Thread: Tned’s Manifesto – How Broncos fans can live together in harmony

I originally posted this in the Town Hall discussion, but since I know many have posted their thoughts in that thread and won’t come back, I decided to post it here as well.

Just some thoughts I would like to throw out there related to how Broncos fans are turning on each other. Kind of the Broncos community version of “brother fighting brother”.

Far too many people consider forum discussions a zero sum game or maybe an all or nothing proposition.

Meaning, if poster A is upset that Cutler was traded than there is no way he could be considered anything but a McDaniels hater, because he has criticized one aspect of McDaniels tenure, therefore he must be a hater.

Conversely, if someone defends the trade of Cutler or calls Cutler a whiny bitch, then that person is a McDaniels apologist, even if they have been critical of him in other areas.

All or nothing. No room for compromise or accepting that some praise or criticism can be made without it being tied to past events.

Take myself, I have been critical of McDaniels for the handling of the Cutler and Marshall situations, more so than the act of getting rid of it. I have stated that as the head coach he has every right, and should have the power, to get rid of players he doesn't believe fits his team. However, I take issue with "how" he went about both of those trades and in discussions on here about such, have voiced that opinion.

At the same time, I RAVED about how he ran training camp last year. RAVED about his enthusiasm on the sideline. Talked about how I loved that nothing is left to chance, that he thinks through everything -- has a plan for everything. Made the team more fundamentally sound -- better tackling, etc. The list of praise for McDaniels is long and encompasses well over a year of posts....

But, I'm a McDaniels hater, because I have voiced criticism about how he handled certain things.



I just don't see how that math adds up.

My point is not to get into a discussion of those things, or whether or not I'm a hater, but to say that I think we focus WAY too much on pigeon holing or labeling people -- drawing a line in the sand and saying that a poster MUST be a McDaniels hater or McDaniels supporter. Saying that if they are a McDaniels supporter, they MUST hate the ex-Broncos players/coaches, and conversely, if they don't rant about how evil the ex-Broncos are, then they MUST be considered a McDaniels hater.

I don't know about where you guys live, but in my world, life simply isn't that black and white. As an example, there are many TV shows that I love, EXCEPT for the fact that they tend to interject "conservative bashing" into their storylines quite frequently. I don't say, "I will never watch that show again", but instead take the good with the bad.

Ok, not the best example, but hopefully you get the point.

If you try and live life as if everything is black and white, then you are going to be disappointed, angry or whatever a great deal of the time, because most things in life are in those shades of grey.

Yes, we have a few zealots on both sides of the argument that either hate McDaniels to such an extent that even if he won the SB next year they probably wouldn't come around, and we have some that hate the ex-Broncos and Shanahan so much, that just about anything short of death wouldn't be enough to erase their hate, but the facts is we really don't have many of those zealots.

Instead, we have a lot of people that are passionate about the Broncos. Have strong opinions, and are EMOTIONALLY tied to those opinions and get upset and angry when people feel differently. As a result, they feel that in order to 'prove' their opinion is correct or to ‘protect’ the opinion that they are emotionally vested in, they must destroy the other person's opinion.

Honestly, do we really need to try and destroy the other person's opinion, or attempt to belittle/discredit those with alternate views, in order to be more secure in our own? I don't think it should be necessary.

You know the old saying, "opinions are like mouths, everyone has one" (I cleaned it up)? There is no reason that it has to be zero sum. That if I hold opinion X then I must destroy your opinion Y, because they can't both survive.

I think McDaniels has done some very good things in Denver already, and could win a lot of games in Denver over an extended period of time, BUT I also think he has made rookie mistakes along the way. Those opinions do not have to be mutually exclusive.

I can love my wife, but still hate some of the things she does -- just like I drive her bat-shit crazy with things I do.

Life is not a zero sum game. Everything doesn't have to fall into black and white, love/hate boxes.

If everyone could simply take a step back, RESPECT other poster's opinions, even if they are different than our own, and not ASSUME you know the motives or ulterior motives behind the opinion of posters that disagree with you, then all posters, all opinions, should be able to live together in harmony.

I posted the following in regards to your last post, in the other thread:


"Instead, we have a lot of people that are passionate about the Broncos. Have strong opinions, and are EMOTIONALLY tied to those opinions and get upset and angry when people feel differently. As a result, they feel that in order to 'prove' their opinion is correct, they must destroy the other person's opinion.

Honestly, do we really need to try and destroy the other person's opinion, or attempt to belittle/discredit those with alternate views, in order to be more secure in our own? I don't think it should be necessary."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - the problem is, how they express that opinion - i.e. - many times, personal attacks against someone who does not share their same opinion. Anyone should be able to disagree - everyone should be able to make their point, debate, without making it personal.

To add to my above comment, in my opinion, what bothers some is when the thread goes "off topic" - i.e. someone starts a thread in regards to how good they feel Orton is doing, and someone then compares Orton to Cutler - i.e. Coach McD should never traded Cutler, etc., etc. and then things get personal.

What I am trying to say is "stay on topic"

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

To add to my above comment, in my opinion, what bothers some is when the thread goes "off topic" - i.e. someone starts a thread in regards to how good they feel Orton is doing, and someone then compares Orton to Cutler - i.e. Coach McD should never traded Cutler, etc., etc. and then things get personal.

What I am trying to say is "stay on topic"

Agreed. And, I'm sure you would agree that it is equally frustrating when someone raises concerns about McDaniels, the red zone offense or whatever, it is met by posters replying that the RZ offense was just as bad under Shanahan, Cutler sucked in the RZ or that Shanahan's so worthless that he destroyed a top 5 defense in 4 games in Washington. Correct?

Interjecting off-topic praising or bashing, regardless of the motivation, is equally frustrating.

Originally Posted by Tned

Agreed. And, I'm sure you would agree that it is equally frustrating when someone raises concerns about McDaniels, the red zone offense or whatever, it is met by posters replying that the RZ offense was just as bad under Shanahan, Cutler sucked in the RZ or that Shanahan's so worthless that he destroyed a top 5 defense in 4 games in Washington. Correct?

Interjecting off-topic praising or bashing, regardless of the motivation, is equally frustrating.

Yeeeep.

Originally Posted by Tned

Agreed. And, I'm sure you would agree that it is equally frustrating when someone raises concerns about McDaniels, the red zone offense or whatever, it is met by posters replying that the RZ offense was just as bad under Shanahan, Cutler sucked in the RZ or that Shanahan's so worthless that he destroyed a top 5 defense in 4 games in Washington. Correct?

Interjecting off-topic praising or bashing, regardless of the motivation, is equally frustrating.

I totally agree, stay on topic, do not interject off-topic praising or bashing PERIOD.

I thought Manifesto's were better left to the Communists comrade Tned? (j/k )

Sadly we ought be able to bring up former Broncos when context applies without it becoming a hate fest or a pissing context.

Warhorse memo:




My head hurts.



Lets agree to be civil in our opinions and let it die there.




Id write more but the hammock is empty and so is my glass, and Im the only one qualified to drive it around here. Peace.

Tend

X & Y have never gotten along.

Originally Posted by yardog

Tend

X & Y have never gotten along.

You talking chromosomes?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

You talking chromosomes?

No I 'm saying there has and always will be two sides and they will always be trying to prove themselves right and get the last word. Human nature I guess.

i agree with this in theory.BUT......
the idea that people should not be allowed to bring up past players and coaches is deeply flawed.
if we are having a discussion about the current running game and someone pipes in with "remember the T.D. days" it would not be taken harshly or start a flame war.
the problem is'nt so much with bringing up former players or "staying on topic" as it is the fact that some fans have not had the time they need to get past some recent events. that's on them more than the person mentioning the player/coach.
there will always be a desire to compare players.cutler/elway....griese/plummer....cutler/orton etc...
and frankly if we limit that and keep every thread "on topic" to the point that views expressed must stay within the parameters of the op.threads would all end at about 10 posts.
i agree we need to keep discussions civil.but there is really no way to police peoples opinions.
i liked jay cutler when he was a bronco....now not so much.
no biggie
but i do have a right if someone starts a thread saying it was a bad move to bring in orton.to mention the flaws of previous qb's to bolster my arguement....yes ?
as i said otherwise it would be a pretty futile and boring discussion

Great Post Tned!

one can have different opinions on let use Tneds comments on Josh as the example.

I RAVED about how he ran training camp last year. RAVED about his enthusiasm on the sideline. Talked about how I loved that nothing is left to chance, that he thinks through everything -- has a plan for everything. Made the team more fundamentally sound -- better tackling, etc. The list of praise for McDaniels is long and encompasses well over a year of posts...

.

on the other hand

Has been critical of McDaniels for the handling of the Cutler and Marshall situations, more so than the act of getting rid of it. I have stated that as the head coach he has every right, and should have the power, to get rid of players he doesn't believe fits his team. However, I take issue with "how" he went about both of those trades and in discussions on here about such, have voiced that opinion.

NO one has a problem with having to sides to the story. If left at that would not be considered a hater.

But it is real easy to see that every time he bashes Josh about the trades and does not bring up that Josh is great at Organizing, ONE quickly forgets that he likes him for that and only remember the trade bashing


1 time positive post < 40 times bashing.

END of example..

Originally Posted by T.K.O. (team kyle orton)

i agree with this in theory.BUT......
the idea that people should not be allowed to bring up past players and coaches is deeply flawed.
if we are having a discussion about the current running game and someone pipes in with "remember the T.D. days" it would not be taken harshly or start a flame war.
the problem is'nt so much with bringing up former players or "staying on topic" as it is the fact that some fans have not had the time they need to get past some recent events. that's on them more than the person mentioning the player/coach.
there will always be a desire to compare players.cutler/elway....griese/plummer....cutler/orton etc...
and frankly if we limit that and keep every thread "on topic" to the point that views expressed must stay within the parameters of the op.threads would all end at about 10 posts.
i agree we need to keep discussions civil.but there is really no way to police peoples opinions.
i liked jay cutler when he was a bronco....now not so much.
no biggie
but i do have a right if someone starts a thread saying it was a bad move to bring in orton.to mention the flaws of previous qb's to bolster my arguement....yes ?
as i said otherwise it would be a pretty futile and boring discussion

To be clear on my position. I have no problem with past or former players or coaches being brought up. To be honest, I don't know how we can be Broncos fans without a sense of history. My ONLY issue is when there is a double standard, which was my clarification of Carol's post and Jr's in the other thread. Simply, that if we are going to deem Cutler, Shanahan and others being brought up in a positive way out of the blue, then when posters bring them up out of the blue to bash, as a deflection of criticism of current players and coach, or as an excuse/justification for current team performance, it also has to be deemed "off topic".

Personally, I think a lot of people are over-sensitive and over react when past players are brought up. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware how a small numbers of posters attack former players or Shanahan simply as a tit for tat when McDaniels or Orton is criticized, or the run game is criticized, just like there are a few posters that slam McDaniels, regardless of what he does. However, most people on here don't do it with quite that malicious an intent.

Personally, I think it's silly that if we are talking about the passing game that we can't discuss Jay, Jake, Griese or Elway. I also thinks it's beyond silly if it's ok to discuss Jake on back, but we have to pretend Jay wasn't here, or any variation of having to ignore parts of Broncos history.

However, those are my opinions as a poster. As an admin, I do whatever the community at large wants, based on feedback in Town Hall discussions.

Originally Posted by Jrwiz

one can have different opinions on let use Tneds comments on Josh as the example.

.

on the other hand



NO one has a problem with having to sides to the story. If left at that would not be considered a hater.

But it is real easy to see that every time he bashes Josh about the trades and does not bring up that Josh is great at Organizing, ONE quickly forgets that he likes him for that and only remember the trade bashing


1 time positive post < 40 times bashing.

END of example..

Ok, please review my posts for the last year and provide me with data to back up your claim that I have a 40:1 bash:complement ratio.

Example reopened, because it has to be accurate to be a real example.