PDA

View Full Version : I'd officially like to put this staff on the hot seat.



Pages : [1] 2

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 09:51 PM
John fox you better get this thing going. I'm laying the heat at your door

Yes I realize we're 2-0 I'm just seeing a worse offense and defense this year.

Slick
09-14-2014, 09:58 PM
Sleep it off bro. It's week two.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:02 PM
I guess Bills fans used to be like this also.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 10:19 PM
I guess Bills fans used to be like this also.eh, so the Denver broncos are above reproach? Oh and how many superbowls did buffalo win again? 4 trips 4 losses.that's right.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:22 PM
eh, so the Denver broncos are above reproach? Oh and how many superbowls did buffalo win again? 4 trips 4 losses.that's right.

One day you'll look back and resent being miserable during a good run.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 10:23 PM
Sleep it off bro. It's week two.

Its week two you're right. We've got enough of a sample size with fox to be able to determine strengths and weaknesses. From my viewpoint nothing has changed from last year.. I guess I just hold my team to a fairly high standard.

silkamilkamonico
09-14-2014, 10:26 PM
The good news for the staff is it really doesn't matter what happens at any time except the SuperBowl.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 10:33 PM
One day you'll look back and resent being miserable during a good run.

You're pretty full of fail tonight. 1st with your buffalo statement and with this one. I'm happy were a good team am I complacent? Absoloutly not. Will I hold my team to a higher standard. Yup. I know what their capable of and we ain't seeing it and I think a lot of it comes from the coaching staff... So feel free to let the grown ups talk and go outside and play.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:36 PM
You're pretty full of fail tonight. 1st with your buffalo statement and with this one. I'm happy were a good team am I complacent? Absoloutly not. Will I hold my team to a higher standard. Yup. I know what their capable of and we ain't seeing it and I think a lot of it comes from the coaching staff... So feel free to let the grown ups talk and go outside and play.

Ok I'm going to need you to cheer as loud as possible vs Seattle. Dig down deep!

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 10:40 PM
You guys knew the offense had very little chance of repeating last seasons success, didn't you?

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:41 PM
You guys knew the offense had very little chance of repeating last seasons success, didn't you?

Quit being complacent.

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 10:44 PM
Quit being complacent.

I need to reexamine my standards and let the grown ups bitch. . .er, I mean talk.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 10:46 PM
Ok I'm going to need you to cheer as loud as possible vs Seattle. Dig down deep!it would have been easier if you would have said, I have nothing relevant to say... Everything I say will only be a attempt to troll you or be factualy in accurate. Listen junior, bring someething to the conversation I can handle a dissenting view. I do however have a low tolerance for simpletons.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 10:48 PM
I need to reexamine my standards and let the grown ups bitch. . .er, I mean talk.make stupid comments, get treated like a bitch.

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 10:49 PM
Calm down Indy, damn, you were the first to get personal, in a post lecturing about maturity no less.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:51 PM
it would have been easier if you would have said, I have nothing relevant to say... Everything I say will only be a attempt to troll you or be factualy in accurate. Listen junior, bring someething to the conversation I can handle a dissenting view. I do however have a low tolerance for simpletons.

Ok:

Firing Fox 2 games in at 2-0 is probably a wee bit reactionary and would be perceived across the league as what's known as lame.

Signed,

Emo Simpleton

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 10:52 PM
Bookie needs his money by 5. TIA.

OB
09-14-2014, 10:57 PM
Agree. If it weren't for a play or two we would easily be 0-2

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:02 PM
Calm down Indy, damn, you were the first to get personal, in a post lecturing about maturity no less.I have a low tolerance for bullshit, don't agree with me that's fine. I don't expect it. But hey feel free to be condescending and trollish on ignore.

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:03 PM
Agree. If it weren't for a play or two we would easily be 0-2

To be fair, if it weren't for a play or two the score could be a lot more lopsided, dropped passes, drive killing/extending penalties.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:05 PM
Ok:

Firing Fox 2 games in at 2-0 is probably a wee bit reactionary and would be perceived across the league as what's known as lame.

Signed,

Emo Simpletonyou seriously lack in the reading comprehension dept. Where is I said fox needed fired this week? Where did I even say he needed fired? I said he was on my hot seat. That's it

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:05 PM
you seriously lack in the reading comprehension dept. Where is I said fox needed fired this week? Where did I even say he needed fired? I said he was on my hot seat. That's it

Ignore me now!

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:07 PM
I have a low tolerance for bullshit, don't agree with me that's fine. I don't expect it. But hey feel free to be condescending and trollish on ignore.

What bullshit, exactly? Dude compared this situation to the Bills and wondered if their fans were spoiled, that's it.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:09 PM
Ignore me now!granted. You should really stop and think before you post.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:10 PM
What bullshit, exactly? Dude compared this situation to the Bills and wondered if their fans were spoiled, that's it.

Imagine trading places with the chiefs. 1993 etc. And in our lifetime the odds of that happening are real. And it will suck. I'll get Montag on here tomorrow. We will ask him what it's like to turn on the tv knowing the last time they won a playoff game he barely had pubes.

2-0 and no injuries. :boner:

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:10 PM
granted. You should really stop and think before you post.

Noted Hot Seat. Noted.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:13 PM
What bullshit, exactly? Dude compared this situation to the Bills and wondered if their fans were spoiled, that's it.I don't think a worse comparison could have been listed

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:16 PM
Well. This is ******* hilarious.

Good joke. I commend.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:17 PM
Well. This is ******* hilarious.

Good joke. I commend.

Go get him Mo.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:17 PM
Go get him Mo.

Wait.

I thought this was a joke thread.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:20 PM
Wait.

I thought this was a joke thread.wait.

You have something worthwhile to say?

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:22 PM
Imagine trading places with the chiefs. 1993 etc. And in our lifetime the odds of that happening are real. And it will suck. I'll get Montag on here tomorrow. We will ask him what it's like to turn on the tv knowing the last time they won a playoff game he barely had pubes.

2-0 and no injuries. :boner:

If we're turning on the hot seat at 2-0 I can see an Al Davisesque run of HCing changes that could result in that kind of streak.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:23 PM
wait.

You have something worthwhile to say?

The Broncos current coaching staff is 37-17 with three division titles and one AFC Division Championship in three seasons.

Do you have something worthwhile to say?

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:23 PM
If we're turning on the hot seat at 2-0 I can see an Al Davisesque run of HCing changes that could result in that kind of streak.

We were headed down that path. It was scary and dark like your colon. Reactive instead of proactive.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:25 PM
The Broncos current coaching staff is 37-17 with three division titles and one AFC Division Championship in three seasons.

Do you have something worthwhile to say?would you agree this team is championship caliber?

I also remember a devastating loss to the ravens two years ago and last year one of the biggest blowouts in Superbowl history where we got destroyed.

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:26 PM
We were headed down that path. It was scary and dark like your colon. Reactive instead of proactive.
Scary, dark and full of impacted feces.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:27 PM
would you agree this team is championship caliber?

I also remember a devastating loss to the ravens two years ago and last year one of the biggest blowouts in Superbowl history where we got destroyed.

Yes. It is championship caliber. Why do you think it's championship caliber? Because the front office and coaching sucks?

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:27 PM
Do you think we were not out coached today motor... Serious question

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:28 PM
Do you think we were not out coached today motor... Serious question

No. Denver 24, Kansas City 17

Serious question. Do you think you win three division titles and go to a Super Bowl with a subpar coaching staff?

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:29 PM
I don't think a worse comparison could have been listed

The Raiders are a worse comparison, the Browns, for the point he was making I don't think there's a better one. Maybe the current 49ers.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:30 PM
Yes. It is championship caliber. Why do you think it's championship caliber? Because the front office and coaching sucks?I think Elway has done. Outstanding job as GM. The only part I don't like is the loss of Knowshon. Everything else I've been complimentary of.
I am however criticizing the head coach, the offensive game plan at times. The defense was atrocious today. We seen the same thing last year where this team would be bi polar... Remember new england last year as a point of emphasis

And Fox's not to shabby comment

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:33 PM
No. Denver 24, Kansas City 17

Serious question. Do you think you win three division titles and go to a Super Bowl with a subpar coaching staff?with the talent on this team. Yes. Peyton has been carrying teams for years. There was speculation this could have been Denver's best team ever. So yes I think its possible

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:34 PM
Only win by 7: FIRE THE COACHES.

Seriously, this is a joke, right?

Joker56
09-14-2014, 11:35 PM
Ok,we played really bad ,both D and O but we WON Both games .
This team is not last years team,its still jelling,last year we already topped off in 1st game.
Yes,we all want better D and O,still we are 2-0,when New Orleans is 0-2 some other teams bad.
Hopefully we will get better ...
I been a Broncos fan for 43 years,seen bad,good,worst and GREAT ....

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:36 PM
The Raiders are a worse comparison, the Browns, for the point he was making I don't think there's a better one. Maybe the current 49ers.

My point was once great team that has been irrelavent for years. The Packers experienced that suck for a long time.

Joker56
09-14-2014, 11:37 PM
Ok,we played really bad ,both D and O but we WON Both games .
This team is not last years team,its still jelling,last year we already topped off in 1st game.
Yes,we all want better D and O,still we are 2-0,when New Orleans is 0-2 some other teams bad.
Hopefully we will get better ...
I been a Broncos fan for 43 years,seen bad,good,worst and GREAT ....

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:39 PM
Only win by 7: FIRE THE COACHES.

Seriously, this is a joke, right?coaches have been on the hot seat before and not been fired. I get it the broncos are abov any sort of criticism with you.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:39 PM
So, say they fire this staff in Week 2.

Who do they hire?

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:40 PM
So, say they fire this staff in Week 2.

Who do they hire?

June Jones is available.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:40 PM
coaches have been on the hot seat before and not been fire. I get it the broncos are abov any sort of criticism with you.

Coming off two 13-3 seasons, you're right, I'll refrain from criticism, especially reactionary tripe, until at least the playoffs.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:41 PM
June Jones is available.

I thought he was coaching SMU.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:41 PM
Jerry Glanville anyone?

Simple Jaded
09-14-2014, 11:42 PM
My point was once great team that has been irrelavent for years. The Packers experienced that suck for a long time.

Oh, I guess you made two great points at once, well done sir.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:43 PM
I thought he was coaching SMU.

Oh yeah the pony hasn't reached your town yet.

He resigned Mo. Sad.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:45 PM
Oh yeah the pony hasn't reached your town yet.

He resigned Mo. Sad.

Hot damn!

He had promise!

I'm telling you, that Dickerson kid had talent, he just needed to be coached up.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:45 PM
Oh, I guess you made two great points at once, well done sir.

The packers were so bad they played a couple games a year in Milwaukee because those sausage smellers didn't want to drive up.

Imagine the Broncos playing a couple games a year in Byers.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:45 PM
Coming off two 13-3 seasons, you're right, I'll refrain from criticism, especially reactionary tripe, until at least the playoffs.2nd place is the first place loser.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:46 PM
2nd place is the first place loser.

Like a spider monkey.

BeefStew25
09-14-2014, 11:46 PM
Pain is weakness leaving your rectum.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 11:47 PM
Like a spider monkey.I see this is going no where.

MOtorboat
09-14-2014, 11:49 PM
I see this is going no where.

Well, do you have a legitimate point, or not?

aberdien
09-14-2014, 11:59 PM
Firing Marty Schottenheimer sure worked for the Chargers, so **** Fox!

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:03 AM
Well, do you have a legitimate point, or not? I have better things to do in life then explain a point to a couple of fellas who just sticke their fingers in the ears and scream nahh nqhhh

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:05 AM
Firing Marty Schottenheimer sure worked for the Chargers, so **** Fox!how many superbowls did he bring those teams? He was natorious for his teams falling on their face in the playoffs

MOtorboat
09-15-2014, 12:06 AM
I have better things to do in life then explain a point to a couple of fellas who just sticke their fingers in the ears and scream nahh nqhhh

Well go ahead, then. Explain.

NightTrainLayne
09-15-2014, 12:07 AM
Firing Marty Schottenheimer sure worked for the Chargers, so **** Fox!

I still can't believe they did that. I chuckle about it often. Especially the fact of how most of the Chargers fan base was on board with it. Lmao.

BeefStew25
09-15-2014, 12:07 AM
I still can't believe they did that. I chuckle about it often. Especially the fact of how most of the Chargers fan base was on board with it. Lmao.

What was that ******* GM's name? He was a major *****.

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:09 AM
Well go ahead, then. Explain.see you already are not understanding

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:10 AM
I still can't believe they did that. I chuckle about it often. Especially the fact of how most of the Chargers fan base was on board with it. Lmao.how many superbowls did he have with San Diego?

MOtorboat
09-15-2014, 12:10 AM
see you already are not understanding

Then educate me.

MOtorboat
09-15-2014, 12:11 AM
how many superbowls did he have with San Diego?

Less than John Fox?

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:17 AM
Less than John Fox?I have better things to do. I'm not gonna play spin deflect personal attack with you.

aberdien
09-15-2014, 12:17 AM
how many superbowls did he bring those teams? He was natorious for his teams falling on their face in the playoffs

But that was as close as they've been since they last made a superbowl in the 90s. We've made a Superbowl. We played a superior team and lost. Fox has been to the superbowl twice.

I don't even particularly like Fox. He is way conservative and unexceptional, IMO. But he works for what this team is. He is a great team manager. He isn't an egomaniac like past coaches we've had, he can manage the personalities and give Peyton enough room to be Peyton and do what he does. Very much like Dungy. I simply don't think we've really lived up to our potential, both last year and so far this year. But we made a Superbowl last year while not living all the way up to our potential, which is a fantastic feat. We still need to work on our toughness, both on offense and defense, physical and mental. That will come with time I think given the amount of new players on the defense in particular. I'm not worried. In fact, i'm encouraged that we managed to have two strong defensive stands in a row in positions where we blew it in the past (vs Ravens, Patriots, etc). I'd rather win a bunch of close games that happens to create the toughness we've been looking for than have blowouts all the time and not know how it feels to play from behind or on edge like last season. Regardless, we won't be winning the Superbowl playing like we have in the last two games. But it's been two weeks. Limit the mistakes and we'll be good.

Is it possible that Fox is the reason why we suck? Sure. But I can't really imagine Peyton coexisting with a coach who isn't a Fox/Dungy kind of guy. There's a reason why he chose to play for Elway and Fox instead of John Harbaugh. So it goes.

NightTrainLayne
09-15-2014, 12:18 AM
how many superbowls did he have with San Diego?

Lol.

I like to play poker. I play poker all the time. Especially Texas hold 'em.

Even people who know nothing about poker know that AA is the best starting hand you can be dealt. But over the course of years, I imagine I've lost more with AA than I have with just about any other random starting hand.

Because statistics. Because random.

Should I quit playing AA because I've lost a bunch with it? The Chargers former GM A. J. Smith says yes. And apparently so do you.

MOtorboat
09-15-2014, 12:21 AM
I have better things to do. I'm not gonna play spin deflect personal attack with you.

I'd listen if you had a legitimate point.

Make one, and I'll debate the point.

BeefStew25
09-15-2014, 12:25 AM
AJ Smith. That was him. What a fraud.

NightTrainLayne
09-15-2014, 12:29 AM
AJ Smith. That was him. What a fraud.

Just looking at him, he exuded *******.

BeefStew25
09-15-2014, 12:30 AM
Just looking at him, he exuded *******.

Like McDaniels but not a coach. Smarmy.

broncosinindy
09-15-2014, 12:31 AM
Lol.

I like to play poker. I play poker all the time. Especially Texas hold 'em.

Even people who know nothing about poker know that AA is the best starting hand you can be dealt. But over the course of years, I imagine I've lost more with AA than I have with just about any other random starting hand.

Because statistics. Because random.

Should I quit playing AA because I've lost a bunch with it? The Chargers former GM A. J. Smith says yes. And apparently so do you.I don't know the odds on AA being a failed hand. I'd say its at least a 50/50 shot at winnimg.



Schoteheimer teams also started extremely slow and were underachievers. Is the grass always greener no.

So question is this team a suces if they don't win the Superbowl... What is a success for you

NightTrainLayne
09-15-2014, 12:32 AM
Like McDaniels but not a coach. Smarmy.

He couldn't stand Schottenheimer, and vice-versa.

Timmy!
09-15-2014, 12:43 AM
:lol: I'm so happy I don't post on game day anymore.

Timmy!
09-15-2014, 01:00 AM
Speaking of educating, out of the 32 teams in the NFL, there has to be a ton of unbeatens after just week 2 right? I will wait while you name 7 of them......

JPPT1974
09-15-2014, 01:08 AM
Just we should not had gotten ten penalties on defense. Really nearly gave the Chiefs the game!

WARHORSE
09-15-2014, 03:32 AM
Its week TWO.


Id rather be in the position we are in versus we had blown out Indy and blown out the chefs today. If we play bad, and still win......I'll take it.


Id rather have a team that knew it could be beat come playoff time.


mwuahahahahaaaaa!

Dreadnought
09-15-2014, 08:10 AM
"Having a Super Bowl Ring is the one and only measure of a Great NFL head Coach"*

- signed, Barry Switzer























* This is not in fact an actual quote by the real Barry Switzer. I totally made it up. Just to be clear.

BroncoNut
09-15-2014, 08:30 AM
John fox you better get this thing going. I'm laying the heat at your door

Yes I realize we're 2-0 I'm just seeing a worse offense and defense this year.

glad you started this Indy. not liking what I've seen so far. defense especially, some solid play in the secondary, but other than that, generally soft.

BroncoNut
09-15-2014, 08:30 AM
and oh, Seattle's gonna embarrass us again on Sunday

Northman
09-15-2014, 08:37 AM
The good news for the staff is it really doesn't matter what happens at any time except the SuperBowl.

Yea, we saw how that one played out. :lol:

Northman
09-15-2014, 08:39 AM
To be fair, if it weren't for a play or two the score could be a lot more lopsided, dropped passes, drive killing/extending penalties.

Which is why some people are concerned. Im not advocating firing Fox but the first two games have been less than stellar, especially for a team that really should be firing on all cylinders.

Mike
09-15-2014, 08:43 AM
It is nice to be at 2-0. I thought going into the bye at 2-1 would be a good thing for Denver.

I don't expect the offense to be record-setting like last year. But what is more troubling is that there is no growth from last year. Denver is still the same soft team with an average (and that is being kind) coaching staff and questionable leadership. This is the same team as last year.

Now, maybe Denver is holding back some of the cards and playing the first two games close to the chest looking to Seattle next week. But even a vanilla Denver team should curb stomp a team like KC...especially in Denver. KC was a lucky team last year, lost talent in the offseason, and have major injury problems. And it still doesn't talk about the overall lack of discipline and simple fundamentals of the sport that consistently plagues this team.

Coaching is a problem in Denver. But what should we expect from a coach that is satisfied with second best.

Northman
09-15-2014, 08:49 AM
But what is more troubling is that there is no growth from last year. Denver is still the same soft team with an average (and that is being kind) coaching staff and questionable leadership. This is the same team as last year.


Coaching is a problem in Denver. But what should we expect from a coach that is satisfied with second best.


Exactly.

Buff
09-15-2014, 10:13 AM
John Fox is an outstanding leader of men and a below average in-game decision maker.

slim
09-15-2014, 10:43 AM
it would have been easier if you would have said, I have nothing relevant to say... Everything I say will only be a attempt to troll you or be factualy in accurate. Listen junior, bring someething to the conversation I can handle a dissenting view. I do however have a low tolerance for simpletons.

This post is full of irony.

chazoe60
09-15-2014, 11:11 AM
I'm bet Fox and the staff are very concerned that the OP has officially put them on the hot seat.

BeefStew25
09-15-2014, 11:13 AM
I'm bet Fox and the staff are very concerned that the OP has officially put them on the hot seat.

Dove Valley is on war footing right now. Every man at his station.

TXBRONC
09-15-2014, 11:22 AM
coaches have been on the hot seat before and not been fired. I get it the broncos are abov any sort of criticism with you.

Indy this doesn't sound like just criticism. It looks to me like there is advocacy for firing Fox just for not winning by more points and looking good while they do it. The struggles don't exist in a vacuum. Miller and Ball are still working themselves into game shape. Welker is still suspended until further notice and his place is 5th or 6th option receiver. I'm confident they will get going.

Joel
09-15-2014, 11:35 AM
The good news for the staff is it really doesn't matter what happens at any time except the SuperBowl.
It matters throughout the playoffs; that's why we were a one-and-done top seed two years ago.
It matters during the season; just ONE more loss last year and the AFCCG's in NE, where Manning's NEVER won a playoff game, instead of the place BRADY'S winless in the playoffs.
EVERY game matters until/unless we clinch playoff homefield, and even then once the playoffs start. Yes, it's only Week 2: That means our division/homefield Magic Numbers are 14.

I REALLY wish SD had lost yesterday; we were already headed to a road game vs. the SB Champs who know full well we're looking for payback, but they'll be figuratively and physically amped now, using every dirty trick in their book (which is plenty) to avoid back-to-back losses. Not only that, but common opponents are the 3rd division tiebreak, so a loss next week would technically put SD in first place.

BroncoWave
09-15-2014, 11:37 AM
John Fox is an outstanding leader of men and a below average in-game decision maker.

Agreed. If there is one thing I know about this team, it's that they just don't have a killer instinct. And I don't think that's something that's suddenly just going to develop.

TXBRONC
09-15-2014, 12:46 PM
Just looking at him, he exuded *******.

He was dumb to say the least. He drafted all kinds of talent then frittered away.

silkamilkamonico
09-15-2014, 12:51 PM
It matters throughout the playoffs; that's why we were a one-and-done top seed two years ago.
It matters during the season; just ONE more loss last year and the AFCCG's in NE, where Manning's NEVER won a playoff game, instead of the place BRADY'S winless in the playoffs.
EVERY game matters until/unless we clinch playoff homefield, and even then once the playoffs start.

No. SuperBowl is the only thing this organization cares about with this group. Playoffs are irrelevant for this team and organization right now. You also get way too wrapped up in stats of previous years which have absolutely nothing at all to do about what's happeing in the current, where commentators throw out the "this has never happened" argument and get upstaged by it time and time again.


Yes, it's only Week 2: That means our division/homefield Magic Numbers are 14.

So you're saying it will take 16-0 to get HFA through the playoffs?


I REALLY wish SD had lost yesterday; we were already headed to a road game vs. the SB Champs who know full well we're looking for payback, but they'll be figuratively and physically amped now, using every dirty trick in their book (which is plenty) to avoid back-to-back losses. Not only that, but common opponents are the 3rd division tiebreak, so a loss next week would technically put SD in first place.

The chances of this coming into a 3rd tiebreaker between divisional opponents is just not a smart argument. Denver (and SD) still has full control the rest of the year and the better team will win the division.

PatriotsGuy
09-15-2014, 01:03 PM
I always love when someone takes the "settle down junior" aspect of internet posting.

Nomad
09-15-2014, 01:09 PM
I'm putting myself on the hot seat, as a fan, if I overreact in game threads from now on:lol:

TXBRONC
09-15-2014, 01:12 PM
I'm putting myself on the hot seat, as a fan, if I overreact in game threads from now on:lol:

No need Spike will disqualify you and kick you out of the thread.

Jsteve01
09-15-2014, 08:23 PM
This thread is awesome because logic. Because 2-0. And most of all because game two of the season and the defending super bowl champs have lost a GAMe but the Broncos have not

wayninja
09-15-2014, 08:57 PM
I always love when someone takes the "settle down junior" aspect of internet posting.

It's almost as amusing as the the one who takes the "class auditing" aspect of internet observing.

BroncoJoe
09-15-2014, 09:06 PM
Who is this loser anyway, and how does he get away with talking to beef in that manner?

PatriotsGuy
09-16-2014, 09:30 AM
It's almost as amusing as the the one who takes the "class auditing" aspect of internet observing.

Are you sassing me, son?

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 09:40 AM
I thought someone would have pointed out that Indy's "hot seat" doesn't mean shit???

artie_dale
09-16-2014, 09:58 AM
The ONLY reason the Chiefs were in the game was because of mental mistakes by our DL. Espeically the roughing the passer penalty. Wasn't that one of the reasons we lost to Indi last season??? Our DL roughing Andrew Luck on 3rd and long? I'm sick of that shit. That shit needs to be fixed, and the coaches have to fix it.

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 10:45 AM
The ONLY reason the Chiefs were in the game was because of mental mistakes by our DL. Espeically the roughing the passer penalty. Wasn't that one of the reasons we lost to Indi last season??? Our DL roughing Andrew Luck on 3rd and long? I'm sick of that shit. That shit needs to be fixed, and the coaches have to fix it.

This always makes me chuckle. The "coaches have to fix it"... how? How many times do you tell a player? They are adults, they know the rules, they know the consequences, and they know what it does to the team. How about the PLAYERS fix it?? ITs not liek they get free shots at the QB during practice and thus they are just doing what they do all week long. The PLAYERS on the ones on the field committing the penalties.

Joel
09-16-2014, 11:33 AM
No. SuperBowl is the only thing this organization cares about with this group. Playoffs are irrelevant for this team and organization right now. You also get way too wrapped up in stats of previous years which have absolutely nothing at all to do about what's happeing in the current, where commentators throw out the "this has never happened" argument and get upstaged by it time and time again.
I thought your point was "just one game doesn't matter unless it's the SB." Well, just one playoff game can end a SB run before it starts if we phone it in like we did 2 seasons ago vs. a Ravens team we destroyed in their own house just 4 weeks earlier. That's why that game, the last years SB and collapse @NE and so many others still matter. It's why going down 21-7 at Mile High vs. aa gimpy RG III still matters: Yeah, we came back, but why'd the Best. Offense. EVAH! hand them 2 TDs first? Why was this unstoppable team forced to go for it on 4th down TWICE at home against the 'SKINS?!


So you're saying it will take 16-0 to get HFA through the playoffs?
That's the only way to clinch: Cincy's still unbeaten and NE could finish 15-1 (including a tiebreaking win against us;) the only team we're solidly ahead of is Indy (our homefield Magic Number vs. them is "only" 12, because the best they can finish now is 14-2, and we have the head-to-head.) The fact it's only Week 2 is WHY EVERY GAME STILL MATTERS.


The chances of this coming into a 3rd tiebreaker between divisional opponents is just not a smart argument. Denver (and SD) still has full control the rest of the year and the better team will win the division.
Untl it's ruled out, it's a possibility; that's how we won a 3-way tie for the division crown 3 years ago.

Joel
09-16-2014, 11:39 AM
This always makes me chuckle. The "coaches have to fix it"... how? How many times do you tell a player? They are adults, they know the rules, they know the consequences, and they know what it does to the team. How about the PLAYERS fix it?? ITs not liek they get free shots at the QB during practice and thus they are just doing what they do all week long. The PLAYERS on the ones on the field committing the penalties.
Not player: PlayerS. The guy who committed those drive-extending penalties @Indy last year was on the other team SUnday—but FOUR different Broncos still committed drive-extending penalties, and that was just on D; on offense, Clark committed multiple penalties including a drive-killer that brought back a long TD catch. Fox may think he's the best backup OT in the NFL, but Foxs judgement is dubious.

Let's ride that logic for a bit though: If the coaches are doing all any coach can and we STILL have half a dozen guys making multiple boneheaded costly penalties because they're just not that bright and/or refuse to learn, what's that say about the guys who signed those stubborn hot-headed morons? Personally, I think VP of Football Operations Elway's mostly made great personnel decisions, but also think hiring Fox was the glaring exception to that rule. But maybe Elway just drafts and recruits idiots and Fox was the exception to THAT rule—I just kinda doubt it.

artie_dale
09-16-2014, 11:52 AM
This always makes me chuckle. The "coaches have to fix it"... how? How many times do you tell a player? They are adults, they know the rules, they know the consequences, and they know what it does to the team. How about the PLAYERS fix it?? ITs not liek they get free shots at the QB during practice and thus they are just doing what they do all week long. The PLAYERS on the ones on the field committing the penalties.

Ha ha. Laughable! As if the players would dicipline themselves. No, the coaches are who let them play. The players only get paid when they do play (well, dress). Stomp that shit out now (yes, if it cost us a game by sitting said player, hopefully the weight of the team and coaches on that player will nip this kind of crap in the butt). So yeah, the COACHES have to coach, and sometimes coaching means benching a player if he's hurting the team.

As far as the player goes, its his decision to take those kinds of risks (it may or may not be called) which he has shown he will take, in the past.

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 12:00 PM
Ha ha. Laughable! As if the players would dicipline themselves. No, the coaches are who let them play. The players only get paid when they do play (well, dress). Stomp that shit out now (yes, if it cost us a game by sitting said player, hopefully the weight of the team and coaches on that player will nip this kind of crap in the butt). So yeah, the COACHES have to coach, and sometimes coaching means benching a player if he's hurting the team.

As far as the player goes, its his decision to take those kinds of risks (it may or may not be called) which he has shown he will take, in the past.

To a degree...but as a coach do you really sit a player for a penalty if its going to hurt the TEAM? No, not when your job is on the line. Not when you ahve to change schemes and personnel based on "simply" sitting a single player. This isn't jr high football. It sounds all "tough love" but that's not reality. THe REALITY is, that these players need to step it up and get their head in the game. COaches are on the sidelines, players are the ones actually playing the game.

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 12:02 PM
Not player: PlayerS. The guy who committed those drive-extending penalties @Indy last year was on the other team SUnday—but FOUR different Broncos still committed drive-extending penalties, and that was just on D; on offense, Clark committed multiple penalties including a drive-killer that brought back a long TD catch. Fox may think he's the best backup OT in the NFL, but Foxs judgement is dubious.

Let's ride that logic for a bit though: If the coaches are doing all any coach can and we STILL have half a dozen guys making multiple boneheaded costly penalties because they're just not that bright and/or refuse to learn, what's that say about the guys who signed those stubborn hot-headed morons? Personally, I think VP of Football Operations Elway's mostly made great personnel decisions, but also think hiring Fox was the glaring exception to that rule. But maybe Elway just drafts and recruits idiots and Fox was the exception to THAT rule—I just kinda doubt it.

Fox won playoff game with a TERRIBLE QB in Tebow, and then followed that up with AFC Championship game (guess you are going to blame that pass completed on the coach?)...and then a Super Bowl appearance. SORRY.. but Fox has proved to be a VERY good coach as you can count the very few coaches that have taken 2 different teams to SUper Bowls.

I've seen your evaluations of QBs, and I have to say, that your evaluation of Fox is just as poor.

BroncoWave
09-16-2014, 12:07 PM
Just a slight nitpick rav, we lost in the Divisional round two years ago, not the afccg.

artie_dale
09-16-2014, 12:12 PM
To a degree...but as a coach do you really sit a player for a penalty if its going to hurt the TEAM? No, not when your job is on the line. Not when you ahve to change schemes and personnel based on "simply" sitting a single player. This isn't jr high football. It sounds all "tough love" but that's not reality. THe REALITY is, that these players need to step it up and get their head in the game. COaches are on the sidelines, players are the ones actually playing the game.

Hey, I'm all for holding the person directly involved fully accountable, which is why I think its reasonable to sit his ass IF he doesn't get a clue. And, the only people in position to hold those players accountable are the coaches. Coaches either mold players into productive teammates, or they take action against them if they don't conform.

Joel
09-16-2014, 12:20 PM
Fox won playoff game with a TERRIBLE QB in Tebow, and then followed that up with AFC Championship game (guess you are going to blame that pass completed on the coach?)...and then a Super Bowl appearance. SORRY.. but Fox has proved to be a VERY good coach as you can count the very few coaches that have taken 2 different teams to SUper Bowls.

I've seen your evaluations of QBs, and I have to say, that your evaluation of Fox is just as poor.
If players get no credit for luck, neither do coaches: Fox needed not one, not two, but THREE OT wins to reach the 2011 postseason, and FOURTH OT win to advance—just like he needed 3 OT wins to reach the playoffs and a 4th once there to reach a SB without Manning. But having Elway drop a pair of first ballot HoFers and a DRoY is Foxs greatest stroke of luck: And it STILL took him two years to win ANY playoff games! How reliable is a coach who owes virtually his whole career to luck but won't take chances? Ask Delhomme if he wishes Fox let him start slinging it downfield before the SBs 4th quarter.

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 12:25 PM
If players get no credit for luck, neither do coaches: Fox needed not one, not two, but THREE OT wins to reach the 2011 postseason, and FOURTH OT win to advance—just like he needed 3 OT wins to reach the playoffs and a 4th once there to reach a SB without Manning. But having Elway drop a pair of first ballot HoFers and a DRoY is Foxs greatest stroke of luck: And it STILL took him two years to win ANY playoff games! How reliable is a coach who owes virtually his whole career to luck but won't take chances? Ask Delhomme if he wishes Fox let him start slinging it downfield before the SBs 4th quarter.

Lol... Seriously? So you think its just ALL comes down to luck.. over and over and over and over and over again, huh? You continue to show that you've never played a single down of any sport. You make your luck. WHat appears to be luck to some, is the sign of will and preperation for others. It's the difference between those that actually COACH the games, adn those that have gotten their education from reading books on the subject. To think that a coach has taken two different teams to the Super Bowl...solely on the heels of luck... is ignorant.

As far as your last question. :laugh: What QB doesn't want to sling the ball all over the place? How many people have asked Delhomme to be their coach or OC? How many players have "wanted" to do something?

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 12:29 PM
Just a slight nitpick rav, we lost in the Divisional round two years ago, not the afccg.

Frak..yeah. I don't know why I keep making that same mistake. I guess I just have it in my head and can't seem to shake that out.

BroncoJoe
09-16-2014, 12:30 PM
Frak..yeah. I don't know why I keep making that same mistake. I guess I just have it in my head and can't seem to shake that out.

Maybe because you wish we didn't make the Superbowl? :)

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 12:34 PM
Maybe because you wish we didn't make the Superbowl? :)

hah.. different years and different discussion...but I found this funny :beer:

Joel
09-16-2014, 01:23 PM
How much is that, exactly? Not enough to spend Sundays playing instead of watching and talking, obviously. For what it's worth, I was on my middle school baseball team, but after that, well, my HS wasn't bad enough the freshman team needed a 12-year-old possession receiver. I did manage to "touch" a football enough to dislocate my shoulder playing street ball, which is a great argument for organized teams with doctors on hand to tell players their arm only PARTIALLY went back into its socket and will pop in and out periodically for the next 15 years until a doctor has to finish the job.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with Foxs ability nor accomplishments; it's just an excuse for a personal attack to dismiss observations about both.


Lol... Seriously? So you think its just ALL comes down to luck.. over and over and over and over and over again, huh?
Oh, no; it very rarely comes down to luck in the pros: That's why Fox has only made the postseason TWICE and only won a SINGLE playoff game when he had neither Manning nor a crapton of OT coin flips helping. Sooner or later, luck gives out, if only because the lucky guy runs into someone just as lucky but a lot more talented and skilled.


You make your luck. WHat appears to be luck to some, is the sign of will and preperation for others.
Will and prep? Still talking about Coach Not Too Shabby and the three years he's spent excusing basic catastrophic errors as "correctable" WITHOUT ACTUALLY CORRECTING THEM?!

There's almost as many goats as games; how long do we condemn Moore blowing a playoff Hail Mary, Vickerson roughing Luck, Welker muffing a punt (as Cosby and Holliday muffed MANY,) Jackson roughing Smith, Clark being THREE YARDS DOWNFIELD on a screen, likely HoFer DeMarcus Ware jumping off side, etc. etc. before we admit that maybe it's not as simple as every player on our team being too dumb/lazy/stubborn to respond to Foxs discipline and preparation?


It's the difference between those that actually COACH the games, adn those that have gotten their education from reading books on the subject. To think that a coach has taken two different teams to the Super Bowl...solely on the heels of luck... is ignorant.
Again: He needed FOUR OT wins—one in the playoffs the first three REQUIRED—to reach his first SB, and Mannings record-shattering year carried him to his second; Manning's been to more SBs than Fox, so I'm'a go out on a limb and say the offensive coordinator we have under center had more to do with our offensive juggernaut than the conservative former DB running the rest of the team did.

As far as your last question. :laugh: What QB doesn't want to sling the ball all over the place? How many people have asked Delhomme to be their coach or OC? How many players have "wanted" to do something?
The difference between Delhomme and the rest is NE pounded the crap out of Carolina for three solid quarters before Fox finally took the leash off in the fourth: All Delhomme did then was score 2 TDs in as many drives to lead the Panthers back from a double digit deficit to a 1 pt lead, forcing NE to answer with another TD Delhomme then matched with a third straight TD drive to tie the game with just over a minute left. Too bad Carolina kicked off out of bounds so NE had a short field for the game-winning FG. Only thing missing was Fox post-game presser excusing the kick out of bounds as "correctable."

Take off the opaque-colored glasses and stop trying to retroactively put us in the 2012 AFCCG (and apparenlty 2011 AFCCG, too? Wow: Three straight Conference Championship appearances; apparently we ARE the '9ers.) Broncos fans love condemning Reeves' conservative Landryball, but guys who repeated the same "correctable" mistakes routine under Fox would've found themselves cut in a second under Landry and Reeves. All the conservatism, none of the discipline: #Winning #43-8 #One-and-done top seed.

MOtorboat
09-16-2014, 01:37 PM
It's just hilarious how everything Fox does he just dismisses.

Three years, three playoff appearances. No matter who you have at quarterback, that takes good coaching.

PatriotsGuy
09-16-2014, 01:39 PM
It's just hilarious how everything Fox does he just dismisses.

Three years, three playoff appearances. No matter who you have at quarterback, that takes good coaching.

Besides, NE cheated in the Panthers superbowl so Fox was powerless to do anything about it! :coffee:

MOtorboat
09-16-2014, 01:42 PM
Besides, NE cheated in the Panthers superbowl so Fox was powerless to do anything about it! :coffee:

I think that makes Fox a Super Bowl champion, actually.

BroncoJoe
09-16-2014, 01:42 PM
It's just hilarious how everything Fox does he just dismisses.

Three years, three playoff appearances. No matter who you have at quarterback, that takes good coaching.

Did you actually read that?

MOtorboat
09-16-2014, 01:43 PM
Did you actually read that?

I read until where he started discrediting everything Fox has ever done.

BroncoJoe
09-16-2014, 01:44 PM
So I guess broncosinindy did a drive by?

Joel
09-16-2014, 01:56 PM
It's just hilarious how everything Fox does he just dismisses.
Not EVERYTHING: He made the playoffs TWICE without the luck of having his current or previous QB—and even won A game!


Three years, three playoff appearances. No matter who you have at quarterback, that takes good coaching.
Not for a DEFENSIVE coach doing it purely on OFFENSE because his HoF QB's the OC in all but name. 2011 proved more, but... 3 OT wins to reach the playoffs, and a 4th to advance, just like his other SB.


Besides, NE cheated in the Panthers superbowl so Fox was powerless to do anything about it! :coffee:
There is that; pity Peyton didn't have his brothers "luck" to face NE playoff teams after instead of before their cameraman got busted.

Valar Morghulis
09-16-2014, 02:08 PM
This thread is just mental, i cant decide if it is for real or not.

It opened up with some real agression and just got better! lol

Anyway, i will play along, unless the Broncos fail to make the play offs, i think fox is safe. If they do not win the superbowl, i think Del Rio is out a job, and maybe Rodgers as well.

Hawgdriver
09-16-2014, 02:30 PM
Does the "hot seat" involve lap dances?

Buff
09-16-2014, 02:30 PM
This thread is just mental, i cant decide if it is for real or not.

It opened up with some real agression and just got better! lol

Anyway, i will play along, unless the Broncos fail to make the play offs, i think fox is safe. If they do not win the superbowl, i think Del Rio is out a job, and maybe Rodgers as well.

It seems more reasonable than that ridiculous Simms petition thread. What a dumpster fire that thing is.

Valar Morghulis
09-16-2014, 02:34 PM
It seems more reasonable than that ridiculous Simms petition thread. What a dumpster fire that thing is.

Yeah, I an having nothing to do with that.

Although Simms is a pure "baw faced kunt"

MOtorboat
09-16-2014, 02:40 PM
Joel,

What are your thoughts on Marv Levy?

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 02:47 PM
Joel,

What are your thoughts on Marv Levy?

was only good because of the player, terrible coach, loser cause he couldn't 'get it done.'

chazoe60
09-16-2014, 02:56 PM
Joel,

What are your thoughts on Marv Levy?
Yeah, you over-officious jerk, what's your thoughts on Mar Levy?

Hawgdriver
09-16-2014, 03:00 PM
Yeah, you over-officious jerk, what's your thoughts on Mar Levy?

:lol:

NightTrainLayne
09-16-2014, 03:19 PM
This thread is just mental, i cant decide if it is for real or not.

It opened up with some real agression and just got better! lol

Anyway, i will play along, unless the Broncos fail to make the play offs, i think fox is safe. If they do not win the superbowl, i think Del Rio is out a job, and maybe Rodgers as well.


It seems more reasonable than that ridiculous Simms petition thread. What a dumpster fire that thing is.

Were threads this bad 5-6 years ago?

I used to spend a whole hell of a lot more time here back then. .. . It would be embarrassing if I was wasting that much time on the quality of threads we have these days. . .

PatriotsGuy
09-16-2014, 03:21 PM
I loved Marv, he was a really smart guy. He got his Masters at Harvard and also coached the Montreal Alouettes

Joel
09-16-2014, 03:23 PM
Joel,

What are your thoughts on Marv Levy?
He had the misfortune to coach elite teams when the historically strong NFCE was at its peak. And Norwood flat choked in big games; that SB kick wasn't a chip shot (47 yd, IIRC) and kickers were slightly less accurate then (but still far better than the pre-merger era) but Norwoods career accuracy was pretty good—except to win big games. Still, 3 different NFCE teams reached 4 straight SBs despite having to play a quarter of their schedule against each other; that says something about just how good those teams were: It was like last years NFCW, except THOSE Cards looks like last years Rams.

We're not talking about a team that made 4 straight SBs against perhaps the strongest division EVER, and nearly won one: We're talking about a team that made ONE SB and got buried. And the Bills only needed ONE OT to reach FOUR SBs, not FOUR OTs to reach ONE; OT was the difference between Foxs Panthers going 11-5 or 8-8, but the Bills went 13-3 twice, 11-5 then 12-4. They had a couple OT games in '91 and '92 (counting The Comeback,) but were .500 in OT both seasons, not 4-0 like Foxs 2002 Panthers and 2011 Broncos.

Try being objective for just 5 seconds. Overtime's always a crap shoot for even the best teams and coaches, who wouldn't BE in OT if not very evenly matched. Just PLAYING 4 OT games in a season is unusual, but WINNING ALL OF THEM is a huge stroke of luck, not a triumph of supreme preparedness and will that nonetheless failed to avoid OT. Winning 4 OT games in a season TWICE puts Fox in the running for luckiest coach since Jim Lee Howell had Landry as DC and Lombardi as OC, but Elway dropping Manning in his lap a year later makes Fox the Luckiest. Coach. EVAH!

Marv though... poor SOB: Those Bills teams were LOADED with HoF talent on both sides of the ball; as an Oilers fan who'd gotten sick of them long before The Comeback, I remember all too well. It was just that the NFCE has always been a strong division till recently (3 SB teams in the '70s, a pair of two-time Champs in the '80s despite SF winning a pair of NFCCGs vs. Dallas) and was never better than when the great Washington and NY teams of the '80s won their final SBs just as Dallas built its second dynasty. If Fox is the luckiest coach ever, Levy may be the UNluckiest.

Hawgdriver
09-16-2014, 03:27 PM
So Levy was good?

Joel
09-16-2014, 03:46 PM
So Levy was good?
I'm honestly unsure, but he wasn't bad. He DID have tons of talent on BOTH sides of the ball, so one would expect his teams to win lots of games and make deep playoff runs. Maybe it did just come down to coaching; facing Parcells, then Gibbs, then Jimmy Johnson twice, he was up against some of the best ever, and those Dallas teams were just as stacked with talent.

Maybe a better coach would've coached Norwood up to make SB FGs as time expired from the same distance he routinely hit them in practice. I do recall Levy saying he stuck with him after that because it was just one kick from a distance Norwood usually; a few years later he missed another from a similar distance that cost them a key regular season game, and suddenly Christie had his job.

Joel
09-16-2014, 04:24 PM
Bum Phillips' definition of a great coach remains the best (ironic in this context: Before coming to Denver, Wade was the DC for those fast bruising Bills defenses that probably still give Elway nightmares.) Does ANYONE here think that sounds like John Fox? Like, if he and Carroll switched teams at halftime, does anyone think we still lose the SB? If he and Belicheat or Pagano traded teams at the half, does anyone think NE or Indy makes up a 24-0 lead (OK, Indy scored right before the half; semantics.)

We all know Denver had all the talent to win SB XLVII—yet couldn't win ANY playoff games. We all know Denver shattered offensive records last year—yet didn't even have a FIRST DOWN till the SECOND QUARTER of SB XLVIII, and needed the WHOLE THIRD QUARTER to avoid a SHUTOUT with our lone score. Now we've reloaded a bunch of Pro Bowl defenders (including a potential HoFer) augmenting our former DRoY, yet barely held on at home vs. a KC team playing a backup RB and journeyman QB behind a backup line with scrub WRs, couldn't keep the chains moving with THEIR best defenders sidelined.

New season, new roster: Same problem; if that's a personnel issue, it's on the sideline, NOT the field. We can say we just got beat by a better team in the SB, but we aren't spending $20 million/yr on Manning and as much or more on Pro Bowl FAs to have the SECOND best team. To quote another great coach, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."

MOtorboat
09-16-2014, 04:35 PM
Sorry, guys.

silkamilkamonico
09-16-2014, 04:39 PM
Fox is a very good coach and I think anyone who says otherwise doesn't follow the NFL enough to have an opinion on it.

I however don't think he's good with this particular team, I just think the team would be better suited under someone who wants to take an aggressive approach. Just my humble opinion.

BroncoWave
09-16-2014, 04:47 PM
Sorry, guys.

It's ok, I don't think anyone actually read it.

Buff
09-16-2014, 05:33 PM
Fox is a very good coach and I think anyone who says otherwise doesn't follow the NFL enough to have an opinion on it.

I however don't think he's good with this particular team, I just think the team would be better suited under someone who wants to take an aggressive approach. Just my humble opinion.

I perfectly summarized Fox the coach in one sentence earlier in this thread. You might want to wander back and high five me for such concise and precise prose.

Ravage!!!
09-16-2014, 05:33 PM
Fox is a very good coach and I think anyone who says otherwise doesn't follow the NFL enough to have an opinion on it.

I however don't think he's good with this particular team, I just think the team would be better suited under someone who wants to take an aggressive approach. Just my humble opinion.

To be honest, I don't think its Fox that is the conservative one, I think its Manning. We all give our OC the "pass" because supposedly Manning is the OC on the field, calling the plays. Yet when things are conservative, we blame Fox. I can ALWAYS tell when Manning is about to run the ball, and if I can tell, so can the DCs on the other team. So can the MLB on the other team So can the DBs on the other team. Yet, somehow, this is Fox. Last year people complained about him being "conservative"...all the way to us going for many 4th downs and taking the team to the Super Bowl despite having 7 starters out (on the defensive side) by the time we reached that game. Despite us scoring more points than anyone else...ever. Now, we are right back to the "he's too conservative" thing again because it seems to be the "go to" complaint.

Joel
09-16-2014, 06:01 PM
To be honest, I don't think its Fox that is the conservative one, I think its Manning. We all give our OC the "pass" because supposedly Manning is the OC on the field, calling the plays. Yet when things are conservative, we blame Fox. I can ALWAYS tell when Manning is about to run the ball, and if I can tell, so can the DCs on the other team. So can the MLB on the other team So can the DBs on the other team. Yet, somehow, this is Fox. Last year people complained about him being "conservative"...all the way to us going for many 4th downs and taking the team to the Super Bowl despite having 7 starters out (on the defensive side) by the time we reached that game. Despite us scoring more points than anyone else...ever. Now, we are right back to the "he's too conservative" thing again because it seems to be the "go to" complaint.
I started to say in another thread that the ONE thing I'll give Pollyanna and Homers over-enthused offspring is consistency: They don't vacillate wildly between "our offense fails because Fox/Gase are dumb!" one game and "our offense rules because Manning's a genius!" like they're as bipolar as the team looks and forgot to take their ADHD meds so their memories last more than a week.

WHOWEVER runs the offense runs it EVERY game; Manning doesn't just run the blowout wins and hand it back to Fox and Gase periodically when he wants to lose. Or, conversely, they don't just run the timid "avoid losing" offenses that avoid winning, and periodically let Manning take over when tired of losing.

For what it's worth, I rarely have a problem with Mannings playcalls (and do think he makes most of them, even if it's just via audibles at the line.) My main problem is with the line executing so poorly many of those playcalls fail when they shouldn't, but I don't think Mannings OC-in-all-but-name duties extend to telling the line coaches how to drill their charges.

silkamilkamonico
09-16-2014, 07:19 PM
To be honest, I don't think its Fox that is the conservative one, I think its Manning. We all give our OC the "pass" because supposedly Manning is the OC on the field, calling the plays. Yet when things are conservative, we blame Fox. I can ALWAYS tell when Manning is about to run the ball, and if I can tell, so can the DCs on the other team. So can the MLB on the other team So can the DBs on the other team. Yet, somehow, this is Fox. Last year people complained about him being "conservative"...all the way to us going for many 4th downs and taking the team to the Super Bowl despite having 7 starters out (on the defensive side) by the time we reached that game. Despite us scoring more points than anyone else...ever. Now, we are right back to the "he's too conservative" thing again because it seems to be the "go to" complaint.

I just think it's a mentality that starts with Fox.

I don't like Fox choosing to kneel on the ball close to half time because we are "in a comfortable position as it is", when we are up in games like he does time and time again, sometimes we even have 2 or 3 TO's left. I know it's not a big deal and never really affects the game, I just don't like that mentality of letting a drive go regardless - WIth our offense, and especially when we have 2+ TO's like we do at times going into a half, Manning needs no more than 25 seconds to get into field position from our 20.

I am not sure if it starts with FOX, but I cannot stand the way Denver comes out of halftime of the last 2 games. Like we are all of a sudden comfrotable and we are going to completely change the tempo of our offense and play bacll control, which is something we are not very good at right now.

Maybe it's Del Rio, but I cannot stand the way our defense is called. We have a soft mentality on defense that doesn't attack as much as it should, and it's almost like we are more ready for the ffense to make a mistake so we can pounce instead of forcing the offense to make a mistake.

I didn't like Fox not calling TO's at the end of the game. I know his line of thinking is "we'll just win it right now with our defense", but that isn't going to help the offense when the time comes they don't win it. They aren't going to win that posion everytime. Everytime they are in that position, FOx should be calling TO's to give the offense a chance. Manning needs 40 seconds w/o a TO to get in field position if even that.

Maybe it's FOx maybe it isn't, but something to me spells s-o-f-t with the way this team is playing football right now. I see it on the field, and I see it the way the game is managed from the coaching staff all around.

DenBronx
09-16-2014, 07:21 PM
If we were going to get worse on defense then id rather we had just kept the offense we had.

7DnBrnc53
09-16-2014, 10:28 PM
He had the misfortune to coach elite teams when the historically strong NFCE was at its peak. And Norwood flat choked in big games; that SB kick wasn't a chip shot (47 yd, IIRC) and kickers were slightly less accurate then (but still far better than the pre-merger era) but Norwoods career accuracy was pretty good—except to win big games. Still, 3 different NFCE teams reached 4 straight SBs despite having to play a quarter of their schedule against each other; that says something about just how good those teams were: It was like last years NFCW, except THOSE Cards looks like last years Rams.

We're not talking about a team that made 4 straight SBs against perhaps the strongest division EVER, and nearly won one: We're talking about a team that made ONE SB and got buried. And the Bills only needed ONE OT to reach FOUR SBs, not FOUR OTs to reach ONE; OT was the difference between Foxs Panthers going 11-5 or 8-8, but the Bills went 13-3 twice, 11-5 then 12-4. They had a couple OT games in '91 and '92 (counting The Comeback,) but were .500 in OT both seasons, not 4-0 like Foxs 2002 Panthers and 2011 Broncos.

Try being objective for just 5 seconds. Overtime's always a crap shoot for even the best teams and coaches, who wouldn't BE in OT if not very evenly matched. Just PLAYING 4 OT games in a season is unusual, but WINNING ALL OF THEM is a huge stroke of luck, not a triumph of supreme preparedness and will that nonetheless failed to avoid OT. Winning 4 OT games in a season TWICE puts Fox in the running for luckiest coach since Jim Lee Howell had Landry as DC and Lombardi as OC, but Elway dropping Manning in his lap a year later makes Fox the Luckiest. Coach. EVAH!

Marv though... poor SOB: Those Bills teams were LOADED with HoF talent on both sides of the ball; as an Oilers fan who'd gotten sick of them long before The Comeback, I remember all too well. It was just that the NFCE has always been a strong division till recently (3 SB teams in the '70s, a pair of two-time Champs in the '80s despite SF winning a pair of NFCCGs vs. Dallas) and was never better than when the great Washington and NY teams of the '80s won their final SBs just as Dallas built its second dynasty. If Fox is the luckiest coach ever, Levy may be the UNluckiest.

Joel, I think you are a little too kind to the Bills. They had HOFers, like Thermal, Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, and Andre Reed (although some debate on whether or not he should be in), but they weren't as good as everyone thinks. They had a shaky defense, especially secondary and D-line outside of Smith, and they really weren't that dominant of a team.

Take 1990 for instance. Everyone thinks that they were 13-3 that year and were a juggernaut. However, they were known the year before as the Bickering Bills. Their chemistry really wasn't that good.

Last year, when he came on the Drive to talk to Big Al and D-Mac, former Bronco Mike Lodish (who was on those early-90's Bill teams) said that the chemistry on the World Champion Bronco teams was better than on the Bill teams he was on.

Week 4 of the 90 season may have been the most pivotal game in franchise history. Buffalo was 2-1, and beat the Jets and Indy, but lost in Week 2 to Miami 30-7. And, Denver was up 21-9 with about eight minutes left in the fourth quarter, with a short FG attempt on the way to all but ice it.

Then, a miracle happened. Biscuit blocked it, returned it for a TD, and the Bills were back in it. They went on to win 29-28, and after two more come from behind wins at home, they were 5-1, and on their way to Tampa. That win may have given them the impetus for their 4 straight SB run, but if they lose those three home games (in which they came from behind in the fourth quarter against Denver, the Raiders, and the Jets), and start 2-4, that team may have been on the way to an implosion.

Also, the last two years of their four year run, they didn't deserve to be in the Super Bowl at all. They would pull out BS win after BS win and get every break in the book. Their wins at NO and SF and the WC win over Houston were the prime examples, as well as their Week 16 win in 93 over the Jets to clinch the division (and pretty much home field) when Cary Blanchard couldn't even make a two-yard FG to give the Jets a lead with a minute left. By the time they played Dallas in SB 28, that team made me want to puke.

Lodish said something like how the Bills had more talent, but Denver had more chemistry. I disagree. The 96-98 Broncos had both talent and chemistry on those Bill teams.

As for Levy, I agree that he didn't get a lot of breaks. He took over a very bad KC team in 1978, and had them on the verge of the playoffs three years later.

One thing that may have hurt him was shoddy QB play. And what is sad is that Levy was thinking about drafting Joe Montana in 1979, but the team president, meddlesome Jack "Worlds of Chiefs" Steadman, didn't want them to bypass the best QB available, and basically forced Levy to trade back in the first round and take Steve Fuller:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/671789-draft-day-stories-did-bill-walsh-really-target-joe-montana-in-1979

Also, the strike seemed to hurt him as well. The Chiefs went 3-6 in the strike-shortened season of 1982, and the KC brass decided to dismiss him. I read on a Chief fan site that they "blamed him for the strike" or something like that.

As for Fox, though, I agree with you. If it wasn't for the Tebow run, and Peyton Manning, he may be gone by now. I don't know what Elway saw in him.

Joel
09-19-2014, 03:18 PM
Joel, I think you are a little too kind to the Bills.
Well, it's a safe bet that's the first time THAT phrase has ever been uttered. ;) The Comeback's not just a piece of NFL trivia for me, and I wasn't exactly fond of Buffalo even before that.


They had HOFers, like Thermal, Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, and Andre Reed (although some debate on whether or not he should be in), but they weren't as good as everyone thinks. They had a shaky defense, especially secondary and D-line outside of Smith, and they really weren't that dominant of a team.
Well, running a 3-4 how many other linemen did they HAVE? Their secondary was pretty average, but their front seven lethal; Cornelius Bennet was nearly as scary at OLB as Smith was at DE, while Darryl Talley at the other OLB spot and Shane Conlon inside were also fine players in their right. Jeff Wright may not have been flashy, but he did the 3-4 NTs job of plugging the middle, and even managed to rack up about 5 sacks/season doing it. That's a pretty darned good front seven even if the other two guys are scrubs.


Take 1990 for instance. Everyone thinks that they were 13-3 that year and were a juggernaut. However, they were known the year before as the Bickering Bills. Their chemistry really wasn't that good.

Last year, when he came on the Drive to talk to Big Al and D-Mac, former Bronco Mike Lodish (who was on those early-90's Bill teams) said that the chemistry on the World Champion Bronco teams was better than on the Bill teams he was on.

Week 4 of the 90 season may have been the most pivotal game in franchise history. Buffalo was 2-1, and beat the Jets and Indy, but lost in Week 2 to Miami 30-7. And, Denver was up 21-9 with about eight minutes left in the fourth quarter, with a short FG attempt on the way to all but ice it.

Then, a miracle happened. Biscuit blocked it, returned it for a TD, and the Bills were back in it. They went on to win 29-28, and after two more come from behind wins at home, they were 5-1, and on their way to Tampa. That win may have given them the impetus for their 4 straight SB run, but if they lose those three home games (in which they came from behind in the fourth quarter against Denver, the Raiders, and the Jets), and start 2-4, that team may have been on the way to an implosion.

Also, the last two years of their four year run, they didn't deserve to be in the Super Bowl at all. They would pull out BS win after BS win and get every break in the book. Their wins at NO and SF and the WC win over Houston were the prime examples, as well as their Week 16 win in 93 over the Jets to clinch the division (and pretty much home field) when Cary Blanchard couldn't even make a two-yard FG to give the Jets a lead with a minute left. By the time they played Dallas in SB 28, that team made me want to puke.

Lodish said something like how the Bills had more talent, but Denver had more chemistry. I disagree. The 96-98 Broncos had both talent and chemistry on those Bill teams.

As for Levy, I agree that he didn't get a lot of breaks. He took over a very bad KC team in 1978, and had them on the verge of the playoffs three years later.
Careful now, 'cause that's pretty close to what Vermeil did with the awful teams he took over—except he did it with THREE DIFFERENT ONES, taking two of them from the cellar to the SB (one of which won it) and even got KC to the playoffs once (and probably should've again with the 2005 team that went 10-6) despite a roster so pathetic it sank bank into a 4-12, 2-14 and 4-12 season a year after his final retirement. Does Ron Jaworski reach a SB without Vermeil? Does Kurt Warner escape NFL Europe? Does anyone ever notice Trent Green after he leaves Washington?


One thing that may have hurt him was shoddy QB play. And what is sad is that Levy was thinking about drafting Joe Montana in 1979, but the team president, meddlesome Jack "Worlds of Chiefs" Steadman, didn't want them to bypass the best QB available, and basically forced Levy to trade back in the first round and take Steve Fuller:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/671789-draft-day-stories-did-bill-walsh-really-target-joe-montana-in-1979

Also, the strike seemed to hurt him as well. The Chiefs went 3-6 in the strike-shortened season of 1982, and the KC brass decided to dismiss him. I read on a Chief fan site that they "blamed him for the strike" or something like that.
Well, it's the Chiefs; their owner may not be as bad as Bud Adams or Jerry Jones, but there's a reason their playoff drought's so long despite having Levy and Vermeil.


As for Fox, though, I agree with you. If it wasn't for the Tebow run, and Peyton Manning, he may be gone by now. I don't know what Elway saw in him.
Likely Carolinas SB run and accompanying defense but, again: 3 OT wins just to reach the postseason, with a 4th needed to reach the SB they were completely out of till Fox let Delhomme Tebow their way into the lead in the final period; too little, too late. I can't help wondering if this Sunday's the beginning of the end of Denvers Manning Era, with Peyton concluding the frustration and hits aren't worth it for anything less than a SB win, and that even if we fired Fox tomorrow a new coach couldn't congeal a championship team before age catches up with the starting QB. Hope I'm wrong....

7DnBrnc53
09-19-2014, 06:20 PM
Well, it's a safe bet that's the first time THAT phrase has ever been uttered. ;) The Comeback's not just a piece of NFL trivia for me, and I wasn't exactly fond of Buffalo even before that.

Well, running a 3-4 how many other linemen did they HAVE? Their secondary was pretty average, but their front seven lethal; Cornelius Bennet was nearly as scary at OLB as Smith was at DE, while Darryl Talley at the other OLB spot and Shane Conlon inside were also fine players in their right. Jeff Wright may not have been flashy, but he did the 3-4 NTs job of plugging the middle, and even managed to rack up about 5 sacks/season doing it. That's a pretty darned good front seven even if the other two guys are scrubs.

Careful now, 'cause that's pretty close to what Vermeil did with the awful teams he took over—except he did it with THREE DIFFERENT ONES, taking two of them from the cellar to the SB (one of which won it) and even got KC to the playoffs once (and probably should've again with the 2005 team that went 10-6) despite a roster so pathetic it sank bank into a 4-12, 2-14 and 4-12 season a year after his final retirement. Does Ron Jaworski reach a SB without Vermeil? Does Kurt Warner escape NFL Europe? Does anyone ever notice Trent Green after he leaves Washington?

Likely Carolinas SB run and accompanying defense but, again: 3 OT wins just to reach the postseason, with a 4th needed to reach the SB they were completely out of till Fox let Delhomme Tebow their way into the lead in the final period; too little, too late. I can't help wondering if this Sunday's the beginning of the end of Denvers Manning Era, with Peyton concluding the frustration and hits aren't worth it for anything less than a SB win, and that even if we fired Fox tomorrow a new coach couldn't congeal a championship team before age catches up with the starting QB. Hope I'm wrong....

Buffalo's front seven could be lethal at times in the AFC East because those teams didn't always possess a consistent ground attack. Take the Dolphins, for instance. I watched the 1992 AFC Title Game on YouTube a few years ago, and they seemed to play right into Buffalo's hands. They wouldn't try to run much at all.

On one sequence in the second quarter, the Bills blocked a Marino pass and intercepted it, which led to a FG. Then, after almost fumbling the ensuing kickoff, Marino had another pass blocked, and Shula just stood there with his arms folded. Then, later in the quarter, they got a drive going, but then Marino was sacked after a flea flicker attempt (they should have just ran the ball the way it was going, because they would have picked up good yards). It was sickening watching how Miami was playing offense (Shula should have been fired, Marino should have been traded, and the Fins should have went after Dan Reeves after that loss).

A lot of those teams that they played in the playoffs during their four-year SB run didn't have consistent ground attacks, like the 90 Dolphins, 91 Broncos, 92 Oilers, 92 Dolphins, and the 93 Raiders.

When they got to the SB, though, they would face more physical teams with more consistent running games, and the Bills couldn't handle it.

On to Vermeil. He did make losers into winners, but who's to say that Trent Green wouldn't have done good in Washington. And, Jaws really didn't get a fair shake in LA before getting to Philly. They kept playing guys like the average Pat Haden and James Harris, and then they brought in Joe Namath, who should have retired.

As for the 03 Panthers, Fox actually started Rodney Peete in week 1 against the Jaguars, and fell behind 17-0 before turning to Jake Delhomme, who rallied them to a 24-23 come from behind win. If they stay close enough throughout that game, and don't pull Peete (and lose), and if they don't get the miracle win against Tampa, they are 0-2, and that season may have been over before it started.

The next several years, Delhomme did decently, and had good years in 2004 and 05 (making the 05 Pro Bowl), but in 06 and 07, injuries held him back. In 08, he led them to the postseason, but by 09, after the franchise signed him to a five-year extension (WTF?), he had a poor season, and missed five games.

Matt Moore filled in for him in 09, and did really well (8 TD's, 2 INT's, 1,053 yards, 61.6% completion), but the team never gave him a long-term chance. Heck, in 07, when Delhomme missed most of the year, John brought in the 150 year old Vinny Testaverde over Moore (a typical Fox move).

In 2010, Fox's last year, the Panthers decide to draft Jimmy Clausen. Heck, they almost traded up in the draft with the Rams to get Jimmy, giving them their 2011 first-rounder in the process.

With Clausen in tow, Moore only starts five games and doesn't do as well, but that may have been due to having Clausen (who started 10 games) looking over his shoulder. Then, Moore goes to Miami the next year, and in 12 starts, throws for almost 2500 yards, 16 TD's and 9 INT's. Why Fox never gave him more of a chance is beyond me.

I don't know why Elway wanted anything to do with someone from that clown car. I also hear ya about Sunday being the beginning of the end, although, even if they don't win a SB this year, I could see Fox and Del Rio being fired before Peyton retiring. I think that he will play two more years.

Joel
09-19-2014, 09:21 PM
Buffalo's front seven could be lethal at times in the AFC East because those teams didn't always possess a consistent ground attack. Take the Dolphins, for instance. I watched the 1992 AFC Title Game on YouTube a few years ago, and they seemed to play right into Buffalo's hands. They wouldn't try to run much at all.
Hmm, I know a team like that. Maybe it'll work better for the guy who broke Marinos once-unbreakable single-season TD record—but I kinda doubt it, however much kids insist the wheel's been reinvented.


On one sequence in the second quarter, the Bills blocked a Marino pass and intercepted it, which led to a FG. Then, after almost fumbling the ensuing kickoff, Marino had another pass blocked, and Shula just stood there with his arms folded. Then, later in the quarter, they got a drive going, but then Marino was sacked after a flea flicker attempt (they should have just ran the ball the way it was going, because they would have picked up good yards). It was sickening watching how Miami was playing offense (Shula should have been fired, Marino should have been traded, and the Fins should have went after Dan Reeves after that loss).

A lot of those teams that they played in the playoffs during their four-year SB run didn't have consistent ground attacks, like the 90 Dolphins, 91 Broncos, 92 Oilers, 92 Dolphins, and the 93 Raiders.
Yeesh, don't remind of the Oilers run game (if it can be called that.) Again, too many reminders of my late lamented favorite team.


When they got to the SB, though, they would face more physical teams with more consistent running games, and the Bills couldn't handle it.
I still think it was as simple as great teams meeting even greater ones with HoF coaches. Parcells, Gibbs or Johnson could probably take the Jags to 10 wins, and Buffalos SB trips were in the final days before the epic bidding wars between Jerry Jones and Eddie DeBartolo Jr. forced the salary cap to change everything. Smith and Bennett were elite, and Talley and Conlon very good, but only teams SOLID at virtually ALL positions could beat those pre-cap NFC powerhouses stacked with talent on top of talent. Fully HALF THE '93 COWBOYS' STARTERS MADE THE PRO BOWL (not even counting Charles Haley.)


On to Vermeil. He did make losers into winners, but who's to say that Trent Green wouldn't have done good in Washington. And, Jaws really didn't get a fair shake in LA before getting to Philly. They kept playing guys like the average Pat Haden and James Harris, and then they brought in Joe Namath, who should have retired.
Well, he did good enough to name his own price, at least to some extent, but maybe Jaws didn't get a fair shake in LA for the same reason Kurt Warner got his fair shake in Amsterdam (ironically, with Delhomme as his backup.) Ultimately, few coaches have taken ONE team to a SB, let alone TWO (the only others who come to mind are Shula, Reeves, Holmgren and, strangely enough, Fox.) Even if it was all done with mirrors, the guy who arranged those mirrors did a heck of a job, particularly given how much things changed between his SB loss and win.


As for the 03 Panthers, Fox actually started Rodney Peete in week 1 against the Jaguars, and fell behind 17-0 before turning to Jake Delhomme, who rallied them to a 24-23 come from behind win. If they stay close enough throughout that game, and don't pull Peete (and lose), and if they don't get the miracle win against Tampa, they are 0-2, and that season may have been over before it started.
And their season ended much as it began, except Fox waited too long to let Delhomme attempt a comeback against a much better team.


The next several years, Delhomme did decently, and had good years in 2004 and 05 (making the 05 Pro Bowl), but in 06 and 07, injuries held him back. In 08, he led them to the postseason, but by 09, after the franchise signed him to a five-year extension (WTF?), he had a poor season, and missed five games.

Matt Moore filled in for him in 09, and did really well (8 TD's, 2 INT's, 1,053 yards, 61.6% completion), but the team never gave him a long-term chance. Heck, in 07, when Delhomme missed most of the year, John brought in the 150 year old Vinny Testaverde over Moore (a typical Fox move).

In 2010, Fox's last year, the Panthers decide to draft Jimmy Clausen. Heck, they almost traded up in the draft with the Rams to get Jimmy, giving them their 2011 first-rounder in the process.

With Clausen in tow, Moore only starts five games and doesn't do as well, but that may have been due to having Clausen (who started 10 games) looking over his shoulder. Then, Moore goes to Miami the next year, and in 12 starts, throws for almost 2500 yards, 16 TD's and 9 INT's. Why Fox never gave him more of a chance is beyond me.
It's not even so much that Delhomme, Moore or anyone else was so great as it is knowing the situation, roster talent and matchups, then practicing and gameplanning accordingly (the technical term is COACHING.) They year Dallas was 1-15 that ONE win was against a 10-6 Gibbs Redskins team 2 years before AND after they won a SB—but that was the game Dallas started a half with an onside kick (long before Payton vs. Peyton made it cool) and used every trick and gimmick Johnson knew: Because he ALSO knew that was the ONLY way his awful team could beat a champion.

Playing superior teams conservatively just ensures annihilation, because the more chance is marginalized the more decisive their greater talent and skill will be. The could have been the AFL/Cs motto most of its existence; if Fox can't grasp that, maybe he should go back to the NFC and pray he's lucky enough to be handed a cap-busting roster full of Pro Bowlers.


I don't know why Elway wanted anything to do with someone from that clown car. I also hear ya about Sunday being the beginning of the end, although, even if they don't win a SB this year, I could see Fox and Del Rio being fired before Peyton retiring. I think that he will play two more years.
He may play till he's 40, but probably not WELL, and I doubt he even tries. As a Gulf Coast native, I'm not sure he'd even SEEN snow till he went to college, but Mile High practices and games can get pretty chilly the last half of the season. Manning's always been about touch more than power; how much arm strength must he lose before balls no longer get through brief narrow windows before they close? Even before his injury he had the same spinal condition that ended his older brothers career before it began. Throw in a coaching change (or continuation of bad coaching) and it just gets harder.

Ultimately, he's playing for a second SB; pretty much all he has left to prove is that '06 wasn't a fluke and '09 and '13 weren't the norm. If he gets his Ring this year, what's the incentive for yet another physically grueling season a thousand frigid miles from home? And if he doesn't—even after all we've shelled out for hired guns and the SB trip that imploded on the launchpad last year—why come back for more of THAT? Win or lose the SB, it's increasingly hard to see Manning keep coming back for more, either because he's satisfied with a second Ring, or accepts he must be satisfied without one.

7DnBrnc53
09-20-2014, 12:02 AM
I still think it was as simple as great teams meeting even greater ones with HoF coaches. Parcells, Gibbs or Johnson could probably take the Jags to 10 wins, and Buffalos SB trips were in the final days before the epic bidding wars between Jerry Jones and Eddie DeBartolo Jr. forced the salary cap to change everything. Smith and Bennett were elite, and Talley and Conlon very good, but only teams SOLID at virtually ALL positions could beat those pre-cap NFC powerhouses stacked with talent on top of talent. Fully HALF THE '93 COWBOYS' STARTERS MADE THE PRO BOWL (not even counting Charles Haley.)

And their season ended much as it began, except Fox waited too long to let Delhomme attempt a comeback against a much better team.

He may play till he's 40, but probably not WELL, and I doubt he even tries. As a Gulf Coast native, I'm not sure he'd even SEEN snow till he went to college, but Mile High practices and games can get pretty chilly the last half of the season. Manning's always been about touch more than power; how much arm strength must he lose before balls no longer get through brief narrow windows before they close? Even before his injury he had the same spinal injury that ended his older brothers career before it began. Throw in a coaching change (or continuation of bad coaching) and it just gets harder.

Ultimately, he's playing for a second SB; pretty much all he has left to prove is that '06 wasn't a fluke and '09 and '13 weren't the norm. If he gets his Ring this year, what's the incentive for yet another physically grueling season a thousand frigid miles from home? And if he doesn't—even after all we've shelled out for hired guns and the SB trip that imploded on the launchpad last year—why come back for more of THAT? Win or lose the SB, it's increasingly hard to see Manning keep coming back for more, either because he's satisfied with a second Ring, or accepts he must be satisfied without one.

The 93 Cowboys had 11 Pro Bowlers, but the ones that they had on defense (Maryland, Norton, and Everett) weren't really all that great in my mind. I am not as high on those Cowboy teams as a lot of people. I am also not as high on the 91 Redskins as a lot of people are, either. That was an old team with guys that had their last great year before beginning their decline, like Charles Mann and Wilber Marshall.

The Bills lost to Washington and Dallas(the first time) because they were too trigger happy and sloppy. Kelly threw some bad INT's in both of those games. Then, in the second Dallas loss, they didn't go for the throat before halftime. If they go up 17-6 instead of 10-6, and just drive to midfield and punt at minimum to start the second half, they go on to win that game. It was theirs for the taking. Aikman was pretty woozy in that game.

I also agree that Fox didn't let Delhomme make a comeback in SB 38 until the fourth quarter (They should have been bombing their slow secondary. Shanny was the only one who would attack them), but I don't agree that the Pats were MUCH BETTER. The 2001-08 era was an era of mediocrity in the NFL, in my mind. The teams that won it (the 01 and 03-04 Patriots, 05 and 08 Steelers, 06 Colts, and 07 Giants) were practically paper champions.

As for Manning, you may be right. We shall see. I just have a gut feeling that he will play two more years, but if he wins it this year, and retires, God bless him. Part of me wants to move on to the Osweiler era, anyway.

chazoe60
09-20-2014, 12:04 AM
OMG, Joel found his soul mate.

Pudge
09-20-2014, 12:21 AM
It took me twenty minutes of scrolling just to reach the end of the page.

Joel
09-20-2014, 10:20 AM
The 93 Cowboys had 11 Pro Bowlers, but the ones that they had on defense (Maryland, Norton, and Everett) weren't really all that great in my mind. I am not as high on those Cowboy teams as a lot of people. I am also not as high on the 91 Redskins as a lot of people are, either. That was an old team with guys that had their last great year before beginning their decline, like Charles Mann and Wilber Marshall.
Everett was nothing special, but Kevin Smith was; Aaron Glenn as A&M understudy and Deion on the other side in Dallas may have stolen some of his spotlight, but every cussed Illegal Contact penalty is a tribute to Smiths hand-checks that prompted the NFL to finally ENFORCE a rule that had existed since '78. Generally though, Dallas was to secondaries then what Denver was to running backs 5 years later: They could make ANYONE an instant start, hence Larry Brown winning SB MVP for being in the right place at the right time for TWO Ints of the guy with the LOWEST CAREER INT RATE IN NFL HISTORY.

I disagree on Norton and (to a lesser extent) Maryland. Also, Charles Haley may not have made the '93 Pro Bowl, but was still an elite player, and Darren Woodson was amazing throughout his career; he missed the '93 Pro Bowl, but made the following FIVE STRAIGHT. Don't forget Leon Lett, a phenomenal player despite a few infamously poor decisions on and off the field, or Jim Jeffcoat, who somehow NEVER made the Pro Bowl, but has >100 career sacks and hit double digit sacks in 5 seasons, the last immediately before the '93 campaign.

Those are just the top guys; many others (e.g. Tolbert) were good-but-not-great. Those offenses were better, but that sets the bar high; the defenses were still VERY good, better than Seattles, IMHO (for one thing they didn't have to dope players and cheap shot opponents to do their job.) Dallas HAD to have good D playing ¼ of its schedule against championship teams like Parcells' Giants and Gibbs' 'Skins, then winning 3 of 4 straight NFCCGs against Walshs SF dynasty. There's a reason the NFL created the salary cap to end that: The same two teams playing "SBs before the SB" 4 years running gets old.


The Bills lost to Washington and Dallas(the first time) because they were too trigger happy and sloppy. Kelly threw some bad INT's in both of those games. Then, in the second Dallas loss, they didn't go for the throat before halftime. If they go up 17-6 instead of 10-6, and just drive to midfield and punt at minimum to start the second half, they go on to win that game. It was theirs for the taking. Aikman was pretty woozy in that game.
Maybe it's as simple as Levy also believing (rightly or not) his teams were outclassed, and rolling the dice from perceived necessity: When one rolls the dice, sometimes they come up snake eyes. To a certain extent that was almost inevitable; before Cowhers Steelers and our repeat champs, AFC offenses were generally high risk/reward, and that was as true of Buffalo as anyone: Great defenses tend to make high risk a reality far more often than high reward.


I also agree that Fox didn't let Delhomme make a comeback in SB 38 until the fourth quarter (They should have been bombing their slow secondary. Shanny was the only one who would attack them), but I don't agree that the Pats were MUCH BETTER. The 2001-08 era was an era of mediocrity in the NFL, in my mind. The teams that won it (the 01 and 03-04 Patriots, 05 and 08 Steelers, 06 Colts, and 07 Giants) were practically paper champions.
Agreed; the Pats absent their cameraman have consistently been also-rans. Compulsory parity has its own inevitability, and mediocrity is the biggest one; free agency and the cap make dynasties impossible now unless a GM can find many of the best athletes willing to play for far less than their worth just to win a championship, and despite knowing their careers will almost certainly cause serious life-long health issues whose cost must be covered by whatever they earn in the brief high-earnings window between rookie contracts and aging decline.

Scanning and predicting each seasons contenders over the last decade or so, it's hard to avoid noticing MOST modern contenders compare poorly to almost ANY pre-cap (much less pre-87) champion. When teams had exclusive rights to rookies most of their careers and the sky was the limit on new contracts, most champions were SOLID nearly EVERYWHERE; they had to be, else one of the other teams that were would pound the snot out of them in the playoffs. Now nearly even the best teams have at least one serious flaw to exploit (except the one juicing UDFA and CFL thugs into Pro Bowlers, of course.)


As for Manning, you may be right. We shall see. I just have a gut feeling that he will play two more years, but if he wins it this year, and retires, God bless him. Part of me wants to move on to the Osweiler era, anyway.
I guess the chance for a repeat could motivate him, but Elway has the record for oldest starting QB to win a SB; Manning would match it if he won THIS year, so a repeat would break it. And Manning never brought Elways raw power to the table, nor does he have Davis to draw eight defenders left so he can scamper right and into the end zone untouched. And if he falls short yet AGAIN despite all the high-priced help brought in, at what point does frustration and age a long way from home become too much?

I'd love to see Manning go out like Elway—but would hate to see him go out like Montana or Unitas.

NightTrainLayne
09-20-2014, 10:31 AM
This thread is hilarious. As if the original premise wasn't whacky enough, we have looooooong posts arguing about the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's and their place in history. Wow.

MOtorboat
09-20-2014, 10:32 AM
This thread is hilarious. As if the original premise wasn't whacky enough, we have looooooong posts arguing about the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's and their place in history. Wow.

The latter is my fault.

NightTrainLayne
09-20-2014, 10:34 AM
The latter is my fault.

What are we going to do with you?

Ravage!!!
09-20-2014, 11:36 AM
I just think it's a mentality that starts with Fox.

I don't like Fox choosing to kneel on the ball close to half time because we are "in a comfortable position as it is", when we are up in games like he does time and time again, sometimes we even have 2 or 3 TO's left. I know it's not a big deal and never really affects the game, I just don't like that mentality of letting a drive go regardless - WIth our offense, and especially when we have 2+ TO's like we do at times going into a half, Manning needs no more than 25 seconds to get into field position from our 20.

I am not sure if it starts with FOX, but I cannot stand the way Denver comes out of halftime of the last 2 games. Like we are all of a sudden comfrotable and we are going to completely change the tempo of our offense and play bacll control, which is something we are not very good at right now.

Maybe it's Del Rio, but I cannot stand the way our defense is called. We have a soft mentality on defense that doesn't attack as much as it should, and it's almost like we are more ready for the ffense to make a mistake so we can pounce instead of forcing the offense to make a mistake.

I didn't like Fox not calling TO's at the end of the game. I know his line of thinking is "we'll just win it right now with our defense", but that isn't going to help the offense when the time comes they don't win it. They aren't going to win that posion everytime. Everytime they are in that position, FOx should be calling TO's to give the offense a chance. Manning needs 40 seconds w/o a TO to get in field position if even that.

Maybe it's FOx maybe it isn't, but something to me spells s-o-f-t with the way this team is playing football right now. I see it on the field, and I see it the way the game is managed from the coaching staff all around.

But it was exactly the OPPOSITE last year. Last year we came out of half-time on FIRE.. killing opponents. So I have a hard time saying "its Fox's fault"... as if this is something that we've seen throughout his tenure. It's not.

I agree, the way the Broncos have come out after half-time has been sucking balls. I don't know what it is , or what has changed, but I'm not convinced in the least that its a "Fox" problem. DT has looked terrible. Our defense SHOULD be better, but maybe that just takes some time considering we only have 4 starters that are the same from last year on the defensive side of the ball (something like that)?

Not calling TOs at the end of the game was a scratcher for me as well, and I didn't agree with it. But Manning and HIS offense have scored a total of 7 & 3 points in the second half of 2 games now. We can't say it's Manning offense and he is the OC when we score well, but blame Fox when we don't. This offense has looked pathetic in the second half and its the execution of the players...starting with the QB...that isn't up to par.

Joel
09-20-2014, 02:12 PM
But it was exactly the OPPOSITE last year. Last year we came out of half-time on FIRE.. killing opponents.
Sometimes; sometimes it was just the OPPOSITE of the opposite: If we play the second half like the first @NE, they don't come back from 24-0 at the half to win in OT.


So I have a hard time saying "its Fox's fault"... as if this is something that we've seen throughout his tenure. It's not.
Sure; it's not like our 13 game winning streak Mannings first year started with us down 24-0 to SD—oh, wait....

*shrugs* You tell us who's at fault for Foxs Broncos playing only one half of most games. It's DEFINITELY a fatal flaw; should we blame Manning, the host of other FA Pro Bowlers added at a cost of $60 million this year alone, or any or all of the coaches? What exactly is the opaque-colored glasses excuse for why a team stacked with talent 3 years running's still hasn't gotten over the championship hump?

Poet
09-20-2014, 02:19 PM
Back when I posted on Bengals message boards I often saw many posters, sometimes myself included, take hard stances as a way of lashing out against hard realities that your team faced. Sometimes a post or stance would have some merit to it, but then that merit would be extrapolated into a waaaaaay-ouuuuuuut-thereeeeeee- stance. People would come in and try to debate the stance. It only made it worse.

Divisional games are often tough. I've seen a shitty 4-12 Browns team stand up to a dominant Steelers team. How the **** do average Dolphins rosters stand up to the Patriots with consistency?

Poet
09-20-2014, 02:20 PM
What exactly is the opaque-colored glasses excuse for why a team stacked with talent 3 years running's still hasn't gotten over the championship hump?

Everything.

MOtorboat
09-20-2014, 02:35 PM
Joel spent all of last year bitching about this team not beating anyone. In the first two weeks Denver beat two playoff teams and he's bitching that the team didn't play well enough or win by enough.

I wouldn't ever expect to win those games by more than a touchdown.

Valar Morghulis
09-20-2014, 02:52 PM
Winning pretty is not important, winning is.

Pretty will come.

In fact, hopefully it comes all over Seattle on Sunday.....

Joel
09-20-2014, 03:38 PM
Joel spent all of last year bitching about this team not beating anyone. In the first two weeks Denver beat two playoff teams and he's bitching that the team didn't play well enough or win by enough.

I wouldn't ever expect to win those games by more than a touchdown.
That's a great point—or would be if certain folks hadn't spent all of last year (and all of this one so far) insisting KC's a pitiful paper tiger that coasted to 11 wins vs. pathetic "opposition" (OUR 11 wins against the SAME teams are TOTALLY legit though; it's not like the SOLE difference between our records and KCs is sweeping them in wins no better or worse than the quality of the team we beat. ;)) It took a whole season, but I guess we're finally to the point of saying it: The Chiefs are garbage—except when WE play them; THEN even the narrowest win's a great a"chief"ment vs. "a playoff team."

For what it's worth I didn't spent all of last year saying we didn't beat anyone; I consistently held the Chiefs were neither as good as their 9-0 start nor as bad as their 2-14 finish in 2012, but quality opponents we showed quality by beating: I wasn't the one who kept calling KC garbage (which by extension means our 13 wins only featured TWO winning teams: The Bolts, who beat us once, and a Philly team that went 10-6 beating up on last years awful NFCE.)

We're not Nebraska; we can't get blown out by OU but phone in 8 wins against teams like the Iowa State Cyclones so we reach a postseason blowout by Miami, then call it success. This is grownup football.

Joel
09-20-2014, 03:44 PM
Back when I posted on Bengals message boards I often saw many posters, sometimes myself included, take hard stances as a way of lashing out against hard realities that your team faced. Sometimes a post or stance would have some merit to it, but then that merit would be extrapolated into a waaaaaay-ouuuuuuut-thereeeeeee- stance. People would come in and try to debate the stance. It only made it worse.

Divisional games are often tough. I've seen a shitty 4-12 Browns team stand up to a dominant Steelers team. How the **** do average Dolphins rosters stand up to the Patriots with consistency?
Also a fair point; divisional foes face each others rosters, coaches, playcalls and philosophy twice a year, so everyone who's been on the team long gets VERY familiar with what the rest of the division likes to do, and how. I haven't checked, but bet DJ Williams has a better career statistical record against Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez than many players considered far better than him; experience counts.

Whatever our past schedules, THIS one's so nightmarish your Bengals may not even be among our top five opponents. We face ALL the other Conference Championship teams (2/3 on the road,) plus ya'll, Indy, 4 games against the AFCW teams that made last years playoffs and another against a Cardinals team that SHOULD have. For that matter (and with due consideration it's early days) the Bills look much better than pretty much anyone expected now. We might have all of three gimmes against the Jets and Oakland (though two of those are divisional games.)

Given all that, I'll take any and every win we can get by any legal means.

Poet
09-20-2014, 03:46 PM
Joel, certainly you have to acknowledge that of course Bronco fans are going to bash the Chiefs, it's a rival team. A lot of people picked Cleveland to be pretty decent this year. If you ask me how many wins I expect them to have, I'm going to tell you 2.

Simple Jaded
09-20-2014, 05:29 PM
Joel puts the MB on the defensive and then wipes his ass with the "excuses" in their response, he lives for it, it's been like this since the Broncos actually acquired a legitimate NFL QB. Few teams have done more to achieve SB success and Joel seems to resent every single last minute of it.

He can tell you, in War and Peace book form, the very milli-second that he no was longer an Oilers fan, years from now he'll be able to do the same with the Denver Broncos.

Joel
09-20-2014, 07:54 PM
Joel, certainly you have to acknowledge that of course Bronco fans are going to bash the Chiefs, it's a rival team. A lot of people picked Cleveland to be pretty decent this year. If you ask me how many wins I expect them to have, I'm going to tell you 2.
The contradiction irks me: One can say 11 wins are meaningless because they were vs. dreg teams OR one can say ALL NFL teams are pretty good, so 11 wins against any of them is an accomplishment—what one CAN'T say is KCs 11 wins against those teams are meaningless BUT our 11 wins against those teams plus 2 more against KC is an accomplishment. Either they're legit (so KC doesn't suck) or they're not (so we and KC equally accomplished nothing.) Pick a Bronco and ride it, but don't change midstream unless you want to drown.

Joel
09-20-2014, 07:59 PM
Joel puts the MB on the defensive and then wipes his ass with the "excuses" in their response, he lives for it, it's been like this since the Broncos actually acquired a legitimate NFL QB. Few teams have done more to achieve SB success and Joel seems to resent every single last minute of it.

He can tell you, in War and Peace book form, the very milli-second that he no was longer an Oilers fan, years from now he'll be able to do the same with the Denver Broncos.
I've wondered a few times how some of our members would react if Bowlen couldn't sell out Mile High yet demanded Denver demolish it and build him a shiny new stadium to ALSO not sell out, then picked up the team and moved it to L.A. or somewhere and changed the name when they refused. It's an interesting thought experiment, but I sincerely hope it never becomes anything more.

It's a unique case (at least since Baltimore got the former Browns and Cleveland the new ones,) wasn't my doing and happened over my strong but pointless protest, so I feel no duty to apologize for it.

Slick
09-20-2014, 08:06 PM
I've wondered a few times how some of our members would react if Bowlen couldn't sell out Mile High yet demanded Denver demolish it and build him a shiny new stadium to ALSO not sell out, then picked up the team and moved it to L.A. or somewhere and changed the name when they refused. It's an interesting thought experiment, but I sincerely hope it never becomes anything more.

It's a unique case (at least since Baltimore got the former Browns and Cleveland the new ones,) wasn't my doing and happened over my strong but pointless protest, so I feel no duty to apologize for it.

Good answer!

Joel, in one word or less, is coach Fox on YOUR hotseat?

Joel
09-20-2014, 09:59 PM
Good answer!

Joel, in one word or less, is coach Fox on YOUR hotseat?
Has been at least since the Ravens loss, not that it ultimately matters much. But, Hell, if a team with as much talent as we've been loaded with 3 years and counting can't win a championship, it's hard to put that on anyone on the field rather than the sideline. There was plenty of blame to go around in that Ravens loss, so I'll not point my finger at any one player, but that's been more rule than exception since: Do all the Pro Bowlers we pay top dollar for magically turn into bums on arrival, or do all the goofs, lack of focus, phoning in games, failure to launch and forgetting to finish start higher?

Every time we inexplicably snatch defeat from the ugly jaws of victory, after every boneheaded mistake and crushing disappointment, it's always the same excuse from Fox: "We made mistakes, but they're correctable." Yeah, that's kinda, like, YOUR JOB, dude; if we're still making the same "correctable" mistakes after three seasons, why haven't you managed to correct them? Again, it's like the drunk who says, "I can quit any time I want; it's not a problem:" Even if true, when he DOESN'T quit, THAT'S a problem. Maybe the "correctable mistake" is Fox.

Timmy!
09-21-2014, 12:13 AM
One word or less.....classic.

Joel
09-21-2014, 10:50 AM
one word or less.....classic.
yes

BroncoWave
09-21-2014, 10:53 AM
One word or less.....classic.

By Joel's standards, that post pretty much was just one word.

broncosinindy
11-16-2014, 04:59 PM
What's the tempature here?

OB
11-16-2014, 05:28 PM
:flame:

chazoe60
11-16-2014, 06:15 PM
Why hasn't broncosinindy fired these clowns yet? Its as if he doesn't even have the authority, hmmmmm

Simple Jaded
11-16-2014, 06:43 PM
Why hasn't broncosinindy fired these clowns yet? Its as if he doesn't even have the authority, hmmmmm

Lmao.

Joel
11-16-2014, 06:51 PM
So tell me again how the modern passing league made running obsolete, and we don't need to run anyway since we have PFM and a horde of receiving weapons. We have a Bizarro Line: Instead of opening holes for runs and closing them for the passes, they do the exact opposite. Even Mannings quick reads and releases can't make his line look better than they are when he has a blitzer up the gut blocking his vision and throws, and Franklins two penalties today officially put him on pace to surpass his career high last year. I honestly don't know how a career starter can manage MORE penalties EVERY season.

There are no easy fixes; simply reshuffling the same bad hand every other game's NOT going to get it done. The time to fix the problem our coaches FINALLY diagosed last offseason WAS last offseason, when a TON of great guard talent was available both in FA and a draft class top-heavy at that position. Now we're stuck; it's like Fox is trying to win a bet: Can a team LOADED with HoF and All Pro talent all the way down to the water boy at every position EXCEPT the offensive line win a Super Bowl?

Right now the answer appears a decisive "no;" instead of worrying about playoff homefield, we're back to worrying about whether we can even win our freakin' DIVISION.

ShaneFalco
11-16-2014, 06:53 PM
i think you guys shouldnt be 2 harsh on the o line. Rams just have one of the best d line in the league.

Davii
11-16-2014, 06:55 PM
i think you guys shouldnt be 2 harsh on the o line. Rams just have one of the best d line in the league.

:pound: :pound:

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:00 PM
:pound: :pound:

He's right.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 07:04 PM
i think you guys shouldnt be 2 harsh on the o line. Rams just have one of the best d line in the league.

Expect this isn't a one time thing. The oline has been performing poorly all season.

ShaneFalco
11-16-2014, 07:05 PM
well they need to allow the o line to be agressive, and when you pass all the time with not much play action, its not hard for a good d line to key in on that.

I think losing Moreno hurt the Broncos alot more then people thought it would.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:08 PM
well they need to allow the o line to be agressive, and when you pass all the time with not much play action, its not hard for a good d line to key in on that.

I think losing Moreno hurt the Broncos alot more then people thought it would.

And moving Franklin was idiotic.

Simple Jaded
11-16-2014, 07:09 PM
Yeah I thought the rookie DT was exactly what the G's didn't need at this point in time.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-16-2014, 07:12 PM
I question the wisdom of moving 3 linemen to new positions on the road against a nasty front 7.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:15 PM
There's still no way you even contemplate firing the coaching staff.

ShaneFalco
11-16-2014, 07:15 PM
Yeah I thought the rookie DT was exactly what the G's didn't need at this point in time.

I think he will get Defensive ROTY

Joel
11-16-2014, 07:18 PM
And moving Franklin was idiotic.
So who should've played LG then? It was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone and make lemonade out of a lemon, because Franklin was pretty bad at RT (really) and Fox publicly said Clark was the NFLs best backup OT. Now Clark can't even get on the field and Franklin's trying to break his personal penalty record for the fourth straight season (#consistency.)

I can't help wondering if Vasquez at LG (he's GOT to be able to pull better than Franklin, and doesn't get beat inside on stunts) and Franklin at RG (where he'd be able to just shove straight ahead a lot) would've been better. But maybe NOTHING would've; there's a reason I wanted to go after a top G in the draft and/or FA rather than just reshuffling the same bad hand.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:20 PM
So who should've played LG then? It was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone and make lemonade out of a lemon, because Franklin was pretty bad at RT (really) and Fox publicly said Clark was the NFLs best backup OT. Now Clark can't even get on the field and Franklin's trying to break his personal penalty record for the fourth straight season (#consistency.)

I can't help wondering if Vasquez at LG (he's GOT to be able to pull better than Franklin, and doesn't get beat inside on stunts) and Franklin at RG (where he'd be able to just shove straight ahead a lot) would've been better. But maybe NOTHING would've; there's a reason I wanted to go after a top G in the draft and/or FA rather than just reshuffling the same bad hand.

Anyone else.

I told you if they moved him they'd have to fill two holes instead of one. It wasn't rocket science. Franklin wasn't as bad as you say he was (over and over and over and over and over and spam).

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:21 PM
Not a single first place team has won today except Arizona.

Fire everyone!

Simple Jaded
11-16-2014, 07:24 PM
I think he will get Defensive ROTY
I gotta go CJ Mosley here, he's gonna be a ProBowler too.

Mike
11-16-2014, 07:27 PM
There's still no way you even contemplate firing the coaching staff.

Elway won't do anything during the season. But at the end of this season? If the Broncos don't win the SB then I would expect Fox to go and maybe more.

Fox brings absolutely nothing to this team. This team is often unprepared, undisciplined, and skates by on talent alone. We have an OC that cannot come up with any creativity on offense despite the most talented roster, a DC that cannot call anything other than a vanilla defense, ST that is the worst in the league, and Fox who just looks confused on the sideline. And as of right now, this more talented team is worse than the previous two years and is perilously close to slipping out of the division lead.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:31 PM
Elway won't do anything during the season. But at the end of this season? If the Broncos don't win the SB then I would expect Fox to go and maybe more.

Fox brings absolutely nothing to this team. This team is often unprepared, undisciplined, and skates by on talent alone. We have an OC that cannot come up with any creativity on offense despite the most talented roster, a DC that cannot call anything other than a vanilla defense, ST that is the worst in the league, and Fox who just looks confused on the sideline. And as of right now, this more talented team is worse than the previous two years and is perilously close to slipping out of the division lead.

I simply disagree. An NFL coach doesn't win 70 percent of his games if he's as incompetent as you say.

There's not much evidence for what you say week after week.

Simple Jaded
11-16-2014, 07:33 PM
Anyone else.

I told you if they moved him they'd have to fill two holes instead of one. It wasn't rocket science. Franklin wasn't as bad as you say he was (over and over and over and over and over and spam).
https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2013&pos=T&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1&conf=-1&yr=-1&wk=1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17

Says here that Franklin graded out as the 4th best RT in the league last season in the same rankings that Joel is using to say "I told you so" about Schwartz and Asamoah.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 07:33 PM
Elway won't do anything during the season. But at the end of this season? If the Broncos don't win the SB then I would expect Fox to go and maybe more.

Fox brings absolutely nothing to this team. This team is often unprepared, undisciplined, and skates by on talent alone. We have an OC that cannot come up with any creativity on offense despite the most talented roster, a DC that cannot call anything other than a vanilla defense, ST that is the worst in the league, and Fox who just looks confused on the sideline. And as of right now, this more talented team is worse than the previous two years and is perilously close to slipping out of the division lead.

Preach it. Obviously you don't fire them mid-season, but a strong look needs to be taken after the season. This team just has too much talent to underperform like they do.

Mike
11-16-2014, 07:33 PM
I simply disagree. An NFL coach doesn't win 70 percent of his games if he's as incompetent as you say.

There's simply not much evidence for what you say week after week.

With Manning as your QB and with as talented of a roster? Your can bet your rear they would. Week after week it is there to see if you take off the orange colored glasses.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 07:38 PM
With Manning as your QB and with as talented of a roster? Your can bet your rear they would. Week after week it is there to see if you take off the orange colored glasses.

Hell Jim Caldwell won a bunch of games with peyton.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:38 PM
https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2013&pos=T&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1&conf=-1&yr=-1&wk=1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17

Says here that Franklin graded out as the 4th best RT in the league last season in the same rankings that Joel is using to say "I told you so" about Schwartz and Asamoah.

It was a massive organizational mistake.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:40 PM
Hell Jim Caldwell won a bunch of games with peyton.


The guy has two Super Bowl rings and has been a part of five conference champions. Yeah. He's a real shitty coach.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 07:43 PM
The guy has two Super Bowl rings and has been a part of five conference champions. Yeah. He's a real shitty coach.

I'm sure he's a fine coordinator, but other than one season in Carolina, pretty much all of his success as a head coach has been while being carried by Peyton.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:44 PM
With Manning as your QB and with as talented of a roster? Your can bet your rear they would. Week after week it is there to see if you take off the orange colored glasses.

Let's have it then...

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:46 PM
I'm sure he's a fine coordinator, but other than one season in Carolina, pretty much all of his success as a head coach has been while being carried by Peyton.

He's never coached in Carolina.

And he's got the Lions in first place this year. He's a fine coach.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 07:49 PM
He's never coached in Carolina.

And he's got the Lions in first place this year. He's a fine coach.


Sorry, didn't know you were talking about Caldwell. Regardless, how many of those accomplishments that you lauded him for came as a head coach of teams without Peyton Manning?

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 07:51 PM
Sorry, didn't know you were talking about Caldwell. Regardless, how many of those accomplishments that you lauded him for came as a head coach of teams without Peyton Manning?

Half.

WTE
11-16-2014, 08:22 PM
Hello.

:welcome:

BroncoJoe
11-16-2014, 08:25 PM
Go Colts!

WTE
11-16-2014, 08:27 PM
Hi Joe.

Nomad
11-16-2014, 08:30 PM
This will be Luck's first win against the Patriots.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 08:50 PM
Half.



I must have blacked out and missed those super bowl rings he won as a head coach.

GEM
11-16-2014, 08:55 PM
I simply disagree. An NFL coach doesn't win 70 percent of his games if he's as incompetent as you say.

There's not much evidence for what you say week after week.

The fact he has to say it week after week says something. You're too invested in your opinion to admit it even a little bit. We just got the shit beat out of us by the Rams, who can't even figure out who their starting qb should be. We made Shaun Hill (who?) look like an All Pro.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 08:57 PM
I must have blacked out and missed those super bowl rings he won as a head coach.

Because it only counts if he's the head coach.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 08:59 PM
The fact he has to say it week after week says something. You're too invested in your opinion to admit it even a little bit. We just got the shit beat out of us by the Rams, who can't even figure out who their starting qb should be. We made Shaun Hill (who?) look like an All Pro.

No. I'm perfectly open to some solid arguments.

A loss solely on its own is not a solid argument. People bitched for a quarter when Denver threw it short, then they bitched when they opened it up and nothing was open. The coaches can't win on this one.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:02 PM
Because it only counts if he's the head coach.

When evaluating his abilities as a head coach, yes? There are lots of fine coordinators who have won multiple rings as coordinators but struggled as head coaches.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:05 PM
No. I'm perfectly open to some solid arguments.

A loss solely on its own is not a solid argument. People bitched for a quarter when Denver threw it short, then they bitched when they opened it up and nothing was open. The coaches can't win on this one.

How about these examples.. Twice on 3rd and 3 the best play we could come up with was a deep fade to Tamme. That's horrible.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:06 PM
When evaluating his abilities as a head coach, yes? There are lots of fine coordinators who have won multiple rings as coordinators but struggled as head coaches.

Head coaches who qualify for the Super Bowl, but don't win it are no shitty coaches.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:07 PM
How about these examples.. Twice on 3rd and 3 the best play we could come up with was a deep fade to Tamme. That's horrible.

So Tamme was the only player in a pass pattern. Protect 9? Maybe they need to do that.

That's not a god damned play call problem. It's a Manning decision problem.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:10 PM
So Tamme was the only player in a pass pattern. Protect 9? Maybe they need to do that.

That's not a god damned play call problem. It's a Manning decision problem.

I get that, but to even have Tamme running that route at all is bad. Send DT on the deep fade and have your tight end go over the middle in that situation.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:12 PM
I get that, but to even have Tamme running that route at all is bad. Send DT on the deep fade and have your tight end go over the middle in that situation.

DT was double and triple teamed all day, Welker was dropping passes and Thomas and Sanders were hurt. You trust Caldwell to make that catch? It's a no win situation and I think Manning made bad decisions.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:13 PM
Here's a coaching decision to question (which BTB has done): Cornick over Latimer.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:17 PM
Here's a coaching decision to question (which BTB has done): Cornick over Latimer.

Or even Caldwell over latimer. Kinda hard to explain those.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:19 PM
DT was double and triple teamed all day, Welker was dropping passes and Thomas and Sanders were hurt. You trust Caldwell to make that catch? It's a no win situation and I think Manning made bad decisions.

I get all that, I just don't think lining up Tamme out wide and running him on a deep fade is the best way to utilize him in that situation.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:23 PM
I get all that, I just don't think lining up Tamme out wide and running him on a deep fade is the best way to utilize him in that situation.

He was open on one, and the pass rush rushed the throw. I don't think it was horrible, it was just that it didn't work...execution.

Manning takes the blame for a lot of this when I look at it.

OB
11-16-2014, 09:30 PM
Never thought I'd see the day Falco and MO were in agreement :)

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:31 PM
Well clearly we won't agree on that play, but here's another issue where I think our coaching staff consistently comes up short: managing the end of the first half. We had all our timeouts at our disposal and could have gotten the ball back with two minutes left had we used those timeouts. They always seem happy to just limp into the half instead of trying to steal some extra points before the half.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:33 PM
Well clearly we won't agree on that play, but here's another issue where I think our coaching staff consistently comes up short: managing the end of the first half. We had all our timeouts at our disposal and could have gotten the ball back with two minutes left had we used those timeouts. They always seem happy to just limp into the half instead of trying to steal some extra points before the half.

I agree.

But that's a tricky situation. If you call timeout and they make a first down you give them an extra, free 40 seconds of clock time while they still have a timeout. I don't like it, but I won't fault the logic.

OB
11-16-2014, 09:34 PM
Tamme sucked. Seriously. But Peyton was also way off. It's hard to blame one area when in reality today (and all of our last 4 losses) have been an all around team failure including coaching.

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:38 PM
I agree.

But that's a tricky situation. If you call timeout and they make a first down you give them an extra, free 40 seconds of clock time while they still have a timeout. I don't like it, but I won't fault the logic.

It is risky, but our defense wasn't playing all that terribly and sometimes you need to take a chance to spark the offense. Had we been in the lead maybe you don't take that risk, but I think that was a good spot to try it.

OB
11-16-2014, 09:41 PM
It is risky, but our defense wasn't playing all that terribly and sometimes you need to take a chance to spark the offense. Had we been in the lead maybe you don't take that risk, but I think that was a good spot to try it.

Our defense is a bend and not break. It seems we gave up a lot of yards but not as many points as could have been expected. Our offense - or lack thereof- was the biggest issue. But at times our defense wasn't what you would hope against a team like the Rams

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:44 PM
It is risky, but our defense wasn't playing all that terribly and sometimes you need to take a chance to spark the offense. Had we been in the lead maybe you don't take that risk, but I think that was a good spot to try it.

I think Fox was hoping for a second half spark, and with the third quarters this team is had, I can't really blame him.

OB
11-16-2014, 09:46 PM
I think Fox was hoping for a second half spark, and with the third quarters this team is had, I can't really blame him.

Is it not his job to create that spark???

Joel
11-16-2014, 09:48 PM
Head coaches who qualify for the Super Bowl, but don't win it are no shitty coaches.
The first time he needed THREE OT wins just to qualify for the PLAYOFFS, and a fourth once there to reach the SB; the second, he had Manning and a bunch of All Pro WRs. Fox didn't take those teams to the SB, THEY took HIM; maybe if he stops playing Foxball before the start of the 4th quarter Carolina wins that game, instead of coming back from three scores down only to see NE win with a FG at the end.

I'm frankly amazed Fox managed to win ONE playoff game against Belicheat, but then, he had Manning, historys best passing attack and homefield advantage. How many of those will he have next time...?


I agree.

But that's a tricky situation. If you call timeout and they make a first down you give them an extra, free 40 seconds of clock time while they still have a timeout. I don't like it, but I won't fault the logic.
Fine, but that makes calling time after the NEXT play completely masturbatory: There's only 0:21 left after we get the ball inside your 20, so all we can do is chunk a couple Hail Maries—which Fox STILL didn't do: He knelt down and went to the locker room. So why call time AT ALL?! Just to run one more STs play where someone can get hurt or his return man can muff the catch as his goal line just before half time and give the Rams the FG his D just prevented (kinda like when we hosted NE Foxs first year in Denver)?

That's the ugly of Foxs calls there: They're 180° contradictory, so it doesn't even matter WHICH one a person thinks is right; either way, at least one of those calls was exactly wrong. Yet Fox made them all.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:53 PM
Is it not his job to create that spark???

Maybe. Professionals should be motivated to do it, though.

This game, IMO, was all about players sucking.

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 09:54 PM
The first time he needed THREE OT wins just to qualify for the PLAYOFFS, and a fourth once there to reach the SB; the second, he had Manning and a bunch of All Pro WRs. Fox didn't take those teams to the SB, THEY took HIM; maybe if he stops playing Foxball before the start of the 4th quarter Carolina wins that game, instead of coming back from three scores down only to see NE win with a FG at the end.

I'm frankly amazed Fox managed to win ONE playoff game against Belicheat, but then, he had Manning, historys best passing attack and homefield advantage. How many of those will he have next time...?


Fine, but that makes calling time after the NEXT play completely masturbatory: There's only 0:21 left after we get the ball inside your 20, so all we can do is chunk a couple Hail Maries—which Fox STILL didn't do: He knelt down and went to the locker room. So why call time AT ALL?! Just to run one more STs play where someone can get hurt or his return man can muff the catch as his goal line just before half time and give the Rams the FG his D just prevented (kinda like when we hosted NE Foxs first year in Denver)?

That's the ugly of Foxs calls there: They're 180° contradictory, so it doesn't even matter WHICH one a person thinks is right; either way, at least one of those calls was exactly wrong. Yet Fox made them all.

Wasn't even talking about Fox.

OB
11-16-2014, 09:57 PM
It's official. People have tweeted

http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/11/16/7230187/broncos-former-players-call-out-john-fox-rams-loss

BroncoWave
11-16-2014, 09:59 PM
And just for the record, I'm not calling for anyone to get fired at all at this point. Would be stupid to do now. But if we fade down the stretch and get bounced early in the playoffs, or God forbid miss the playoffs, then I think the coaching staff is something elway needs to strongly evaluate. We just have too much talent to have the lapses we have.

OB
11-16-2014, 10:00 PM
Maybe. Professionals should be motivated to do it, though.

This game, IMO, was all about players sucking.

I semi agree. I have a hard time saying a professional player can't play past a bad scheme. But I've never played football so I can't say either way. Part of me thinks if the coach tells you to do something you do it. Part of me thinks if a coach tells you something and it's obviously not going to work, you don't do it. So who is to blame?

MOtorboat
11-16-2014, 10:01 PM
I semi agree. I have a hard time saying a professional player can't play past a bad scheme. But I've never played football so I can't say either way. Part of me thinks if the coach tells you to do something you do it. Part of me thinks if a coach tells you something and it's obviously not going to work, you don't do it. So who is to blame?

It's probably an equal amount of everyone involved. But that's not conducive to blowing a gasket. Need a scapegoat.

ShaneFalco
11-16-2014, 10:01 PM
If the broncos have a bad year, then hey we may get gurley in the draft!

That would be a SB team.

aberdien
11-16-2014, 10:02 PM
The difference between the Patriots and the Broncos in one tweet:

Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 13s13 seconds ago
Brady's halftime passer rating is 24.8. And yet -- 14-10 lead.

OB
11-16-2014, 10:04 PM
Brady isn't as important as Manning. That's a fact. :p

ShaneFalco
11-16-2014, 10:05 PM
It's official. People have tweeted

http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/11/16/7230187/broncos-former-players-call-out-john-fox-rams-loss

I liked Dawkins tweet.


look at the poll, 80% blame coaches ;o

Joel
11-16-2014, 10:08 PM
Wasn't even talking about Fox.
Who didn't call the TO on 2nd down, and did call it on 3rd? Hint: The guy PFM was yelling at on the sideline for not calling it on 2nd.