Denver Broncos Thread

dulpit · 10-01-2012 05:25PM

bruschi wrote: »

why dont we name the thread 'the thread title discussion thread'. nearly more discussion now on the title than on Tebow or the broncos! Its fine whatever it is. its the default Tebow thread or whatever. it will still be 90% of discussion on here.

Read a report in the Irish Indo today, christ it was awful stuff.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/american-football-broncos-have-prayers-answered-by-tebow-2983570.html

quick points from it:
Tebow hasnt thrown a last minute TD yet.

untried? Quinn has nearly as many games as Tebow

have never seen playoff loss recorded against a wild card team when talking of an opponent

I saw some reports calling his pass to Thomas as a Hail Mary play too. some unreal lazy journalists out there.

Agreed, I've seen some Irish/UK reports on games and they're generally embarrassing fare to say the least..

Jolly Red Giant · 10-01-2012 06:40PM

Get back to this for a minute

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But both are working out right now and the mad thing is Broncos fans have been arguing that case to non Tebow lovers all of this season and when you put it back to Broncos fans all of a sudden the same argument is thrown back in your face to say that you cant say McDaniels first round picks in 2010 havent worked just yet Mad to be honest. I know you arent Tebows beiggest fan either but Thomas and Tebow are two of the reasons why the Broncos are into the next round of the playoffs and both have shown they have talent. Sure they could flop over the next few years but right now those picks are looking good.

To start with you have to differentiate between Broncos fans and people who are 'Broncos fans' because they are Tebow fans. Few Broncos fans have brought into the hype around Tebow and understand his limitations.

As for the two draft picks - I would suggest that they are showing potential - but that is it at the moment - Thomas has only had two games that could be regarded as worthy of a 1st round pick.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

McDaniels and his Father are experts when it comes to working with QBs. This showed with Brady in New England with his relationship with McDaniels and Orton when McDaniels joined Denver and took Orton. McDaniels is known for his abilities of working with QBs and getting the best out of them and also known for working on QBs mechanics.

The QB that McDaniels is given credit for developing is Cassells, I agree with others that McDaniels was not the main factor in the development of Brady. Cassells had one good season for the Pats with some major talent around him. He hasn't set the world on fire since joining the Chiefs. To be honest if McDaniels had actually pulled off the trade of Cutler for Cassells he would have been lynched in Denver before ever coaching a game.

As for Orton - he did in Denver what he did in Chicago - ran up the stats between the 20's but couldn't win games. After a 6-0 start (how long it took for opponents to figure out McDaniels offensive scheme in Denver) Orton went 5-18 before being benched for Tebow by Studsville (on orders from Elway).

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

He would have given Tebow the best opportunity to fix his mechanics and you can almost be sure McDaniels would have made sure to develop Tebow.

You are assuming that McDaniels would have fixed Tebow's mechanics and Fox and Elway won't work with him in the off-season. McDaniels had Tebow from the draft to when he was sacked and Tebow showed zero improvement.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Fox and Elway put themselves into a situation where they HAD to utilise Tebow to his strengths, People seem to forget the situation they put themselves in. They arent any masters by any means for doing so they backed themselves into the situation when they realised Tebow couldnt do what they wanted originally.

What situation did Elway and Fox put themselves in?

They had a QB who was losing games and they were heading for another dismal season (possibly worse than 2010) with the fans streaming out of the stadium. What do they do? keep the choker or put in the new guy and see what he can do. Look what McDaniels did - after going 2-8 in the final ten games of 2009 McDaniels gives Orton a contract extension to the end of 2011 at $9million for the season - that is more than Green Bay pay Rodgers and the Saints pay Brees. $9million for a guy who went 6-22 in his final 28 games for the Broncos.

Certainly McDaniels would have worked on Tebow's mechanics - just like Elway and Fox will. That is not where the difference in approach lies. McDaniels wants all his players to play his way irrespective of whether they were able to or not - Orton was able to (not very well) - Tebow would never have been able to. Tebow at his best will only ever become a competent NFL QB - his ability to become a franchise QB lies with his other talents. Elway and Fox are attempting to build a roster and a scheme to utilise all of Tebow's talents - McDaniels would not have known how.

If Tebow shows improvement in his passing I think that Elway will succeed in putting the other pieces together. Elway has experience of another HC who operated similar to McDaniels - Dan Reeves (who was a heck of a lot better coach than McDaniels). Reeves stifled Elway's talents for years - to the point where Elway and Shanahan used to script plays in secret and Elway would change the plays in the huddle to what he and Shanahan had scripted. It cause Reeves to fire Shanahan - but it was only when Shanahan returned to the Broncos as HC that Elway flourish and won the Superbowls. Fox is a 'wily auld buzzard' and is licking his chops at the prospect of flicking one in the eye of the pass happy teams by building a nasty hard-hitting defence and and grind ground game. Elway knows the benefit of utilising a QB's talents whatever they are and as long as Tebow shows in the off-season that he can improve sufficiently enough as a passer then Elway, Xanders and Fox will do their best to put the rest of the pieces in place. Will they succeed? - who knows - but it will be fun to watch - just like last night. I have had more fun watching the Broncos in the past 12 months than I have had at any time since Elway retired and most of it is down to Tebow.

tallaghtoutlaws · 10-01-2012 07:42PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Get back to this for a minute

To start with you have to differentiate between Broncos fans and people who are 'Broncos fans' because they are Tebow fans. Few Broncos fans have brought into the hype around Tebow and understand his limitations.

Oh I see so those Broncos fans on here who quite literally bought into the hype of Tebow are not real Broncos fans but Tebow fans? Is that what you are saying because there are some of your fellow Broncos fans on here fans long before Tebow. Good to see you see yourself so highly. But every club will have band wagon fans but taring all Denver fans as literal fans of Denver because of Tebow is nonsense.

As for the two draft picks - I would suggest that they are showing potential - but that is it at the moment - Thomas has only had two games that could be regarded as worthy of a 1st round pick.

What is it with you and talking about the future? right now as I said both picks are paying off it is that simple.

The QB that McDaniels is given credit for developing is Cassells, I agree with others that McDaniels was not the main factor in the development of Brady. Cassells had one good season for the Pats with some major talent around him. He hasn't set the world on fire since joining the Chiefs. To be honest if McDaniels had actually pulled off the trade of Cutler for Cassells he would have been lynched in Denver before ever coaching a game.

Where did I say he developed anyone so far? If you read what I wrote properly you will see I never said he developed Brady. But I do believe he is only a OC at best and without being the main man he would get the best out of his offensive players especially his QBs.

As for Orton - he did in Denver what he did in Chicago - ran up the stats between the 20's but couldn't win games. After a 6-0 start (how long it took for opponents to figure out McDaniels offensive scheme in Denver) Orton went 5-18 before being benched for Tebow by Studsville (on orders from Elway).

Insert typical Orton bashing Denver response here etc etc. Its funny you blame the QB and the OC in the one paragraph which is it? It is clear you dont like both from everything you write so to expect a non bias response from you on the issue is pointless. Blame the system and then blame the QB right?

You are assuming that McDaniels would have fixed Tebow's mechanics and Fox and Elway won't work with him in the off-season. McDaniels had Tebow from the draft to when he was sacked and Tebow showed zero improvement.

Oh I am assuming? Aren't you also with Fox and Elway? I would expect McDaniels to work with his QB to play in his system especially with the fundamentals he needs. Its not rocket science to assume now is it. And to say McDaniels had Tebow for that period is true but he was a head coach and he would have delegated his other coaches to help fix Tebow. The Offseason would have been prime time for him to fix Tebow but he didn't last that long now did he? And I am not talking about the time in between the Draft and the start of the season I am talking about the offseason just gone. He wouldn't have known what Tebow could and couldn't do because he never really got to see him in action other than pre-season games and he wasn't about to drop Orton in favour of his project to find out before he was sacked.

[They had a QB who was losing games and they were heading for another dismal season (possibly worse than 2010) with the fans streaming out of the stadium. What do they do? keep the choker or put in the new guy and see what he can do. Look what McDaniels did - after going 2-8 in the final ten games of 2009 McDaniels gives Orton a contract extension to the end of 2011 at $9million for the season - that is more than Green Bay pay Rodgers and the Saints pay Brees. $9million for a guy who went 6-22 in his final 28 games for the Broncos.

If Tebow shows improvement in his passing I think that Elway will succeed in putting the other pieces together. Elway has experience of another HC who operated similar to McDaniels - Dan Reeves (who was a heck of a lot better coach than McDaniels). Reeves stifled Elway's talents for years - to the point where Elway and Shanahan used to script plays in secret and Elway would change the plays in the huddle to what he and Shanahan had scripted. It cause Reeves to fire Shanahan - but it was only when Shanahan returned to the Broncos as HC that Elway flourish and won the Superbowls. Fox is a 'wily auld buzzard' and is licking his chops at the prospect of flicking one in the eye of the pass happy teams by building a nasty hard-hitting defence and and grind ground game. Elway knows the benefit of utilising a QB's talents whatever they are and as long as Tebow shows in the off-season that he can improve sufficiently enough as a passer then Elway, Xanders and Fox will do their best to put the rest of the pieces in place. Will they succeed? - who knows - but it will be fun to watch - just like last night. I have had more fun watching the Broncos in the past 12 months than I have had at any time since Elway retired and most of it is down to Tebow.

To sum up all this look at it this way. Orton was named number 1 Quinn number 2 and Tebow number 3. They offloaded Orton and had Quinn who fit their mold on the bench who didn't need work. Rather than go with the obvious choice they played with their QBs heads got sucked into the media hype and fans hype and caved and settled on Tebow. Even though both Fox and Elway said they weren't sure about Tebow and both said he had a bad training camp and pre-season. The situation they put themselves in was naming Tebow as started forcing themselves to change their whole system. Think back to Tebows first few games as QB he was still running the same system as Orton with a few plays added before they realised he couldn't throw and stay in the pocket and they then had to change.

Certainly McDaniels would have worked on Tebow's mechanics - just like Elway and Fox will. That is not where the difference in approach lies. McDaniels wants all his players to play his way irrespective of whether they were able to or not - Orton was able to (not very well) - Tebow would never have been able to. Tebow at his best will only ever become a competent NFL QB - his ability to become a franchise QB lies with his other talents. Elway and Fox are attempting to build a roster and a scheme to utilise all of Tebow's talents - McDaniels would not have known how.

As for this once again complete and utter bollocks. It is clear you dont like McDaniels and it is clear you will sprout nonsense to make it clear you think he is an idiot. But whether he would ever be a head coach or not personally I dont think he is ready for another 10 seasons, The guys isnt an idiot and this isnt the first time you speculated as to what the kid knows as a coach. I mean you are making so very bold assumptions yourself. I dont like Tebow but I do think he is fixable but probably not in a good enough time frame to make him a franchise QB.

There is coaches out there who are amazing when it comes to fixing QB mechanics and these guys will most likely be brought in to take the slack off the Denver coaches.

As for McDaniels. He clearly knows the role and clearly knows his stuff. He wouldn't be in the NFL and be getting a chance at other teams if he didn't. The fact that the Pats took him back shows you the kid has smarts. To make him look like a guy who walked in off the street and doesn't know the game is sad. Most NFL coaches are like walking encyclopedias when it comes to football. They are forever learning and I can guarantee have seen many systems and know many systems and know how to adapt if needs be. You said yourself Fox and Elway could adapt so whats so different about McDaniels? Do you think he is an idiot and clearly only knows one system or wouldn't be able to change or adapt?

Basically what you are implying is that these guys are more experienced and older and know more than McDaniels without actually knowing what McDaniels knows or would have done. Neither of us know the truth but I can tell you that most coaches regardless of age or experience will have plan B and plan C and an idea based on abilities.

poldebruin · 10-01-2012 08:18PM

What does everyone think Denver should do now that Chris Kuper has broken his leg?......no?......then how about we change the name of the thread back to the Tim Tebow debate.

It clearly describes what is being discussed within. Sure it turns to Tebow-related things now and again, but this thread is clearly not about the Denver Broncos as much as it is about Tim Tebow. Over 1000 posts about Timn Tebow and the mods decide to change the thread title - confused.

spiralism · 10-01-2012 08:24PM

I dunno does anyone here read Walterfootball.com, it can be pretty good sometimes, interesting pick preview from a betting standpoint to this rather important game coming up tuesday:

DENVER OFFENSE: I love it when ignorant people on TV say stuff like, "Tim Tebow had only 10 completions against the Steelers!" Well, yeah... because all of his passes were long bombs, which meant that the Broncos scored quickly and Tebow didn't have to throw the ball all that much. The point is that Tebow can pass the ball effectively, which everyone should recognize now - unless, of course, you're an arrogant, clueless buffoon like Bomani Jones.

What's really remarkable about what Tebow did is that he was able to torch the Steelers, of all defenses. I know they were missing some players, but Troy Polamalu and Pro Bowl corner Ike Taylor were still in the secondary. Pittsburgh still had most of its pass-rushers as well. So, with that in mind, if Tebow could do this against the Steelers, logic would dictate that he'll be even better versus the Patriots.

I know I'm not breaking any news here, but New England's defense is complete garbage. The secondary set a record for most passing yards allowed in a season. There is no pass rush, especially now that Andre Carter is out for the year. The Patriots can't stop the run either; they looked pathetic against it in their prior meeting versus Denver.

The Broncos should be able to move up and down the field on New England. They were able to do so in the prior meeting until they killed themselves with three lost fumbles in the second quarter. If they take can take of the football, they'll match the Patriots score for score. Speaking of which...

NEW ENGLAND OFFENSE: Tom Brady was in F-U mode the last time these teams met. All the talk was about Tebow because he couldn't lose. Brady wanted to prove to everyone that he should have been the focus of that contest. I guess he doesn't get into picking against the spread, since he would have realized that he was favored by nearly a touchdown.

Brady won't be in F-U mode this time. He'll still be great and everything, but I don't expect him to be perfect like he was at Denver. Two things to consider: First, Brady has developed a habit of starting slowly. He heats up in the middle of the second quarter once he goes into a no-huddle attack. I see no reason why that pattern should deviate.

Second, Von Miller is healthier now. He really struggled toward the end of the season because he wasn't comfortable playing with a cast. Miller was great versus the Steelers. Having him close to 100 percent will be a huge boost for a defense that looked pathetic the first time it battled Brady.

I'm not saying New England won't score or anything. The Patriots simply have too much talent not to. But I don't think they'll be an unstoppable force or anything like the Saints in the Superdome. There will be enough punts to keep the Broncos in the game.

RECAP: I'm sure you'll all be shocked by this, but the Broncos are my favorite play of the week. In fact, I like them to win straight up. Again. Here's why:

1. Heading into the playoffs, I was set on betting against the Patriots in their first game. They're just not that good. I want to show you a quote from forum member Blue5213 made during Week 17:

Every week this happens. New England comes out flat and s***ty against a s***ty team, everyone sees how bad they are, then Bill Belichick pulls a win out of his a** in the second half and everyone forgets how terrible they looked to begin with.

The Patriots were down 21-0 against the Bills. They trailed by 17 against the Dolphins. They were down at Denver before all of those fumbles. They barely escaped the Redskins. These are their last four games. Their defense is trash, and teams can score so easily against them. The Broncos will be able to do as well.

2. I mentioned this number when I went with the Dolphins +8 over the Patriots for my December NFL Pick of the Month. Brady is 15-22 against the spread as a home favorite of -9 or more. Here's the kicker: He's 6-16 ATS in such contests since November 2007.

3. Another dubious trend going against New England: Teams on a winning streak of five or more entering the playoffs are 1-7 ATS as home favorites off a bye since 2002. The logic behind this is that teams that haven't lost in a while are overvalued and favored by way too many points. The bye also cools them off.

4. Speaking of the spread, it's just way too high. The Patriots were -6 at the Broncos, so this game should be -12. We're getting 1.5 points in terms of value.

5. Like the 49ers, Denver can play the "no one believes in us card." Besides me and a couple of other people out there, who the hell believes the Broncos have a chance? Everyone seems to think the Patriots will prevail easily. During halftime of Denver-Pittsburgh, Boomer Esiason brushed off both squads and arrogantly stated, "New England will beat either of these teams and advance to the AFC Championship." OK, then.

I should address the Josh McDaniels situation. Some people are making a big deal about this, but I don't think the McDaniels hire matters. The Broncos aren't running the same system they did under McDaniels. Some of the personnel is different too. Tebow never started a game under McDaniels. Demaryius Thomas barely played when McDaniels was there because of an Achilles injury. Willis McGahee wasn't there. Neither was Von Miller. I think this McDaniels thing is a non-factor.

Denver and New England are even to me, so I love the former to easily cover the 13.5.

Week 19 NFL Pick: Broncos 30, Patriots 27

As Bart Scott would say "Can't Wait". Should be some game

EDIT for response:

poldebruin wrote: »

What does everyone think Denver should do now that Chris Kuper has broken his leg?......no?......then how about we change the name of the thread back to the Tim Tebow debate.

It clearly describes what is being discussed within. Sure it turns to Tebow-related things now and again, but this thread is clearly not about the Denver Broncos as much as it is about Tim Tebow. Over 1000 posts about Timn Tebow and the mods decide to change the thread title - confused.

Ryan Harris in at RT, move Franklin inside...basically what we did against Pitt. Plenty of Broncos discussion here too, as much of it is Tebow, its the Broncos playing the Pats on saturday, not Tim Tebow himself

kmart6 · 10-01-2012 08:24PM

If people really have such an issue with the title of the thread either PM the Mod's about it or take if to feedback!

Jolly Red Giant · 10-01-2012 08:28PM

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What is it with you and talking about the future? right now as I said both picks are paying off it is that simple.

This all started because you claimed that McDaniels deserved credit for a good draft in 2010 - I pointed out that a few good games by Tebow and a couple by Thomas does not make for a good draft. It will take another three years to determine if it is any good.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Insert typical Orton bashing Denver response here etc etc. Its funny you blame the QB and the OC in the one paragraph which is it? It is clear you dont like both from everything you write so to expect a non bias response from you on the issue is pointless. Blame the system and then blame the QB right?

I actually liked the hiring of McDaniels and the Cutler trade. I thought McDaniels would bring a fresh approach after the stale period that ended Shanahan's era. I never liked Cutler who for me was always a whingy cry-baby. I liked what McDaniels did with the Cutler trade - two first rounders and a servicable journeyman. Then McDaniels blew it - starting with the draft in 2009 and then growing an ego bigger than his mentor. Bowlan was responsible for giving him way too much power when he said it was the last thing he would do. Getting caught taping the 49ers at Wembly showed what the guy was like.

Whether you like it or not Orton was McDaniels' guy and he stunk it up after the 6-0 start in 2009.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Oh I am assuming? Aren't you also with Fox and Elway? I would expect McDaniels to work with his QB to play in his system especially with the fundamentals he needs. Its not rocket science to assume now is it.

McDaniels scheme requires an efficient pocket passer and a game manager - Tebow is not and will ever be either of those.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

And to say McDaniels had Tebow for that period is true but he was a head coach and he would have delegated his other coaches to help fix Tebow.

Yes - to his brother Ben who was the Broncos QB coach.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

To sum up all this look at it this way. Orton was named number 1 Quinn number 2 and Tebow number 3. They offloaded Orton and had Quinn who fit their mold on the bench who didn't need work. Rather than go with the obvious choice they played with their QBs heads got sucked into the media hype and fans hype and caved and settled on Tebow. Even though both Fox and Elway said they weren't sure about Tebow and both said he had a bad training camp and pre-season. The situation they put themselves in was naming Tebow as started forcing themselves to change their whole system. Think back to Tebows first few games as QB he was still running the same system as Orton with a few plays added before they realised he couldn't throw and stay in the pocket and they then had to change.

I will pose it a different way - they knew what they had with Orton - they knew what they had with Quinn - and neither was going to get the job done - they hadn't a clue about Tebow - he was brutal in practice and they wanted to give him a kick in the behind so they demoted him to no.3. Quinn was never going to be Orton's replacement - if Orton got benched then Fox and Elway had to see what Tebow could do. If it worked they'd end up in the play-offs - if it didn't they would get Luck in the draft. That's a win-win for a CEO and HC

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for this once again complete and utter bollocks. It is clear you dont like McDaniels and it is clear you will sprout nonsense to make it clear you think he is an idiot. But whether he would ever be a head coach or not personally I dont think he is ready for another 10 seasons, The guys isnt an idiot and this isnt the first time you speculated as to what the kid knows as a coach. I mean you are making so very bold assumptions yourself. I dont like Tebow but I do think he is fixable but probably not in a good enough time frame to make him a franchise QB.

As I said before - McDaniels had an offensive scheme - and an inflexible offensive scheme. It worked in Boston because Brady is the ultimate pocker passer and game manager - it didn't work in Denver or for the Rams because Orton wasn't ever good enough and Bradford wasn't good enough this season.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

There is coaches out there who are amazing when it comes to fixing QB mechanics and these guys will most likely be brought in to take the slack off the Denver coaches.

certainly a possiblity and I would be in favour of it.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for McDaniels. He clearly knows the role and clearly knows his stuff. He wouldn't be in the NFL and be getting a chance at other teams if he didn't. The fact that the Pats took him back shows you the kid has smarts. To make him look like a guy who walked in off the street and doesn't know the game is sad.

The Pats know what McDaniels can do and they have done and will continue to want to run the offensive scheme he learnt in New England. No one was surprised when he jumped back there this week. He certainly wasn't going to be staying with the Rams.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Most NFL coaches are like walking encyclopedias when it comes to football. They are forever learning and I can guarantee have seen many systems and know many systems and know how to adapt if needs be.

Coaching in the NFL isn't all about X's and O's. A lot of it is about managing players some of whom have an ego the size of jupiter. The best NFL coaches are the ones who can get the very best out of their players. McDaniels could never do that - he is so aloof that no one could ever relate to him. Fox is the exact opposite - a master at managing players and getting the best out of them, which is why he has been successful at it for more than 30 years. The Broncos D have being playing way above their ability all season as a result and it has fed into the offence as well.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Basically what you are implying is that these guys are more experienced and older and know more than McDaniels without actually knowing what McDaniels knows or would have done. Neither of us know the truth but I can tell you that most coaches regardless of age or experience will have plan B and plan C and an idea based on abilities.

I am implying the following - Fox is a proven head coach - McDaniels to date is an abject failure. I had high hopes for him when he joined Denver - I was wrong - so was Pat Bowlen. As good an OC as he was in Boston, he has been useless outside of the Pats and we will see how he copes being back there not having tall the power (he certainly didn't knock the ball out of the park with the Rams) - and after Brady is gone if he is still around.

Jolly Red Giant · 10-01-2012 08:34PM

spiralism wrote: »

Ryan Harris in at RT, move Franklin inside...basically what we did against Pitt. Plenty of Broncos discussion here too, as much of it is Tebow, its the Broncos playing the Pats on saturday, not Tim Tebow himself

Harris is still not healthy - he was signed with a view to seeing if he is fit to play next season. The Broncos will compensate by using an OLman at the TE position to compensate like they did against the Steelers - that saying the Pats don't have the same D strength as Pittsburgh and Fox and McCoy might decide they can handle the Pats in the trenches.

spiralism · 10-01-2012 08:41PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Harris is still not healthy - he was signed with a view to seeing if he is fit to play next season. The Broncos will compensate by using an OLman at the TE position to compensate like they did against the Steelers - that saying the Pats don't have the same D strength as Pittsburgh and Fox and McCoy might decide they can handle the Pats in the trenches.

Nowhere near. While i think the pats defensive frailties are more yardage based than anything and it's not nearly as bad as it looks, 1st in points and 1st against the pass with Woodley, Timmons, Farrior, Harrison, Keisel and Polamalu in there is a lot more fearsome than 15th in points, 31st against the pass and while Ninkovich, Mayo, Wilfork and some of the lads there are impressive, the talent in the Pats defence is light years behind the Steelers D. With Andre Carter out, Tebow should be given enough time to throw by the OL with those adjustments.

10-01-2012 08:42PM

paddypower have broncos at +13.5 in handicap betting. Feeling good about that bet.

tallaghtoutlaws · 10-01-2012 09:05PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Coaching in the NFL isn't all about X's and O's. A lot of it is about managing players some of whom have an ego the size of jupiter. the best NFL coaches are the ones who can get the very best out of their players. McDaniels could never do that - he is so aloof that no one could ever relate to him. Fox is the exact opposite - a master at managing players and getting the best out of them, which is why he has been successful at it for more than 30 years. The Broncos D have being playing way above their ability all season as a result and it has fed into the offence as well.

I never said it was about X's and O's, If you had read what I said about his rapport with Brady and my opinions of him as a Head Coach you would see I have touched on these aspects but the lack of respect he gains as a head coach doesn't always transfer onto a guy who can man manage as a coach just not as a Head Coach. There is a difference. Plenty of Coordinators out there who give them that much smaller role will always make players better and improve them. But give them a head coach role and they can't gain the respect of a full team and then fail grasping it and fail to progress as coaches and develop anyone.

McDaniels is one of those guys, Look at the Rapport he had with the Pats offense and the Cassel and Brady and even Orton. This gets back to what I said about him and Tebow. Tebow even had great respect for McDaniels. As for the bit in bold, Brandon Lloyd had great respect for McDaniels also hence why he wanted to work with him again. So McDaniels has showed he can gain respect just not as a head coach.

Jolly Red Giant · 10-01-2012 10:02PM

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

McDaniels is one of those guys, Look at the Rapport he had with the Pats offense and the Cassel and Brady and even Orton.

Yet Cassel choce to go to KC rather than Denver when he had the chance

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for the bit in bold, Brandon Lloyd had great respect for McDaniels also hence why he wanted to work with him again.

Interesting that you threw this one in - Brandon Lloyd was/is all about Brandon Lloyd - not about the coach or the team. Lloyd is a good receiver but he wanted his stats - he knew his numbers would drop dramatically with Tebow and once Orton was benched he wanted out and was willing to cause hassle to get out. He went to the Rams because few others would have him - all the Broncos got for him was a conditional fifth rounder. Bad example to use for your case.

tallaghtoutlaws · 10-01-2012 10:20PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Yet Cassel choce to go to KC rather than Denver when he had the chance

Cassel had no choice in the matter. The Broncos turned down a 3 way trade with the Buccs and Lions which would have seen Cassel go to Denver.At least if you are going to bring that up get your facts right.

Interesting that you threw this one in - Brandon Lloyd was/is all about Brandon Lloyd - not about the coach or the team. Lloyd is a good receiver but he wanted his stats - he knew his numbers would drop dramatically with Tebow and once Orton was benched he wanted out and was willing to cause hassle to get out. He went to the Rams because few others would have him - all the Broncos got for him was a conditional fifth rounder. Bad example to use for your case.

and once again you are wrong. Sure Lloyd might think of one thing i.e Lloyd. But he was quoted saying the follwoing:

"I can't even lie about that," Lloyd said. "I'm tied to McDaniels. He uses me differently than other offensive coordinators used me in my entire career. He uses me as an every-play receiver. The short game, mid-range game, gimmick passes, deep balls." McDaniels is reportedly on the Chiefs' radar, and the St. Louis front office that traded for Lloyd is likely to be replaced. His chances of re-signing with the Rams would seem to be less than 50-50.

This shows his respect for McDaniels and just google it and you will find more. This wasn't the first time he said something positive about McDaniels.

There is also talk of Lloyd going to the Pats in the off season also because of McDaniels.

davyjose · 11-01-2012 07:08AM

An article from Grantland:

The knock on Tim Tebow during Denver's six-game win streak this season was that his level of performance didn't match up to his team's win-loss record. That his stats didn't befit a guy who seemed to back into wins on a weekly basis. That he was bound to eventually turn back into an extremely marketable pumpkin. We made that argument here, and unless you actually live in Grantland and don't have a passport, you read the argument elsewhere. Heck, the rumor du jour this week was that the Broncos were about to bench Tebow for Brady Quinn, who couldn't beat out Derek freaking Anderson for a starting job in Cleveland. If Tebow somehow won against the mighty Steelers in the first round of the playoffs, it was probably going to take a couple of pick-sixes and Ben Roethlisberger's ankle disintegrating on national television. Right?

Well, on Sunday Tebow delivered one of the finest performances a quarterback has delivered in recent memory. Not in some intangible quality — leadership, heart, grit, you name it, whatever — but an actual quantifiably great game. He's delivered that before as a pro, but not as a passer, and not against a fantastic defense. In the wake of Sunday night's remarkable upset, we are here to tell you that Tebow delivered a game as a passer that is worth your respect and then some.

Recognizing that involves looking past his ugly completion percentage. In going 10-for-21, Tebow completed just 47.6 percent of his passes. What mattered, instead, is what Tebow got out of each of his dropbacks. By throwing for 316 yards on those 21 attempts, Tebow averaged a whopping 15.0 yards per attempt. That's only happened five times in the past five years, and the company isn't shabby: Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Jeff Garcia, Kurt Warner, and Philip Rivers matched Tebow's feat.

If you want to subtract some credit for Tebow's inaccuracy, use passer rating instead. Passer rating is flawed for a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason is that it favors quarterbacks with excellent completion percentages who never make big plays downfield. The second biggest reason is that it doesn't consider a quarterback's rushing ability. If there is any stat that would give an artificially low opinion of your typical Tim Tebow performance, it's passer rating. And despite all that, Tebow's performance on Sunday merited a passer rating of 125.6. Since 1990, only 29 of the 485 quarterbacks who threw 15 or more passes in a game put up a passer rating greater than 125.6.

We're just getting started, though, because there's one other piece of context we need to consider: the quality of the opposition. The Broncos were not just facing any old defense on Sunday; they were facing the Pittsburgh Steelers. Pittsburgh's pass defense allowed just 5.6 yards per attempt this season, which was the best in the league by more than half a yard. Houston finished second at 6.2 yards, and they were closer to ninth than they were to first. Nary a single passer threw for more than 300 yards against the Steelers all year. They allowed a pass play of more than 45 yards just once, and that was on a 73-yard touchdown to LaRod Stephens-Howling on a wheel route in which the ball traveled about ten yards in the air. Nobody beat the Steelers deep this year. Nobody.

And then they met Tim Tebow. Tebow, of course, had completions for 51 and 58 yards on back-to-back drives before adding an 80-yarder to win the game on the opening play of overtime. All three of those throws traveled well downfield. Tebow also became the first passer to throw for more than 300 yards against Pittsburgh this season.

That sort of performance just doesn't happen against dominant pass defenses like Pittsburgh's. Consider that there have been 44 playoff games since 1990 featuring a defense that ranked first in the league in yards per attempt during the regular season. In those 44 games, the opposing quarterback has only managed to muster an average of 6.3 yards per attempt.1 Tebow's 15.0 YPA was more than four yards better than anyone else's performance against a top-ranked defense, and only one player achieved a higher passer rating in a playoff against such a defense. That player was Brett Favre, who had a 132.9 passer rating in a January 1996 game against the 49ers.

Perhaps out of an incredulous disbelief that Tebow could actually have a huge passing day, we've seen two arguments brought up against his performance. One holds merit, but neither are enough to significantly discount what Tebow did.

The first is that the Steelers were riddled with injuries on defense and not quite the unit that their regular-season statistics would indicate. We knew that safety Ryan Clark would be held out of the game because of his sickle cell trait, but the Steelers lost defensive linemen Casey Hampton and Brett Keisel to injuries during the game, forcing them to play three down linemen for the bulk of the contest. Combine that with a clearly limited LaMarr Woodley, who played through a hamstring injury, and Tebow was actually slicing up a pale imitation of the Steel Curtain. Right?

Well, yes and no. It's obvious to suggest that Clark would have had an impact at safety, especially considering that replacement Ryan Mundy appeared to get lost on the final play. Then again, Mundy also forced the key Willis McGahee fumble in the fourth quarter that allowed the Steelers to tie up the game. Furthermore, it's not like Mundy was getting lost while he was freelancing; cornerback Ike Taylor was getting beat because Steelers defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau continued to call an aggressive game. The Steelers flooded the line of scrimmage with defenders on many plays in an attempt to flush out the Denver running game, including a big run blitz on the first play of overtime that was based upon pre-snap motion. The game plan was to shut down the running game and challenge Tebow and his receivers to beat Taylor & Co. deep. Even after the Broncos lost starting wideout Eric Decker in the first quarter,2 the Broncos were able to pull that off, repeatedly, until the very last play of the game.

The other argument is that Tebow's numbers really belong to wideout Demaryius Thomas, who repeatedly torched Taylor as part of a 204-yard day. This one doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. There is, admittedly, a case to be made for the idea that yards after the catch should somehow count less for a quarterback. It's somewhat ridiculous to think that Eli Manning got credit for a 99-yard touchdown pass against the Jets in Week 16 on a play where he dumped the ball off underneath and Victor Cruz made two defenders miss before running for 90 yards. The plays Tebow made on Sunday night were not of that variety. He deserves plenty of the credit. Tebow's scrambling ability created the time for his first bomb, which went to Thomas for 51 yards (42 in the air), and then he later hit Thomas in perfect stride on completions of 58 yards (28 in the air) and 80 yards (18 in the air). Thomas' baby Megatron show was fabulous, but he wasn't doing all the work by himself.

One game doesn't make a career. For all we know, we might have just seen the best passing performance of Tim Tebow's life, a fleeting glimpse into what could happen if Tebow got to play backup free safeties with excellent pass protection every week. With that being said, if any other rookie quarterback from the past three years put up numbers similar to what Tebow did against anything resembling the Steelers pass defense in the playoffs, we would be falling all over ourselves to describe it as the first big sign that a new franchise quarterback had arrived on the scene. It's time to file Brady Quinn's name away and stop the debate about whether Tebow deserves to keep the Denver job for 2012. After a year in which Tim Tebow occasionally got more credit than his play deserved, on Sunday, Tebowmania lived up to every bit of the hype.

bruschi · 11-01-2012 09:11AM

I could never take an article seriously that has this in an opening paragraph

The point is that Tebow can pass the ball effectively, which everyone should recognize now - unless, of course, you're an arrogant, clueless buffoon like Bomani Jones

the rest of it is a load of crap as well. the only thing it does say (and repeatadly) is that the broncos should cover the spread, which they could well do. I wouldnt have it as one of my nailed down bets though, they are very unpredictable. It could go down to the wire, and they could be within a hairs breath of winning, or it could be a blow out. I love also how he uses the Bills going 21-0 up as a reason the Broncos can win, never mind the fact the Patriots blew them out after that, and also that the Bills themselves blew out the Broncos and scored 40 on them.

The Patriots also have Vollmer and Mankins back in practise which is good news, and Chung and Spikes back too. Using Carter in his argument is a bit defunct too seeing as he got injured early in the first match up.

Johnny_Fontane · 11-01-2012 09:52AM

in my mind if Tom Brady shows up, no matter what Denver throw at him, pats win.

that said, the patriots recent playoff record is poor. 3 years, two playoff losses.
for a team like NE, this is unacceptable to them no doubt.

The value is probably with Denver at 6/1 to win.....

bruschi · 11-01-2012 10:42AM

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

in my mind if Tom Brady shows up, no matter what Denver throw at him, pats win.

that said, the patriots recent playoff record is poor. 3 years, two playoff losses.
for a team like NE, this is unacceptable to them no doubt.

The value is probably with Denver at 6/1 to win.....

3 playoff losses. Giants in the superbowl, Ravens, Jets. Have lost 3 on the bounce (didnt make the playoffs after the superbowl with Bradys injury)

Jolly Red Giant · 11-01-2012 01:05PM

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Cassel had no choice in the matter. The Broncos turned down a 3 way trade with the Buccs and Lions which would have seen Cassel go to Denver.At least if you are going to bring that up get your facts right.

McDaniels made three seperate attempts to get Cassel in trade involving the Pats, the Bucs, the Lions and Washington. Part of the reason for Denver not taking him was that Bowlan balked at the contract he wanted. If Cassel wanted to get to Denver it would have happened. Instead of following McDaniels he followed former NE GM, Scott Pioli to Kansas.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

and once again you are wrong. Sure Lloyd might think of one thing i.e Lloyd. But he was quoted saying the follwoing:

Once again you are quoting a guy who only thinks 'me, me, me' - he always licks ass when it suits him and then fires insults when he gets snubbed.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

This shows his respect for McDaniels and just google it and you will find more. This wasn't the first time he said something positive about McDaniels.

It shows that Lloyd was interested in what he was always interested in - his stats (and money) - notice there was not a single reference to wanting to do well for his team.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

There is also talk of Lloyd going to the Pats in the off season also because of McDaniels.

And again he is following the stats (and money) - personally I doubt Belichick will go for it - and he is the one in charge - not McDaniels.

tallaghtoutlaws · 11-01-2012 01:14PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

McDaniels made three seperate attempts to get Cassel in trade involving the Pats, the Bucs, the Lions and Washington. Part of the reason for Denver not taking him was that Bowlan balked at the contract he wanted. If Cassel wanted to get to Denver it would have happened. Instead of following McDaniels he followed former NE GM, Scott Pioli to Kansas.

And all 3 attempts it had nothing to do with Cassel deciding he didn't want to go there. Denver weren't prepared to pay him the contract he was on. don't forget he had the franchise tag slapped on him by the Pats Guaranteeing him high money, money would have been motivation for him and why would he take a contract cut when he could get the same money else where. But even then it had nothing to do with Cassel saying no. Seems daft that you bring money up as the reason as it really doesn't bolster your argument on the issue. He liked both Mcdaniels and Pioli so in the end you go where the money is regardless of your respect for any other coach. It still doesn't change the fact he respected McDaniels and all you are doing is making a pointless argument to take away from the original one.

Once again you are quoting a guy who only thinks 'me, me, me' - he always licks ass when it suits him and then fires insults when he gets snubbed.

So what? So you can't be a money grabbing cúnt and respect someone at the same time? Talk about nonsense. Of course you will go where the money is and where you will think you will benefit most from. Still doesn't change the fact he says he respects McDaniels and likes him. Clutching at straws much?

It shows that Lloyd was interested in what he was always interested in - his stats (and money) - notice there was not a single reference to wanting to do well for his team.

Again a pointless drivel of an argument. Who cares if he talks about doing well for a certain team. That wasn't the issue. I said to you that Lloyd respected McDaniels not the team. He feels McDaniels put him in a better position to perform at his highest so he can get paid. Just like any Pro player. Your arguments are fooking ridiculous at best.

And again he is following the stats (and money) - personally I doubt Belichick will go for it - and he is the one in charge - not McDaniels.

Randy Moss and Albert Haynesworth are two guys the Pats would never have been associated in the past and we went and got them. See no difference with Lloyd. Ability over attitude esepcially if the Pats feel they can fix him. Again a nonsense argument.

tallaghtoutlaws · 11-01-2012 01:41PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

McDaniels made three seperate attempts to get Cassel in trade involving the Pats, the Bucs, the Lions and Washington. Part of the reason for Denver not taking him was that Bowlan balked at the contract he wanted. If Cassel wanted to get to Denver it would have happened. Instead of following McDaniels he followed former NE GM, Scott Pioli to Kansas.

Looking back over the articles the trade had 100% nothing to do with Cassel choosing where to go especially because of money. It had to do with the deal on the table and all the teams finding an acceptable deal to suit all the teams. None of them could reach a deal and it wasn't about money hence why the Pats said fook it and traded Cassel to Kansas for a 2nd round pick.

The one involving the Broncos, Redskins and Chiefs confused the Redskins and they didnt realise they had to give up Campbell to the Chiefs and Cutler going to Washington and Cassel to Denver. So the Skins said erm no we aint giving up Campbell and that why that one fell apart. So there goes your theory on that trade.

The one involving the Broncos, Lions and Buccs fell apart as the 4 teams including the Pats couldn't agree on a deal that would suit them all. No where in any of the articles did it mention contract money.

Jolly Red Giant · 11-01-2012 04:13PM

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Looking back over the articles the trade had 100% nothing to do with Cassel choosing where to go especially because of money. It had to do with the deal on the table and all the teams finding an acceptable deal to suit all the teams. None of them could reach a deal and it wasn't about money hence why the Pats said fook it and traded Cassel to Kansas for a 2nd round pick.

It most definitely was about money - the Pats couldn't afford to keep Cassel - he was costing a bundle against the cap along with Brady. The Broncos were unwilling to pay the €14.5million under the franchise tag and Cassel was unwilling to negotiate down from that with the Broncos. In all other scenarios the Pats were going to do better than the 2nd rounder they got from the Chiefs (and remember they had to toss in Vrabel as well for that no 34 pick)

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

The one involving the Broncos, Redskins and Chiefs confused the Redskins and they didnt realise they had to give up Campbell to the Chiefs and Cutler going to Washington and Cassel to Denver. So the Skins said erm no we aint giving up Campbell and that why that one fell apart. So there goes your theory on that trade.

You do realise that the Skins traded Campbell to the Raiders for a 4th round pick, while the Broncos got 2 1st rounders a 3rd rounder and Orton for Cutler and a 5th. You are talking nonsense on this one - the Redskins would have bitten off Denver's hand if they had got the chance.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

The one involving the Broncos, Lions and Buccs fell apart as the 4 teams including the Pats couldn't agree on a deal that would suit them all.

The Bucs were willing to outbid everyone in order to get Cassel in order to ship him to Denver for Cutler - the deal collapsed because of Cassel wanting to go to Kansas (and the Cheifs gave him the €68million contract he was after).

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

No where in any of the articles did it mention contract money.

here- and there are many others
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11856796

Now - I will thrilled that the deal for Cassel to Denver fell through. I don't rate Cassel (but that is another debate). When all was done and dusted - the Broncos did much better in the deal with the Bears (even if McDaniels blew the picks) - the Lions ended up with Stafford - the Chiefs got their man in Cassel (given that I don't rate him I consider that a good thing) - the Bucs got Freeman - the Skins lost out with Campbell (I don't like Washington - bad memories of a SB mauling - another one of those 2nd quarter meltdowns) - and the Pats ended up getting far less than they would have in any other scenario (which everyone except Pats fans can be delighted about).

tallaghtoutlaws · 11-01-2012 04:24PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It most definitely was about money - the Pats couldn't afford to keep Cassel - he was costing a bundle against the cap along with Brady. The Broncos were unwilling to pay the €14.5million under the franchise tag and Cassel was unwilling to negotiate down from that with the Broncos. In all other scenarios the Pats were going to do better than the 2nd rounder they got from the Chiefs (and remember they had to toss in Vrabel as well for that no 34 pick)

No where in any of the articles back then did it ever say Cassel had any say in the trade. In fact any team going in for him would have known that the minimum they would expect to pay him would have been a long contract on the average of the Franchise tag. Show me where Cassel turned down the Broncos due to money? and show me where the Broncos actually were allowed to discuss cash with him without breaking NFL rules.

You do realise that the Skins traded Campbell to the Raiders for a 4th round pick, while the Broncos got 2 1st rounders a 3rd rounder and Orton for Cutler and a 5th. You are talking nonsense on this one - the Redskins would have bitten off Denver's hand if they had got the chance.

He played 1 more season with them before they traded him so my friend you are wrong on this one. For fook sake look it up before sprouting ****e.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/Cutler_to_Redskins.html

Campbell played the 2009 season with the Redskins. But hey good man getting your facts wrong again.

The Bucs were willing to outbid everyone in order to get Cassel in order to ship him to Denver for Cutler - the deal collapsed because of Cassel wanting to go to Kansas (and the Cheifs gave him the €68million contract he was after).

You missed my point on this. The whole deal needed EVERYONE involved getting what they want and no this is where the deal fell down. Again go back and look it up you are talking ****e.

here- and there are many others
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11856796

Are you fooking kidding me? That is your proof? :rolleyes:

You said it came down to Cassel himself looking for too much money. Where in that article or any article shows it was Cassel who made the decision. Once again you are sprouting ****e. All that article does is state the obvious on the difference between their wages and what it meant for Denver. Not where Cassel said no to the Broncos.

Let me remind you what you said:

Part of the reason for Denver not taking him was that Bowlan balked at the contract he wanted. If Cassel wanted to get to Denver it would have happened.

One would think you actually don't read what people respond with. You told me Cassel had the deciding say in the trade because of money. I told you he didn't. You show me proof where it mentioned the obvious factor on the difference between the two QBs wages not where anyone mentioned Cassel saying no to Denver over money.

bruschi · 11-01-2012 04:33PM

not entirely sure why the debate on whether or not Cassell was going to Denver or not is really relevant anymore, or what it has to do with anything really. It was on the table, it fell through, so be it.

McDaniels is a good OC, and I'm glad he is back with the Pats. He had a poor time of it in Denver, and didnt look good. Thats not to say he isnt a good coach. If he brings a good receiver in Lloyd to Foxboro, that too would make me happy. I dont care about his me me me talk, if that is how he is being branded. Moss went there and played well. Haynesworth went there, didnt play well and was cut. It happens. He is a good player, and would add to a weak WR corps in New England. If it doesnt work out, like Ochocinco hasnt, he will be cut, like I imagine Ochocinco will be. Ocho is made out to be much worse, but he has kept quiet and tried. It hasnt worked for him, but it hasnt been a drain on the team either.

Any relevance McDaniels has to the thread now I suppose is that he brought in Tebow, but didnt work for long with him. All their playbooks now will be different to when he was there, so he wont have much more inside info that the Pats didnt get when they played them a month ago. He'll be a useful addition nonetheless and is good to have someone else to bounce offensive plays off.

Jolly Red Giant · 11-01-2012 04:38PM

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

No where in any of the articles back then did it ever say Cassel had any say in the trade. In fact any team going in for him would have known that the minimum they would expect to pay him would have been a long contract on the average of the Franchise tag. Show me where Cassel turned down the Broncos due to money? and show me where the Broncos actually were allowed to discuss cash with him without breaking NFL rules.

If you seriously think that a player has no say in where they get traded to then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

He played 1 more season with them before they traded him so my friend you are wrong on this one. For fook sake look it up before sprouting ****e.

Did the Redskins trade Campbell to the Raiders for a 4th round pick? Yes or No

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

You missed my point on this. The whole deal needed EVERYONE involved getting what they want and no this is where the deal fell down. Again go back and look it up you are talking ****e.

Washington wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

Bucs wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

Lions wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

What happened in the end - Cassel and Vrabel (a decent LB) went to the Chiefs for a 2nd round pick.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

You said it came down to Cassel himself looking for too much money. Where in that article or any article shows it was Cassel who made the decision. Once again you are sprouting ****e. All that article does is state the obvious on the difference between their wages and what it meant for Denver. Not where Cassel said no to the Broncos.

Cassel was unwilling to negotiate down from what the Chiefs gave him and the Broncos couldn't afford it.

Now we clearly disagree on this one - and we are going around the houses. I would suggest that as a Broncos fan (for more than 30 years standing) I have a pretty good insight into how things work at Dove Valley and what happened during this entire episode. You can accept the points that I am making or not - the reality is that Cassel ended up in Kansas with a contract worth $68million and the Pats ended up with a lot less than they expected.

Jolly Red Giant · 11-01-2012 04:43PM

bruschi wrote: »

Any relevance McDaniels has to the thread now I suppose is that he brought in Tebow, but didnt work for long with him. All their playbooks now will be different to when he was there, so he wont have much more inside info that the Pats didnt get when they played them a month ago. He'll be a useful addition nonetheless and is good to have someone else to bounce offensive plays off.

I agree - McDaniels in Boston with have little relevence to the game - although it does stick in the throat that a guy who coached a bad team could end up with a SB ring.

As regards the previous meeting between the Pats and Broncos - the Broncos will be better - the offensive playbook has evolved somewhat and the defence is better with Miller nearly back to full health.

I am looking forward to the game - it could be another one for the scrapbook like last Sunday.

tallaghtoutlaws · 11-01-2012 04:46PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If you seriously think that a player has no say in where they get traded to then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land

Thats not the issue here you said it was becuase of Cassel and I asked for proof and you failed to show it.

Did the Redskins trade Campbell to the Raiders for a 4th round pick? Yes or No

Yes a year after the 3 way trade. The 3 way trade was supposed to happen the start of 2009. Campbell played for the Skins in the 2009 season. Lots happen in a year. Easy for a team to change their mind a year later when they realise damn Campbell isnt what we want anymore.

Washington wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

and this hinged on Campbell going to Kansas which as I said Wasnt happening.

Bucs wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

Turned down by Pats:

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/1396/why-would-pats-turn-down-12th-pick-for-cassel

Lions wanted Cutler
McDaniels wanted Cassel
Pats wanted a 1st round pick
all were willing to give

What happened in the end - Cassel and Vrabel (a decent LB) went to the Cheifs for a 2nd round pick.

Again show me proof where it states all were willing to accept. Because most of the articles I read said they couldn't agree.

Cassel was unwilling to negotiate down from what the Chiefs gave him and the Broncos couldn't afford it.

Again with the proof.

Now we clearly disagree on this one - and we are going around the houses. I would suggest that as a Broncos fan (for more than 30 years standing) I have a pretty good insight into how things work at Dove Valley and what happened during this entire episode. You can accept the points that I am making or not - the reality is that Cassel ended up in Kansas with a contract worth $68million and the Pats ended up with a lot less than they expected.

Oh I see so you are going to use the Oh I am fan for over 30 years nonsense and that means no matter what you say you are wrong line right? I could throw in my resume on the sport if you want but hey I dont need to as the facts are there plain and simple on the web for everyone to see regardless of how long they supported. We are hardly talking about 30 years ago.

So unless you actually work for Denver or can prove it with articles that actually state it we have to take your word on it.The problem here even after all these years one can still google the deal and none of it backs you up where you said Cassel himself said no. Simple as.

bruschi · 11-01-2012 04:50PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I agree - McDaniels in Boston with have little relevence to the game - although it does stick in the throat that a guy who coached a bad team could end up with a SB ring.

As regards the previous meeting between the Pats and Broncos - the Broncos will be better - the offensive playbook has evolved somewhat and the defence is better with Miller nearly back to full health.

I am looking forward to the game - it could be another one for the scrapbook like last Sunday.

I think the Patriots will be better too. Chung and Spike back in the side, and Mankins and Vollmer back on the OL. And they have scored over 30 points in 12 of 16 games. If they keep the productivity going, and I see no reason why they cant, I think Denver could struggle to put up that many points, even on a poor defence (who have conceded over 30 points only once this season)

Chucky the tree · 11-01-2012 05:57PM

In 2009 Jim Zorn was HC of redskins, in 2010 it was Mike Shanahan. Jason Campbell was only traded to the Raiders in 2010 after the Redskins picked up McNabb. Jim Zorn could have easily wanted to keep Campbell but when he was sacked and Shanahan took over Campbell was not wanted.

Jolly Red Giant · 11-01-2012 06:42PM

I am really getting fed up of going over old ground - couple of quick points them I am done

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Turned down by Pats:
http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/1396/why-would-pats-turn-down-12th-pick-for-cassel

Read the article - it all speculation - and the writer of the article actually dismisses the idea that the Pats turned down the Broncos no.12 pick for Cassel.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Again show me proof

This is no 'proof' - only speculation - there never is any proof in any of these cases.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

So unless you actually work for Denver or can prove it with articles that actually state it we have to take your word on it.The problem here even after all these years one can still google the deal and none of it backs you up where you said Cassel himself said no. Simple as.

After all the years I have been a Bronco fan I have manage to develop the odd contact in denver - the odd sports writer - on the Denver Post and even one associated with the Broncos - not many but a few and all of them have indicated to me that McDaniels wanted Cassel, was happy to ship out Cutler to get him and the overriding reason why Cassel wouldn't come to Dever was because they wouldn't guarantee him the money he wanted before the trade and preferred to go to Kansas because he he knew he would get the money he wanted and he wanted to work with Pioli.

poldebruin · 11-01-2012 06:57PM

bruschi wrote: »

I think the Patriots will be better too. Chung and Spike back in the side, and Mankins and Vollmer back on the OL. And they have scored over 30 points in 12 of 16 games. If they keep the productivity going, and I see no reason why they cant, I think Denver could struggle to put up that many points, even on a poor defence (who have conceded over 30 points only once this season)

Looking forward to the game at the weekend. Everything from the playoffs on was a bonus in my eyes for Denver this year - all so unexpected.

Unfortunately, I do agree that NE will be even better in this game. Home field, already played Denver once (so they have seen first hand the unconventional offence) and Belichek is known for his adjustments on Defense in second halves/second meetings etc.

That said, I was a little surprised at that Denver fared so well in the opening salvos of the game at Mile High. IMO for Denver to win the game, they will need to capitilise on all opportunities that present themselves - i.e. champs near int in the endzone, redzone opps that only turn into field goals. they will need to, not just commit 0 turnovers, but reverse what happened in the first game and perhaps win the turnover battle by 2 or so. If all this were to happen - I could see Denver having a shot - A long one I know!

Finally, I may get lambasted for this thought, but is there an advantage to be gained by the Denver D by just "selling out" on multiple plays. See if they can force a strip-sack, int or fumble. Gamble if there's a chance of an int, even if it means giving up a long play/td. Brady and co have already shown they can march up and down the field on Denver all night....by taking the chance, you may get a favourable result, and if it doesn't work out, your offense trots back out onto the field to try and counter - run down the clock and perhaps win the TOP battle.

Denver Broncos Thread

Comments