PDA

View Full Version : Kubiak Names Manning as Playoff Starter



Buff
01-07-2016, 11:28 AM
Not that anyone is surprised, but I don't see the value in tipping our hand to the opposing teams.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_29354844/peyton-manning-named-broncos-starting-quarterback-playoffs

slim
01-07-2016, 11:29 AM
Shocking

Northman
01-07-2016, 11:32 AM
As expected.

Buff
01-07-2016, 11:33 AM
But why even name a starter? Isn't there value in making the other team prepare for both QBs?

slim
01-07-2016, 11:44 AM
But why even name a starter? Isn't there value in making the other team prepare for both QBs?

Seems like there would be. I don't get it either

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 11:46 AM
I think the benefit for the Broncos players knowing outweigh any possible benefit to not announcing it now. It's not like other teams are preparing for us this week anyway.

slim
01-07-2016, 11:48 AM
I think the benefit for the Broncos players knowing outweigh any possible benefit to not announcing it now. It's not like other teams are preparing for us this week anyway.

You could let the players know without announcing it publicly

DenBronx
01-07-2016, 11:49 AM
So blown away by this earth shattering news.

-_-

slim
01-07-2016, 11:51 AM
I kind feel like he's been humbled enough to accept the role of game manager. Just get the team in the right play and protect the ball please

Buff
01-07-2016, 11:52 AM
One thing potentially working in our favor - the Pittsburgh secondary is terrible, so it might be the type of defense that Peyton can still exploit. Whereas the Texans, Bengals and Chiefs are all more formidable.

tomjonesrocks
01-07-2016, 11:57 AM
I agree. Would have preferred they wait until at least next Monday.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 12:00 PM
As expected.

As PLANNED! Remember.... Peyton has been playing possum this season! Manning did say in his Christmas commercial...."Gonna blow their minds this year."

This is the first time Peyton has had legitimate rest before the playoffs; and I do not consider a bye or even sitting the last game of the regular season as "rest".

Brock did exactly what a BACKUP QB is supposed to do; win games until the starting QB is healthy. Great job Brock, looking forward to seeing you as the starter in the future and I love what you've done for the team. It's now time to hand the reigns back to the champ and let him get us a Lombardi trophy. This will be Peyton's final mentoring session with Brock before he hands over the reigns. If Peyton wins the SB, he's riding off into the sunset and Brock will have the start moving forward.

His arm is healthy, his foot injury is good to go. We need 3 games from Peyton to make this one of the most magical comeback stories in NFL history!

Plus, Peyton has 1 more record to break. First QB to win Superbowls for 2 different teams.

GO PEYTON MANNING, GO BRONCOS!

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 12:00 PM
I agree. Would have preferred they wait until at least next Monday.

Why though? We don't even know who we're playing?

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 12:00 PM
You could let the players know without announcing it publicly

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 12:04 PM
I agree. Would have preferred they wait until at least next Monday.

Sounds good on paper; but they wouldn't be able to hide the fact that Manning would be getting all the first team reps. Kubiak said the team would be the first to know and then the media. I can't imagine they would try to hide the fact Manning was taking all the reps with the starters and try to play it off.

Manning has been hurt since the beginning of the season, per Archies admission. Chalk up the interceptions and lack of throwing power to the foot injury. If that's 100% healed...expect some vintage Manning for the next 3 games!!!

VonDoom
01-07-2016, 12:09 PM
One thing potentially working in our favor - the Pittsburgh secondary is terrible, so it might be the type of defense that Peyton can still exploit. Whereas the Texans, Bengals and Chiefs are all more formidable.

The Steelers can certainly be beat deep. Can Manning still do that? I honestly don't know.

Either way, I think our line will be more important than either QB. If Manning has time to throw and if we actually open up running lanes? Our defense will do the rest. If Manning is under siege and tries to force passes that get intercepted? Welcome to the first half of this season, except against the best teams left.

tomjonesrocks
01-07-2016, 12:34 PM
The Steelers can certainly be beat deep. Can Manning still do that?

Well Brock can't do that either. He misses deep continuously, at least down the sidelines.

His deep accurately is terrible and/or he throws deep poorly under duress - take your pick.

He has hit some deep throws down the middle but so did Manning.

Buff
01-07-2016, 12:36 PM
The Steelers can certainly be beat deep. Can Manning still do that? I honestly don't know.

Either way, I think our line will be more important than either QB. If Manning has time to throw and if we actually open up running lanes? Our defense will do the rest. If Manning is under siege and tries to force passes that get intercepted? Welcome to the first half of this season, except against the best teams left.

They can get beat short and intermediate too. They are not talented. Louis Riddick was saying the other day that most of their secondary wouldn't play for most teams in the NFL.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 12:39 PM
But why even name a starter? Isn't there value in making the other team prepare for both QBs?

I think announcing it now also gets rid of the distraction of players having to deal with all the questions from the media all week leading up to the game. And as others have said, you can't hide who is getting the first team reps in practice, so the media would know by Monday anyway, which is when our next opponent will begin preparing for us. Also, I'm just gonna trust that guys like John Elway and Kubiak would know how to best handle a situation like this.

Buff
01-07-2016, 12:41 PM
I think announcing it now also gets rid of the distraction of players having to deal with all the questions from the media all week leading up to the game. And as others have said, you can't hide who is getting the first team reps in practice, so the media would know by Monday anyway, which is when our next opponent will begin preparing for us. Also, I'm just gonna trust that guys like John Elway and Kubiak would know how to best handle a situation like this.

Everyone is wrong about that though. Teams hide starter/backups from the media every single week. That's why full NFL practices aren't open to the media.

Anyway - I'd rather the team have to play coy than tip our hand to the opposing team, but it's not that big of a deal.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 12:46 PM
Everyone is wrong about that though. Teams hide starter/backups from the media every single week. That's why full NFL practices aren't open to the media.

Anyway - I'd rather the team have to play coy than tip our hand to the opposing team, but it's not that big of a deal.

I'm just going to revert back to my stance that the guys who have played/coached/ran NFL teams for the last 30 years have probably had similar situations arise a time or two and know how to best handle them.

Buff
01-07-2016, 12:48 PM
I'm just going to revert back to my stance that the guys who have played/coached/ran NFL teams for the last 30 years have probably had similar situations arise a time or two and know how to best handle them.

I love how effortlessly smug you can be. :D My impression of you: "Forget what I said previously when I was wrong, and just trust me when I tell you you're wrong."

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 12:51 PM
I think it has to do with wanting to get "That out of the way."


BUT.. I'm with Buff on this one. Although I can imagine it being a pressing question...EVERY DAY..for the coaches and the players, I think a "we are still evaluating that" when asked, would cut it short pretty fast. A "we are still evaluating, and you guys will be the third to know" answer would work well here (using a statement he used earlier in the year).

Although I don't really know how much difference it could make, it COULD as the defenses woudl have to practice against the different type of offenses, thus splitting the practice times.

Although the two week thing doesn't matter, as the team we face will still only have one week to practice, why say it now? Idk, probably wouldn't make a difference as its ALWAYS about execution on the field, but I think Buff has a good point here.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 12:54 PM
I love how effortlessly smug you can be. :D My impression of you: "Forget what I said previously when I was wrong, and just trust me when I tell you you're wrong."

What did I say that was wrong though? Sure teams can hide pretty easily who their starting safety will be, because the media won't be prying into that as much. Something as big as this though, the media would be hammering at every person in that building all week trying to get them to spill the beans. That's probably quite a distraction. And FWIW, the Bengals also announced well in advance that McCarron would be starting their playoff game. That tends to be the standard practice when it comes to quarterbacks.

Name a situation where a team hid who it's starting QB would be until right up to kickoff of a playoff game. I can't think of one.

Buff
01-07-2016, 01:01 PM
What did I say that was wrong though? Sure teams can hide pretty easily who their starting safety will be, because the media won't be prying into that as much. Something as big as this though, the media would be hammering at every person in that building all week trying to get them to spill the beans. That's probably quite a distraction. And FWIW, the Bengals also announced well in advance that McCarron would be starting their playoff game. That tends to be the standard practice when it comes to quarterbacks.

Name a situation where a team hid who it's starting QB would be until right up to kickoff of a playoff game. I can't think of one.

You just assumed that because Kubiak is an experienced NFL head coach, that surely his decision must be the best one. Not only is that a lazy assumption, it's also condescending that you can't cite why it's valid, but just need to express that their stance is obviously more valid given their titles. That's naive.

Secondarily - there was very little question that McCarron would start given that Dalton just got his cast off - and they play this week.

I can cite 3-4 examples of teams not naming their starters this year - Browns, Steelers, Texans have all played coy throughout the week leading up to Sunday.

Northman
01-07-2016, 01:06 PM
I dont think its that big of deal to be honest gentlemen. For all we know we can get to gametime and they all of a sudden name Brock the starter because of some "setback" that Manning had. Anything can happen before gameday but i dont think it gives that much of an edge to anyone truthfully.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 01:10 PM
I dont think its that big of deal to be honest gentlemen. For all we know we can get to gametime and they all of a sudden name Brock the starter because of some "setback" that Manning had. Anything can happen before gameday but i dont think it gives that much of an edge to anyone truthfully.

They would have to show a real injury to Manning for them to do that, though...as it's illegal for the NFL to switch starters after announcing...unless injury. Then, there would be an "NFL investigation" as to if Manning truly had a setback, or if the Broncos were intentionally circumventing the rules. It's part of the rule of having to publish all injuries.

Which is why it seems weird to announce it now. Because of Manning's injury, it would be easy to NOT give a starter and then make it a 'game time" decision. It's already laid out for not having a need to announce it now.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 01:11 PM
Everyone is wrong about that though. Teams hide starter/backups from the media every single week. That's why full NFL practices aren't open to the media.

Anyway - I'd rather the team have to play coy than tip our hand to the opposing team, but it's not that big of a deal.

Consider this....since The Steelers / Chiefs / Texans will be preparing 100% for Manning, I bet there's a few plays that Osweiler will come in and make some plays even though Manning starts the game. They won't be prepared for THAT at all!!

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 01:12 PM
Name a situation where a team hid who it's starting QB would be until right up to kickoff of a playoff game. I can't think of one.

There have been several this year. I can't think of specifics, but I can think of several times as it was evident during fantasy football.

TXBRONC
01-07-2016, 01:12 PM
You could let the players know without announcing it publicly

I'm not sure letting that many people know who starting quarterback would stay behind closed doors.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 01:21 PM
You just assumed that because Kubiak is an experienced NFL head coach, that surely his decision must be the best one. Not only is that a lazy assumption, it's also condescending that you can't cite why it's valid, but just need to express that their stance is obviously more valid given their titles. That's naive.

Secondarily - there was very little question that McCarron would start given that Dalton just got his cast off - and they play this week.

I can cite 3-4 examples of teams not naming their starters this year - Browns, Steelers, Texans have all played coy throughout the week leading up to Sunday.

I wasn't just referring to Kubiak. I was referring to his plus Elway's experience. That's not to say you can't have a different opinion, but they probably know better than any of us the advantages and disadvantages of other teams knowing the starter ahead of time.

In nothing really sure what's smug about deferring to the decision of the pro though. I actually agree with you in principle that it would seem more advantageous not to announce it, but I can certainly see the other side of the coin, and I'm not going to pretend to knows better than those guys how to handle such a situation. That would be smug. :)

Tned
01-07-2016, 01:22 PM
As PLANNED! Remember.... Peyton has been playing possum this season! Manning did say in his Christmas commercial...."Gonna blow their minds this year."



Possum, only if we are talking about road kill.

Manning, who I am a big fan of, has been absolutely horrid this year. Except for a handful of drives, he has looked terrible. I'm pretty sure he finished leading the league in INTs, even though he missed nearly 7 games.

I think starting him in the playoffs is probably the right thing to do, although far from a slam dunk, but let's not sugar coat the fact that Manning has been horrible this year.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 01:25 PM
There have been several this year. I can't think of specifics, but I can think of several times as it was evident during fantasy football.

I was more referring to the playoffs. The media is going to be digging way harder then and it's going to be much tougher to hide.

Tned
01-07-2016, 01:29 PM
They would have to show a real injury to Manning for them to do that, though...as it's illegal for the NFL to switch starters after announcing...unless injury. Then, there would be an "NFL investigation" as to if Manning truly had a setback, or if the Broncos were intentionally circumventing the rules. It's part of the rule of having to publish all injuries.

Which is why it seems weird to announce it now. Because of Manning's injury, it would be easy to NOT give a starter and then make it a 'game time" decision. It's already laid out for not having a need to announce it now.

Are you sure about this "it's illegal for the NFL to switch starters after announcing..unless injury"? Unless there is a specific rule that I don't know of regarding QBs, NFL teams don't announce starters, only injuries. You don't know week to week who the starting RB is, for instance. The only thing I'm aware of is falsifying injury reports, for which a team could get fined.

I'm not aware of anything that would prevent the Broncos from changing the starter Sunday morning if they wanted to. Now, making a false statement about an injury to justify it, if that player wasn't on the final injury report (which surely Manning will be) could lead to a problem, but that is different than any rule related to announcing or changing starters once announced.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 01:30 PM
I'm not sure letting that many people know who starting quarterback would stay behind closed doors.

Sure it could. I think that both QBs are goign to get plenty of reps during practice now, as we've seen the need for both QBs to be absolutely ready. It's not like it's unheard of. We've seen teams do this before.

Now I'm not saying it would/will make a huge difference, as I don't know. But at the same time, why tip the hand when it wasn't necessary. I think that is what Buff is pointing out. What's the benefit of stating it TWO weeks in advance? Why not keep it close to the vest?

Buff
01-07-2016, 01:31 PM
I wasn't just referring to Kubiak. I was referring to his plus Elway's experience. That's not to say you can't have a different opinion, but they probably know better than any of us the advantages and disadvantages of other teams knowing the starter ahead of time.

In nothing really sure what's smug about deferring to the decision of the pro though. I actually agree with you in principle that it would seem more advantageous not to announce it, but I can certainly see the other side of the coin, and I'm not going to pretend to knows better than those guys how to handle such a situation. That would be smug. :)

Again - you are being naive. Once you get into the real world (this is me being smug) you will understand that nobody at any level of the power structure is immune from making a non-optimal decision. This decision isn't optimal. It may not end up being a big deal - but from a strict game theory standpoint, I don't see how you could argue that giving your opponent more information would help you strategically.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 01:33 PM
Are you sure about this "it's illegal for the NFL to switch starters after announcing..unless injury"? Unless there is a specific rule that I don't know of regarding QBs, NFL teams don't announce starters, only injuries. You don't know week to week who the starting RB is, for instance. The only thing I'm aware of is falsifying injury reports, for which a team could get fined.

I'm not aware of anything that would prevent the Broncos from changing the starter Sunday morning if they wanted to. Now, making a false statement about an injury to justify it, if that player wasn't on the final injury report (which surely Manning will be) could lead to a problem, but that is different than any rule related to announcing or changing starters once announced.

For the betting rules, if the team has announced that Manning IS the starter, then for them to then change that at game time, they would have to show 'reason' as to why that happened. Something like a Johnny Manziel not showing up for the plane, or Manning got injured while stepping off the bus. SOMETHING. Now, they certainly can change the starter during the week, simply by saying "we've decided to make a change." But at game time, because of Betting and trying to eliminate 'inside betting'.... once you make the announcement as to who the starter is, then there has to be a 'sudden' (sorry, don't know the technical term there) reason as to why it was changed at game time.

slim
01-07-2016, 01:34 PM
Things are tough in the real world.

Edmonton Bronco Fan
01-07-2016, 01:35 PM
I just want the team to win. Whoever is behind center has my full support and I hope that they are dominant. Doesn't matter if it's Peyton or Brock, I'm glad we have two guys that are capable of putting up points on offense, theoretically speaking...

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 01:35 PM
I was more referring to the playoffs. The media is going to be digging way harder then and it's going to be much tougher to hide.

Still don't think it would be hard to do. We have closed practices. They can dig, and speculate..though.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 01:39 PM
I dont think its that big of deal to be honest gentlemen. For all we know we can get to gametime and they all of a sudden name Brock the starter because of some "setback" that Manning had. Anything can happen before gameday but i dont think it gives that much of an edge to anyone truthfully.

Agreed, because Manning actually ran Kubiak's offense well for the first time. I don't think teams know what to expect. Their best chance to win is to load the box and dare Manning to best them deep and outside the numbers.

Timmy!
01-07-2016, 01:41 PM
Right about here is where nostratimmy says he called this a month+ ago, but wave already used up all the smug, so carry on.

Northman
01-07-2016, 01:49 PM
Right about here is where nostratimmy says he called this a month+ ago, but wave already used up all the smug, so carry on.

Your all out of smug but got plenty of bag of dicks from what TJR threw at you eh? lol

TXBRONC
01-07-2016, 01:49 PM
I dont think its that big of deal to be honest gentlemen. For all we know we can get to gametime and they all of a sudden name Brock the starter because of some "setback" that Manning had. Anything can happen before gameday but i dont think it gives that much of an edge to anyone truthfully.

I don't think it's that big a deal either.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 01:51 PM
Again - you are being naive. Once you get into the real world (this is me being smug) you will understand that nobody at any level of the power structure is immune from making a non-optimal decision. This decision isn't optimal. It may not end up being a big deal - but from a strict game theory standpoint, I don't see how you could argue that giving your opponent more information would help you strategically.

I'm not saying people in power can't make wrong decisions. I know for a fact that people in my industry in power make wrong decisions all the time.

What I'm saying is that neither you nor I nor anyone else on this board had ever been faced with this sort of decision, so while it's certainly possible that they are wrong, I have to imagine they have faced a similar situation before and seen the ramifications of such decisions.

Timmy!
01-07-2016, 01:52 PM
Your all out of smug but got plenty of bag of dicks from what TJR threw at you eh? lol

I'm kinda worried about where he had been keeping them, but would explain a couple things.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 01:54 PM
Possum, only if we are talking about road kill.

Manning, who I am a big fan of, has been absolutely horrid this year. Except for a handful of drives, he has looked terrible. I'm pretty sure he finished leading the league in INTs, even though he missed nearly 7 games.

I think starting him in the playoffs is probably the right thing to do, although far from a slam dunk, but let's not sugar coat the fact that Manning has been horrible this year.

Remember that Peyton started the season already dealing with the plantar fasciitis, I believe that was a huge reason why he struggled early in the season. He's had time to not only heal from that, but also get more comfortable in Kubiaks scheme. Both Hillman and Anderson are healthy and starting to come on. I think you're going to see a different and better Manning for the playoffs.

Also, Brock is hurt with a sprained knee.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_29355208/brock-osweiler-broncos-qb-has-sprained-knee

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 01:55 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the whole concept of "tipping your hand" in football. To me, football has always been a sport that has centered around lining up and physically exerting your will on another man. Homosexual innuendos aside, there's far too much emphasis put on this sneaky business. You don't need to have an Ace up your sleeve to dominate your opponent.

GEM
01-07-2016, 01:56 PM
Chargers already came out and said they game planned for both. Any team we play will have to do the same because they know the leash will be short if Manning comes in throwing INT's.

Krugan
01-07-2016, 01:56 PM
They are going to be watching tape of both QBs anyway, really its a non issue, at least from my point of view, when or if they announce anything.

GEM
01-07-2016, 01:57 PM
Also....I thought Manning was far enough into his career that he wouldn't have, in essence, Tebois. I've been proven wrong. :laugh:

Northman
01-07-2016, 01:57 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the whole concept of "tipping your hand" in football. To me, football has always been a sport that has centered around lining up and physically exerting your will on another man. Homosexual innuendos aside, there's far too much emphasis put on this sneaky business. You don't need to have an Ace up your sleeve to dominate your opponent.

Agreed.

The 97/98' Broncos came in with the opponent knowing exactly what was coming but they still imposed their will on them. At the end of the day you just have to go out there and execute and make plays. It really just comes down to that.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 01:59 PM
Here's Manning after the Packers game.

http://youtu.be/lHvk5VSLGo4

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 02:06 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the whole concept of "tipping your hand" in football. To me, football has always been a sport that has centered around lining up and physically exerting your will on another man. Homosexual innuendos aside, there's far too much emphasis put on this sneaky business. You don't need to have an Ace up your sleeve to dominate your opponent.

You don't, I agree. However, that being said, if you have an opportunity to force the other team to split their reps in prep, why wouldn't you take that advantage? It's not so much saying "we must have it" as saying..."why not take it if its available?" Anyone should take ANY advantage if available in the playoffs as its a do-or-die situation. Win or go home. There are NO points for NOT trying to outsmart the other team.

Dzone
01-07-2016, 02:06 PM
We are going to get the 2013 Manning.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 02:07 PM
Agreed.

The 97/98' Broncos came in with the opponent knowing exactly what was coming but they still imposed their will on them. At the end of the day you just have to go out there and execute and make plays. It really just comes down to that.

Yeah.. the Broncos team that was considered one of the greats of all time? True, the other teams had to worry about a LOT of things regarding those teams. THIS team, doesn't have that luxury. We aren't a team that is intimidating to anyone.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 02:08 PM
Chargers already came out and said they game planned for both. Any team we play will have to do the same because they know the leash will be short if Manning comes in throwing INT's.

That's GREAT! How'd that work out for them? How much time did they have to spend splitting up the reps to prepare for both QBs?

wayninja
01-07-2016, 02:10 PM
Strategy is part of the game. If Kubiak feels there's nothing to be gained by waiting to announce, then so be it, but there is definitely something to be said for the art of misinformation, and in a game where inches matter, it's not always trivial.

Having said all that, you guys are all wrong about the strategy. He did this intentionally so he could switch starters at the last minute and use Manning in the wildcat. That'll blow their minds all right.

Northman
01-07-2016, 02:12 PM
That's GREAT! How'd that work out for them?

Probably the same as it did when they prepared for Oz in the first meeting.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 02:14 PM
Here's Manning after the Packers game.

http://youtu.be/lHvk5VSLGo4

I honestly don't know at this point if you are riding this shtick or if you really believe that there is some grand design/conspiracy.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 02:14 PM
Probably the same as it did when they prepared for Oz in the first meeting.

Ok, so you don't think there could be any advantage, at all, for keeping this unannounced for the next week? None?

Denver Native (Carol)
01-07-2016, 02:17 PM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Maybe folks just didn’t remember. Or maybe, just maybe, they thought it was a throwaway quote after a dismal 16-point loss in mid-November.

But when Denver Broncos coach Gary Kubiak told his quarterbacks and his team Thursday morning that Peyton Manning would be behind center for the playoffs, Kubiak was simply following through on what he's said the past two months.

If Manning is healthy enough to play, Manning will play.

When Manning suffered a tear in the plantar fascia near his left heel in the Broncos’ Nov. 8 loss to the Colts, it made an injury that was already bothering him worse. When he went 5-for-20 passing for 35 yards and four interceptions on Nov. 15 against the Chiefs, Kubiak pulled him from the game.

And immediately following that game, Kubiak said: “Peyton's our quarterback. If he's healthy and ready to go, Peyton's our quarterback."

rest - http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/17646/gary-kubiak-put-peyton-manning-back-behind-center-just-like-he-said-he-would

wayninja
01-07-2016, 02:19 PM
rest - http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/17646/gary-kubiak-put-peyton-manning-back-behind-center-just-like-he-said-he-would

That's fairly convenient. If the score was 35-7 going into halftime in the Chargers game, and the second half saw no major screw ups. Brock would be starting.

It's nice to come full circle, but it's more coincidence than actual foresight.

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 02:23 PM
I hope Kubiak has the balls to bench Manning if he had another KC TO fit. Just saying, Manning is use to carrying a team and I hope he does not try to much and want to carry team again and force more mistakes. Be a game manager unless we need the sling it around.

Teams have learned how to defend manning. Let's see what a slightly healthier Manning can do.

Northman
01-07-2016, 02:28 PM
Ok, so you don't think there could be any advantage, at all, for keeping this unannounced for the next week? None?

Not enough to be up in arms about.

Northman
01-07-2016, 02:30 PM
I hope Kubiak has the balls to bench Manning if he had another KC TO fit. Just saying, Manning is use to carrying a team and I hope he does not try to much and want to carry team again and force more mistakes. Be a game manager unless we need the sling it around.

Teams have learned how to defend manning. Let's see what a slightly healthier Manning can do.

The only problem with that is (depending on the score) if it starts to get out of hand early than Kubes needs to pull the plug early. With SD we were fortunate that the defense kept us in the game, with KC they were kicking our ass by the time Brock came in and by then it was too late.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 02:31 PM
Not enough to be up in arms about.

Who's up in arms? Seriously.

This is a discussion board.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 02:32 PM
I hope Kubiak has the balls to bench Manning if he had another KC TO fit. Just saying, Manning is use to carrying a team and I hope he does not try to much and want to carry team again and force more mistakes. Be a game manager unless we need the sling it around.

Teams have learned how to defend manning. Let's see what a slightly healthier Manning can do.

He does/will. Getting actual proof that Brock is reliable is easily the best thing that came out of Manning sucking.

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 02:33 PM
The only problem with that is (depending on the score) if it starts to get out of hand early than Kubes needs to pull the plug early. With SD we were fortunate that the defense kept us in the game, with KC they were kicking our ass by the time Brock came in and by then it was too late.

Exactly, Kubiak even admitted he stuck with Manning too long.

All KC did was play close on WR and then jump in front while the ball was in the air. Manning passes did not have the zip to get there quick enough and the WR were not coming back for the ball. To me this is a timing issue.

Bronco4ever
01-07-2016, 02:40 PM
I think whatever small advantage we lost by naming our starter today is negated by the team having more clarity and confidence in who the starter will be next Sunday. Sure, we could have kept it a secret for awhile longer, but it's far more distracting to have the media hound the team for answers. Keeps the focus on the game plan and not on outside factors. Good call Gary.

VonDoom
01-07-2016, 02:46 PM
The only problem with that is (depending on the score) if it starts to get out of hand early than Kubes needs to pull the plug early. With SD we were fortunate that the defense kept us in the game, with KC they were kicking our ass by the time Brock came in and by then it was too late.

I think the leash will be a lot shorter this time around. There is no tomorrow at this point. Given Manning's experience, I have to imagine he's aware of the situation right now. Someone used the word "humbled" earlier, and I think that's a good way to look at it. Manning knows this team isn't about him at this point, and if he's smart (and healthy) enough to not try to force things, he should be fine. If so ...


He does/will. Getting actual proof that Brock is reliable is easily the best thing that came out of Manning sucking.

I think this is a good point. Brock is still a work in progress, but he's also a known commodity at this point. He's proven good under pressure and I would feel comfortable having him ready to go.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-07-2016, 02:47 PM
The only problem with that is (depending on the score) if it starts to get out of hand early than Kubes needs to pull the plug early. With SD we were fortunate that the defense kept us in the game, with KC they were kicking our ass by the time Brock came in and by then it was too late.


Should Manning have rested more early in the season? Probably. Should he have been held out of the Chiefs game? Certainly, and all involved have said they made a mistake there.

from Legwold's article - http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/17646/gary-kubiak-put-peyton-manning-back-behind-center-just-like-he-said-he-would

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 02:52 PM
I think whatever small advantage we lost by naming our starter today is negated by the team having more clarity and confidence in who the starter will be next Sunday. Sure, we could have kept it a secret for awhile longer, but it's far more distracting to have the media hound the team for answers. Keeps the focus on the game plan and not on outside factors. Good call Gary.

Yep. Making the announcement and solidifying it with the team FAR outweighs any potential slight-of-hand advantage, if there is even such a thing.

The team we'll be playing only have a week to prepare for us anyway. If they're smart, they'd prepare for both regardless on any announcement from the Broncos.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 03:10 PM
You don't, I agree. However, that being said, if you have an opportunity to force the other team to split their reps in prep, why wouldn't you take that advantage? It's not so much saying "we must have it" as saying..."why not take it if its available?" Anyone should take ANY advantage if available in the playoffs as its a do-or-die situation. Win or go home. There are NO points for NOT trying to outsmart the other team.

But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? Say you get a "competitive advantage" in that regard by taking that course of action. Your equal but opposite reaction, or "competitive disadvantage" is that your own damn players don't know who the starting quarterback is for their #1 seeded playoff team. And I don't like the idea of "tell the guys, but keep it out of the media" either. Does anyone actually think that works? NFL franchises are leakier than a colander. Then when the information leaks, you're searching for the rat. **** that noise. Kubiak handled this WHOLE situation (from KC game to today) like a pro's pro. He handled it with class, dignity, and most importantly, with decisiveness. No beating around the bush. Why did you sit Brock? Well, my gut told me that this team needed a spark. I was as pissed as any fan could rightfully be when I saw Peyton taking snaps on the sideline. I would say to ask the people watching the game with me, but they're not here. I was fuming. Way to shoot a hole in the confidence of next year's starter! All that shit. But you know what? Kubiak was right. The offensive line responded. The skill positions responded. The STADIUM responded. 5 turnovers in 2.2 quarters, and 0 in the next 1.8 quarters. That change was the spark that the team needed right at that moment. I still think Brock is the better starter from here on out, but Kubiak has proven his mettle this season. We absolutely would not have won that game if Brock had stayed in the game. We wouldn't have had the 1 seed, we would have limped into the playoffs injured and disheveled, and we would have been one and done yet again.

My biggest take away from this whole damn situation.... The Denver Broncos organization has handled this situation PROFESSIONALLY. I'm proud.

Dreadnought
01-07-2016, 03:10 PM
Agreed.

The 97/98' Broncos came in with the opponent knowing exactly what was coming but they still imposed their will on them. At the end of the day you just have to go out there and execute and make plays. It really just comes down to that.

Here I'm going to disagree, North. the 97/98 Bronco offense may well be the best finesse offense I've ever watched. They could beat you with every play in a playbook, deep ball, intermediate ball, inside or outside run, what have you. They mixed plays brilliantly and made opponents guess wrong a whole lot. It was splendid, and it was not a "power" offense.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-07-2016, 03:13 PM
Jeff Legwold ‏@Jeff_Legwold 5h

Gary Kubiak told the team at meeting this morning. Practice is at 10:30 a.m. Mountain time. Many players had hoped to hear decision this wk.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 03:14 PM
Here I'm going to disagree, North. the 97/98 Bronco offense may well be the best finesse offense I've ever watched. They could beat you with every play in a playbook, deep ball, intermediate ball, inside or outside run, what have you. They mixed plays brilliantly and made opponents guess wrong a whole lot. It was splendid, and it was not a "power" offense.

I can only speak for myself when I say this, Dread, but when I said "impose your will on them," I was not necessarily referring to power football. I also don't a run-first zone scheme offense as a "finesse" team :D

VonDoom
01-07-2016, 03:21 PM
But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? Say you get a "competitive advantage" in that regard by taking that course of action. Your equal but opposite reaction, or "competitive disadvantage" is that your own damn players don't know who the starting quarterback is for their #1 seeded playoff team. And I don't like the idea of "tell the guys, but keep it out of the media" either. Does anyone actually think that works? NFL franchises are leakier than a colander. Then when the information leaks, you're searching for the rat. **** that noise. Kubiak handled this WHOLE situation (from KC game to today) like a pro's pro. He handled it with class, dignity, and most importantly, with decisiveness. No beating around the bush. Why did you sit Brock? Well, my gut told me that this team needed a spark. I was as pissed as any fan could rightfully be when I saw Peyton taking snaps on the sideline. I would say to ask the people watching the game with me, but they're not here. I was fuming. Way to shoot a hole in the confidence of next year's starter! All that shit. But you know what? Kubiak was right. The offensive line responded. The skill positions responded. The STADIUM responded. 5 turnovers in 2.2 quarters, and 0 in the next 1.8 quarters. That change was the spark that the team needed right at that moment. I still think Brock is the better starter from here on out, but Kubiak has proven his mettle this season. We absolutely would not have won that game if Brock had stayed in the game. We wouldn't have had the 1 seed, we would have limped into the playoffs injured and disheveled, and we would have been one and done yet again.

My biggest take away from this whole damn situation.... The Denver Broncos organization has handled this situation PROFESSIONALLY. I'm proud.

Great post. Whatever you (or I) think of Kubiak as a game manager, he has been decisive and honest. I assume that extends to how he communicates directly with the team, which I think is a big plus. I would have killed him if the Manning thing had backfired last week, but you know, maybe he has the pulse of this team better than any of us here. If he thinks Manning is ready to go, I have to believe him.

Buff
01-07-2016, 03:26 PM
I think whatever small advantage we lost by naming our starter today is negated by the team having more clarity and confidence in who the starter will be next Sunday. Sure, we could have kept it a secret for awhile longer, but it's far more distracting to have the media hound the team for answers. Keeps the focus on the game plan and not on outside factors. Good call Gary.

For the 8,000th time in this thread - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to inform the team but not the public.

turftoad
01-07-2016, 03:31 PM
On a side note: The extended forecast for next Sunday in Denver is 43 degrees, partly cloudy with a 5mph wind. Doesn't sound to bad boys and girls!

Oh, my thoughts on saying who the QB is going to be is a mute point. The media doesn't have to worry about 16 games coming into the week. They only have to concentrate on 4 games. You can only keep things under wraps for so long.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-07-2016, 03:37 PM
I found the following, which I thought was great


DENVER—Peyton Manning wasn't two steps off the sideline when the alert crowd took its cue.

Denver Broncos fans, 74,601 strong, rose to thunderous applause.

"I thought they were all cheering for me," said Tyler Polumbus, who came in to replace Michael Schofield at right tackle at the exact same time Manning replaced Brock Osweiler at quarterback.

Polumbus was joking. Although the stability he brought to right tackle, and the fact he hails from Cherry Creek High School and the University of Colorado can't be downplayed.

http://www.9news.com/story/sports/nfl/denver-broncos/mike-klis/2016/01/03/broncos-sputter-to-7-6-halftime-lead-against-chargers/78238728/

wayninja
01-07-2016, 03:42 PM
On a side note: The extended forecast for next Sunday in Denver is 43 degrees, partly cloudy with a 5mph wind. Doesn't sound to bad boys and girls!

Oh, my thoughts on saying who the QB is going to be is a mute point. The media doesn't have to worry about 16 games coming into the week. They only have to concentrate on 4 games. You can only keep things under wraps for so long.

A mute point? Like, it can't talk?

Seriously though, as long as it's not "confirmed", the media can declare they know all they want and there's still that element of doubt the other team has to contend with.

It really isn't that huge either way, but there isn't a clearly "right" answer here.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 03:42 PM
Called it. I'd say over half the board was convinced that osweiler was gonna start even if manning came back. No way.

Peyton Manning. One Last Ride.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 03:46 PM
Called it. I'd say over half the board was convinced that osweiler was gonna start even if manning came back. No way.

Peyton Manning. One Last Ride.

Doesn't that mean that half the board also called it? Stop patting yourself on the back for what amounts to predicting a coin toss. :D

EastCoastBronco
01-07-2016, 03:53 PM
Does anybody in this forum actually believe that the coach who refused to pull Mike Schofield for the past 5-6 games gave an ounce of thought to the strategic value of naming your starting QB 2 weeks ahead of time?

Child, Please....

turftoad
01-07-2016, 03:54 PM
A mute point? Like, it can't talk?

Seriously though, as long as it's not "confirmed", the media can declare they know all they want and there's still that element of doubt the other team has to contend with.

It really isn't that huge either way, but there isn't a clearly "right" answer here.

Using "a mute point" is an old saying. Sorry you're not old enough understand it. I will try using more hip sayings in the future for ya. I suppose you don't know what "hip" mean either. :confused: Oh, forget it.

I was just saying that IMO it really doesn't matter when they committed to who is starting because there are only going to be 4 games leading up to next weekend. The media will be relentless the week coming in. They would have found out way before kickoff anyway.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 04:05 PM
Using "a mute point" is an old saying. Sorry you're not old enough understand it. I will try using more hip sayings in the future for ya. I suppose you don't know what "hip" mean either. :confused: Oh, forget it.

I was just saying that IMO it really doesn't matter when they committed to who is starting because there are only going to be 4 games leading up to next weekend. The media will be relentless the week coming in. They would have found out way before kickoff anyway.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure you just mean moot point. Not mute. Mute point, as far as I am aware, just isn't a thing, and I'm plenty old enough to be on the trolley with the issue.

Yes, the media would have found out, and had no official confirmation. So while they report that they "know", they will also report that the Broncos won't officially confirm it. Which means teams will have some doubt. Doing that is also gamesmanship.

Timmy!
01-07-2016, 04:07 PM
Turft, ninja is a grammar Nazi on the level of only the midget. It's "moot." To the point, who cares. Whatever tiny advantage there would be to waiting to announce this is won't matter.

NightTrainLayne
01-07-2016, 04:09 PM
Hmm... I'm pretty sure you just mean moot point. Not mute. Mute point, as far as I am aware, just isn't a thing, and I'm plenty old enough to be on the trolley with the issue.

Yes, the media would have found out, and had no official confirmation. So while they report that they "know", they will also report that the Broncos won't officially confirm it. Which means teams will have some doubt. Doing that is also gamesmanship.

Toad's up in da Dakotas ya know. Dey tahlk funny up dere. :D

NightTrainLayne
01-07-2016, 04:10 PM
Turft, ninja is a grammar Nazi on the level of only the midget. It's "moot." To the point, who cares. Whatever tiny advantage there would be to waiting to announce this is won't matter.

Let's just all agree that the spelling of "moot" is moot.

(that joke works on two levels) #NTL

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 04:11 PM
For the 8,000th time in this thread - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to inform the team but not the public.

And for the 10,000th time in this thread, it would be an unnecessary distraction to the team. Every f***ing reporter would be asking every player interviewed about who is starting at QB.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 04:14 PM
I can only speak for myself when I say this, Dread, but when I said "impose your will on them," I was not necessarily referring to power football. I also don't a run-first zone scheme offense as a "finesse" team :D

Good to see you back posting, Zweem!

slim
01-07-2016, 04:14 PM
How is saying "no comment" a distraction?

NightTrainLayne
01-07-2016, 04:16 PM
How is saying "no comment" a distraction?

Have you seen these guys SAT scores? :D

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 04:17 PM
Have you seen these guys SAT scores? :D

:laugh:

OrangeFanatic
01-07-2016, 04:21 PM
WOOT! Another one and done, can't wait!

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 04:24 PM
How is saying "no comment" a distraction?

I think you're smarter than this.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 04:37 PM
For the 8,000th time in this thread - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to inform the team but not the public.

I'm sorry buff, but you're conveniently overlooking a distinct and likely scenario in your equation here. Locker rooms are notoriously porous when it comes to leaking information. When that information finally leaks, don't you think that that would become a distraction in the locker room? I'm sorry, but in no way shape or form can I condone inviting drama into the locker room. Especially as we enter the playoffs. If my choices are between gaining a minor competitive advantage and possibly creating locker room drama, and being upfront about the situation, I'm siding with Kubiak's decision every single day of the week.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 04:39 PM
Good to see you back posting, Zweem!

Thanks man!

BigDaddyBronco
01-07-2016, 04:45 PM
Toad's up in da Dakotas ya know. Dey tahlk funny up dere. :D

Yea, but they can try to reset a guys patella bone after drinking a fifth! :shocked:

wayninja
01-07-2016, 04:49 PM
Let's just all agree that the spelling of "moot" is moot.

(that joke works on two levels) #NTL

I'll just be mute on the subject then.

Slick
01-07-2016, 04:52 PM
I can barely contain my excitement.

Poet
01-07-2016, 04:54 PM
If he stinks it up early Brock will probably go in, and vice versa, right?

turftoad
01-07-2016, 05:14 PM
Mute, moot.

"At this point, what difference does it really make?" Kinda like Bengazi. :shocked:

I'm just glad Payton is starting. We have been waiting for a healthy Payton Manning in the playoffs for the last couple of years. Now we have as close to one as we will get and I, for one, am excited about it.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 05:27 PM
Kubiak press conference from this morning. He pretty much addresses everything being discussed on this thread.

SUPER BOWL BOUND!

https://youtu.be/pPoOLp83cUk

Bronco4ever
01-07-2016, 05:27 PM
Toad's up in da Dakotas ya know. Dey tahlk funny up dere. :D

I feel like South Dakota is being unjustly lumped in with North Dakota's funny speech patterns. Although, I have to admit I pronounce bag like beg.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 05:29 PM
I feel like South Dakota is being unjustly lumped in with North Dakota's funny speech patterns. Although, I have to admit I pronounce bag like beg.

So does my Minnesotan MIL.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 05:31 PM
For the 8,000th time in this thread - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to inform the team but not the public.

Which again brings up the issue of players and staff being distracted all week by being hounded by the media to spill the beans. This gets it all out of the way and lets the team focus strictly on football.

It's just different at the QB position, especially the high profile nature of ours. Notice he didn't announce who will be starting at RT because the media doesn't give a shit about that. They won't be hounding anyone to see if it's going to be Polumbus or Schofield. So you can keep that one a secret (so much as knowing who the RT is would really matter to the team gameplanning for you) and it's not really a distraction to anyone. QB is just different. While I certainly get the argument that you don't want to give the other team info, I think the positive of having the whole team on the same page and not having the media bug you about it for two weeks outweighs that.

Buff
01-07-2016, 05:52 PM
Which again brings up the issue of players and staff being distracted all week by being hounded by the media to spill the beans. This gets it all out of the way and lets the team focus strictly on football.

It's just different at the QB position, especially the high profile nature of ours. Notice he didn't announce who will be starting at RT because the media doesn't give a shit about that. They won't be hounding anyone to see if it's going to be Polumbus or Schofield. So you can keep that one a secret (so much as knowing who the RT is would really matter to the team gameplanning for you) and it's not really a distraction to anyone. QB is just different. While I certainly get the argument that you don't want to give the other team info, I think the positive of having the whole team on the same page and not having the media bug you about it for two weeks outweighs that.

Agree to disagree. Getting asked a question in their 15 minutes of media availability throughout the week is less than a non-factor. A team being able to design their defensive scheme around the vastly different skills of one of our QBs seems infinitely more impactful to me.

Davii
01-07-2016, 05:58 PM
But why even name a starter? Isn't there value in making the other team prepare for both QBs?

I love the thought, but there's no way that's kept secret. None.

Buff
01-07-2016, 06:00 PM
I love the thought, but there's no way that's kept secret. None.

For the 8001st time in this thread, yes, yes there is. It happens literally every week in the NFL.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 06:02 PM
For the 8001st time in this thread, yes, yes there is. It happens literally every week in the NFL.

And this is a way different situation than that. Every team in the NFL doesn't have the most high-profile player in the league in the midst of a potential QB controversy heading into the playoffs. The media isn't digging to see who is starting between Hoyer and Mallet the way they are for Peyton Manning and (insert anyone else here).

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 06:03 PM
For the 8001st time in this thread, yes, yes there is. It happens literally every week in the NFL.

10,001: Playoffs are different. The entire national media wants this question answered. Get it over and done with so you and your team can focus. Do you really think that if every single player is being asked in their "15 minutes" in front of the media it wouldn't potentially be a distraction? They'd all be talking about it all week.

If we really need to play that childish game with whomever we end up playing, we've lost already.

turftoad
01-07-2016, 06:04 PM
10,001: Playoffs are different. The entire national media wants this question answered. Get it over and done with so you and your team can focus.

If we really need to play that childish game with whomever we end up playing, we've lost already.

Couldn't have said it better myself Joseph!!

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:07 PM
And this is a way different situation than that. Every team in the NFL doesn't have the most high-profile player in the league in the midst of a potential QB controversy heading into the playoffs. The media isn't digging to see who is starting between Hoyer and Mallet the way they are for Peyton Manning and (insert anyone else here).

But.. all it would take is a "we are working our way to figure that out."

Players can say the words... "we are working with both QBs" .. as they would be.

The practices are closed...so its not like there is something that they could "see" that would be of importance. Basically, we wouldn't be asking the coaches to do anyting OTHER than not officially "announce" the starter so early.

Could it make a difference? Don't know. Would it? Don't know? But there is no way you can say that it MIGHT not make a difference in how the opposing team practices. Even if its time taken to watch film. Amounts of practice to defend. Tendencies to learn. Patterns of play calls to look at that is different between QBs. ANY time given to the other person, is a plus.

This "distraction" thing seems to be a simple answer for a problem that really isn't a problem.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:07 PM
10,001: Playoffs are different. The entire national media wants this question answered. Get it over and done with so you and your team can focus. Do you really think that if every single player is being asked in their "15 minutes" in front of the media it wouldn't potentially be a distraction? They'd all be talking about it all week.

If we really need to play that childish game with whomever we end up playing, we've lost already.

its a game of inches... I personally would want every inch I could possibly gain when the opportunity is placed for me to take it.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 06:08 PM
But.. all it would take is a "we are working our way to figure that out."

Players can say the words... "we are working with both QBs" .. as they would be.

The practices are closed...so its not like there is something that they could "see" that would be of importance. Basically, we wouldn't be asking the coaches to do anyting OTHER than not officially "announce" the starter so early.

Could it make a difference? Don't know. Would it? Don't know? But there is no way you can say that it MIGHT not make a difference in how the opposing team practices. Even if its time taken to watch film. Amounts of practice to defend. Tendencies to learn. Patterns of play calls to look at that is different between QBs. ANY time given to the other person, is a plus.

This "distraction" thing seems to be a simple answer for a problem that really isn't a problem.

Eh. Kubiak basically just said "come at me bro". It doesn't matter because we'll kick the shit out of all comers.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 06:09 PM
its a game of inches... I personally would want every inch I could possibly gain when the opportunity is placed for me to take it.

Tired and overused statement.

Poet
01-07-2016, 06:09 PM
its a game of inches... I personally would want every inch I could possibly gain when the opportunity is placed for me to take it.

So many jokes so little time.

I understand what you and Buff are saying. I'm not sure who is right.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:10 PM
Tired and overused statement.

maybe.. .but a true one.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:10 PM
So many jokes so little time.

I understand what you and Buff are saying. I'm not sure who is right.

what you mean? I think it's obvious.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 06:11 PM
10,001: Playoffs are different. The entire national media wants this question answered. Get it over and done with so you and your team can focus. Do you really think that if every single player is being asked in their "15 minutes" in front of the media it wouldn't potentially be a distraction? They'd all be talking about it all week.

If we really need to play that childish game with whomever we end up playing, we've lost already.

EXACTLY.

1) The fact that every reporter and their mother would be assaulting our players about it every single day is the definition of a distraction.

2) Football games aren't won by hiding the identity of your starting quarterback. They're won by sheer force of will. Think back to the playoffs last year. Know why we lost to Indy? We were already looking forward to playing the Pats and FEARING IT. We lost the game before we played. If we hide our starter, we're admitting that we need that "competitive advantage" to win the game. Once you get there, you've already lost.

Poet
01-07-2016, 06:12 PM
I think this instance just exemplifies how sometimes coaches have to make gut calls?

Buff
01-07-2016, 06:13 PM
Are you people crazy? Did I land in this BF bizarro world where up is down and black is white again? This isn't even debatable... You guys are trying to tell me that you'd rather make it easier for the opponent to gameplan because it allows our players to not have to answer any questions about it to the media. WTF are you even talking about? That makes zero sense. Go home, all of you, you're drunk.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 06:14 PM
Mute, moot.

"At this point, what difference does it really make?" Kinda like Bengazi. :shocked:

I'm just glad Payton is starting. We have been waiting for a healthy Payton Manning in the playoffs for the last couple of years. Now we have as close to one as we will get and I, for one, am excited about it.

Who's Payton Manning?

Ok, I'm just being a dick now.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:15 PM
If we hide our starter, we're admitting that we need that "competitive advantage" to win the game. Once you get there, you've already lost.

Ok.. now I know you are trying to be sarcastic. You had me going, at first, but then I read this sentence....and it finally became obvious. Good one!!!

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 06:17 PM
Are you people crazy? Did I land in this BF bizarro world where up is down and black is white again? This isn't even debatable... You guys are trying to tell me that you'd rather make it easier for the opponent to gameplan because it allows our players to not have to answer any questions about it to the media. WTF are you even talking about? That makes zero sense. Go home, all of you, you're drunk.

Your boyfriend Vic is saying the same thing.

Poet
01-07-2016, 06:17 PM
It avoids a quarterback controversy; the question is if that controversy would hurt the team if in fact the players did know who would be the QB. The fact that both QB's getting snaps in some order would also be telling; it might be fair to argue that if one QB is getting all the big reps, it makes the discussion or strategy moot. To get any value out of that ploy would be to split snaps, which hurts the guy who is playing.

You would be jumping through hoops for arguably no reason. Next week the games are set. So the team you play would know who your guy is. Because you're not going to convince anyone that the guy getting all the snaps a week later isn't going to start.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 06:18 PM
Are you people crazy? Did I land in this BF bizarro world where up is down and black is white again? This isn't even debatable... You guys are trying to tell me that you'd rather make it easier for the opponent to gameplan because it allows our players to not have to answer any questions about it to the media. WTF are you even talking about? That makes zero sense. Go home, all of you, you're drunk.

The same statement can be flipped toward your inexplicable inability to recognize a goddamn distraction. Frankly, do you really think our players want to be constantly badgered by reporters about a question they can't answer? If that were you, would it not grate on you to get asked the same bullshit question 40x because your coach was afraid to answer it? I can personally guarantee you that no team has ever won a game because they didn't announce their quarterback. No coach has ever said "well, we lost the game because we gameplanned for both quarterbacks instead of just the one." You have to line up and play the goddamn game. Jesus.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:20 PM
It avoids a quarterback controversy; the question is if that controversy would hurt the team if in fact the players did know who would be the QB. The fact that both QB's getting snaps in some order would also be telling; it might be fair to argue that if one QB is getting all the big reps, it makes the discussion or strategy moot. To get any value out of that ploy would be to split snaps, which hurts the guy who is playing.

You would be jumping through hoops for arguably no reason. Next week the games are set. So the team you play would know who your guy is. Because you're not going to convince anyone that the guy getting all the snaps a week later isn't going to start.

But practices are closed, and even the ones that aren't... both QB HAVE to get reps now. Especially the way the season has gone. Manning could take one of his speedy boot legs and sprain that foot again in a heartbeat...and Brock will have to have been ready. So I think we give both QBs reps.

Poet
01-07-2016, 06:22 PM
But practices are closed, and even the ones that aren't... both QB HAVE to get reps now. Especially the way the season has gone. Manning could take one of his speedy boot legs and sprain that foot again in a heartbeat...and Brock will have to have been ready. So I think we give both QBs reps.

Practices are closed, but reporters tend to get the information anyway. I get what you're saying, brother. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here.

Oh they will be getting reps, both. I expect Manning to have more reps than Brock by a decent margin.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 06:24 PM
Are you people crazy? Did I land in this BF bizarro world where up is down and black is white again? This isn't even debatable... You guys are trying to tell me that you'd rather make it easier for the opponent to gameplan because it allows our players to not have to answer any questions about it to the media. WTF are you even talking about? That makes zero sense. Go home, all of you, you're drunk.

Just don't see any huge advantage with the announcement, other than it benefiting the Broncos more than whatever team we end up playing.

slim
01-07-2016, 06:26 PM
I think you're smarter than this.

No comment.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 06:26 PM
I think teams will still be confused about how to prepare because Manning ran the west coast when he came in the other day.

BroncoJoe
01-07-2016, 06:27 PM
No comment.

I almost deleted that comment, but decided to let it stand. I'm all for making someone feel good - whether it's actually a true and valid statement or not.

Ravage!!!
01-07-2016, 06:27 PM
You have to line up and play the goddamn game. Jesus.

Zeem.. no one is denying that. That's not really the point. There is no way you can say that there woudln't be ANY gain from keeping that info close to the vest....and if there is even the SLIGHTEST of edges to be given... isn't the coach obligated to take EVERY advantage (legally) provided to help his team?

This complete BS junk of "it doesn't matter, we dont' need strategy... just line them up and let them run full speed at one another..the last man standing is the winner" mentality just doesn't make sense. Strategy is just as much important than brute strength.

The game of football is a chess match out on the field, I know you know this. SO, if its about strategy and chess board, why does it seem impractical for you to see that part of that stratgy could/would exist BEFORE th game started?

Everyone knows that every play is the result of execution...but that execution has the most probable chance of success if you are more prepared for what's going than the other team is at knowing what's coming. Its why they don't announce the play call to the defense before the snap....because although execution of the plays (or just lining up and running the gd game) is the most important thing, that executing team needs the 'advantage' to make the most out of every opportunity.

Phew..tht was beautifully worded.

slim
01-07-2016, 06:29 PM
All I know is the greatest coach of our generation would not have handled it this way.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 06:54 PM
Zeem.. no one is denying that. That's not really the point. There is no way you can say that there woudln't be ANY gain from keeping that info close to the vest....and if there is even the SLIGHTEST of edges to be given... isn't the coach obligated to take EVERY advantage (legally) provided to help his team?

This complete BS junk of "it doesn't matter, we dont' need strategy... just line them up and let them run full speed at one another..the last man standing is the winner" mentality just doesn't make sense. Strategy is just as much important than brute strength.

The game of football is a chess match out on the field, I know you know this. SO, if its about strategy and chess board, why does it seem impractical for you to see that part of that stratgy could/would exist BEFORE th game started?

Everyone knows that every play is the result of execution...but that execution has the most probable chance of success if you are more prepared for what's going than the other team is at knowing what's coming. Its why they don't announce the play call to the defense before the snap....because although execution of the plays (or just lining up and running the gd game) is the most important thing, that executing team needs the 'advantage' to make the most out of every opportunity.

Phew..tht was beautifully worded.

And noone is saying there's no advantage either. What I'm saying is that the miniscule advantage gained is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to the distraction you cause in the locker room by forcing your players to deal with bullshit media question for 2 weeks regarding the starting quarterback. The media is vicious. They will wear you down, and they don't give a shit what it does to you emotionally. It's not their job to care.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 06:54 PM
All I know is the greatest coach of our generation would not have handled it this way.

Barry Switzer?

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 07:36 PM
Peyton is the starter because of the national story. Sports is an entertainment business after all; winning is great, but it's all about catering to the largest group of people and being as profitable as possible.

Elway and Kubiak are making the only decision possible with the way the NFL operates, but it isn't because they think Peyton gives us the best chance to win. They can't possibly think that.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 07:38 PM
Peyton is the starter because of the national story. Sports is an entertainment business after all; winning is great, but it's all about catering to the largest group of people and being as profitable as possible.

Elway and Kubiak are making the only decision possible with the way the NFL operates, but it isn't because they think Peyton gives us the best chance to win. They can't possibly think that.

And the #hottake of the year award goes to.....

Northman
01-07-2016, 07:42 PM
Cant believe you guys are still arguing about this. lmao

SR
01-07-2016, 07:44 PM
The stupid is strong in this thread.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 07:44 PM
And the #hottake of the year award goes to.....

So you're saying Elway and Kubiak are just retarded, then?

Because watching the games or just looking at the stats, it's clear as day that Brock is better than Peyton. So either there's an ulterior motive for starting Peyton, which is perfectly believable, or the people making the decision are retarded.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 07:45 PM
And if you think NFL teams don't care about storylines and don't value entertainment above winning, then you're as naive as the people who think the NFL is fixed.

SR
01-07-2016, 07:48 PM
So you're saying Elway and Kubiak are just retarded, then? Because watching the games or just looking at the stats, it's clear as day that Brock is better than Peyton. So either there's an ulterior motive for starting Peyton, which is perfectly believable, or the people making the decision are retarded.

IMO, Kubiak believes that Peyton gives the team the best chance to win. I think it's that simple for him. Brock fits the offense better and all that shit people say, but I think for the coach it boils down to who he thinks has the best chance at winning when it matters. I trust that Kubiak wouldn't put Manning on the field unless he believed that.

Tned
01-07-2016, 07:49 PM
For the betting rules, if the team has announced that Manning IS the starter, then for them to then change that at game time, they would have to show 'reason' as to why that happened. Something like a Johnny Manziel not showing up for the plane, or Manning got injured while stepping off the bus. SOMETHING. Now, they certainly can change the starter during the week, simply by saying "we've decided to make a change." But at game time, because of Betting and trying to eliminate 'inside betting'.... once you make the announcement as to who the starter is, then there has to be a 'sudden' (sorry, don't know the technical term there) reason as to why it was changed at game time.

You are saying this is an NFL rule, correct?

wayninja
01-07-2016, 07:50 PM
So you're saying Elway and Kubiak are just retarded, then?

Jesus.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 07:51 PM
So you're saying Elway and Kubiak are just retarded, then?

Because watching the games or just looking at the stats, it's clear as day that Brock is better than Peyton. So either there's an ulterior motive for starting Peyton, which is perfectly believable, or the people making the decision are retarded.


And if you think NFL teams don't care about storylines and don't value entertainment above winning, then you're as naive as the people who think the NFL is fixed.

Dude, you are being retarded right now. Guys like Elway and Kubiak keep and lose their jobs based on winning and losing. If all they cared about were storylines and entertainment value, they never would have gotten rid of Tebow. Sorry man, but you are off your rocker right now.

It's perfectly reasonable to think Peyton might give us the best chance to win, especially the way the team responded to him against SD. Fact is, Peyton has been here before and Brock hasn't. Did Brock put up better numbers? Yeah, but the offense as a whole didn't score more with Brock than it did with Peyton, and the playoffs are a whole different animal which Brock has never faced before.

It's totally reasonable to think Peyton might give us the best shot to win. And if he comes out and struggles, I have no doubt Kubes will pull him and see if Brock can get it done.

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 07:52 PM
And if you think NFL teams don't care about storylines and don't value entertainment above winning, then you're as naive as the people who think the NFL is fixed.

So like Ray Lewis, Manning g is going to go out on a high note because people love good stories with happy endings?

Tned
01-07-2016, 07:53 PM
Remember that Peyton started the season already dealing with the plantar fasciitis, I believe that was a huge reason why he struggled early in the season. He's had time to not only heal from that, but also get more comfortable in Kubiaks scheme. Both Hillman and Anderson are healthy and starting to come on. I think you're going to see a different and better Manning for the playoffs.

Also, Brock is hurt with a sprained knee.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_29355208/brock-osweiler-broncos-qb-has-sprained-knee

Agreed, he may have been hurt and uncomfortable under center, just saying, it's not playing possum, more like playing Ryan leaf.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 07:54 PM
IMO, Kubiak believes that Peyton gives the team the best chance to win. I think it's that simple for him. Brock fits the offense better and all that shit people say, but I think for the coach it boils down to who he thinks has the best chance at winning when it matters. I trust that Kubiak wouldn't put Manning on the field unless he believed that.

I just have a hard time believing that. I don't think Kubiak is stupid, and he watched them both play. He saw how much better Brock was.

This is a league where Jerry Jones wanted to draft Johnny Manziel because it would guarantee the Cowboys' relevance for a decade. He literally said as much. Entertainment has to come first for the NFL for them to stay the most profitable sports league in America. Of course the NFL wants Peyton to start for the Broncos, that really isn't debatable. the only place where you could argue is whether or not that's the reason the Broncos started him.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 07:57 PM
I just have a hard time believing that. I don't think Kubiak is stupid, and he watched them both play. He saw how much better Brock was.

This is a league where Jerry Jones wanted to draft Johnny Manziel because it would guarantee the Cowboys' relevance for a decade. He literally said as much. Entertainment has to come first for the NFL for them to stay the most profitable sports league in America. Of course the NFL wants Peyton to start for the Broncos, that really isn't debatable. the only place where you could argue is whether or not that's the reason the Broncos started him.

Seriously man, stop while you aren't too far behind. You are embarrassing yourself. Have you ever heard of John ****ing Elway? I'm pretty sure he could give less than a shit about what is more entertaining to the public when comparing that to winning. Like, are you listening to yourself. He is one of the most competitive dudes to ever live. He would never in a million years let moves by his team be dictated based on what is a better storyline over what gives them the best chance to win.

Seriously, just stop it before you embarrass yourself even worse. I am saying this as a friend.

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 07:58 PM
Agreed, he may have been hurt and uncomfortable under center, just saying, it's not playing possum, more like playing Ryan leaf.

If Manning plays in the pistol I may kick a puppy.

That is not Kubiak's system and the running game was so bad with it. Since Brock took over it has done better.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 07:58 PM
Dude, you are being retarded right now. Guys like Elway and Kubiak keep and lose their jobs based on winning and losing. If all they cared about were storylines and entertainment value, they never would have gotten rid of Tebow. Sorry man, but you are off your rocker right now.

It's perfectly reasonable to think Peyton might give us the best chance to win, especially the way the team responded to him against SD. Fact is, Peyton has been here before and Brock hasn't. Did Brock put up better numbers? Yeah, but the offense as a whole didn't score more with Brock than it did with Peyton, and the playoffs are a whole different animal which Brock has never faced before.

It's totally reasonable to think Peyton might give us the best shot to win. And if he comes out and struggles, I have no doubt Kubes will pull him and see if Brock can get it done.

It's not totally reasonable at all. 9 TDs to 17 INTs. I'm not even a big fan of Brock, but I know he's better than the worst QB in the league. But in fairness, the fact that you and others are making this argument proves it is at least reasonable that Kubiak could think that. But it isn't reasonable at all that he could be correct.


So like Ray Lewis, Manning g is going to go out on a high note because people love good stories with happy endings?

I sure hope so!

wayninja
01-07-2016, 07:58 PM
So like Ray Lewis, Manning g is going to go out on a high note because people love good stories with happy endings?

Manning didn't kill no mother****ing lion!

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 07:58 PM
I just have a hard time believing that. I don't think Kubiak is stupid, and he watched them both play. He saw how much better Brock was.

This is a league where Jerry Jones wanted to draft Johnny Manziel because it would guarantee the Cowboys' relevance for a decade. He literally said as much. Entertainment has to come first for the NFL for them to stay the most profitable sports league in America. Of course the NFL wants Peyton to start for the Broncos, that really isn't debatable. the only place where you could argue is whether or not that's the reason the Broncos started him.

Brock's problem is leadership and inexperience. Brock will not be the true offensive leader with Manning g on field.

NightTerror218
01-07-2016, 07:59 PM
Manning didn't kill no mother****ing lion!

All about the Swan song apparently.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:01 PM
Seriously man, stop while you aren't too far behind. You are embarrassing yourself. Have you ever heard of John ****ing Elway? I'm pretty sure he could give less than a shit about what is more entertaining to the public when comparing that to winning. Like, are you listening to yourself. He is one of the most competitive dudes to ever live. He would never in a million years let moves by his team be dictated based on what is a better storyline over what gives them the best chance to win.

Seriously, just stop it before you embarrass yourself even worse. I am saying this as a friend.

We've had people here arguing that Peyton's legacy does and should matter to Elway. That's completely tied into this. I didn't agree with it at the time, but this decision strongly supports it.

Also, this is a different debate entirely, but the playoffs are not "an entirely different animal." Only fans think this. The players are playing the same game, they don't have time to think about it being the playoffs while going through their reads, etc. The only difference is that the competition is better.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:01 PM
It's not totally reasonable at all. 9 TDs to 17 INTs. I'm not even a big fan of Brock, but I know he's better than the worst QB in the league. But in fairness, the fact that you and others are making this argument proves it is at least reasonable that Kubiak could think that. But it isn't reasonable at all that he could be correct.



I sure hope so!

You are just looking at stats instead of the context of the situation. Brock has never been in this kind of situation before. Peyton has. No one is debating their numbers, but the fact of the matter is that Peyton just gave the team a spark in week 17 that Brock couldn't provide, and the team played better for him. I'm sure Kubes is banking on that carrying into the playoffs, and it's a reasonable thing of him to do IMO. Peyton will no doubt be on a short leash if that spark does not carry over though, and I have no doubt Kubes would put in Brock if he thought it would help the team in the wake of Peyton struggling.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:03 PM
We've had people here arguing that Peyton's legacy does and should matter to Elway. That's completely tied into this. I didn't agree with it at the time, but this decision strongly supports it.

Also, this is a different debate entirely, but the playoffs are not "an entirely different animal." Only fans think this. The players are playing the same game, they don't have time to think about it being the playoffs while going through their reads, etc. The only difference is that the competition is better.

Players and ex players say allllll the time that the playoffs are a different animal. Way more scrutiny on you and the stakes of losing are much higher than they are from losing a regular season game. That pressure effects different players in different ways. Yeah it's the same game, but the enormity of the moment can get into a young player's head, and it's happened several times in the past.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 08:03 PM
It's not totally reasonable at all. 9 TDs to 17 INTs. I'm not even a big fan of Brock, but I know he's better than the worst QB in the league. But in fairness, the fact that you and others are making this argument proves it is at least reasonable that Kubiak could think that. But it isn't reasonable at all that he could be correct.



I sure hope so!

Yes. It's totally reasonable. Manning played like shit most of the year, but it's not outrageous to think that injury may have been a factor or otherwise anomalous. If he's healthy, you don't ignore his football savvy nor his MVP/HOF career. Only stupid people do that.

Kubiak sees him in practice. He's not going to put someone out that isn't physically capable of competing. It's that simple. Your wild conspiracy theory is go-go bananas.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:05 PM
You are just looking at stats instead of the context of the situation. Brock has never been in this kind of situation before. Peyton has. No one is debating their numbers, but the fact of the matter is that Peyton just gave the team a spark in week 17 that Brock couldn't provide, and the team played better for him. I'm sure Kubes is banking on that carrying into the playoffs, and it's a reasonable thing of him to do IMO. Peyton will no doubt be on a short leash if that spark does not carry over though, and I have no doubt Kubes would put in Brock if he thought it would help the team in the wake of Peyton struggling.

I'm not just looking at the stats at all, I've watched every minute of every Broncos game.

"Giving the team a spark" is soooo overused and overrated. Benching our worst lineman unsurprisingly helped the line run block, and our awful turnover luck wasn't likely to continue anyway. Peyton's ability to read the defense and make audibles certainly helped, but he didn't magically make the entire team perform better than they would have with Brock.

I love Peyton's mind, but it doesn't do much good if he can't throw the ball effectively. He didn't show anything against SD to show he's better than what we've seen all year.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:06 PM
Players and ex players say allllll the time that the playoffs are a different animal. Way more scrutiny on you and the stakes of losing are much higher than they are from losing a regular season game. That pressure effects different players in different ways. Yeah it's the same game, but the enormity of the moment can get into a young player's head, and it's happened several times in the past.

They say it's different, and leading up to the game it is, but during the play they don't have time to be thinking of all that.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 08:06 PM
I'm not just looking at the stats at all, I've watched every minute of every Broncos game.

"Giving the team a spark" is soooo overused and overrated. Benching our worst lineman unsurprisingly helped the line run block, and our awful turnover luck wasn't likely to continue anyway. Peyton's ability to read the defense and make audibles certainly helped, but he didn't magically make the entire team perform better than they would have with Brock.

I love Peyton's mind, but it doesn't do much good if he can't throw the ball effectively. He didn't show anything against SD to show he's better than what we've seen all year.

You know what's not overused or overrated? Brock had 3 turnovers to Mannings' 0 turnovers.

These cherries are delicious.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:08 PM
Yes. It's totally reasonable. Manning played like shit most of the year, but it's not outrageous to think that injury may have been a factor or otherwise anomalous. If he's healthy, you don't ignore his football savvy nor his MVP/HOF career. Only stupid people do that.

Kubiak sees him in practice. He's not going to put someone out that isn't physically capable of competing. It's that simple. Your wild conspiracy theory is go-go bananas.

How is what I said anymore of a "conspiracy theory" than suggesting Elway cares about Peyton's legacy? It's basically the same thing.

Do you mean the part about individual franchises operating with the goal of making the NFL as profitable as possible? Well, that's not a conspiracy. The NFL is considered one legal entity, not 32 franchises.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:09 PM
You know what's not overused or overrated? Brock had 3 turnovers to Mannings' 0 turnovers.

These cherries are delicious.

This post doesn't deserve a response other than re-watch the game.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:09 PM
They say it's different, and leading up to the game it is, but during the play they don't have time to be thinking of all that.

Seriously? Let's say a young WR drops a pass in week 1. He can just shake it off because there is a lot of game and season left to play. But if he drops a pass in the playoffs, it starts to creep into his head that he could have just cost his team the season, and it could cause him to start pressing and play worse.

These guys are human beings, not robots. They aren't just programmed to run their route and do their assignment and block everything else out. The pressure of the moment can get to you and cause you to press and overthink things instead of just going out and playing. Happens all the damn time.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 08:10 PM
How is what I said anymore of a "conspiracy theory" than suggesting Elway cares about Peyton's legacy? It's basically the same thing.

Do you mean the part about individual franchises operating with the goal of making the NFL as profitable as possible? Well, that's not a conspiracy. The NFL is considered one legal entity, not 32 franchises.

Because caring about someones legacy doesn't mean you do something purposefully to hurt the rest of the guys. It's not the same thing. Don't be ridiculous.

The NFL is ridiculously popular and still would be even if Brock wins the superbowl. You're being nutty man.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 08:11 PM
This post doesn't deserve a response other than re-watch the game.

I can rewatch it if you want. Will the number of turnovers change if I do? I mean, that's all you've focused on, is the numbers.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:11 PM
How is what I said anymore of a "conspiracy theory" than suggesting Elway cares about Peyton's legacy? It's basically the same thing.

Do you mean the part about individual franchises operating with the goal of making the NFL as profitable as possible? Well, that's not a conspiracy. The NFL is considered one legal entity, not 32 franchises.

Do you seriously think any head coach is more concerned with how his decisions will affect the "brand" than how they will help the team win? I'm sorry but if you believe that, then that's just a stupid opinion.

Zweems56
01-07-2016, 08:16 PM
Do you seriously think any head coach is more concerned with how his decisions will affect the "brand" than how they will help the team win? I'm sorry but if you believe that, then that's just a stupid opinion.

Well.... He does eat staples.

Davii
01-07-2016, 08:17 PM
For the 8,000th time in this thread - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to inform the team but not the public.

So, close practice, kick the media out of the building and expect the entire team to keep quiet? Highly unlikely

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:20 PM
Seriously? Let's say a young WR drops a pass in week 1. He can just shake it off because there is a lot of game and season left to play. But if he drops a pass in the playoffs, it starts to creep into his head that he could have just cost his team the season, and it could cause him to start pressing and play worse.

These guys are human beings, not robots. They aren't just programmed to run their route and do their assignment and block everything else out. The pressure of the moment can get to you and cause you to press and overthink things instead of just going out and playing. Happens all the damn time.

I think there are certain players who would be negatively affected by that whether it's the playoffs or the regular season, and other guys who will shake it off regardless. And either way, I don't think it's going to cause them to drop the next one.


I can rewatch it if you want. Will the number of turnovers change if I do? I mean, that's all you've focused on, is the numbers.

Except it's not all I've focused on at all. Brock had one at-fault turnover, not 3. Re-watching the game might help you realize this, but I'm not holding my breath on that.


Do you seriously think any head coach is more concerned with how his decisions will affect the "brand" than how they will help the team win? I'm sorry but if you believe that, then that's just a stupid opinion.

Let me use an example of something that (I think) we agree on:

Coaches should be going for more 4th downs than they currently do. Do you think every single coach genuinely believes it's almost always right to punt/kick on 4th down? I know Chip Kelly didn't when he coached Oregon, but when he got to the NFL he suddenly changed his philosophy? Most of these coaches aren't stupid and the statistics are easily available to them. They make the statistically wrong decisions so often because they're afraid of getting fired.

It's the same with something like this. When we talk about the "NFL," all we mean is the 32 owners. That's what the NFL is, 32 owners. Those are the guys who hire and fire coaches and GMs. If they aren't satisfied, the coaches and GMs get fired. Coaches don't care about the NFL's brand, but owners do, and coaches care about their jobs.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:26 PM
I'm sorry, but the day I believe any NFL head coach or GM cares more about the NFL brand than winning is the day I stop watching football. Winning, more than anything, is what MAKES your franchise a better brand. The NFL brand is not going anywhere anytime soon. It's not going to hurt ratings if Brock Osweiler is winning playoff games instead of Peyton Manning. People are still going to tune in and talk about it. Hell Tim Tebow drove ratings and conversation and hype as much as anyone when he was playing and now he is out of the league because he wasn't good enough to help teams consistently win, so that kinda blows your argument out of the water right there.

Sorry man, but you have gone completely bonkers on this topic.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:29 PM
Michael Vick was HORRIBLE for the NFL's image and brand after his dogfighting thing, and Ray Lewis was too after his murder investigation. But guess what, those guys still got jobs because they helped teams WIN. Hell look at Greg Hardy. Example of A for a guy who is HORRIBLE for the NFL's reputation and brand, but still is on a team because he can play and help them win.

Seriously think about what you are arguing and tell me how it makes any sense. Maybe there are some owners who care more about their team's brand than how much they win, but you will never see them fire people who are winning games for them, I can guarantee you that.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:30 PM
I'm sorry, but the day I believe any NFL head coach or GM cares more about the NFL brand than winning is the day I stop watching football. Winning, more than anything, is what MAKES your franchise a better brand. The NFL brand is not going anywhere anytime soon. It's not going to hurt ratings if Brock Osweiler is winning playoff games instead of Peyton Manning. People are still going to tune in and talk about it. Hell Tim Tebow drove ratings and conversation and hype as much as anyone when he was playing and now he is out of the league because he wasn't good enough to help teams consistently win, so that kinda blows your argument out of the water right there.

Sorry man, but you have gone completely bonkers on this topic.

It's not about coaches and GMs caring about the NFL brand. It's about owners caring about the NFL being as profitable as possible, and coaches and GMs wanting to keep their jobs. It's not like owners don't want their team to win games, but the NFL comes first. The Broncos want to win, but they want to win with Peyton. It's better for everyone if they do.

I don't understand how it's some conspiracy to suggest the NFL is concerned with making as much of a profit as possible.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:33 PM
Michael Vick was HORRIBLE for the NFL's image and brand after his dogfighting thing, and Ray Lewis was too after his murder investigation. But guess what, those guys still got jobs because they helped teams WIN. Hell look at Greg Hardy. Example of A for a guy who is HORRIBLE for the NFL's reputation and brand, but still is on a team because he can play and help them win.

Seriously think about what you are arguing and tell me how it makes any sense. Maybe there are some owners who care more about their team's brand than how much they win, but you will never see them fire people who are winning games for them, I can guarantee you that.

I never said anything about brand or reputation. You brought that up, not me. Greg Hardy wouldn't be in the NFL if he had a noticeable negative impact on TV revenue, I guarantee that.

Buff
01-07-2016, 08:34 PM
So, close practice, kick the media out of the building and expect the entire team to keep quiet? Highly unlikely

Practices are already closed - the media gets access for the first 15 or 30 minutes or whatever while the guys are just warming up. The actual game planning is always private across the entire league. Obviously by the time the game rolls around Mort or whomever would have the scoop that he's starting - but by that time the other team's gameplanning is already done.

I don't see why everyone thinks it's a foregone conclusion that it leaks when other teams pull it off all the time. Either way - if it leaks it leaks, but no sense in giving them a 10 day head start.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:34 PM
It's not about coaches and GMs caring about the NFL brand. It's about owners caring about the NFL being as profitable as possible, and coaches and GMs wanting to keep their jobs. It's not like owners don't want their team to win games, but the NFL comes first. The Broncos want to win, but they want to win with Peyton. It's better for everyone if they do.

I don't understand how it's some conspiracy to suggest the NFL is concerned with making as much of a profit as possible.

I bet they would much rather win with Brock than lose with Peyton, wouldn't you agree? If they thought Brock gave them a better chance they would start him, plain and simple. Any other opinion is just paranoid crazy-talk.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:36 PM
Practices are already closed - the media gets access for the first 15 or 30 minutes or whatever while the guys are just warming up. The actual game planning is always private across the entire league. Obviously by the time the game rolls around Mort or whomever would have the scoop that he's starting - but by that time the other team's gameplanning is already done.

I don't see why everyone thinks it's a foregone conclusion that it leaks when other teams pull it off all the time. Either way - if it leaks it leaks, but no sense in giving them a 10 day head start.

Because (as has now been said for about the 20000th time) all of these other teams that pull it off aren't dealing with the most popular player in the NFL in a playoff situation. Both of those magnify the decision tenfold over whom the Houston Texans are starting at QB in week 3.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:40 PM
I bet they would much rather win with Brock than lose with Peyton, wouldn't you agree? If they thought Brock gave them a better chance they would start him, plain and simple. Any other opinion is just paranoid crazy-talk.

If they were positive Brock would win and Peyton would lose, sure. But neither of those things are certain.

It's very reasonable to believe Kubiak thinks Brock is probably better than Peyton, but his experience, name, legacy, popularity, pressure from the front office, public perception, etc. can influence him. How many times does someone think "hey, this might be wrong, but I have a good feeling about it so I'm gonna do it" or something along those lines? It's usually dumb, but it happens all the time in every aspect of life.

Buff
01-07-2016, 08:41 PM
Because (as has now been said for about the 20000th time) all of these other teams that pull it off aren't dealing with the most popular player in the NFL in a playoff situation. Both of those magnify the decision tenfold over whom the Houston Texans are starting at QB in week 3.

I would trust that the team isn't going to give away a competitive advantage if you ask them not to. They are professionals. I don't think Peyton's fame changes that. And I'd rather risk it leaking as opposed to serving it up on a platter. Oh well.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:41 PM
What would piss off the casual Broncos fan more? Starting the hall of famer and losing, or starting the basically rookie and losing while the hall of famer is on the bench?

It's obviously the latter, and owners do care about that stuff. They shouldn't, but they do.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:43 PM
If they were positive Brock would win and Peyton would lose, sure. But neither of those things are certain.

It's very reasonable to believe Kubiak thinks Brock is probably better than Peyton, but his experience, name, legacy, popularity, pressure from the front office, public perception, etc. can influence him. How many times does someone think "hey, this might be wrong, but I have a good feeling about it so I'm gonna do it" or something along those lines? It's usually dumb, but it happens all the time in every aspect of life.

Ok, see, now you are being somewhat reasonable. I can totally see a thought process like that taking place in a guy's head where he goes with his gut maybe over his head. People do that all the time. But I refuse to believe that he is sitting there like "Well Brock for sure gives us the better chance, but I'm going with Peyton because it's better for business for the NFL.". What's better for business for the NFL is the furthest thing from his mind at this point. All any of the 12 coaches left want at this point is to win a ring. Kubes ain't sacrificing the RARE chance to get a ring as an NFL head coach because of what's better for NFL business. He's just not. Maybe he is letting his gut on what Peyton has done in the past influence him a bit, which is only human, but that's far from willingly doing something that hurts your chances to win just to help the NFL brand.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:45 PM
Ok, see, now you are being somewhat reasonable. I can totally see a thought process like that taking place in a guy's head where he goes with his gut maybe over his head. People do that all the time. But I refuse to believe that he is sitting there like "Well Brock for sure gives us the better chance, but I'm going with Peyton because it's better for business for the NFL.". What's better for business for the NFL is the furthest thing from his mind at this point. All any of the 12 coaches left want at this point is to win a ring. Kubes ain't sacrificing the RARE chance to get a ring as an NFL head coach because of what's better for NFL business. He's just not. Maybe he is letting his gut on what Peyton has done in the past influence him a bit, which is only human, but that's far from willingly doing something that hurts your chances to win just to help the NFL brand.

His gut is most likely influenced by what the public and especially his bosses might think about his decision. It's hard for anyone to not be influenced by that stuff.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:47 PM
His gut is most likely influenced by what the public and especially his bosses might think about his decision. It's hard for anyone to not be influenced by that stuff.

Do you think Denver became the all-time great franchise they became because Pat Bowlen cared more about what was good for the league than if his Broncos won? Denver is a franchise that is all about winning. If Elway thought for a second that Kubes was starting Peyton because of what it would mean for the NFL instead of what was best for his Broncos winning, he would fire him on the spot the second the season ended.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:49 PM
Do you think Denver became the all-time great franchise they became because Pat Bowlen cared more about what was good for the league than if his Broncos won? Denver is a franchise that is all about winning. If Elway thought for a second that Kubes was starting Peyton because of what it would mean for the NFL instead of what was best for his Broncos winning, he would fire him on the spot the second the season ended.

Pat Bowlen is one of the best owners in professional sports for the very reason that he does care about his team and his city more than most owners do. But unfortunately, Pat Bowlen is no longer in a position to have much say in any decisions that are made.

Plus, caring about the fans can be a double-edged sword. The fans want Peyton.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:50 PM
Pat Bowlen is one of the best owners in professional sports for the very reason that he does care about his team and his city more than most owners do. But unfortunately, Pat Bowlen is no longer in a position to have much say in any decisions that are made.

But do you think that culture that he created is now gone? Remember, John "the mother****ing Duke" Elway is still running shit around here, and he is as competitive a guy as has ever lived. If you think for a second that winning isn't priority #1, 2, and 3 for him, then I just don't know what to tell you.

Dapper Dan
01-07-2016, 08:51 PM
I just woke up. Did I miss anything?

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 08:51 PM
Ok, see, now you are being somewhat reasonable. I can totally see a thought process like that taking place in a guy's head where he goes with his gut maybe over his head. People do that all the time. But I refuse to believe that he is sitting there like "Well Brock for sure gives us the better chance, but I'm going with Peyton because it's better for business for the NFL.". What's better for business for the NFL is the furthest thing from his mind at this point. All any of the 12 coaches left want at this point is to win a ring. Kubes ain't sacrificing the RARE chance to get a ring as an NFL head coach because of what's better for NFL business. He's just not. Maybe he is letting his gut on what Peyton has done in the past influence him a bit, which is only human, but that's far from willingly doing something that hurts your chances to win just to help the NFL brand.

I think the decision is made easier because Brock is inconsistent and hasn't shown that he is the guy. Like Madden said, when a team has two QBs, you really don't have even one starting quarterback.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:51 PM
I just woke up. Did I miss anything?

Kubes is starting Manning because it will get the NFL better ratings apparently.

Cugel
01-07-2016, 08:54 PM
But why even name a starter? Isn't there value in making the other team prepare for both QBs?

They do anyway. What if Peyton comes out and struggles? Do you think that they're not going to put Osweiler in there? So their opponent has to be ready for that regardless of who's named the starter.

Plus, Kubiak had to meet with both Osweiler and Peyton before he announced his decision to the team. Then he had the team meeting, then he met with the press.

Is it remotely realistic that word wouldn't leak out somewhere if 53 guys plus a bunch of coaches, trainers, personnel people, team doctors, etc. know? It would be the worst kept secret ever. NO chance of word not leaking out.

So, the only thing Kubiak could do was to meet with the players and then announce it.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 08:55 PM
Kubes is starting Manning because it will get the NFL better ratings apparently.

Well, it is true that Manning will get the networks and NFL better ratings. But it's also true that HOF bound goat Manning gives the Broncos the best chance to win.

Tned
01-07-2016, 08:55 PM
His gut is most likely influenced by what the public and especially his bosses might think about his decision. It's hard for anyone to not be influenced by that stuff.

His bosses want to win, period. So, yea, his gut is influenced by Elway and Ellis wanting to get Mr. Bowlen's team another Lombardi. It's utterly ridiculous to think that in the playoffs, with the Broncos organization, that ANYTHING other than winning it all matters.

As to it being a distraction. Of course it would. Who does the press conferences, Manning or Osweiler. How do they deal with the constant questions about the starter. All the players with regular shows on radio or TV being asked who's the starter, who's getting the reps, etc.

Dapper Dan
01-07-2016, 08:55 PM
Kubes is starting Manning because it will get the NFL better ratings apparently.

Won't that clash with Elway? I'm sure Elway wants to start his son's friend from ASU.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 08:56 PM
They do anyway. What if Peyton comes out and struggles? Do you think that they're not going to put Osweiler in there? So their opponent has to be ready for that regardless of who's named the starter.

Plus, Kubiak had to meet with both Osweiler and Peyton before he announced his decision to the team. Then he had the team meeting, then he met with the press.

Is it remotely realistic that word wouldn't leak out somewhere if 53 guys plus a bunch of coaches, trainers, personnel people, team doctors, etc. know? It would be the worst kept secret ever. NO chance of word not leaking out.

So, the only thing Kubiak could do was to meet with the players and then announce it.

Shanahan would have kept it secret.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 08:56 PM
Kubes is starting Manning because it will get the NFL better ratings apparently.

Kubiak doesn't care. Coaches are very low-ranking employees. He cares what his bosses think, and if he thinks Joe Ellis cares about the business side of things (and of course he does) then that factors into his decision.

If you're making a decision at work, aren't you thinking about what your bosses will think about the decision? Of course you are. And you know what matters to them, and it's usually always a combination of profit and PR.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 08:57 PM
I think the decision is made easier because Brock is inconsistent and hasn't shown that he is the guy. Like Madden said, when a team has two QBs, you really don't have even one starting quarterback.

Yeah, it would be one thing if Brock had absolutely lit the world on fire and was just straight up torching teams week after week, but was still benched for Manning. That would definitely raise some eyebrows. But the fact is, the offense on the whole wasn't putting up any more points under Os than they were under Manning, and while Os showed flashes, he was also very inconsistent and was making a ton of "rookie mistakes" as well. The fact is, he and Manning are both QBs who can flash brilliance, but are highly flawed as well. Given that, I have no issue at all with trotting the Hall of Famer out there (on a short leash, mind you) and seeing what he can do.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 08:57 PM
Won't that clash with Elway? I'm sure Elway wants to start his son's friend from ASU.

Elway owes it to Manning. You know how angry Manning can get. Manning probably told him that he's starting, the end, period.

BroncoWave
01-07-2016, 09:00 PM
His bosses want to win, period. So, yea, his gut is influenced by Elway and Ellis wanting to get Mr. Bowlen's team another Lombardi. It's utterly ridiculous to think that in the playoffs, with the Broncos organization, that ANYTHING other than winning it all matters.

As to it being a distraction. Of course it would. Who does the press conferences, Manning or Osweiler. How do they deal with the constant questions about the starter. All the players with regular shows on radio or TV being asked who's the starter, who's getting the reps, etc.

Yep. End of discussion. If you don't think that, top to bottom, everyone from Ellis to Elway all the way down to the janitor's #1 concern isn't getting Bowlen another ring before he goes, I just don't even know what to say to you. Yeah, people are looking out for their jobs, but the best way to keep your job is to WIN.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:00 PM
Yeah, it would be one thing if Brock had absolutely lit the world on fire and was just straight up torching teams week after week, but was still benched for Manning. That would definitely raise some eyebrows. But the fact is, the offense on the whole wasn't putting up any more points under Os than they were under Manning, and while Os showed flashes, he was also very inconsistent and was making a ton of "rookie mistakes" as well. The fact is, he and Manning are both QBs who can flash brilliance, but are highly flawed as well. Given that, I have no issue at all with trotting the Hall of Famer out there (on a short leash, mind you) and seeing what he can do.

Also if Manning falters at all, Kubiak can say it's the injury and pull him for Owsweiler. At least he gave Manning the courtesy to start him in his last year here because of seniority and all the accolades. And Brock can comprehend that since well it's the goat.

But if you start Osweiler, than Peyton would be very angry and it would probably cause a problem in the lockerroom and morale going into the game.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 09:01 PM
His bosses want to win, period. So, yea, his gut is influenced by Elway and Ellis wanting to get Mr. Bowlen's team another Lombardi. It's utterly ridiculous to think that in the playoffs, with the Broncos organization, that ANYTHING other than winning it all matters.

As to it being a distraction. Of course it would. Who does the press conferences, Manning or Osweiler. How do they deal with the constant questions about the starter. All the players with regular shows on radio or TV being asked who's the starter, who's getting the reps, etc.

I never doubted that the Broncos organization wants to win, but I can't believe it's the ONLY thing that matters. I wish it were so, but that would put this organization in a very, very small minority. I'd have been more inclined to believe it while Pat Bowlen was in charge, and even then I wouldn't believe winning is the ONLY thing that mattered.

The sad truth is that fans care more about winning than owners and management ever will. That's just the nature of the business.

Cugel
01-07-2016, 09:03 PM
The Steelers can certainly be beat deep. Can Manning still do that? I honestly don't know.

Either way, I think our line will be more important than either QB. If Manning has time to throw and if we actually open up running lanes? Our defense will do the rest. If Manning is under siege and tries to force passes that get intercepted? Welcome to the first half of this season, except against the best teams left.

100% correct. If the OL can pass-protect the Broncos can beat any team in the AFC (whether they do or not is another question). But, if the OL sucks (like if they started Michael Schofield), then whoever is playing QB is going to struggle (as both have at times this year).

Remember that Osweiler is a LOT more banged up than Peyton at this point. He has a sprained knee, separated left shoulder and other injuries (probably ribs). He's not healthy although being 25 years old he's better able to play through injuries than 39 year old Peyton.

But, you saw Peyton fresh and able to play in the Chargers game. No INTs. Put some zip on the ball at times.

Kubiak said when the benched Peyton "I told him that if we weren't able to better protect him and get some better play around him that we would sit him down". The OL was horrible back then.

Well, the banged up OL will get a 2 week rest. Today the only players held out of practice were on defense (Shaquil Barrett, Demarcus Ware, TJ Ward, etc.). The OL should be the healthiest it's been at least since the Packers game (coming off their bye week).

If they can protect Peyton like they did against the Packers - look out for the Broncos.

I'm not even concerned about Peyton's performance in the 1st playoff this year. It's the AFC Championship Game I'm worried about if they win. What injuries will Peyton sustain in the playoff game? Will he be healthy enough to play 2 weeks in a row?

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 09:04 PM
Yeah, people are looking out for their jobs, but the best way to keep your job is to WIN.

It really should be that simple, but we know coaches fall into the trap of worrying about worst case scenario instead of probability of outcome.

Plus, winning isn't always enough. Jim Harbaugh was one of the best and most successful coaches in the NFL with the 49ers, but the CEO got rid of him.

Cugel
01-07-2016, 09:07 PM
Elway owes it to Manning. You know how angry Manning can get. Manning probably told him that he's starting, the end, period.

You obviously didn't hear Elway's interview yesterday. He had nothing to do with the decision to put Peyton back in the game (without which there's no chance of Peyton starting in the playoffs). That decision, Elway said, was made SOLELY by Kubiak without prior consultation with Elway. At all.

100% Kubiak decision. That's what he's paid to do. He doesn't tell Gary who to play. That's the coaches' job. If they even discussed it, Elway would defer to whatever Gary wanted to do.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:07 PM
It really should be that simple, but we know coaches fall into the trap of worrying about worst case scenario instead of probability of outcome.

Plus, winning isn't always enough. Jim Harbaugh was one of the best and most successful coaches in the NFL with the 49ers, but the CEO got rid of him.

Yeah but Baalke and Jed York are morons and didn't get along with Harbaugh.

Elway and Kubiak are good friends and former roommates. Not analogous.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:09 PM
You obviously didn't hear Elway's interview yesterday. He had nothing to do with the decision to put Peyton back in the game (without which there's no chance of Peyton starting in the playoffs). That decision, Elway said, was made SOLELY by Kubiak without prior consultation with Elway. At all.

100% Kubiak decision. That's what he's paid to do. He doesn't tell Gary who to play. That's the coaches' job. If they even discussed it, Elway would defer to whatever Gary wanted to do.

Means nothing.

Let's say Elway did command or hint that Kubiak should start Manning. Do you really think Elways would say that he did that.

Cugel
01-07-2016, 09:09 PM
Also if Manning falters at all, Kubiak can say it's the injury and pull him for Owsweiler. At least he gave Manning the courtesy to start him in his last year here because of seniority and all the accolades. And Brock can comprehend that since well it's the goat.

But if you start Osweiler, than Peyton would be very angry and it would probably cause a problem in the lockerroom and morale going into the game.

None of this. First of all, Brock is NOT more healthy than Peyton right now. Brock didn't even practice today and won't until maybe next week because he's nursing several injuries, including a knee sprain and separated shoulder.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 09:13 PM
Yeah but Baalke and Jed York are morons and didn't get along with Harbaugh.

Elway and Kubiak are good friends and former roommates. Not analogous.

Wasn't meant to be, just an example to show that winning isn't always everything for upper management.

Tned
01-07-2016, 09:17 PM
Kubiak doesn't care. Coaches are very low-ranking employees. He cares what his bosses think, and if he thinks Joe Ellis cares about the business side of things (and of course he does) then that factors into his decision.

If you're making a decision at work, aren't you thinking about what your bosses will think about the decision? Of course you are. And you know what matters to them, and it's usually always a combination of profit and PR.

Even if you believe that economics are more important than winning to Joe Ellis an company, then you are totally losing it in terms of the best economic boom the Broncos can have right now is wining the SB. Ellis has been put in charge of maintaining Mr. Bowlen's legacy. One and out in the playoffs doesn't do that, nor does it make the Broncos economically better off.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:18 PM
None of this. First of all, Brock is NOT more healthy than Peyton right now. Brock didn't even practice today and won't until maybe next week because he's nursing several injuries, including a knee sprain and separated shoulder.

Disagree.

There is no next week.

If Manning just implodes due to his health, choking or weather, whatever it may be I think Brock will be in there ASAP. They are not going to keep Manning in to throw 6 ints and let the game get out of hand. If it's 17-0 or above anytime in the first half I think you will see Brock coming in.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 09:21 PM
Even if you believe that economics are more important than winning to Joe Ellis an company, then you are totally losing it in terms of the best economic boom the Broncos can have right now is wining the SB. Ellis has been put in charge of maintaining Mr. Bowlen's legacy. One and out in the playoffs doesn't do that, nor does it make the Broncos economically better off.

Of course, but it's not like they're expecting that starting Peyton is auto-loss. They probably correctly believe they could win or lose with either QB. They'd just rather win with Peyton.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:21 PM
Even if you believe that economics are more important than winning to Joe Ellis an company, then you are totally losing it in terms of the best economic boom the Broncos can have right now is wining the SB. Ellis has been put in charge of maintaining Mr. Bowlen's legacy. One and out in the playoffs doesn't do that, nor does it make the Broncos economically better off.

I think the difference between Peyton and Brock right now is marginal.

On the other hand besides the supposed economic component you also have to consider the future. If you bench Manning his last chance here after having wooed him and wined and dined him to come here to win a super bowl over about 5 other teams then other potential free agents will see that. So it impacts future decision by potential targets like Drew Brees or maybe even Andrew Luck down the line.

Tned
01-07-2016, 09:22 PM
Of course, but it's not like they're expecting that starting Peyton is auto-loss. They probably correctly believe they could win or lose with either QB. They'd just rather win with Peyton.

Okie dokie

Davii
01-07-2016, 09:26 PM
Kubiak said all along Manning was benched due to injury and would return when he was completely healthy.

He was being truthful.

Tned
01-07-2016, 09:26 PM
I think the difference between Peyton and Brock right now is marginal.

On the other hand besides the supposed economic component you also have to consider the future. If you bench Manning his last chance here after having wooed him and wined and dined him to come here to win a super bowl over about 5 other teams then other potential free agents will see that. So it impacts future decision by potential targets like Drew Brees or maybe even Andrew Luck down the line.

ONLY if the consensus belief is that Manning isn't Favre at the end of his career hanging on to long, costing his team wins and tarnishing his legacy. Again, missed over 1/3 of the season, yet is second in the league in INTs, thankfully not leading because Bortles threw 4 INT's in his last two games.

I'm not sure how free agents will look at it, but it really comes down to what current players think about Manning's ability to perform as an NFL QB right now, and whether they want to join a team focused on winning, or not making future free agents nervous.

BronColt
01-07-2016, 09:29 PM
Okay, it's fairly obvious most of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Manning has been HURT the entire year! He was hurt during the Chargers game last year, and hasn't been healthy SINCE the Chargers game. Manning now is as healthy as he has been in over a year!!

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25418832/archie-manning-reveals-new-details-about-timeline-of-peytons-foot-injury

Look at the stats, before and after the Chargers game in week 15. What your getting right now is pre week 15 Peyton Manning. Obviously it's a different system but still, he's been playing hurt all year since August and was hurt after Week 15 of last year. The numbers don't lie.

8234

http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/gamelogs

SR
01-07-2016, 09:30 PM
I just have a hard time believing that. I don't think Kubiak is stupid, and he watched them both play. He saw how much better Brock was. This is a league where Jerry Jones wanted to draft Johnny Manziel because it would guarantee the Cowboys' relevance for a decade. He literally said as much. Entertainment has to come first for the NFL for them to stay the most profitable sports league in America. Of course the NFL wants Peyton to start for the Broncos, that really isn't debatable. the only place where you could argue is whether or not that's the reason the Broncos started him.

Jerry Jones is also a blow hard dumbass. Comparing Jerry Jones to the Broncos is a joke, much like the notion that Peyton starting is for entertainment.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 09:31 PM
I keep hearing the argument that Manning was only bad because he hasn't been healthy.

Ok, let's assume that's true then. If he hasn't been healthy since the middle of 2014, I don't see any reason to believe he'll ever be healthy enough to perform adequately again. So whether you want to say it's natural decline or injury decline, he's still declined beyond being a superbowl winning QB.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:32 PM
ONLY if the consensus belief is that Manning isn't Favre at the end of his career hanging on to long, costing his team wins and tarnishing his legacy. Again, missed over 1/3 of the season, yet is second in the league in INTs, thankfully not leading because Bortles threw 4 INT's in his last two games.

I'm not sure how free agents will look at it, but it really comes down to what current players think about Manning's ability to perform as an NFL QB right now, and whether they want to join a team focused on winning, or not making future free agents nervous.

Lillywhite's

I think this is it for Manning at least here. His next stop in Tenneessee will likely be like Farve but Manning has done alot for this organization and still has played at a high level (sometimes). Like I said if Brock was playing gangbusters it wouldn't even be a debate but as it is they are about the same. (both question marks).

I do think though it's obvious to anyone that this is Peyton's last ride and that to deny him the playoffs would not be how anyone in Peyton's position would want to be treated.

SR
01-07-2016, 09:33 PM
Disagree. There is no next week. If Manning just implodes due to his health, choking or weather, whatever it may be I think Brock will be in there ASAP. They are not going to keep Manning in to throw 6 ints and let the game get out of hand. If it's 17-0 or above anytime in the first half I think you will see Brock coming in.

News flash: Denver doesn't play for two weeks, so there is a next week.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:33 PM
Okay, it's fairly obvious most of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Manning has been HURT the entire year! He was hurt during the Chargers game last year, and hasn't been healthy SINCE the Chargers game. Manning now is as healthy as he has been in over a year!!

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25418832/archie-manning-reveals-new-details-about-timeline-of-peytons-foot-injury

Look at the stats, before and after the Chargers game in week 15. What your getting right now is pre week 15 Peyton Manning. Obviously it's a different system but still, he's been playing hurt all year since August and was hurt after Week 15 of last year. The numbers don't lie.

8234

http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/gamelogs

He looked better than I've seen him in a long time. He was actually throwing long balls and everything wasn't just 5 yard Omaha's.

SR
01-07-2016, 09:34 PM
Okay, it's fairly obvious most of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Manning has been HURT the entire year! He was hurt during the Chargers game last year, and hasn't been healthy SINCE the Chargers game. Manning now is as healthy as he has been in over a year!! http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25418832/archie-manning-reveals-new-details-about-timeline-of-peytons-foot-injury Look at the stats, before and after the Chargers game in week 15. What your getting right now is pre week 15 Peyton Manning. Obviously it's a different system but still, he's been playing hurt all year since August and was hurt after Week 15 of last year. The numbers don't lie. <img src="http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8234"/> http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/gamelogs

We get it. You've got an agenda. Give it a rest.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 09:34 PM
I keep hearing the argument that Manning was only bad because he hasn't been healthy.

Ok, let's assume that's true then. If he hasn't been healthy since the middle of 2014, I don't see any reason to believe he'll ever be healthy enough to perform adequately again. So whether you want to say it's natural decline or injury decline, he's still declined beyond being a superbowl winning QB.

He hasn't been healthy since the neck injury. Yet he led the Broncos to the super bowl. So health is not a barometer.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 11:22 PM
Except it's not all I've focused on at all. Brock had one at-fault turnover, not 3. Re-watching the game might help you realize this, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Interesting. Because when you quoted Manning stats, you didn't qualify any of Mannings 17 INT's as fault/no fault. I assume that means all 17 were his fault?

Interesting.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 11:25 PM
Interesting. Because when you quoted Manning stats, you didn't qualify any of Mannings 17 INT's as fault/no fault. I assume that means all 17 were his fault?

Interesting.

There were a couple that weren't. The vast majority of them were.

Did you watch Manning play this season? In case you didn't, it wasn't pretty.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 11:31 PM
I just woke up. Did I miss anything?

No.
Go back to bed.

wayninja
01-07-2016, 11:33 PM
There were a couple that weren't. The vast majority of them were.

Did you watch Manning play this season? In case you didn't, it wasn't pretty.

I watched last Sunday. It was the best he's looked all year. 5/9 for 69 yards isn't lighting up the world, but 20 points and on track for less than 20 throws in the game is exactly how Kubiak's offense is supposed to work.

Brock plays better physically. Manning reads the opposition better and holds the teams reins better. It's not a conspiracy.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-07-2016, 11:38 PM
Okay, it's fairly obvious most of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Manning has been HURT the entire year! He was hurt during the Chargers game last year, and hasn't been healthy SINCE the Chargers game. Manning now is as healthy as he has been in over a year!!

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25418832/archie-manning-reveals-new-details-about-timeline-of-peytons-foot-injury

Look at the stats, before and after the Chargers game in week 15. What your getting right now is pre week 15 Peyton Manning. Obviously it's a different system but still, he's been playing hurt all year since August and was hurt after Week 15 of last year. The numbers don't lie.

8234

http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/gamelogs

Sorry dude, but that wasn't breaking news fitting for a Frontline documentary.

Everyone here knows he hasn't been healthy in a year. We're just not sure how healthy he is or how long it will really last

Dapper Dan
01-07-2016, 11:45 PM
No.
Go back to bed.

Too late. I'm at work now.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 11:49 PM
I watched last Sunday. It was the best he's looked all year. 5/9 for 69 yards isn't lighting up the world, but 20 points and on track for less than 20 throws in the game is exactly how Kubiak's offense is supposed to work.

Way too small a sample size to say it was the best he looked. He didn't make any tough throws and missed an open deep ball. He looked better against GB and Detroit.


Brock plays better physically. Manning reads the opposition better and holds the teams reins better.

Agreed. And I so wish that Manning could throw the ball effectively for that reason, but he just can't. He'd be a great OC, but he can't make the throws.


It's not a conspiracy.

No, it's not at all a conspiracy to suggest that the NFL, a for-profit entertainment company, cares about profit and entertainment.

TimHippo
01-07-2016, 11:51 PM
Way too small a sample size to say it was the best he looked. He didn't make any tough throws and missed an open deep ball. He looked better against GB and Detroit.



Agreed. And I so wish that Manning could throw the ball effectively for that reason, but he just can't. He'd be a great OC, but he can't make the throws.



No, it's not at all a conspiracy to suggest that the NFL, a for-profit entertainment company, cares about profit and entertainment.

If NFL is a conspiracy this means Peyton manning and the Broncos will win the super bowl. It's in the best interests of all the coaches that they let the Broncos win because it ultimately helps the brands.

I Eat Staples
01-07-2016, 11:52 PM
If NFL is a conspiracy this means Peyton manning and the Broncos will win the super bowl. It's in the best interests of all the coaches that they let the Broncos win because it ultimately helps the brands.

There's no conspiracy. There's no game fixing. I never once said or even implied that.

wayninja
01-08-2016, 12:01 AM
There's no conspiracy. There's no game fixing. I never once said or even implied that.

Why not? If it helps the brands, and is entertaining, and within their power...

You are saying it's not a conspiracy while everything you use as your rationale suggests it is.

Ultimately, your argument is specious. Of course the NFL cares about profit and uses entertainment for that end. The problem is, they don't need Manning to start in order for it to be entertaining, or to make a profit.

I Eat Staples
01-08-2016, 12:16 AM
Why not? If it helps the brands, and is entertaining, and within their power...

You are saying it's not a conspiracy while everything you use as your rationale suggests it is.

Ultimately, your argument is specious. Of course the NFL cares about profit and uses entertainment for that end. The problem is, they don't need Manning to start in order for it to be entertaining, or to make a profit.

It is technically within their power to decide the outcome of games - the supreme court ruled so. But if that was happening, we would know about it by now. Former players and/or coaches would have said it. Way too many people would have to be involved, and it would be really hard to fix games while still making them look legit. It's just not feasible. Trying to influence the games through officiating could happen, but still is unlikely.

That's not even in the same universe as the idea that employees make decisions based on what they think their employers would like.

Tned
01-08-2016, 08:35 AM
I watched last Sunday. It was the best he's looked all year. 5/9 for 69 yards isn't lighting up the world, but 20 points and on track for less than 20 throws in the game is exactly how Kubiak's offense is supposed to work.

Brock plays better physically. Manning reads the opposition better and holds the teams reins better. It's not a conspiracy.

Agreed. While it was a very limited showing, it was the best he looked since he got hurt halfway through last year.

As I've said before, at this stage in his career (last few years), Manning can only be effective if he can step into throws and really power them with his lower body. If he either doesn't have time and has to throw off balance or flat footed, or if he's dealing with lower body injuries, then he looks utterly horrible and even his incredible skills of reading defenses and getting rid of the ball very quick, can't make up for what he's lost.

So, at this stage, if he has a reasonably healthy lower body and the ability to step into his throws, he can still perform. Last Sunday, he had both. If he has both in the playoffs, it bodes well for the Broncos.

Tned
01-08-2016, 08:36 AM
Sorry dude, but that wasn't breaking news fitting for a Frontline documentary.

Everyone here knows he hasn't been healthy in a year. We're just not sure how healthy he is or how long it will really last

Or, if he's reached the age where he can never be healthy. Manning wouldn't be the first great QB who's body failed him before his mind and competitive spirit did.

TXBRONC
01-08-2016, 09:26 AM
So, close practice, kick the media out of the building and expect the entire team to keep quiet? Highly unlikely

I said the same thing earlier. You can't tell 53 players and an entire coaching staff who the starting quarterback and expect it to stay a secret.

TXBRONC
01-08-2016, 09:33 AM
Kubiak said all along Manning was benched due to injury and would return when he was completely healthy.

He was being truthful.

If Denver didn't have all those turnovers and Osweiler finishes the with a win I don't think Manning would be the starter next week.

Tned
01-08-2016, 09:50 AM
Here is Kubiak's position on it:


On why he announced a starter rather than have the upcoming opponent prepare for two quarterbacks

“I’m not worried about that. I’m worried about my team and our guys knowing what we’re doing. They know exactly what we’re doing. Like I said, we’re just very excited about our opportunity and we know we’re going to have to play extremely well—a lot better than we played the other day—but that’s the way it should be this time of year. We’re looking forward to it.”


Let's face it, while there are differences between the two (Manning more cerebral and quicker release, and Osweiler more mobile and better arm), the offense is going to be largely the same between the two QBs. In the week 17 game, we saw Manning under center more. I'm not sure of the breakdown of shotgun vs. under center (I don't remember any pistol). So, I think there is really marginal difference between the QBs, because by and large, Kubiak is stubborn and is going to call "his" game regardless of which QB is in.

Mike
01-08-2016, 10:17 AM
The real question is who is starting at RT....

Dapper Dan
01-08-2016, 10:24 AM
The real question is who is starting at RT....

Troy Renck – Verified account ‏@TroyRenck

Kubiak said likely that Polumbus stays at RT but both he and Schofield will be needed

Lancane
01-08-2016, 11:13 AM
While I admit I am disappointed with the decision, I'm not surprised. And as I said in the other thread, by putting him in they pretty much declared who they were going with before announcing it. Had they named Osweiler the starter I would have been surprised, pleasantly of course...but, it is what it is. I hope Manning looks more like he did against Green Bay but have a deep sinking feeling that he's going to look like he did most of his other games this season while relying on the run game and defense for the win, hopefully it works - but I hope not at the cost of this organization's long-term future.

TXBRONC
01-08-2016, 11:20 AM
While I admit I am disappointed with the decision, I'm not surprised. And as I said in the other thread, by putting him in they pretty much declared who they were going with before announcing it. Had they named Osweiler the starter I would have been surprised, pleasantly of course...but, it is what it is. I hope Manning looks more like he did against Green Bay but have a deep sinking feeling that he's going to look like he did most of his other games this season while relying on the run game and defense for the win, hopefully it works - but I hope not at the cost of this organization's long-term future.

While it is only speculation on my part I think that had Osweiler finished the game with a victory then he's starter next week.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-08-2016, 02:34 PM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- When Gary Kubiak put quarterback Peyton Manning back behind center in the Denver Broncos' offense Thursday, the coach said he did it because it’s "best for the football team."

Kubiak made it clear he also made the decision because Manning is healthier than he was in November, as in a lot healthier. November is when Manning suffered a tear in the plantar fascia near his left heel -- Nov. 8 in Indianapolis -- and November is when Manning was pulled from a game for a bad day for the first time in his storied NFL career with four interceptions in the Nov. 15 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs.

"I feel really good about this, I feel good about how far Peyton has come, where he’s at physically, mentally, everything," Kubiak said. "I could see it happening the last two weeks. I’m excited for him to get going."

rest, plus player comments and video
http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/17675/peyton-manning-just-might-be-healthier-now-than-he-was-in-early-in-season

TimHippo
01-08-2016, 02:36 PM
While it is only speculation on my part I think that had Osweiler finished the game with a victory then he's starter next week.

It would have made the decision more difficult but I think they would have still gone with manning.

As it is it was an easy decision and didn't need much justification.