Are the 2015 Broncos going to collapse?

[7DnBrnc53]

I was on J-Dubs Dubsism blog tonight: https://dubsism.wordpress.com/

He is a pretty colorful guy with good insights on sports.

On his most recent podcast at the top of the screen, he stated his belief: The Broncos are due for a collapse (he states this in the last 20 minutes of the cast).

I told him that, if Denver wins the next two games, that probably won't happen. However, if they lose them, and if Manning regresses, he should be pulled. I also said in the comments section that Manning is the reason Kubes can't run his offense.

What do you guys think. Is he right, or can this team keep this up?

[BroncoWave]

It honestly wouldn't shock me a bit. I don't think relying on the defense to force a turnover in the last minute of every game is a sustainable way to keep winning especially once we start playing better teams than we have so far. I've said this a few times, but I think we will find out WAY more about this team after the Green Bay game. If they embarrass us, I could definitely see the team start to go down the tubes. If we hang with them though or even win, then I will still be willing to call the team a contender.

So it's really hard to answer at this point, but I think it is a very realistic scenario that the defense doesn't keep up the insanely good pace they have been on against some less than stellar offenses and the offense just won't be good enough to make up for it.

Now having said that, it's also entirely possible that the defense is the truth and the offense improves to the level that we could become a very strong title contender.

So basically my answer is "Who knows" but I really could see the team going in either direction.

[weazel]

They're paying a QB 15 million a season, they are going to live or die with the guy whether the fans like it or not. Adding more threads about the same thing is not going to change it.

[Cugel]

I was on J-Dubs Dubsism blog tonight: https://dubsism.wordpress.com/

He is a pretty colorful guy with good insights on sports.

On his most recent podcast at the top of the screen, he stated his belief: The Broncos are due for a collapse (he states this in the last 20 minutes of the cast).

I told him that, if Denver wins the next two games, that probably won't happen. However, if they lose them, and if Manning regresses, he should be pulled. I also said in the comments section that Manning is the reason Kubes can't run his offense.

What do you guys think. Is he right, or can this team keep this up?

Almost everything you said is flat wrong.

Only 2 teams in NFL history that started 6-0 missed the playoffs. The 2009 Broncos was the last one and they had numerous fatal flaws: 1) McMoron was the head coach; 2) Kyle Orton was the QB; and 3) the defense wasn't remotely this good. They won with miracle plays (the "immaculate deflection") and everybody knew it couldn't last.

This team is winning with great defense. That CAN last. In fact that's how many Super Bowl teams have won.

Even if the Broncos start losing some games to teams that are playing much better on offense they are not going to "collapse" with this defense. The only thing that could precipitate a collapse would be injuries to key defenders like Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware. But, Ware is coming back for the Packers game.

Manning can't "regress" because his failures are almost entirely due to the fact that the offense just isn't very good. His arm isn't going to get any weaker at this point. The only question is whether the OL line is going to improve or continue to be horrible.

Well, unless they suffer more injuries they are obviously going to improve as they gain experience playing together. Getting Ty Sambrailo back at LT will be an improvement, getting Evan Mathis and Louis Vasquez healthy and Max Garcia more experience will help. Moving Ryan Harris and Tyler Polumbus back to RT will be an improvement.

In short, the OL can hardly play worse. The running game can't "regress". The biggest problem Peyton has is that he has nobody to throw to. His receivers aren't getting open because every defense knows that Peyton can only throw the ball to DT and Sanders - the Broncos can't run it, and because they lost Julius Thomas and Wes Welker and nobody has replaced their production. He doesn't have anybody open in the red zone, unlike previous seasons when they could throw to Welker and J.T.

Well, they are going to have to run much better. You can't be totally one-dimensional in this league. That depends entirely on better play from the OL.

You're also wrong about Manning. The main reason Kubiak can't run his offense is that the OL can't protect Peyton under center. While he executes the 3 step drop they are plowing the OL right back into Peyton. The Pistol is designed so that Peyton doesn't have to turn his back to the defense and can just step up and throw before the defenders can reach him - even though they are blasting through the OL in under 2 seconds.

It gets the ball out of his hands quicker. It wouldn't matter if Brock Osweiler were back there. If he tried to execute a 3 step drop and then set up, look down field, go through his progressions and then throw the ball he'd be sacked on every play. The OL can't hold their blocks that long.

Can Peyton roll out? Well you saw them run that several times last game and he hit his
passes.

[Cugel]

As for the Broncos "pulling Peyton" that is just hopelessly stupid. There is flat ZERO chance that Kubiak is going to "pull" Peyton Manning for some guy who's never played an NFL game. To suggest it simply proves that you are hopelessly ignorant.

It would be horrible to Osweiler's development to throw him to the wolves like that! What if they threw him in there and the team started losing MORE games? Then what? Of course he's going to struggle in his first season starting. They need to ease him in from the beginning of the year and give him all the starting reps and get him used to working with the #1s all the time and develop some chemistry BEFORE the season.

We've seen desperate coaches throw some rookie QB into the middle of the season before, usually in a hopeless attempt to avoid being fired themselves. And it almost NEVER works, and often destroys the confidence of the young player. It can also backfire severely by dividing the locker room.

Exhibit "A" to this kind of stupidity was Shanahan's move to bench Jake Plummer when the team was 7-3 and start rookie QB Jay Cutler. The team started losing, the locker room was divided, and the Broncos missed the playoffs. Oh, and it certainly didn't help Cutler's development any.

No matter what the idiot fans might think, the Broncos players are fiercely loyal to Peyton. There's absolutely NO way that Kubiak can, should or will replace him this season. If Peyton continues to struggle they will continue to find ways to try and help him, and then if it doesn't work they will give the ball to Brock at the beginning of next season and give him an entire pre-season to get ready to start. That's the proper way.

The idea that you can somehow "save" the Broncos season with a QB who's never started an NFL game is utterly absurd. If Peyton can't do it, it ain't getting done this year. Period.

But, with this defense they aren't going to "collapse". They have a 3 game lead over the Raiders, and beat them already on the road so they have the tie-breaker. They have a 4 and 1/2 game lead over the Chargers and Chiefs who are as good as eliminated. Does anybody really believe that the Raiders are going to go 8-2 the rest of the way, which they would need to do to gain the division title, even if the Broncos go 4-6?

[DenBronx]

Wont collapse like we did with McDaniels when we were 6-0 or anything but most likely will get bounced by NE in the playoffs. Complete different team and identity now. This team has heart but lacks the weapons. Sorry just being real because I think our offense just doesn't have what it takes. Defense does but not the offense.

[7DnBrnc53]

This team is winning with great defense. That CAN last. In fact that's how many Super Bowl teams have won.

I hope you are right. I agree that this defense is much better than the one they had in 09 when they started 6-0 with McCheater.


This team has heart but lacks the weapons. Sorry just being real because I think our offense just doesn't have what it takes. Defense does but not the offense.

I don't think that the weapons on this offense are the problem because there is talent at WR and RB (although TE is kind of a mess right now). OL is the problem, but they are starting to play better.


You're also wrong about Manning. The main reason Kubiak can't run his offense is that the OL can't protect Peyton under center. While he executes the 3 step drop they are plowing the OL right back into Peyton. The Pistol is designed so that Peyton doesn't have to turn his back to the defense and can just step up and throw before the defenders can reach him - even though they are blasting through the OL in under 2 seconds.

It gets the ball out of his hands quicker. It wouldn't matter if Brock Osweiler were back there. If he tried to execute a 3 step drop and then set up, look down field, go through his progressions and then throw the ball he'd be sacked on every play. The OL can't hold their blocks that long.

OK, fair enough.

[CrazyHorse]

I don't think so. If they win the rest of their division games remaining (4) they finish at least 10-6 which in most years is good for a playoff berth and likely the division. That in no way is a collapse.

[TXBRONC]

With more than half of their home games to be played after the bye-week I don't think they will collapse. What happened to the Broncos in '09 they lost eight games in ten weeks. That's a collapse.

[NightTerror218]

I doubt there is a calapse. Kubiak is a good coach. Team has solid veteran presence to keep it together.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The worst I see is 12--4, which will still be good enough to win the division and get a 1st round bye.

This defense is too good for us to end up a .500 team.

[Slick]

6 of the next 10 games are in Denver. That's a good thing. I'm expecting a one and done in the playoffs so I don't see a collapse coming.

[underrated29]

i think we lose but not collapse. We are way to talented to just collapse.


The Oline is only going to get better. The offense is only going to get better. We are 6-0 and we are not even running on 6 cylinders yet. If anything we are collapsed now and still winning. I dont think we win vs greenbay, but we will make the playoffs and if the offense gets just a little bit in gear we will go real far.

[TXBRONC]

i think we lose but not collapse. We are way to talented to just collapse.


The Oline is only going to get better. The offense is only going to get better. We are 6-0 and we are not even running on 6 cylinders yet. If anything we are collapsed now and still winning. I dont think we win vs greenbay, but we will make the playoffs and if the offense gets just a little bit in gear we will go real far.

Eventually Denver will lose I don't know how many games it will be. Green Bay is good but it is at home and they have some noticeable weaknesses and since it's at home it winnable.

[FanInAZ]

Only 2 teams in NFL history that started 6-0 missed the playoffs. The 2009 Broncos was the last one and they had numerous fatal flaws: 1) McMoron was the head coach; 2) Kyle Orton was the QB; and 3) the defense wasn't remotely this good. They won with miracle plays (the "immaculate deflection") and everybody knew it couldn't last.

I agree with everything you said here.


As for the Broncos "pulling Peyton" that is just ********** ******. There is flat ZERO chance that Kubiak is going to "pull" Peyton Manning for some guy who's never played an NFL game. To suggest it simply proves that you are ********* ********.

It would be horrible to Osweiler's development to throw him to the wolves like that! What if they threw him in there and the team started losing MORE games? Then what? Of course he's going to struggle in his first season starting. They need to ease him in from the beginning of the year and give him all the starting reps and get him used to working with the #1s all the time and develop some chemistry BEFORE the season.

We've seen desperate coaches throw some rookie QB into the middle of the season before, usually in a hopeless attempt to avoid being fired themselves. And it almost NEVER works, and often destroys the confidence of the young player. It can also backfire severely by dividing the locker room.

Exhibit "A" to this kind of stupidity was Shanahan's move to bench Jake Plummer when the team was 7-3 and start rookie QB Jay Cutler. The team started losing, the locker room was divided, and the Broncos missed the playoffs. Oh, and it certainly didn't help Cutler's development any.

No matter what the ***** fans might think, the Broncos players are fiercely loyal to Peyton. There's absolutely NO way that Kubiak can, should or will replace him this season. If Peyton continues to struggle they will continue to find ways to try and help him, and then if it doesn't work they will give the ball to Brock at the beginning of next season and give him an entire pre-season to get ready to start. That's the proper way.

The idea that you can somehow "save" the Broncos season with a QB who's never started an NFL game is utterly absurd. If Peyton can't do it, it ain't getting done this year. Period.

Tony Banks led the 2000 Ravens to a 5-1. After losing the following game, he was benched for Trent Dilfer after throwing 3 INTs in the 8th game of the season. After losing his 1st start the following week, Dilfer's Ravens won the last 7 regular season games & 4 post season games to win the SB. After the season was over, both QBs were kicked to the curb & they brought in 31 year old Elvis Grbac to take over QB duties.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/2000.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/2001.htm

Why did the Ravens manage their QBs like this, because the understood that Banks had nothing to do with their 5-1 start? Their D & RB Ray Rice were winning games in spite of his horrible QB play. It only took them being on the road to a 2nd consecutive loss due to horrible QB play to make the switch, in spite of the fact that they were still 5-3 after that lose.

Here are at 6-0 knowing that Manning had almost nothing to do with 4 of those wins. How many bad loses will it take before we can't continue to deny that Manning is part of the problem? A loss at home against the Packers & road loss against the Colts? The 1st is probable & the 2nd is possible if the Colts bring their "A" game. Remember, Buddy Ryan's (father of Rex & Rob Ryan) downfall was that his Os were so inept that they couldn't keep their Ds off the field. When your opponents’ Os as a more then 2-1 time of possession advantage, even the most elite Ds will eventually crack. That's what happened to the Cards when Ryan was their head coach. We have at least 3 Os on the schedule that will crack our D if our O doesn't get its act together & keep our D off the field long enough to catch its breath: Packers, Patriots & Bengals. Colts & Steelers could do the same thing if they bring their "A" game, with will require the Steelers to play just about any QB but Vick.

Furthermore, Oz isn't some rookie QB, who has been told that he's guaranteed to succeed in the NFL, being handed the starting role that he hasn’t actually done anything to earn. He's a QB that has been working hard, learning under Manning for the last 4 years in order to earn the privilege of being our next starting QB. The closes situation that's comparable to his is Arron Rodgers sitting 3 years under Favre. I'm not guaranteeing you that he's going to by the next Rodgers, but pointing out that if you’re looking for some precedence that similar to Oz to predict his future, Rodgers pretty much it. Note that I’m not including QBs like Brady & Warner because they were brought in to be career backups, Oz wasn’t.

[Timmy!]

Moar threads plz

[Cugel]

i think we lose but not collapse. We are way to talented to just collapse.

The Oline is only going to get better. The offense is only going to get better. We are 6-0 and we are not even running on 6 cylinders yet. If anything we are collapsed now and still winning. I dont think we win vs greenbay, but we will make the playoffs and if the offense gets just a little bit in gear we will go real far.

I think this is some pretty good points. The offense is certainly "collapsed" now. How much worse could the OL get? The running game couldn't get worse than useless.

Is Ronnie Hillman going to bounce a pass off his hands for an INT returned for a TD every week? Is DT going to drop key first downs that hit him right on the hands? Hopefully this is as bad as it gets.

As for the defense, they will have to play their best to contain Aaron Rogers, but they are getting DeMarcus Ware back and the defense is essentially pretty healthy right now.

Most of all, the teams in the division are flat terrible. This might be the worst division in football. Just think - the Raiders at 3-3 are the cream of the rest of the West. And they are a team that lost to the Bears.

[Cugel]

Tony Banks led the 2000 Ravens to a 5-1. After losing the following game, he was benched for Trent Dilfer . . . .
Holy crap! Did you just compare Peyton Manning to Tony Banks? :eek:



Here are at 6-0 knowing that Manning had almost nothing to do with 4 of those wins. How many bad loses will it take before we can't continue to deny that Manning is part of the problem? A loss at home against the Packers & road loss against the Colts? The 1st is probable & the 2nd is possible if the Colts bring their "A" game. Remember, Buddy Ryan's (father of Rex & Rob Ryan) downfall was that his Os were so inept that they couldn't keep their Ds off the field. When your opponents’ Os as a more then 2-1 time of possession advantage, even the most elite Ds will eventually crack. That's what happened to the Cards when Ryan was their head coach. We have at least 3 Os on the schedule that will crack our D if our O doesn't get its act together & keep our D off the field long enough to catch its breath: Packers, Patriots & Bengals. Colts & Steelers could do the same thing if they bring their "A" game, with will require the Steelers to play just about any QB but Vick.



Sorry, but your argument is just so much hot air. Peyton engineered some key drives late in games to win. It wasn't ALL the defense. They made some key plays, but not all of them. And he's a Hall of Fame QB.

As the OL goes so goes Peyton. If they can start playing better so will he. If not he'll struggle. And they need to figure out what black hole Jordan Norwood has dropped into and start throwing him the ball on crossing routes occasionally.

The Broncos are lacking in red zone targets because they don't have a slot receiver or TE who causes mis-matches and can get open and because Ronnie Hillman & CJ aren't great pass-receivers.


Furthermore, Oz isn't some rookie QB, who has been told that he's guaranteed to succeed in the NFL, being handed the starting role that he hasn’t actually done anything to earn. He's a QB that has been working hard, learning under Manning for the last 4 years in order to earn the privilege of being our next starting QB. The closes situation that's comparable to his is Aaron Rodgers sitting 3 years under Favre.

I'm going to be kind and not attack you for putting the words "Osweiler" and "Aaron Rogers" in the same sentence. It's not remotely comparable. Sorry. Brock on his best day will never be Aaron Rogers. If the Broncos thought he might, they would have saved $15 million by saying goodbye to Peyton and starting Brock Osweiler.

The reason they didn't is because they do NOT think they have another Aaron Rogers in Osweiler. He might be a good QB, but to think he's something special is just hopelessly naive. There have been 138 Qbs drafted at #57 or later in the draft since Tom Brady in 2000. And only one of them - Russell Wilson has played in a SB the last 15 years.

There just aren't very many good QBs in any draft and the chances that anybody of real promise falls to the late 2nd round is less than 1%.

I like Brock, but I don't think he's going to be anything special and neither does John Elway in reality.

The fans may whine, but this team lives and dies with Peyton Manning this year. That means that if the Broncos go 5-5 the rest of the way and lose to every good team they play THEY ARE STILL GOING TO CONTINUE TO START PEYTON MANNING IN THE PLAYOFFS.

Might as well get used to it. This is Peyton's team. :coffee:

[BroncoJoe]

Sorry, but your argument is just so much hot air.

Oh, the irony.

[Cugel]

Oh, the irony.

You do realize that no matter how much you whine and complain and stamp your little feet and shout, "Put in Brooooock!" at every home game, they are not putting in Brock, right? :coffee:

[Slick]

Holy crap! Did you just compare Peyton Manning to Tony Banks? :eek:




Sorry, but your argument is just so much hot air. Peyton engineered some key drives late in games to win. It wasn't ALL the defense. They made some key plays, but not all of them. And he's a Hall of Fame QB.

As the OL goes so goes Peyton. If they can start playing better so will he. If not he'll struggle. And they need to figure out what black hole Jordan Norwood has dropped into and start throwing him the ball on crossing routes occasionally.

The Broncos are lacking in red zone targets because they don't have a slot receiver or TE who causes mis-matches and can get open and because Ronnie Hillman & CJ aren't great pass-receivers.



I'm going to be kind and not attack you for putting the words "Osweiler" and "Aaron Rogers" in the same sentence. It's not remotely comparable. Sorry. Brock on his best day will never be Aaron Rogers. If the Broncos thought he might, they would have saved $15 million by saying goodbye to Peyton and starting Brock Osweiler.

The reason they didn't is because they do NOT think they have another Aaron Rogers in Osweiler. He might be a good QB, but to think he's something special is just hopelessly naive. There have been 138 Qbs drafted at #57 or later in the draft since Tom Brady in 2000. And only one of them - Russell Wilson has played in a SB the last 15 years.

There just aren't very many good QBs in any draft and the chances that anybody of real promise falls to the late 2nd round is less than 1%.

I like Brock, but I don't think he's going to be anything special and neither does John Elway in reality.

The fans may whine, but this team lives and dies with Peyton Manning this year. That means that if the Broncos go 5-5 the rest of the way and lose to every good team they play THEY ARE STILL GOING TO CONTINUE TO START PEYTON MANNING IN THE PLAYOFFS.

Might as well get used to it. This is Peyton's team. :coffee:

I think you are the one who needs to get used to the fans whining. You say the same thing in every thread like you're eventually going to convince us to see the light. It's not working.

[BroncoJoe]

You do realize that no matter how much you whine and complain and stamp your little feet and shout, "Put in Brooooock!" at every home game, they are not putting in Brock, right? :coffee:

We shall see.

And, I'm not calling for Brock necessarily - I want Manning to play better, or move in another direction. If that includes Brock, so be it. Manning was a 4 year rental for big money who hasn't delivered anything except personal records. Dude - it's not like he is a lifelong Broncos player. Why do you defend him like a little girl who doesn't get her way? You're taking the whole "kicking and screaming" thing personally. YOU don't have to do it.

[Cugel]

I think you are the one who needs to get used to the fans whining. You say the same thing in every thread like you're eventually going to convince us to see the light. It's not working.

That's not my fault is it? Stupid fans are going to be stupid, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for being stupid and not understanding how football works. You will not see Brock Osweiler this season.

Will. Not. Happen. Unless Peyton gets hurt and can't play.

[Cugel]

We shall see.

And, I'm not calling for Brock necessarily - I want Manning to play better, or move in another direction. If that includes Brock, so be it. Manning was a 4 year rental for big money who hasn't delivered anything except personal records. Dude - it's not like he is a lifelong Broncos player. Why do you defend him like a little girl who doesn't get her way? You're taking the whole "kicking and screaming" thing personally. YOU don't have to do it.

Why do I defend Manning? Because I know perfectly well what all the football experts are saying, like Brian Billick, that the Broncos offensive failures are more due to the OL and the lack of weapons in the red-zone than Peyton.

If the OL gets better and they begin to run the ball effectively, and they find some way to get some guys open in the red zone, then he will get better, and if not he won't.

As for "anybody but Manning" - who else is there but Brock? You aren't seriously calling for Trevor Symian the 6th round pick who will be lucky if he gets to be a career backup are you?

And it's pretty hilarious to see fans saying that Peyton "hasn't delivered anything but personal records" when he's won 44 games in Denver and lost 10, won 2 playoff games which is more than any Broncos QB since John Elway, and taken the team to the Super Bowl.

[Slick]

That's not my fault is it? Stupid fans are going to be stupid, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for being stupid and not understanding how football works.

Not every post that can be critical of Manning comes from a stupid fan. We all know the O line needs to play better, that the RBs need to gain more yards out of certain plays, that DT needs to hold on to critical 4th quarter passes, that a TE/slot guy is missing, that Denver might not have a ton of confidence in Brock. All of that is a given at this point.

Manning is not above criticism. He is most definitely responsible for his bad plays and his limitations due to his lack of mobility and his age. If someone points that out, they're not stupid.

[BroncoJoe]

I think only a Manning lover would blame his play on everything but Manning. Point is, I'm not a Brock fan - I don't care what happens. A defense like this comes along once a generation. Whoever can get the offense jump-started needs to be in there. Manning or not.

[Northman]

I think only a Manning lover would blame his play on everything but Manning. Point is, I'm not a Brock fan - I don't care what happens. A defense like this comes along once a generation. Whoever can get the offense jump-started needs to be in there. Manning or not.

Boom.

Now you see why i dont waste my time with that clown. lol

[Slick]

How many QBs in the NFL have really good offensive lines? How many have two studs on the outside and a great slot player or TE? How many have strong running games? Not too many, if any. Peyton had it his way. He had his offense with every weapon a QB could ask for and Denver still didn't get it done.

After saying all of that, even the most staunch posters who criticize Manning, with one or two exceptions, realize he's still the best shot the team has this year. That doesn't mean when Manning has a bad game or makes a terrible throw or decision, we just shut up and take it. This place is a fan discussion forum. People will voice their opinions.

Trying to keep this thing on topic because we have enough threads like these, no, I don't think the Broncos collapse. Not with this defense. I really heavily doubt they'll win it all but I don't see a collapse.

[FanInAZ]

Holy crap! Did you just compare Peyton Manning to Tony Banks? :eek:

I compared a 39 year-old whose career may end at the conclusion of this season due to inefficiency to a 27 year-old who went on to play 4 more years, 1 1/2 of which as a starter. Manning may have a great football mind, but that's all he has at this point in his career.


Sorry, but your argument is just so much hot air. Peyton engineered some key drives late in games to win. It wasn't ALL the defense. They made some key plays, but not all of them.

In that case, let's bring back Tebow.


And he's a Hall of Fame QB.

He's going into the HoF because of what he did during his 1st 16 seasons, not the last 2. If he would've played his 1st 2 seasons the way he's played his last 2, he'd be on the brink of washing out of the league.


I'm going to be kind and not attack you for putting the words "Osweiler" and "Aaron Rogers" in the same sentence. It's not remotely comparable. Sorry.

Thanks for half quoting me in order to make it look like I was advocating something that I clearly stated that I wasn't. With the D we have, we don't need an elite Rodgers like QB win the SB, just some decent play at QB & RB.

[BroncoJoe]

That's not my fault is it? Stupid fans are going to be stupid, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for being stupid and not understanding how football works. You will not see Brock Osweiler this season.

Will. Not. Happen. Unless Peyton gets hurt and can't play.

Realistic is probably a better word than stupid. Unless you're speaking of someone specific - like someone who's name rhymes with google?

Nice edit, by the way. I don't know if Brock will play this season, but it is stupid to make such a claim with a 39 year old QB. Elway missed several games during the '98 season. I guess Manning is somehow more physically fit than Elway.

[Northman]

How many QBs in the NFL have really good offensive lines? How many have two studs on the outside and a great slot player or TE? How many have strong running games? Not too many, if any. Peyton had it his way. He had his offense with every weapon a QB could ask for and Denver still didn't get it done.

After saying all of that, even the most staunch posters who criticize Manning, with one or two exceptions, realize he's still the best shot the team has this year. That doesn't mean when Manning has a bad game or makes a terrible throw or decision, we just shut up and take it. This place is a fan discussion forum. People will voice their opinions.

Trying to keep this thing on topic because we have enough threads like these, no, I don't think the Broncos collapse. Not with this defense. I really heavily doubt they'll win it all but I don't see a collapse.

Not many, NE's Oline isnt that much better than ours in the rankings and yet Brady still finds ways to put points on the board. The Ravens have one of the best Olines in the rankings yet are 1-5 or whatever. While good Olines are important its equally important that your HOF QB actually perform like a HOF QB to help alleviate some of the other flaws on the team. Im guessing Elway was thinking bringing Manning back would help with the maturation of the Oline until they were able to fully jell. But even as they start to improve it doesnt seem to help Manning's regression due to age.

[FanInAZ]

Realistic is probably a better word than stupid. Unless you're speaking of someone specific - like someone who's name rhymes with google?

Nice edit, by the way. I don't know if Brock will play this season, but it is stupid to make such a claim with a 39 year old QB. Elway missed several games during the '98 season. I guess Manning is somehow more physically fit than Elway.

Elway played for 16 seasons, Manning was great for 16 seasons.

[foco]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Cugel is actually a Manning?

[Yashahla17]

First round playoff exit is surely coming.

[BroncoJoe]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Cugel is actually a Manning?

No, but that's an interesting take. I think s/he is Joel's sibling.

[Timmy!]

Broncos talk:

http://files.shroomery.org/files/07-49/674129448-ohnoes.gif

[BroncoJoe]

That's cute, Timmy! Are you not concerned in the least?

[Yashahla17]

You do realize that no matter how much you whine and complain and stamp your little feet and shout, "Put in Brooooock!" at every home game, they are not putting in Brock, right? :coffee:

You do realize that only says that you are incompetent just like the coaching staff right? Trying to make your point by justify keeping the worst qb in the league in the game is pretty funny. You keep defending the worst qb in the league and thinking it makes you appear smart lol. Total opposite.

[Buff]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Cugel is actually a Manning?

You might convince me of this except we've been listening to him rant for like 10 years now - well before Manning got here. But his fixation used to be about our perpetual lack of talent on the d-line.

[Timmy!]

Honestly, not really, because it's close to what I expected. I didn't think the offense would be this far off, and didn't think the defense would be this good, but its basically a wash. I had them at 5-1 at the bye, and I got 6-0. 18 has to get his shit together, and I believe he will, to a point....its not gonna be 2013 again, but it doesn't have to be. I'm enjoying watching one of the best defenses I've ever seen, if the offense would stop trying to give me a heart attack that would help....but I can't be down on a 6-0 team. :shrugs:

[Yashahla17]

Boom.

Now you see why i dont waste my time with that clown. lol

Definitely a clown.

[Joel]

You do realize that only says that you are incompetent just like the coaching staff right? Trying to make your point by justify keeping the worst qb in the league in the game is pretty funny. You keep defending the worst qb in the league and thinking it makes you appear smart lol. Total opposite.
You do realize claiming to know football better than a guy who has more SB Rings than you have weeks at BF is patently absurd, right?

[tubby]

Pwned

[Yashahla17]

You do realize claiming to know football better than a guy who has more SB Rings than you have weeks at BF is patently absurd, right?

Means absolutely nothing. Its amazing how some fans think football is some super natural talent above all things. Nobody who hasnt played or coached can know anything like these super natural people of the league. Ha

[BroncoJoe]

Hey Joel - have you ever played football? If not, take your own advise and S.T.F.U.

[Joel]

Means absolutely nothing. Its amazing how some fans think football is some super natural talent above all things. Nobody who hasnt played or coached can know anything like these super natural people of the league. Ha


Hey Joel - have you ever played football? If not, take your own advise and S.T.F.U.

Accidentally type the wrong name, Joe?

[TimHippo]

You do realize that only says that you are incompetent just like the coaching staff right? Trying to make your point by justify keeping the worst qb in the league in the game is pretty funny. You keep defending the worst qb in the league and thinking it makes you appear smart lol. Total opposite.

Yashiiii!

Holla

[BroncoJoe]

Accidentally type the wrong name, Joe?

No. Answer the question.

[BroncoNut]

totally

[BroncoNut]

Hey Joel - have you ever played football? If not, take your own advise and S.T.F.U.

what position did you play badass?

[BroncoJoe]

what position did you play badass?

WR. You?

[BroncoNut]

quickly purused, the Germans have really taken over this thread. Norwegians getting their asses kicked. only into the 3rd page though

[BroncoNut]

WR. You?

didn't play . WR are those skinny guys that keep showing up to practice right?

[Buff]

quickly purused, the Germans have really taken over this thread. Norwegians getting their asses kicked. only into the 3rd page though

I can't help but feel like maybe the Dutch are to blame here.

[BroncoNut]

I can't help but feel like maybe the Dutch are to blame here.

always instigating

[Yashahla17]

Hey Joel - have you ever played football? If not, take your own advise and S.T.F.U.

Preach.

[Joel]

No. Answer the question.
The question's been asked and answered before, and is better directed to:


Preach.
Right, because following your "SB winners don't know football better than those of us who haven't played" with "if you haven't played, you don't know" TOTALLY vindicates you. :rolleyes:

[NightTerror218]

I can't help but feel like maybe the Dutch are to blame here.

Hey now!!!

Blame the Irish for creating gingers.

[NightTerror218]

The question's been asked and answered before, and is better directed to:

Right, because following your "SB winners don't know football better than those of us who haven't played" with "if you haven't played, you don't know" TOTALLY vindicates you. :rolleyes:

Nice deflection, so you have never played football.

[Krugan]

So after reading through this thread it seems opinions are really not relavent anymore, only playing time and position.

So ill just defer to CB 3 years, starter from 8th to 10th, then quit to chase chicks in mini skirts and drink in red rocks on non concert nights. That used to be one of the best places to party, upper parking lot, before it changed.

[BroncoWave]

I don't think the fact that one person might have played in high school and the other didn't makes one any more or less qualified than the other to discuss NFL football. There are a lot of stupid meatheads who played HS football who couldn't analyze a single thing intelligently. There are also a lot of insanely smart people who never played a down who can grasp the nuances of the game and discuss it intelligently. And this is coming from someone who did in fact play football in high school.

[BroncoJoe]

So after reading through this thread it seems opinions are really not relavent anymore, only playing time and position.

So ill just defer to CB 3 years, starter from 8th to 10th, then quit to chase chicks in mini skirts and drink in red rocks on non concert nights. That used to be one of the best places to party, upper parking lot, before it changed.

Clearly, you didn't read through the entire thread.

[BroncoJoe]

I don't think the fact that one person might have played in high school and the other didn't makes one any more or less qualified than the other to discuss NFL football. There are a lot of stupid meatheads who played HS football who couldn't analyze a single thing intelligently. There are also a lot of insanely smart people who never played a down who can grasp the nuances of the game and discuss it intelligently. And this is coming from someone who did in fact play football in high school.

You're right.

I just think some posters are posers and idiots.

[Krugan]

Clearly, you didn't read through the entire thread.

Okay, so second page, but still.

[Cugel]

Not many, NE's Oline isnt that much better than ours in the rankings and yet Brady still finds ways to put points on the board. The Ravens have one of the best Olines in the rankings yet are 1-5 or whatever. While good Olines are important its equally important that your HOF QB actually perform like a HOF QB to help alleviate some of the other flaws on the team. Im guessing Elway was thinking bringing Manning back would help with the maturation of the Oline until they were able to fully jell. But even as they start to improve it doesnt seem to help Manning's regression due to age.

OMG! Tom Brady might be a better QB than Manning!

I think we can pass safely on to the next question. Joe Flacco might be a top 10 or 12 QB in most seasons, but he's been horrible before too, as he was in 2013 after getting the huge contract. So, the fact that he's tanking behind a pretty good OL is not unprecedented.

IF Manning starts doing the same thing we will know he's "washed up."

The signs of this will be:

#1 - The OL is giving him 3 seconds to throw consistently (over several games) and a clean pocket to step up and throw into, yet he's still throwing incomprehensible picks.

#2 - The OL is blocking well in the running game, getting to the second level, finishing blocks, cutting the backside pursuit so that the RB isn't getting caught from behind, and the RBs are running the ball effectively taking some of the pressure off Peyton, yet he is still making bad decisions.


its equally important that your HOF QB actually perform like a HOF QB to help alleviate some of the other flaws on the team.

Peyton is not athletic enough to evade the rush, or throw off his back foot like Aaron Rogers. He doesn't have the arm strength. He's supposed to read defenses, and check to the right play that will allow the team to move the ball and score.

That means he's MORE dependent upon his OL than some more mobile QBs like Russell Wilson. Give him time and space to throw and he's been amazing - even this season throwing strikes to Emanuel Sanders for an easy score.

But, give him a bad OL with bad protection, no running game, and few red zone targets and there's really not a lot he can do.

[NightTerror218]

I don't think the fact that one person might have played in high school and the other didn't makes one any more or less qualified than the other to discuss NFL football. There are a lot of stupid meatheads who played HS football who couldn't analyze a single thing intelligently. There are also a lot of insanely smart people who never played a down who can grasp the nuances of the game and discuss it intelligently. And this is coming from someone who did in fact play football in high school.

I was just called out the deflection of a question.

You forgot hardcore gamers.....they just don't watch football, we'll maybe some.

[Krugan]

Collapse, no.

Still think winning the division is in hand, and i dotn see this team losing more than 5 more games, but 5-5 in the last 10 is really possible. Not sure thats a collapse, at least not in my opinion, just realistic and justified based on the offenses short comings.

[NightTerror218]

OMG! Tom Brady might be a better QB than Manning!

I think we can pass safely on to the next question. Joe Flacco might be a top 10 or 12 QB in most seasons, but he's been horrible before too, as he was in 2013 after getting the huge contract. So, the fact that he's tanking behind a pretty good OL is not unprecedented.

IF Manning starts doing the same thing we will know he's "washed up."

The signs of this will be:

#1 - The OL is giving him 3 seconds to throw consistently (over several games) and a clean pocket to step up and throw into, yet he's still throwing incomprehensible picks.

#2 - The OL is blocking well in the running game, getting to the second level, finishing blocks, cutting the backside pursuit so that the RB isn't getting caught from behind, and the RBs are running the ball effectively taking some of the pressure off Peyton, yet he is still making bad decisions.

Peyton is not athletic enough to evade the rush, or throw off his back foot like Aaron Rogers. He doesn't have the arm strength. He's supposed to read defenses, and check to the right play that will allow the team to move the ball and score.

That means he's MORE dependent upon his OL than some more mobile QBs like Russell Wilson. Give him time and space to throw and he's been amazing - even this season throwing strikes to Emanuel Sanders for an easy score.

But, give him a bad OL with bad protection, no running game, and few red zone targets and there's really not a lot he can do.

Well this game will show you if OL is better. They are coming off their best game this season. From the way they startd the season they couldn't get any worse.

[tubby]

You're right.

I just think some posters are posers and idiots.
Joe everyone knows you're the biggest idiot on the board. Pipe down.

[Joel]

Nice deflection, so you have never played football.
Pretty much everyone's PLAYED, but I've never been on an organized team: My HS' freshman team didn't need/want 12-year-olds (at least the coaches didn't; the varsity team semi-adopted me.) Yet I don't claim to understand football better without formal experience than SB winners do, so why does someone who DOES claim that get a free pass? Because those asking agree with his equally inexperienced opinion? Are we debating on merit, or mere preference? Let's skip the double standards.

I can't "deflect" a question I'd ALREADY ANSWERED when Rav asked where I got off questioning John Foxs "wisdom" (after all, Fox played a couple years at a junior college, two more at San Diego State, and made an expansion teams PS.) I dunno, maybe Joe has Rav on ignore, too, but either way I won't apologize for the crime of starting and graduating HS two years early. Especially when I AGREE with what Schlereth, Sharpe, Kubiak, Billick and countless other veteran NFL coaches and players have said of our awful line.

There IS someone claiming his playing inexperience makes him more qualified than them though, so why not ask the guy who HASN'T answered the question and DOES dispute NFL vets rather than the one who has and doesn't? Because that equal standard's inconvenient for the preferred narrative...? ;)

[TimHippo]

Pretty much everyone's PLAYED, but I've never been on an organized team: My HS' freshman team didn't need/want 12-year-olds (at least the coaches didn't; the varsity team semi-adopted me.) Yet I don't claim to understand football better without formal experience than SB winners do, so why does someone who DOES claim that get a free pass? Because those asking agree with his equally inexperienced opinion? Are we debating on merit, or mere preference? Let's skip the double standards.

Leave it to the experts. Appeal to authority. Holla!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dd/27/ba/dd27ba411bd79fb93ccb37034a07260e.jpg

[Joel]

Leave it to the experts. Appeal to authority. Holla!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dd/27/ba/dd27ba411bd79fb93ccb37034a07260e.jpg
What gets me about the "athletickier than thou" argument is that the law of averages and common sense says it almost NEVER comes from NFL nor even top college players, but guys dwelling on decades-old Polk High glory to lecture on what that "playing experience" taught them about the NFL. That's like saying, "how dare you disagree with me on Congress: I was Student Council Treasurer in 1982; respect your betters, ignorant peasant!" Because HS a generation ago is TOTALLY like real life now. ;)

Rule of thumb: Almost no one with ACTUAL NFL experience puts it to use anonymously debating strangers online, because, unless so incompetent their experience is worthless, they're putting it to use playing, coaching or getting PAID to publicly state their NFL analysis. That's not to say none of the online commentariat can be right, even astute, just that WHETHER any of them are is largely independent of pro playing experience they almost unanimously lack. One can't appeal to DELUSIONAL authority.

Driving dads wagon to midfield after a kegger, fantasizing about being Favre or Montana, and getting away with it by virtue of being the best athlete within 10-15 miles is fine, but makes no one an authority on anything but beer bongs and small town cheerleaders. I listen to CoachChaz because I take it at face value when he says he does this for a living AND because his analysis usually has the MERIT of SENSE: His authority's backed by more than "Glory Days" and bitterness they "passed by" 20 years ago.

[Joel]

Case in point: The only ones disputing ACTUAL NFL players and coaches are people insisting our primarly problem's Manning, not the line: Who's really talking through their hat?

[FanInAZ]

Case in point: The only ones disputing ACTUAL NFL players and coaches are people insisting our primarly problem's Manning, not the line: Who's really talking through their hat?

Yes, if our O-line could do an adequate job, then Manning would do better a lot better. The problem is bad O-line + sitting duck QB = O disaster. However, bad O-line + a QB with enough athleticism to evade the pass rush & scramble for a 1st down = O that has a fighting chance. I've seen this happen dozens of times over the decades that I've been watching football.

The most notable, recent example of this was the 2013 Eagles. Michael Vick, then 33 years-old, led the Eagles to a 1-3 record before getting injured, due in part to a horrible O-line. Nick Foles, a 24 year-old 2nd year QB, takes over and leads the them to a 9-2 record while out performing Vick in every statistical category. The Eagles 6th lose came when Vick came in for Foles for 1 game when he got injured. It should also be noted that One of the wins the my reference site credits to Vick, because he started, I credit to Foles. That's because Foles not only played the majority of the game, but also the Eagles were trailing the Giants at the time Vick left the game.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/phi/2013.htm

So there is a lot of precedence for a younger & more athletic QB to succeed behind a bad O-line that an older sitting duck QB could do nothing with.

[TimHippo]

Double post

[TimHippo]

Yes, if our O-line could do an adequate job, then Manning would do better a lot better. The problem is bad O-line + sitting duck QB = O disaster. However, bad O-line + a QB with enough athleticism to evade the pass rush & scramble for a 1st down = O that has a fighting chance. I've seen this happen dozens of times over the decades that I've been watching football.

The most notable, recent example of this was the 2013 Eagles. Michael Vick, then 33 years-old, led the Eagles to a 1-3 record before getting injured, due in part to a horrible O-line. Nick Foles, a 24 year-old 2nd year QB, takes over and leads the them to a 9-2 record while out performing Vick in every statistical category. The Eagles 6th lose came when Vick came in for Foles for 1 game when he got injured. It should also be noted that One of the wins the my reference site credits to Vick, because he started, I credit to Foles. That's because Foles not only played the majority of the game, but also the Eagles were trailing the Giants at the time Vick left the game.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/phi/2013.htm

So there is a lot of precedence for a younger & more athletic QB to succeed behind a bad O-line that an older sitting duck QB could do nothing with.

Foles isn't athletic. He's one of the slowest atheletes on the planet, slower than rookie Manning. He just had good numbers that one year because he was in chip Kelly's wacky offense with all those offensive weapons.

So there is little precedence for your athletic qb theory since you use a non athletic qb like Nick foles.

[Joel]

Yes, if our O-line could do an adequate job, then Manning would do better a lot better. The problem is bad O-line + sitting duck QB = O disaster. However, bad O-line + a QB with enough athleticism to evade the pass rush & scramble for a 1st down = O that has a fighting chance. I've seen this happen dozens of times over the decades that I've been watching football.

Our 6-0 teams focus isn't semi-random regular season foes (against whom we're 44-10 with Manning) but the PLAYOFFS, so how many great scramblers have you seen carry bad lines there? It's pretty much just Tarkenton and Elway, and even THEY needed elite Ds to help. With a decent line, teams with bad QBs can still run and teams with bad RBs can still pass, but teams can't do ANYTHING when the foundation of their running AND passing game's awful.


The most notable, recent example of this was the 2013 Eagles. Michael Vick, then 33 years-old, led the Eagles to a 1-3 record before getting injured, due in part to a horrible O-line. Nick Foles, a 24 year-old 2nd year QB, takes over and leads the them to a 9-2 record while out performing Vick in every statistical category. The Eagles 6th lose came when Vick came in for Foles for 1 game when he got injured. It should also be noted that One of the wins the my reference site credits to Vick, because he started, I credit to Foles. That's because Foles not only played the majority of the game, but also the Eagles were trailing the Giants at the time Vick left the game.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/phi/2013.htm

So there is a lot of precedence for a younger & more athletic QB to succeed behind a bad O-line that an older sitting duck QB could do nothing with.

That's poor supporting evidence, because the Eagles had a weak division (no one else had a winning season) played another (the only winning NFCN team was the 8-7-1 Packers) and even got to pile on the 4-12 Bucs. That season's more evidence for Waves "abolish divisons" argument than anything else, because HALF the NFCs divisions were garbage whose "champions" were just a slightly less terrible than the others: Philly and GB won their divisions by default because SOMEONE had to, and they were marginally least awful.

Then the playoffs started, and Phillys home game saw them do what teams with bad lines nearly always do in the playoffs, however good their QB (and despite an All Pro RB and Pro Bowl WR.) I've seen a lot of teams with mediocre or worse QBs win SBs (Bradshaw got to Canton like that) but precious few win any with bad lines and great QBs. This is the NFL: Merely plowing a weak conference to "earn" a bowl game we don't CARE if we win's not good enough.

It's down to the same old thing: Teams with bad a QB can compensate by scoring points in ways that don't involve him (Barry got to Canton like THAT) but it's almost impossible to compensate for a bad line, because it's integral to EVERY snap, whether running or passing. I'm not saying Manning's as good at 39 as he was at 29; neither was Elway. I'm saying Elway lost a SB (badly) at 27 but WON with a subpar game vs. the defending champs at 37 because he had an elite line and the ONLY player with 3 rushing TDs in a SB.

[BroncoJoe]

Joe everyone knows you're the biggest idiot on the board. Pipe down.

Set your computer of fire.

[MasterShake]

Collapse how? This year I would only define a collapse as missing the playoffs. Oakland is the only real competition in the division so I don't see that happening. Then again bloggers and podcasters aren't out there to say safe things that don't generate clicks. I love listening to fans of sports and their opinions (hence why I come here all the time), but really if any of us knew anything that the coaches in the NFL didn't we would be blogging or posting about it from laptops while eating cereal and holding back the inevitable soul crushing realities of life... sorry, went a little too far there.

Seriously though these guys get paid to be contrarians and generate hits by saying some pretty outlandish things to get attention. I got so much shit from a Seahawks "fan" at work earlier before the season started when I told him I didn't think they would make the playoffs. I was talking out my ass but now I almost look like a genius, maybe I should write a blog! :lol:

In my opinion Denver fan's are spoiled. Even at our worst we still manage 8 win seasons aside from the McDumbass debacle and now we are trying to find fault with what appears to be a pretty good 6-0 team with problems on offense. I know a few teams and fanbases that would kill to have our problems, and I know even more sports writers and bloggers that are glad to point them out to get cheap clicks. The bottom line is that once Manning took a pay cut and decided to come back we were going to ride or die with him unless the season falls apart. While our team has some pretty big issues on offense, as long as the wins keep coming and we are in the hunt no amount of conjecture, analysis, or opinion is going to change that.

I'm just going to enjoy the ride as long as it lasts. I remember when we got Manning and I won't forget how excited I was. He has helped us own this division and have some playoff games these past few years and until proven otherwise I want to see how this season plays out with a sure fire future hall of famer. If the season does collapse, send in Brock. I don't want to see him unless that happens though.

[MasterShake]

I don't think the fact that one person might have played in high school and the other didn't makes one any more or less qualified than the other to discuss NFL football. There are a lot of stupid meatheads who played HS football who couldn't analyze a single thing intelligently. There are also a lot of insanely smart people who never played a down who can grasp the nuances of the game and discuss it intelligently. And this is coming from someone who did in fact play football in high school.

I totally agree and I was mostly joking about us posting while eating cereal, but I think there is just so much that we don't get to see and sometimes it gets a little tedious when people speak with such conviction on a topic. I don't think any issue that is worth discussing is totally black or white, and if we did have all the facts many of our opinions would change and we would realize how big of a gray area everything is.

Back to your point though this is the first year I have actually played fantasy football at my current job. I am doing pretty well because I just picked good players but there is a guy who is KILLING it who hardly ever watches football. He is a business analyst and just runs numbers on his team every week to set his roster. It is pretty cool how when you look at football objectively you can get so much information from it. There are a lot of people here who do that well. I know for a fact that as the type of fan I am I can't do that with the Broncos, but I love reading all I can about them.

[Northman]

Im smarter than all of you, so there.

[TimHippo]

Im smarter than all of you, so there.

Muggle!!!!!!! You've never been a Wizard have you so you don't know what you are talking about. I scored 4 snitches at Hogwarts high!

[Mike]

I don't think the fact that one person might have played in high school and the other didn't makes one any more or less qualified than the other to discuss NFL football. There are a lot of stupid meatheads who played HS football who couldn't analyze a single thing intelligently. There are also a lot of insanely smart people who never played a down who can grasp the nuances of the game and discuss it intelligently. And this is coming from someone who did in fact play football in high school.

Case in point, Dan Fouts.

[Cugel]

The bottom line is that once Manning took a pay cut and decided to come back we were going to ride or die with him unless the season falls apart. While our team has some pretty big issues on offense, as long as the wins keep coming and we are in the hunt no amount of conjecture, analysis, or opinion is going to change that.


Denver has almost totally sown up this division already. The Chiefs and Chargers are 5 games back and officially toast. The Raiders are 3-3 and 3 games back, with Denver holding the tie-breaker due to beating them in Oakland. The Raiders would have to beat Denver in Denver to have the remotest hope for winning the division, and their defense is just not that good.

Teams with bad defenses lose games to teams they should beat, just like the Raiders did in losing to the Bears.

[7DnBrnc53]

Our 6-0 teams focus isn't semi-random regular season foes (against whom we're 44-10 with Manning) but the PLAYOFFS, so how many great scramblers have you seen carry bad lines there? It's pretty much just Tarkenton and Elway, and even THEY needed elite Ds to help. With a decent line, teams with bad QBs can still run and teams with bad RBs can still pass, but teams can't do ANYTHING when the foundation of their running AND passing game's awful.

Elway never had an elite defense, except maybe in 1991 and 92 (Wade's last two years as DC). He definitely didn't during his 80's SB years. Elite defenses don't give up 39, 42, and 55 points and over 400 yards rushing in the Super Bowl (the 400 yards was just against the Giants and Redskins alone).

As for the 96-98 teams, those D's were good, and they were money in the 97 and 98 playoffs. They weren't elite, however, and Wade Phillips>>>>>>>>Greg Robinson.

[Joel]

Elway never had an elite defense, except maybe in 1991 and 92 (Wade's last two years as DC). He definitely didn't during his 80's SB years. Elite defenses don't give up 39, 42, and 55 points and over 400 yards rushing in the Super Bowl (the 400 yards was just against the Giants and Redskins alone).

Much as in our last SB blowout, a lot of those huge scoring totals by opponents were due to low scoring totals by us. Take SB XXII: Denver jumped out to a 10-0 lead in the 1st—AND NEVER SCORED AGAIN. It's been a while, and I was still pretty young then, but I'll go out on a limb and say Washingtons 42 unanswered points mainly came from that, not HoF caliber performance from Doug Williams, and I bet you can't name ANY of their RBs without looking them up (I couldn't.)

The '86 Giants and '87 'Skins didn't have great offenses, but DID have great defenses who regularly put them in great scoring position by shredding one-dimensional offenses, and slowing down good ones enough to keep games close enough their own mediocre offenses stayed in it till the final gun: Just like the 2013 Seahawks who steamrolled a Broncos team painfully similar to Elways first three AFC Champs. It's not like Simms and Joe Morris (who made the Pro Bowl all of twice) were that much better than Wiliams et al.

The only time our SB defenses were ever truly outclassed by an opposing offense was when SF showed up with a solid line, first ballot HoF QB, a RB with 1000 rushing AND receiving yards, the best WR since Don Hutson, Pro Bowl TE and a bunch of other pretty good WRs, plus a good D into the bargain. That team was simply unstoppable until a similarly stacked Cowboys dynasty came along to contest 4 straight NFCCGs against them: The last pre-cap dynasties are the biggest reason they WERE the last.

Denvers '80s offenses didn't have that: They had Elway, a second rate over the hill line with a rookie or two, a decent RB and OK WRs Elway made look better than they were. At least Mecklenburg had Dennis Smith and Rulon Jones (plus Louis Wright and Tom Jackson in the first SB.)

Yet even if all that weren't true, it STILL wouldn't mean one-dimensional offenses can win SB with an elite D, only that they can't do it WITHOUT one. Those games were 4 of the 10 biggest SB blowouts EVER (including #1 and 3 of the top 5; SB XII was closer than ANY of them.) A D full of HoFers might've made them close, but not WON them.


As for the 96-98 teams, those D's were good, and they were money in the 97 and 98 playoffs. They weren't elite, however, and Wade Phillips>>>>>>>>Greg Robinson.

They were good, but not great, and Elway had a very mediocre season, playoffs and AWFUL SB. But they had an ELITE line plus an ELITE RB who ran for 1750 yds (4.7/att) in the season and averaged >5 yds/att in all but one playoff game, including a SB where he became (and remains) the ONLY person with 3 rushing TDs in a SB. Elway was a lot worse than 10 years earlier, and the D wasn't as good either, but the OFFENSE was far more balanced with far better blocking.

That was the difference between getting blown out by 32 pts and beating the defending champs by 7. That was the best thing about that game: No one could say we won a default championship by beating some sacrificial lamb like the '85 Patriots. The Packers were a very good team: We were just BETTER. Even with a lesser QB and D than the ones blown out three times in '80s: Because we had a balanced offense with great blocking.

Imagine THAT Elway with THIS line—oh, wait, We have Peyton Manning: We don't NEED to imagine.

[7DnBrnc53]

Much as in our last SB blowout, a lot of those huge scoring totals by opponents were due to low scoring totals by us. Take SB XXII: Denver jumped out to a 10-0 lead in the 1st—AND NEVER SCORED AGAIN. It's been a while, and I was still pretty young then, but I'll go out on a limb and say Washingtons 42 unanswered points mainly came from that, not HoF caliber performance from Doug Williams, and I bet you can't name ANY of their RBs without looking them up (I couldn't.)

Their RB's were Timmy Smith, Kelvin Bryant, and ex-#1 overall pick George Rogers. Smith was a one-day wonder, but the other guys were good backs. And, while the Broncos didn't score a whole lot, the Skins were getting huge chunks of yardage and scoring on big plays. That's not the offense's fault.


Elway was a lot worse than 10 years earlier, and the D wasn't as good either, but the OFFENSE was far more balanced with far better blocking.


So you are saying that the 1997 Elway was a lot worse than the 87 Elway, and the 97 Denver D was a lot worse than the 87 Denver D? I don't think so. Elway had 3,635 passing yards in 1997, with 27 TD's and 11 picks. He wasn't Peyton Manning of today (heck, I think that Manning already has that many picks). And, the 1986-87 defenses were undersized smoke and mirror units. This guy I talk football with on You-Tube from time to time (he knows as much as you do, Joel, if not more) said this about the 1986 Broncos: When Joe Collier had them stunting on the D-line early in the year, they were good. However, when he stopped doing that, and had to go straight up, they were exposed.

The 87 Broncos didn't have a D-line like Traylor, Pryce, N. Smith, Big Al, Tanuvasa, and Michael Dean. They also didn't have as much speed on D, and they didn't have Atwater.

[Northman]

Their RB's were Timmy Smith, Kelvin Bryant, and ex-#1 overall pick George Rogers. Smith was a one-day wonder, but the other guys were good backs. And, while the Broncos didn't score a whole lot, the Skins were getting huge chunks of yardage and scoring on big plays. That's not the offense's fault.





Indeed.

In the second quarter of that SB the Denver defense simply got destroyed by the air attack from Williams and Skins. And once they got ahead it wasnt difficult for the Skins defense to simply pin their ears back and come after John. There was no real threat of a running game in those first 3 SB's for the Broncos and it was literally John just carrying those teams only to be dominated by far more balanced teams.

[Cugel]

Just like the 2013 Seahawks who steamrolled a Broncos team painfully similar to Elways first three AFC Champs.

The best comparison to the Broncos 2013 team is to the 2007 Patriots team that went 16-0. That Pats team set the all-time scoring record and passing TD records broken by the Peyton and the Broncos in 2013 (55 passing TDs and 606 points). The Pats scored 75 TDs that year (scored 589 points) and Brady threw for 50 TDs, and 4800 yards. That was the season where Randy Moss had a career year, scoring 23 TDs and had nearly 1500 yards receiving.

And they scored 1 TD and 13 points in the Superbowl loss to the Giants. Sound familiar to the Broncos SB loss? The only difference was that the Pats were in the game because their defense was better than the Broncos 2013 defense.

And then the Giants did it again in 2011, when they had a 9-7 team and Tom Brady threw for 39 TDs and 5200 yards, while the Pats entered the SB with a 16-2 record.

The #1 and #2 greatest offenses of all time lost to teams with pedestrian offenses, and great defenses.

IN fact the #3 greatest scoring offense of all time was the 2011 Packers - who also lost to the Giants in the playoffs. They went 15-1 that year, after running off 13 straight wins, Aaron Rogers had a SEASON 123.5 passer rating, greatest in NFL history, and the Packers had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. But the 9-7 Giants beat them by 17 points in their home playoff opener. It wasn't even close.

The only problem for the Broncos this season is to get their offense up to AVERAGE. Then they have a chance.

[Cugel]

I just checked the stats and it's even worse than I thought for the NFL's All-time greatest offensive juggernauts:

#1 - 2013 Broncos - scored 606 points (37.9 ppg) - lost SB.
#2 - 2007 Patriots - scored 589 points - (36.8 ppg) - lost SB.
#3 - 2011 Packers - scored 560 points - (36.0 ppg)- lost home opening playoff game to Giants.
#4 - 2012 Patriots - scored 557 points - (37.9 ppg) - lost AFC Championship game to Ravens.
#5 - 1998 Vikings - scored 556 points - (37.9 ppg) - lost NFC Championship game to Falcons.
#6 - 2011 Saints - scored 547 points - (37.9 ppg) - lost NFL divisional playoff to 49ers.

The only top 10 all-time scoring offense to win a SB was the 1999 Rams.

[7DnBrnc53]

Well, J-Dub's predictions of a collapse don't look too good after tonight.

Denver-SD for the division title? I don't think so. SD may be playing for the #1 pick by the end of the year.

[Cugel]

Theory of Broncos "collapse" is officially toast. NO 7-0 team in NFL history has ever not made the playoffs. Peyton would have to have a season ending injury and Brock would have to be horrible for something like that to have any chance of happening. Even then the Broncos would probably make the playoffs.