Joel]

You'd think Denver had the first pick of the draft if you read this shit.
You'd think Denver scored more than ONCE in the SB if you read the other crap. NO FIRST DOWNS till the SECOND quarter, and our ONLY score was the THIRD QUARTERS LAST PLAY.

We lost by 5 TDs to a pretty pedestrian offense, and that's the only stat that matters.

[MOtorboat]

Our running game was ranked 15th this past season, right in line with other recent Super Bowl champs. I would define that as reliable.

Seattle was 12th in YPC (all of 4 spots higher than Denver) with 4.3, so I'm not sure how they could have possibly won the Super Bowl. The Ravens were ranked 13th in 2012 (damn, that's low), and, I mean, the Giants were DEAD LAST in YPC in 2011. 2010? The Packers were 27th.

Needless to say, that stat does correlate Super Bowl championships. Joel, when you throw out stats like that to disparage the Broncos, do you research what other teams have done? Sure doesn't look like it.

[MOtorboat]

You'd think Denver scored more than ONCE in the SB if you read the other crap. NO FIRST DOWNS till the SECOND quarter, and our ONLY score was the THIRD QUARTERS LAST PLAY.

We lost by 5 TDs to a pretty pedestrian offense, and that's the only stat that matters.

Right. In the SUPER BOWL. The Broncos were better than 30 other teams.

[MOtorboat]

You'd think Denver scored more than ONCE in the SB if you read the other crap. NO FIRST DOWNS till the SECOND quarter, and our ONLY score was the THIRD QUARTERS LAST PLAY.

We lost by 5 TDs to a pretty pedestrian offense, and that's the only stat that matters.

16 teams. At least get your damn stats right.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/

[Simple Jaded]

Denver had a great D during the SB losses era? Is that what I'm reading?

[Joel]

Right. In the SUPER BOWL. The Broncos were better than 30 other teams.
Well, goody; here I was thinking we play for Lombardi Trophies: I never knew Hunt Trophies were good enough. The Bills and Vikings must be thrilled about that.


16 teams. At least get your damn stats right.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/
19 teams; not my fault the season summary rounds, so we're ALPHABETICALLY at the top of a 4-way tie for 17th. But if you do the math without rounding it goes:

17th Miami 4.1260745 yds/att
18th St. Louis 4.11267606 yds/att
19th Tennessee 4.0995671 yds/att
20th Denver 4.06290672 yds/att

That's why our our TEAM page at PFR says we were 20th in rushing average: Because WE WERE. And 15th in TOTAL yards because we were 11th in ATTEMPTS (not 7th; I did accidentally read off the rushing TD rank there.) And yes, Seattles 12th highest rushing average is a HELL of a lot better than our 20th highest rushing average.

My stats (and math) are just fine, thanks; I don't always like them, but division doesn't really care what I or anyone else likes: That's the great thing about math.

[Shazam!]

Denver's ground game was predicated by the pass. Seattle took away the pass, therefore the Backs wouldn't have been a threat. Also going toe to toe with Seattle at the time would've been a losing battle anyway. With Von and Ware this time, at least the D may fare better.

[Shazam!]

Denver had a great D during the SB losses era? Is that what I'm reading?

Yes you did, Joel was statistically speaking. But those stats came within the comfy confines of the AFC. But the stats meant nothing when they lined up against behemoths in NY and Washington and SF in the SBs.

[MOtorboat]

Well, goody; here I was thinking we play for Lombardi Trophies: I never knew Hunt Trophies were good enough. The Bills and Vikings must be thrilled about that.


19 teams; not my fault the season summary rounds, so we're ALPHABETICALLY at the top of a 4-way tie for 17th. But if you do the math without rounding it goes:

17th Miami 4.1260745 yds/att
18th St. Louis 4.11267606 yds/att
19th Tennessee 4.0995671 yds/att
20th Denver 4.06290672 yds/att

That's why our our TEAM page at PFR says we were 20th in rushing average: Because WE WERE. And 15th in TOTAL yards because we were 11th in ATTEMPTS (not 7th; I did accidentally read off the rushing TD rank there.) And yes, Seattles 12th highest rushing average is a HELL of a lot better than our 20th highest rushing average.

My stats (and math) are just fine, thanks; I don't always like them, but division doesn't really care what I or anyone else likes: That's the great thing about math.

Yup. Tell that to Browns, Lions, Jaguars and Texans fans. Tell them how playing in the Super Bowl is meaningless.

As to your "stats"... wow. Not only are we down to tenths, we're down to hundredths to prove your idiotic point?

Notice how he didn't address the YPC of the last four champions. Just the Broncos. We were tied for 17th. That means 16 teams were better than Denver, not 18.

[MOtorboat]

Come on Joel. Tell me how the Giants could be DEAD LAST in YPC and win the Super Bowl. I want to hear the explanation.

[Joel]

Denver's ground game was predicated by the pass. Seattle took away the pass, therefore the Backs wouldn't have been a threat.
That's exactly backward: Seattle had the luxury of selling out on the pass because we never had a ground game. They couldn't have rushed 4-5 guys at Manning and dropped the other 6-7 into coverage if they'd had to respect the run; if Chancellor's in the box to contain Moreno, he's not playing deep robber to pick Manning.


Also going toe to toe with Seattle at the time would've been a losing battle anyway. With Von and Ware this time, at least the D may fare better.
At least the D may fare better?! Our D played a GREAT SB, especially considering it was at half strength; even Elway said our D "kept us in it."

The D didn't give up a safety on the FIRST scrimmage play, but did keep Seattle out of the end zone.
The D didn't go three-and-out our next possession, but did once again keep Seattle out of our end zone.
The D didn't go three-and-Int our NEXT possession; it gave up a 22 yd TD "drive," but because of a short field and how long the D was on it (STILL took a Tony Carter endzone PI on 3rd and 4.)
The D didn't give up a pick-six on our FOURTH possession.
The D didn't give up a second half kickoff return TD to make it 29-0, but our Win Probability was already 0 even before that, so it no longer MATTERED what our D did/n't.

The Best. "Offense." EVER! got OWNED kickoff to gun: We HAD NO FIRST DOWNS TILL THE 2ND QUARTER and SPENT THE WHOLE 3RD QUARTER TRYING TO AVOID THE SBS FIRST. SHUTOUT. EVER!

[Joel]

Yup. Tell that to Browns, Lions, Jaguars and Texans fans. Tell them how playing in the Super Bowl is meaningless.
I know I say this a lot, but it evidently bears repeating: WE'RE NOT THE FREAKING BROWNS OR LIONS! The bar's set JUST a bit higher in Denver (and pretty much everywhere else.) Yea, we've done better than the last 3 expansion teams and the perpetually pitiful Lions; so have the Jets, Bills, Eagles, Falcons, Vikings, Cardinals etc. etc.


As to your "stats"... wow. Not only are we down to tenths, we're down to hundredths to prove your idiotic point?

Notice how he didn't address the YPC of the last four champions. Just the Broncos. We were tied for 17th. That means 16 teams were better than Denver, not 18.
You're the one screaming, "get your stats right:" We weren't "tied;" 19 other teams averaged more. Even 4.1 is subpar and nothing to write home about, but we must round UP to get there.


Come on Joel. Tell me how the Giants could be DEAD LAST in YPC and win the Super Bowl. I want to hear the explanation.
They raised their run game in the playoffs, same way Indys DEAD LAST 2006 run D raised theirs for a SB win.

@Atlanta, NY ran all over them after Mannings grounding safety; Jacobs averaged >6 yds and Bradshaw almost 5, and the team racked up a total of 172 yds on the ground.
@GB, Bradshaw averaged just over 5 yds/att, though Jacobs came back to earth with 2.44... yds/att that kept the team just under 100 total rushing yds.
@SF, Bradshaw only averaged 3.7 and Jacobs had next to nothing, but, against a great D on the road, Bradshaws numbers weren't horrible.

Then SB XLVI, whose iconic moment is Bradshaw running up the gut 6 yds for the go ahead score with 1:04 to play. Remember how he tried to go down at the 1 to run out the clock, but his momentum carried him in anyway? Too bad Manning didn't avoid that whole issue by throwing the ball in the dirt at the 1, right? Oh, wait; then it's 3rd and G at the 6 AND the clock stops. Granted, the 2011 Pats D wasn't what it used to be, but Bradshaw and Jacobs EACH averaged >4 yds/att, not against a generic regular season schedule, but vs. the AFC Champs.

So there's your answer: The Giants' last place regular season rushing got much better in the playoffs. I kept hoping we'd do the same (especially after Moreno iced the SD game with 3 straight runs for a total of 24 yds and the game-winning TD,) but no. Ball got that all important final first down against NE, but averaged <4 yds/att and Moreno was barely better; against SD, Balls averaged >5, but Moreno 3.5. And when we needed a score/conversion, we usually failed unless we went to the air (on 2nd and 2 at the end of the 3rd vs. SD, Moreno ran twice for -1.)

Seattle saw all that and gameplanned it. Trailing early reduced running options, sure, but much of that was because Seattle could focus exclusively on the pass: The run couldn't hurt them.

[Shazam!]

Joel, you proved my earlier point in different words.

This is why ive said over and over with a Featured Back and legitimate running game, the Broncos could be unstoppable.

As far as the D faring better I wasn't talking about the SB. Hell, I'm over it already. I'm talking about the upcoming Season. I didn't in any way mean the unit let us down in the SB. Perhaps I need to be more specific, or some people here need to not reconstruct people's posts as they deem necessary.

[Shazam!]

Btw fwiw u talk about past year's team like it was the worst offense in the NFL. Sure they weren't prepared for the game, that was on Fox and Co.

If they can SOMEHOW get through the Season and back to the SB, they'll be ready.

[BroncoWave]

Joel, you proved my earlier point in different words.

This is why ive said over and over with a Featured Back and legitimate running game, the Broncos could be unstoppable.

As far as the D faring better I wasn't talking about the SB. Hell, I'm over it already. I'm talking about the upcoming Season. I didn't in any way mean the unit let us down in the SB. Perhaps I need to be more specific, or some people here need to not reconstruct people's posts as they deem necessary.

You're right Shazam, if we just had superstars at every skill position, we'd be unstoppable! :lol:

Unfortunately due to the salary cap, the NFL just doesn't work like that. We already have a top 5 QB, top 5 WR, top 5 TE, and top 5 LT. Along with a top 5 LB on defense. You can only afford so many stud players. It would be nice to have a stud RB as well, but sadly this isn't Madden. There are just some positions where you are going to have to settle for average to above average. And given the way today's NFL works, I am fine with that position being running back.

[MOtorboat]

I know I say this a lot, but it evidently bears repeating: WE'RE NOT THE FREAKING BROWNS OR LIONS! The bar's set JUST a bit higher in Denver (and pretty much everywhere else.) Yea, we've done better than the last 3 expansion teams and the perpetually pitiful Lions; so have the Jets, Bills, Eagles, Falcons, Vikings, Cardinals etc. etc.


You're the one screaming, "get your stats right:" We weren't "tied;" 19 other teams averaged more. Even 4.1 is subpar and nothing to write home about, but we must round UP to get there.


They raised their run game in the playoffs, same way Indys DEAD LAST 2006 run D raised theirs for a SB win.

@Atlanta, NY ran all over them after Mannings grounding safety; Jacobs averaged >6 yds and Bradshaw almost 5, and the team racked up a total of 172 yds on the ground.
@GB, Bradshaw averaged just over 5 yds/att, though Jacobs came back to earth with 2.44... yds/att that kept the team just under 100 total rushing yds.
@SF, Bradshaw only averaged 3.7 and Jacobs had next to nothing, but, against a great D on the road, Bradshaws numbers weren't horrible.

Then SB XLVI, whose iconic moment is Bradshaw running up the gut 6 yds for the go ahead score with 1:04 to play. Remember how he tried to go down at the 1 to run out the clock, but his momentum carried him in anyway? Too bad Manning didn't avoid that whole issue by throwing the ball in the dirt at the 1, right? Oh, wait; then it's 3rd and G at the 6 AND the clock stops. Granted, the 2011 Pats D wasn't what it used to be, but Bradshaw and Jacobs EACH averaged >4 yds/att, not against a generic regular season schedule, but vs. the AFC Champs.

So there's your answer: The Giants' last place regular season rushing got much better in the playoffs. I kept hoping we'd do the same (especially after Moreno iced the SD game with 3 straight runs for a total of 24 yds and the game-winning TD,) but no. Ball got that all important final first down against NE, but averaged <4 yds/att and Moreno was barely better; against SD, Balls averaged >5, but Moreno 3.5. And when we needed a score/conversion, we usually failed unless we went to the air (on 2nd and 2 at the end of the 3rd vs. SD, Moreno ran twice for -1.)

Seattle saw all that and gameplanned it. Trailing early reduced running options, sure, but much of that was because Seattle could focus exclusively on the pass: The run couldn't hurt them.

It improved to 4.1 per carry. What was Denver's YPC: 4.1. You're arguments aren't consistent. Either way, the whole team lost the Super Bowl. The problem wasn't the offense. Elway knew that, so what did he do? He fixed the defense.

[Simple Jaded]

If this thread is any indication, even if Denver found a way to win the SB Joel would find something to bitch about, if for no other reason than to prove he was right.

[BroncoWave]

If this thread is any indication, even if Denver found a way to win the SB Joel would find something to bitch about, if for no other reason than to prove he was right.

If it were a close win, he would complain that we didn't win by enough and that we almost lost. The Denver Broncos don't ALMOST lose Super Bowls. We are better than that!

[Simple Jaded]

If it were a close win, he would complain that we didn't win by enough and that we almost lost. The Denver Broncos don't ALMOST lose Super Bowls. We are better than that!

If they won big he'd talk about how the real NFC team lost in the playoffs before exposing how Denver can't win the big one.

[Canmore]

If they won big he'd talk about how the real NFC team lost in the playoffs before exposing how Denver can't win the big one.

I think we are being hard on Joel, just a little.

[CrazyHorse]

If it were a close win, he would complain that we didn't win by enough and that we almost lost. The Denver Broncos don't ALMOST lose Super Bowls. We are better than that!

I hope we rematch the Seahawks and beat them by a single point like 24-23. It would be even sweeter if it happens by something like a blocked field goal. That would be so much better than blowing them out which I hope we do when we play them during the regular season.

[Shazam!]

Joel, you proved my earlier point in different words.

This is why ive said over and over with a Featured Back and legitimate running game, the Broncos could be unstoppable.

As far as the D faring better I wasn't talking about the SB. Hell, I'm over it already. I'm talking about the upcoming Season. I didn't in any way mean the unit let us down in the SB. Perhaps I need to be more specific, or some people here need to not reconstruct people's posts as they deem necessary.

You're right Shazam, if we just had superstars at every skill position, we'd be unstoppable! :lol:

Unfortunately due to the salary cap, the NFL just doesn't work like that. We already have a top 5 QB, top 5 WR, top 5 TE, and top 5 LT. Along with a top 5 LB on defense. You can only afford so many stud players. It would be nice to have a stud RB as well, but sadly this isn't Madden. There are just some positions where you are going to have to settle for average to above average. And given the way today's NFL works, I am fine with that position being running back.

Every post you make is like from an insane person. You have all these whacko assumptions that you love to make with the need to appear witty or clever and it's a fail.

I nowhere ever said the Broncos needed to break the bank on a Back, and me stating the desire for this team having a Featured Back doesn't imply such either.

Please stop with the ridiculous assumptions on all my posts. Tia.

[TXBRONC]

Denver had a great D during the SB losses era? Is that what I'm reading?

Yep.

[Simple Jaded]

I think we are being hard on Joel, just a little.

You haven't said much of anything to my recollection, so by "we" you mean "Jaded". Fair enough, guilty, truth is he drives me up a wall. I think he goes out of his way to be negative and when he's actually positive it feels forced to me. I feel like there's an angle or agenda, and an arrogant Know-it-all to him that makes it almost impossible for me to take him seriously. He'll admit he hated the Broncos in one post and then lecture Broncos fans on the history of their team in the next

And here's the thing, he's relentless, he never stops and he never admits he's wrong, he's the ******* Terminator of negatively, he puts himself out there, so if it's difficult for him maybe he should lighten the **** up himself. Maybe it'd be a little easier to tolerate.

[TXBRONC]

You haven't said much of anything to my recollection, so by "we" you mean "Jaded". Fair enough, guilty, truth is he drives me up a wall. I think he goes out of his way to be negative and when he's actually positive it feels forced to me. I feel like there's an angle or agenda, and an arrogant Know-it-all to him that makes it almost impossible for me to take him seriously. He'll admit he hated the Broncos in one post and then lecture Broncos fans on the history of their team in the next

And here's the thing, he's relentless, he never stops and he never admits he's wrong, he's the ******* Terminator of negatively, he puts himself out there, so if it's difficult for him maybe he should lighten the **** up himself. Maybe it'd be a little easier to tolerate.

Canmore doesn't mean just you.

[Canmore]

You haven't said much of anything to my recollection, so by "we" you mean "Jaded". Fair enough, guilty, truth is he drives me up a wall. I think he goes out of his way to be negative and when he's actually positive it feels forced to me. I feel like there's an angle or agenda, and an arrogant Know-it-all to him that makes it almost impossible for me to take him seriously. He'll admit he hated the Broncos in one post and then lecture Broncos fans on the history of their team in the next

And here's the thing, he's relentless, he never stops and he never admits he's wrong, he's the ******* Terminator of negatively, he puts himself out there, so if it's difficult for him maybe he should lighten the **** up himself. Maybe it'd be a little easier to tolerate.

Lol, I knew this post would draw some ire. No, I'm not singling anybody out. I read most of Joel's posts but not all. Sometimes I just pass on the wall of words. Sometimes I think he is Chicken Little and the Little Red Hen all rolled up into one. Still, some and I mean some of what he has to say has merit. Is he relentless? Yes! Is he annoying? Just read the responses to his posts. Still, I think he has something to add to this forum. That's all I'm saying. Flame away.

[Simple Jaded]

No flame, no ire, no offense taken. I'll own it.

[Canmore]

No flame, no ire, no offense taken. I'll own it.

Thanks. Nice to hear that. Just saying, Joel has some points. Points we often time don't want to hear. He is just annoying as heck about delivering them. Wall of words.

[7DnBrnc53]

Just watched the SB highlight film a few hours ago on NFL Network. That game was a joke. There was something wrong with that Denver team.

Maybe bad vibes from that Baltimore loss and all of the injuries they had caught up to them, and by SB Sunday, they were a shell of themselves.

We will see the real Broncos in Week 3. Richard Sherman, you better run and hide. Broncos 34. Seahawks 17!!!

[MOtorboat]

Just watched the SB highlight film a few hours ago on NFL Network. That game was a joke. There was something wrong with that Denver team.

Maybe bad vibes from that Baltimore loss and all of the injuries they had caught up to them, and by SB Sunday, they were a shell of themselves.

We will see the real Broncos in Week 3. Richard Sherman, you better run and hide. Broncos 34. Seahawks 17!!!

You were deceived. The only thing wrong was the running game.

[7DnBrnc53]

Quote Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53 View Post
Just watched the SB highlight film a few hours ago on NFL Network. That game was a joke. There was something wrong with that Denver team.

Maybe bad vibes from that Baltimore loss and all of the injuries they had caught up to them, and by SB Sunday, they were a shell of themselves.

We will see the real Broncos in Week 3. Richard Sherman, you better run and hide. Broncos 34. Seahawks 17!!!

You were deceived. The only thing wrong was the running game.


If that was the only thing that was wrong, then why did we lose 43-8?


Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Denver had a great D during the SB losses era? Is that what I'm reading?

Yep.

There is no way that we had a great D in those days. Great defenses don't give up over 400 yards rushing in two straight SB losses, and 35 points in one quarter.

What is funny about this is that the people I debate sometimes on Football's Future try to say that Denver's D was more responsible for them going to those SB's because they will do anything to discredit Elway.

When I ridiculed Dan Reeves' offense, and said that Steve Watson called it the Edsel System, they said that Dan Reeves made Chris Chandler in Atlanta, which wasn't true. Chandler credited Jerry Rhome in Houston with turning his career around, not Reeves.

[Slick]

You were deceived. The only thing wrong was the running game.

Don't be a douchebag, Mo.

[Nomad]

One game and one win at a time, BRONCOS! Up for the BRONCOS first victim.......the Colts.