Thread: This team is terrible

those uniforms were terrible!!! FIRE MCDANIELS!!!!

Originally Posted by ikillz0mbies

The Denver defense is as bad as ever. I'd rather have Bob Slowick! (I just wanted to play the game, but did I cross a line when I mentioned Slowick?!)

Definitely. I never saw ONE person who said they wanted to keep Slowik. Not one. So, that's a false argument.

In fact, there were few people who were really sad when Mike Shanahan was fired either. (I've seen a few, but they were really a small minority).

Maybe if Mike Shanahan had been willing to bring in Mike Nolan and turn the defense over to him, and surrender some of his "control" then he'd still have a job!

Of course, that would never have happened and apparently Bowlen knew it and didn't even demand it as a condition that Shanny stay.

I did hear some reports that Shanahan was asked to fire Slowik and refused and that was the last straw, but I doubt it. Those rumors were never confirmed and we might not ever know.

As for the LONG-term consequences of trading Jay Cutler, those will hardly become apparent after less than 1/2 season.

I still maintain Orton is NOT the long-term franchise QB who will lead this team to a SB.

Of course if the Broncos defense continues to hold everybody to an average of 11 points a game, they can beat anybody -- and that includes during the playoffs.

There is an open question though what happens if the offense needs to score more than 17 points. They haven't done that during regulation this season so far.

That doesn't mean they can't, but it would be nice to see it happen before we anoint this team as a SB contender.

The really good teams are capable of winning 31-28 as well as 13-10. Denver has not shown they can score a lot of points to win that way.

There's very little margin for error if your defense has to play like the 2000 Ravens every week for the team to win, but the defense has shut EVERYBODY down so far. How far can they continue to do that?

is it really you?.....really?.....promise?

The Broncos have scored more than 17 points in regulation twice this year.

Originally Posted by dogfish

seriously, it just boggles my mind to think that this defense has given up 43 points in the first FIVE games of the season. . . . last year we gave up ****ing 52 to san diego in one game-- ONE game!!

i was happy when we fired shanahan, but for anyone who wasn't. . . well, the necessity of that decision should now be abundantly clear. . . .

I think there were VERY few such people. Many people like me were upset over the decision to trade Cutler and the way it was handled.

The strongest McDaniels backer must still admit he was saved from his own UTTER STUPIDITY in trying to trade Cutler even up for Matt Cassel.

Cassel is looking HORRIBLE in KC right now, and there's an open question whether he will finish the season as starting QB if the team continues to lose every game. Offensively, they are just flat BAD.

Clearly McDaniels lucked out when his plans were thwarted by Belichek trading Cassel to KC!

There's just no way to avoid that conclusion that Orton is a much better QB (especially for the money) than Cassel. (They're paying Cassel $14 million a year)!

As for Cutler, who knows how that will look in 3 or 4 years time? Will the Broncos continue to have success or will Orton prove to be a one-hit wonder like Brian Griese (this is still better than a NO-hit non-wonder)? Will Cutler lead the Bears to a Championship or will he struggle (he's doing well right now)?

People who are inclined to think "I was right" should wait and see what happens. This deal will only be justified if Orton proves he can win a Championship, or Cutler proves to be a bust who can't. And that will probably take 3 or 4 years at least.

Originally Posted by Day1BroncoFan

The Broncos have scored more than 17 points in regulation twice this year.

Actually once. I forgot they scored 23 against Oakland. The 20 this week was in over-time.

Of course the Raiders are giving up 26 points a game so that's slightly less than their average and is the LOWEST total given up in any of their 4 defeats (they beat the lowly Chiefs 13-10). Take that Chiefs game out and their defense averages giving up 30 points a game over 4 losses.

The Chiefs are even worse of course, since they have lost 9 straight including the pre-season and 13 games in a row going back to last year.

We should be able to score more than 20 points against them too.

As the season progresses some games will seem different than they do now. For instance, (although it was a fluke win) the Broncos win over the otherwise unbeaten Bengals (who just beat the Ravens) is more and more impressive. The Bengals are now in the division lead and may face the Broncos if they get to the post-season. That would be a very tough game.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Actually once. I forgot they scored 23 against Oakland. The 20 this week was in over-time.

Of course the Raiders are giving up 26 points a game so that's slightly less than their average and is the LOWEST total given up in any of their 4 defeats (they beat the lowly Chiefs 13-10). Take that Chiefs game out and their defense averages giving up 30 points a game over 4 losses.

The Chiefs are even worse of course, since they have lost 9 straight including the pre-season and 13 games in a row going back to last year.

We should be able to score more than 20 points against them too.

As the season progresses some games will seem different than they do now. For instance, (although it was a fluke win) the Broncos win over the otherwise unbeaten Bengals (who just beat the Ravens) is more and more impressive. The Bengals are now in the division lead and may face the Broncos if they get to the post-season. That would be a very tough game.

How much did we score against the browns?

We've scored more than 17 against two teams. 26 vs. the Browns, and 23 vs. the Raiders.

The teams we haven't? Well. .. those are some pretty stout defenses. Cinci held Baltimore's offense to 7 points yesterday in Baltimore. The Cowboys and Patriots both have some pretty good defensive play.

Maybe if Bowlen wasn't such a delusional old drunk he wouldn't have sold out the fans by hiring this hack as a HC and trading away the franchise.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Actually once. I forgot they scored 23 against Oakland. The 20 this week was in over-time.

Of course the Raiders are giving up 26 points a game so that's slightly less than their average and is the LOWEST total given up in any of their 4 defeats (they beat the lowly Chiefs 13-10). Take that Chiefs game out and their defense averages giving up 30 points a game over 4 losses.

The Chiefs are even worse of course, since they have lost 9 straight including the pre-season and 13 games in a row going back to last year.

We should be able to score more than 20 points against them too.

As the season progresses some games will seem different than they do now. For instance, (although it was a fluke win) the Broncos win over the otherwise unbeaten Bengals (who just beat the Ravens) is more and more impressive. The Bengals are now in the division lead and may face the Broncos if they get to the post-season. That would be a very tough game.

We scored 27 against Cleveland in week two also.

Originally Posted by Cugel

The strongest McDaniels backer must still admit he was saved from his own UTTER STUPIDITY in trying to trade Cutler even up for Matt Cassel.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true... Please provide me with one credible source that indicates this was the trade. It was "suggested" (ie. never confirmed) that the Broncos were going to trade Cutler for picks, and then ship one of those picks to New England. If you see what the Broncos actually got for Cutler (2 firsts, a third, and Orton), it is crazy to think they would have just accepted a single first for Cutler and then shipped it off for Orton. So - like the trade that did go down, the Broncos would have received Cassell plus extra picks for Cutler... And who knows how Cassell would be performing under McD?

Now - that is pure speculation, and NOT what I believe actually happened. The Broncos' stance since day one has been that they simply listened to an offer, considered it, and rejected it... You may believe otherwise (it is clear that you do), but it certainly is up in the air as to what really happened.

However - you're assertion that McDaniels was "saved from his own stupidity" is pure speculation, and really shows your bias.

Originally Posted by LRtagger

Maybe if Bowlen wasn't such a delusional old drunk he wouldn't have sold out the fans by hiring this hack as a HC and trading away the franchise.

I, too, think boobs should be saved.

Originally Posted by Ziggy

But, but, but...We should have hired Spagnuolo, he could have fixed our defense!

lex is still defending that drivel on the mane.

Our D is especially terrible in the second half, just ask any of the teams we've played this year so far.

that's only cuz we haven't lost.