Thread: Denver Just Didn't/Doesn't Have the Horses

I think it will basically be the exact same blueprint next year with a patchwork defense and a Manning-led passing attack carrying us. I'm just afraid that might not be enough anymore. Seattle and San Fran have built rosters that can just go in and match up with anybody toe to toe. Whereas we were very one-dimensional this year being propped up by our all-world QB.

If you think that we are going to have a patchwork defense next year, you are out of your f***ing mind. This team will be twice as good next season as it was this season, especially on defense.

Elway knows what happened in the 80's. He lived through it. What happened on Sunday was a reminder. He won't let it happen again.

Funny thing about me was i was over the loss literally 5 minutes after the game, hell i was probably already over it before the 4th quarter started. Perhaps it was the loss to Wash and SF so many years ago that prepared me for something like that i dont know but it just didnt affect me as bad this time. Another part of the reason it was easy to get over was despite some of the great things stats wise this team did it never had the same swagger as the late 90's championship teams. From Fox on down i never got the feeling that they had the mental fortitude to get the job done if things started to fall apart in the game. I never got the sense of a true team unity that i did with guys like Elway, TD, Sharpe, and Neil Smith. It was kind of like this team just going through the motions and probably a good part of that was because i believe (as does my wife surprisingly) the team really relied to heavily on Manning. Its like the rest of the team expected Peyton to have to be the one to carry them to the promise land by himself and all they had to do was show up.

Yea, i do think we have some very soft players, especially on offense. They couldnt withstand getting punched in the mouth by a more physical team in the Seahawks and it showed to me. Defensively we might of been able to hang with that team despite the injuries but with the costly turnovers and lack of scoring it would do any defense in eventually. Im still happy we made it to the big game and am a bit surprised the best we could muster was 8 pts but knowing that this Bronco team doesnt have a swagger about them i kind of knew deep down they werent a complete team to win a championship. But, it was good to at least get back to the dance despite the horrible outcome.

It's not that their players are better than ours but I believe they were better prepared.

The majority of the nation thought Denver was going to win this game. If not win at least it was supposed to be a close game. THAT is why losing 43-8 was so shocking. This is now the most shocking loss I have ever seen from the Broncos.


I really believe we arent that bad. No way was that the Broncos we saw this year. Our team just mentally checked out and that was so disturbing to see. It's like we got punched in the mouth and didnt know what to do. We got beat up.


Now, moving forward, if we lose games like this against the NFCW next year then something is very wrong. I know this team is better than this and fully expect us to be a complete team by the time next season starts. 2 solid shots to win a SB during this Manning era just got wasted. He has 3 years left on his contract and each year the light is fading out. It will only get tougher as time goes on and I have to think next season is his best shot to win it all, actually this year was but we blew it.


It's tough seeing Seattle celebrate. Can't even go to ESPN or NFL dot com without seeing the score at the top. 10 years later this game is still going to be talked about. We are still talking about the butt whooping we took against SF.


We did have the horses. Time for these horses to get some bigger balls though.

It was their bad game.....bad timing too for it.

This is the first time since Manning has been here that they have gone through that type of game, when they just got punched in the jaw and hard.

I believe the team will take a hard look of what went wrong see what they need to do to compete with the NFC. IMO a solid running game is not a bad place to start. Elway just hates to loose at anything so I'm thinking he will be burning the midnight oil to find a way to punch back. I know I'm a homer but I think many of our players will do the same.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I'm assuming Sharpe meant the players available...and I still disagree.

Denver players that would start for Seattle:
QB - Peyton Manning
TE - Julius Thomas
WR - Demaryius Thomas
WR - Eric Decker
WR - Wes Welker
LT - Ryan Clady
RG - Louis Vasquez
DT - Terrance Knighton
OLB - Von Miller
CB - Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

That's 10 by my count. I'm not saying Seattle isn't better or wasn't better on that Sunday, but it's not dire. It's not THAT bad.

Seattle lost to Indianapolis. They went 2-1 against San Francisco.

Denver has even more guys that would start on a team comprised of those teams too.

I don't know what it was. I don't know if it's "they have Denver's number" principle, but this isn't a college football scenario where Alabama is flat out better at every position than, say, Colorado.

I know they don't really play the same WR position, but if it's about having your best players on the field, Percy Harvin EASILY starts over Decker.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

If you think that we are going to have a patchwork defense next year, you are out of your f***ing mind. This team will be twice as good next season as it was this season, especially on defense.

Elway knows what happened in the 80's. He lived through it. What happened on Sunday was a reminder. He won't let it happen again.

What happened in the '80s was a HoF QB and great D got destroyed in multiple SBs because the OTHER D spent most of its time in our backfield, and a versatile if unexceptional RB and good WRs couldn't stop that. So we went out and got a great offensive line and solid coaching for them, and a decade later won repeat SBs, had a 6th round pick run for >2000 yds and revolutionized NFL run blocking so completely the league had to repeatedly change the rules. Here's hoping Elway remembers EXACTLY what happened.

It's funny though, I've spent two years saying we didn't have the horses (often with just that phrase; you'll be hearing from my lawyer, NFL ) while everyone told me we were an UNSTOPPABLE JUGGERNAUT; now many are saying, "Seattle was just a lot better," like they're resigned to more beatdowns, but I think MOST of our roster is championship caliber.

The only place we got completely dominated was on our offensive line; unfortunately, that and the defensive line are the two worst "only" places to be dominated. If we get Vickerson and Wolfe back 100% and re-sign Phillips we have a fine defensive line as physical as anyone; if Big Vick or Wolfe CAN'T return at their prior level, we will have to replace them, but otherwise we're good.

It's not that easy on the other side of the ball, because our offensive line was only missing one starter and the other four still got owned the whole game. At this point it does look like we'd be better off with someone like Boldin rather than Decker, but the real problem was Franklin and Beadles getting blown up while Ramirez was just confused and scared. Those are big problems, and no SB team wants to be looking at replacing 2-3 linemen in addition to all their FA/retirement losses, but IF we do that, we can exact unholy vengeance in next years SB.

We'll have the regular season against all those physical NFCW teams to test how far we came. The notion we just had a bad night in a flukey game though should be put to bed now; Seattle dominated us just as thoroughly in the preseason game, and dismissing Sunday as "just another in a series of flukes; it's no sign of a real deep problem" makes no more sense than when people blew off KCs 9-0 start as luck. A steady pattern of uniform results isn't luck, it's a steady pattern of uniform results.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I know they don't really play the same WR position, but if it's about having your best players on the field, Percy Harvin EASILY starts over Decker.

I dont think it was really about whether BOTH Deck and Harvin on that team only that some of the starters MO listed could play and succeed on that Seahawk team.

Originally Posted by Northman

I dont think it was really about whether BOTH Deck and Harvin on that team only that some of the starters MO listed could play and succeed on that Seahawk team.

I think his post was about which Broncos would start on Seattle if they somehow merged teams. If I'm wrong though, he can correct me. Since you can only have 5 eligible receivers on a play, if it's about putting the best 5 guys out there, I would line up Lynch, DT, Harvin, Welker, and JT.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

Well said. Although I don't think we'd even sniff four out of ten. But firing Fox ain't gonna fix that. Hiring Pete Carroll wouldn't fix that, at least not in the short term.

The only way to fix it is to improve our roster where we need to, and keep our fingers crossed that those players stay healthy... And when they don't have depth, depth and more depth, developing each and every guy on the roster.

Like Dread, I think the Broncos would win four, maybe three, out of ten. Look at how it started. With pretty much everything that could go wrong, going wrong, most of which were unforced errors, the Broncos were only down 8-0. If Sharpe is right, and he probably is, about the five players (as pointed out, maybe it's a few more) not being able to start on Seattle, then there is a good bet that the same could be said about virtually every other team in the NFL and their roster.

If that's the case, then as you said, through luck and drafting skill, they hit the jackpot and for all intents and purposes, are running an "all star" team. It happens VERY rarely in the NFL, but every once in a while a team manages to make all the right moves, which often involves some major luck (drafting Tom Brady) and becomes a very short lived dynasty -- everything in NFL is short lived, unlike some other sports. It's possible that Seattle is just that good, and if so, they will probably stay that good for another year or two, before they start losing some of those very cheap mid/late round starters, or sign them, and have to dump their higher priced players.

Seattle has guys like Sherman and Wilson playing for 500/600k, but were only outspent by five or six teams, so that means they have a LOT of money going out. They are less healthy cap wise than the Broncos, but some of their key players aren't free agents until next year, when they will get the big pay days.

P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

Originally Posted by Tned

P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

I have very time believing that Shannon Sharpe is correct that there are only five players on Denver's roster that could play for Seattle. I think fully healthy Broncos team could beat the Seahawks at least 5 out 10 times.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

I have very time believing that Shannon Sharpe is correct that there are only five players on Denver's roster that could play for Seattle. I think fully healthy Broncos team could beat the Seahawks at least 5 out 10 times.

It's really hard to say, because Seattle's D is so fast and physical. I think defensively, the broncos (especially within injured starters back), and pretty much hold Seattle down, as they have had no problem against great runners, and have held running QBs in check. They struggle against guys like Romo, Brees and other slingers.

Offensively then, the only question is without making all those self inflicted errors, can the Broncos offense score more than their D allows Seattle to play.

Remember what most analysts said, if the Broncos can stop Lynch, they win, if they can't, and Seattle can run the ball and keep Manning on the sideline, they lose. Nobody expected the Broncos to be nearly shutout, but instead score 15-28 range (depending on who was predicting, and whether or not Lynch gave Seattle huge time of possession advantage). Everyone assume that the Broncos would be able to move the ball and score against Seattle, just nowhere near as well as they have done against lesser defenses.

That's why it's so hard to, especially after the blowout loss, honestly guess (and that's all it is) whether they could win 3 out of 10, 4 out of 10, 6 out of 10 or what.

We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

Originally Posted by Tned

P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

I have a hard time (in the NFL anyway) believing that there is some great way to raise talent. Denver did it this year with Free Agency and Seattle did it with young players. This year the team with the competitive edge won, last year Baltimore did the same thing and then missed the playoffs this year.

I keep thinking back to when Green Bay won the Super Bowl a few years ago. All the analysts on ESPN and NFL Network were touting how Green Bay was able to harvest talent in the draft and cultivate it. They said Aaron Rodgers grew the right way by riding the bench under a veteran for a few years. Ever since then Green Bay has more or less floundered in the playoffs despite being a great team. Based on what I have seen in my lifetime in the NFL, talent will get you to the big dance but confidence gets you the Lombardi.

Seattle won and deserved to win, but I don't think they are 35 points better than the Broncos most of the time. I feel that the gap on that particular Sunday between Denver and Seattle was smaller than it looked, but all the mistakes and mental breakdowns broke it wide open. Denver thrived on being cool, calm, and collected all season and when that blew up so did the game.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

I just don't see us winning 5/10 - to me Seattle is the clearly superior team. It wasn't like the game in New England where the mistakes obviously cost us a chance at winning. We just got manhandled by them.