PDA

View Full Version : THE RAT SEZS THE BRONCS ARE THERE


Buster's Dad
01-11-2005, 07:15 PM
According to tonights paper the rat sezs the broncs need just a slight tune up to be a top caliber team.
He said that he has a great quarterback all they need is a few touch ups here and there.
wonder what he's been sucking up his nose, man he sounds like a man thats taken a few shots to many to the head ROFL :shake:

Mile High Mania
01-11-2005, 07:19 PM
Eh, you're about 7 hours too late with this news...

Buster's Dad
01-11-2005, 07:24 PM
Sorry paper doesn't get here till 6

Thig Lyfe
01-11-2005, 07:57 PM
Sorry paper doesn't get here till 6

The pony express just ain't what it used to be.

Frazod
01-11-2005, 08:09 PM
Yes!

Keep Plummet! :thumb:

Keep Shanahan! :thumb:

ROFL

stevieray
01-11-2005, 08:10 PM
Right after Taco proclaimed Jake insufficient.

ROFL

SNR
01-11-2005, 08:29 PM
"Few touches here and there"

Is Shanahan turning into Vermeil? :hmmm:

tk13
01-11-2005, 08:32 PM
"Few touches here and there"

Is Shanahan turning into Vermeil? :hmmm:
I was wondering if anybody was going to say that... reading over the thread about it at the Mane, I guess Shanny thinks that's a Super Bowl team that just had a couple injuries, and some bad luck in the playoff game, and if they'd played the first half like they played the 2nd half Sunday, they could still be playing. :spock: And people here think Vermeil is delusional...

tommykat
01-11-2005, 08:36 PM
"Few touches here and there"

Is Shanahan turning into Vermeil? :hmmm:

A first I think with SNR............but gave him a neg rep.........I am so tired of everything being DVs problems........:cuss::banghead: That is my rant.......but chit, wake the FAULK UP...........Coach isn't the one playing!!

SNR
01-11-2005, 08:43 PM
A first I think with SNR............but gave him a neg rep.........I am so tired of everything being DVs problems........:cuss::banghead: That is my rant.......but chit, wake the FAULK UP...........Coach isn't the one playing!!This might be a first with TK as well, but she missed the joke.

Oh wait, that isn't a first, nevermind.

:p

StcChief
01-11-2005, 08:44 PM
Where is there. at Pile High?
Let see the fine tuning.... :clap: :)

tommykat
01-11-2005, 08:44 PM
This might be a first with TK as well, but she missed the joke.

Oh wait, that isn't a first, nevermind.

:p

Whatever, you are probably right...

Mile High Mania
01-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Well if you had a scale of 1 to 10 on needing to improve your team... "drastic overhaul" being 1 and "bordering on greatness" being 10 ... I would give Denver a 7 (6.56477 - just rounded up).

There are no glaring big dollar FAs to resign, but there are 3 key guys to resign. And, as I look at the team, TE and pass rush are the two focus areas in my mind. The rest is depth.

Denver had some injuries hit and the depth didn't cut it. Right now, they're a team that has the makings of one that will win 9-10 wins a year, but that's it. There's a solid nucleus.

HemiEd
01-11-2005, 09:11 PM
Well if you had a scale of 1 to 10 on needing to improve your team... "drastic overhaul" being 1 and "bordering on greatness" being 10 ... I would give Denver a 7 (6.56477 - just rounded up).

There are no glaring big dollar FAs to resign, but there are 3 key guys to resign. And, as I look at the team, TE and pass rush are the two focus areas in my mind. The rest is depth.

Denver had some injuries hit and the depth didn't cut it. Right now, they're a team that has the makings of one that will win 9-10 wins a year, but that's it. There's a solid nucleus.


Have you recovered OK from Sunday?

Mile High Mania
01-11-2005, 09:13 PM
Have you recovered OK from Sunday?

I was fine a few hours after...

HemiEd
01-11-2005, 09:24 PM
I was fine a few hours after...

Sounds like you recovered quicker than I did and I don't even like the Donkeys. You must have been prepared for it, iminate or something like that. :hmmm:

Mile High Mania
01-11-2005, 09:38 PM
Are you going through a new avatar an hour? Go back to Hank Hill!!!

HemiEd
01-11-2005, 09:40 PM
Are you going through a new avatar an hour? Go back to Hank Hill!!!

Mr. Laz
01-11-2005, 10:09 PM
A first I think with SNR............but gave him a neg rep.........I am so tired of everything being DVs problems........:cuss::banghead: That is my rant.......but chit, wake the FAULK UP...........Coach isn't the one playing!!

who decides which players to keep?


who teaches the players to play?


who sets the practice routines etc for the players to learn?

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 05:39 AM
who decides which players to keep?


who teaches the players to play?


who sets the practice routines etc for the players to learn?

Whoooooooooooo are you? Who Who - Who Who

MGRS13
01-12-2005, 08:30 AM
Well if you had a scale of 1 to 10 on needing to improve your team... "drastic overhaul" being 1 and "bordering on greatness" being 10 ... I would give Denver a 7 (6.56477 - just rounded up).

There are no glaring big dollar FAs to resign, but there are 3 key guys to resign. And, as I look at the team, TE and pass rush are the two focus areas in my mind. The rest is depth.

Denver had some injuries hit and the depth didn't cut it. Right now, they're a team that has the makings of one that will win 9-10 wins a year, but that's it. There's a solid nucleus.
I hope this is really the way the donx front office looks at their year(same way the chiefs looked at 03/04). IMO the donx overachieved this year and will probably fall to 7-9 or worse next year.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 08:34 AM
I hope this is really the way the donx front office looks at their year(same way the chiefs looked at 03/04). IMO the donx overachieved this year and will probably fall to 7-9 or worse next year.

Eh, that's more wishful thinking on your part than reality. They have a lot of great talent, just haven't put it all together.

I'm not suggesting they would have beaten Indy, but had Walls and Middlebrooks been available... they would have had more options in the secondary. Relying on Alexander to cover Wayne was murder, considering he was a relatively untested rookie.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 08:38 AM
I dont think the donks are going to fall off significantly next year. I think they will be a 7-10 win team that'll get hammered in the playoffs if they make it, like they have been for what, 6 or 7 years now?

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 08:43 AM
I dont think the donks are going to fall off significantly next year. I think they will be a 7-10 win team that'll get hammered in the playoffs if they make it, like they have been for what, 6 or 7 years now?

6 ... going on 7 years... :deevee:

In all seriousness, losing your #1 and #2 CB option on that side hurt them late in the year. Roc wasn't ready. If those guys are healthy, then who knows... Maybe the score is 38 - 24. :banghead:

Heh. The pass rush and TE are my concerns. Barring injury, they won't be below .500 in 2005. They should win 9-10 games, we'll just see how they address things.

I like the emergence of Watts and Luke. I'm hoping that if they can get a solid TE, using Putzier as depth or for blocking... they can get more creative.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 08:47 AM
Every team is going to have injuries every year though. This year it was corner and Pryce, next year it will be something else. You probably won't be lucky enough for it to be QB, either.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 08:50 AM
Every team is going to have injuries every year though. This year it was corner and Pryce, next year it will be something else. You probably won't be lucky enough for it to be QB, either.

Very true. I'm not trying to use that as an excuse, it's just a fact. They had good depth, but when you lose your first 2 guys on the chart, bad things will happen. I didn't like the way they addressed the Dline. I accepted the "veteran patchwork rotation". I can't recall when Pryce went down, but I believe when it was known he might miss some time - they pulled off the deal with Atlanta for their player.

They tried to be frugal on the line and it showed.

The defense has been solid in all areas except for sacks and turnovers. Hopefully, that improves and it did a bit when David Gibbs was canned.

Every year, teams get hit with injuries ... you're correct. And, I don't want Plummer to get injured.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 09:30 AM
Every year, teams get hit with injuries ... you're correct. And, I don't want Plummer to get injured.

I was just joking. But seriously, where is he going to be next year if Rod Smith retires? Ending up benched at some point?

Even if he can be adequate at some points, does your team really want a QB they have to chain down to keep from screwing something up? Are you really in good shape if you have to design your offense around the considerable shortcomings of its central player? Shouldn't it be designed around your competencies instead?

Don't understand why Shanarat has staked himself to Plummer... but I would think about bringing in something servicable at #2 this offseason..

King_Chief_Fan
01-12-2005, 09:36 AM
I was just joking. But seriously, where is he going to be next year if Rod Smith retires? Ending up benched at some point?

Even if he can be adequate at some points, does your team really want a QB they have to chain down to keep from screwing something up? Are you really in good shape if you have to design your offense around the considerable shortcomings of its central player? Shouldn't it be designed around your competencies instead?

Don't understand why Shanarat has staked himself to Plummer... but I would think about bringing in something servicable at #2 this offseason..

good points.........it reminds me of Grbac and Marty. We saw what that got the Chiefs

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 09:39 AM
Cochise... let's say that I agreed with you and hated having Plummer on my team. What's the best option?

Shane Matthews UFA Bills
Jim Miller UFA Patriots
Sage Rosenfels UFA Dolphins
Josh Harris ERFA Ravens
Kordell Stewart UFA Ravens
Kelly Holcomb UFA Browns
Charlie Batch UFA Steelers
Tony Banks UFA Texans
Matt Mauck ERFA Broncos
Bradlee Van Pelt ERFA Broncos
Todd Collins UFA Chiefs
Damon Huard UFA Chiefs
David Rivers ERFA Raiders
Drew Brees UFA Chargers
Mike McMahon UFA Lions
Rick Mirer UFA Lions
Craig Nall RFA Packers
Doug Pederson UFA Packers
Gus Frerotte UFA Vikings
Shaun Hill ERFA Vikings
Josh McCown RFA Cardinals
Matt Hasselbeck UFA Seahawks
Brock Huard UFA Seahawks
Ty Detmer UFA Falcons
Rod Rutherford ERFA Panthers
Vinny Testaverde UFA Cowboys
Jesse Palmer UFA Giants
Jeff Blake UFA Eagles
Tim Hasselbeck ERFA Redskins

I don't recall the complete list of available QBs the year they signed Plummer, but I don't recall another more viable option out there.

Yes, he has shortcomings. The offense should be built around the running game, IMO. Plummer didn't just trip into 4,000+ yds and 27 TDs by accident.

The team has won 19 of the 27 that he has started... with Portis, Q, Anderson, Droughns and Bell all doing very well at times running the football.

So, build the offense around running the ball... realize his limitations in the pocket and roll with it.

Plummer has 6,200 passing yards and 46 total TDs (4 rushing) in 27 starts over two seasons. That's not bad. Yes, the INTs are high, but all they can do is be more creative on the passing game.

Bring in a solid and consistent pass catching TE. Work with Watts and Luke, build them into the game plan more now that they have a year in the system. Lelie and Smith had fine seasons and Lelie is really becoming a deep threat.

It's not like I'm staring at an offense with Kyle Boller taking snaps. He has his limitations... all they can do is accept them and move on.

This is the situation where the "offensive mastermind" should prove worthy of the title, so far it's been hit and miss.

King_Chief_Fan
01-12-2005, 09:48 AM
Cochise... let's say that I agreed with you and hated having Plummer on my team. What's the best option?

Shane Matthews UFA Bills
Jim Miller UFA Patriots
Sage Rosenfels UFA Dolphins
Josh Harris ERFA Ravens
Kordell Stewart UFA Ravens
Kelly Holcomb UFA Browns
Charlie Batch UFA Steelers
Tony Banks UFA Texans
Matt Mauck ERFA Broncos
Bradlee Van Pelt ERFA Broncos
Todd Collins UFA Chiefs
Damon Huard UFA Chiefs
David Rivers ERFA Raiders
Drew Brees UFA Chargers
Mike McMahon UFA Lions
Rick Mirer UFA Lions
Craig Nall RFA Packers
Doug Pederson UFA Packers
Gus Frerotte UFA Vikings
Shaun Hill ERFA Vikings
Josh McCown RFA Cardinals
Matt Hasselbeck UFA Seahawks
Brock Huard UFA Seahawks
Ty Detmer UFA Falcons
Rod Rutherford ERFA Panthers
Vinny Testaverde UFA Cowboys
Jesse Palmer UFA Giants
Jeff Blake UFA Eagles
Tim Hasselbeck ERFA Redskins

I don't recall the complete list of available QBs the year they signed Plummer, but I don't recall another more viable option out there.

Yes, he has shortcomings. The offense should be built around the running game, IMO. Plummer didn't just trip into 4,000+ yds and 27 TDs by accident.

The team has won 19 of the 27 that he has started... with Portis, Q, Anderson, Droughns and Bell all doing very well at times running the football.

So, build the offense around running the ball... realize his limitations in the pocket and roll with it.

Plummer has 6,200 passing yards and 46 total TDs (4 rushing) in 27 starts over two seasons. That's not bad. Yes, the INTs are high, but all they can do is be more creative on the passing game.

Bring in a solid and consistent pass catching TE. Work with Watts and Luke, build them into the game plan more now that they have a year in the system. Lelie and Smith had fine seasons and Lelie is really becoming a deep threat.

It's not like I'm staring at an offense with Kyle Boller taking snaps. He has his limitations... all they can do is accept them and move on.

This is the situation where the "offensive mastermind" should prove worthy of the title, so far it's been hit and miss.

There seemed to be a lot of chatter on the orange mange for Kordell last year..........give him a shot

Douche Baggins
01-12-2005, 09:48 AM
Cochise... let's say that I agreed with you and hated having Plummer on my team. What's the best option?

Shane Matthews UFA Bills
Jim Miller UFA Patriots
Sage Rosenfels UFA Dolphins
Josh Harris ERFA Ravens
Kordell Stewart UFA Ravens
Kelly Holcomb UFA Browns
Charlie Batch UFA Steelers
Tony Banks UFA Texans
Matt Mauck ERFA Broncos
Bradlee Van Pelt ERFA Broncos
Todd Collins UFA Chiefs
Damon Huard UFA Chiefs
David Rivers ERFA Raiders
Drew Brees UFA Chargers
Mike McMahon UFA Lions
Rick Mirer UFA Lions
Craig Nall RFA Packers
Doug Pederson UFA Packers
Gus Frerotte UFA Vikings
Shaun Hill ERFA Vikings
Josh McCown RFA Cardinals
Matt Hasselbeck UFA Seahawks
Brock Huard UFA Seahawks
Ty Detmer UFA Falcons
Rod Rutherford ERFA Panthers
Vinny Testaverde UFA Cowboys
Jesse Palmer UFA Giants
Jeff Blake UFA Eagles
Tim Hasselbeck ERFA Redskins




Bring back Gus Frerotte. Duh.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 09:53 AM
There seemed to be a lot of chatter on the orange mange for Kordell last year..........give him a shot

ROFL No thanks... none of the guys on that list are worth a "shot" as a starting option over Plummer.

Sure, I'd be interested in Matt Hasslebeck possibly, but he had an off year and I'm not sold on giving him the same $ (or more) than Plummer at this point.

Brees... I fear the guy that has only performed in his "contract year". Plus, who knows what this guy will do next season. It took him a while to adapt and much of his success was tied directly to Gates. So, was he that good or was it more Gates? I'd have to see more of him before giving him a big FA contract.

Plus, SD will likely franchise tag him and it will cost a team two #1 picks.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 09:53 AM
Holcomb, Brees, and McMahon are the three that jump out at me right away.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 09:55 AM
Brees... was he that good or was it more Gates? I'd have to see more of him before giving him a big FA contract.


Well, Shanarat didn't have to see much from Plummer before signing him to a big FA contract.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 09:56 AM
Holcomb, Brees, and McMahon are the three that jump out at me right away.

I addressed Brees in a recent post.

Holcomb and McMahon ... neither guy has shown much. Nothing that would interest me. I'd be all for them signing either of them to battle for that #2 spot and would be shocked if they didn't knock out Kannell.

I'm all for bringing in another QB to compete for the #2 gig and if for whatever reasons, the stars were aligned right and that guy kicked ass and found away to supplant Plummer... fine.

But, nobody on that list has shown anything worth making a consideration at this point.

Cochise... are you telling me you would name Holcomb or McMahon your starter over Plummer without hesitation?

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 09:58 AM
Well, Shanarat didn't have to see much from Plummer before signing him to a big FA contract.

Well, we can debate what Plummer did in AZ with that team and what we thought of the talent during his tenure all day... but, we did that 2 years ago and I'm not interested in doing it again.

You had multiple seasons of watching a guy, how he reacts - good and bad to know what you have to work with, compared to most of the QBs on the FA list.

Cochise
01-12-2005, 10:04 AM
Cochise... are you telling me you would name Holcomb or McMahon your starter over Plummer without hesitation?

I didn't say without hesitation. I was talking about bringing in someone to be the #2 other than Kanell. From what I saw of him in a preseason game and what you read over at the Mange it doesn't sound like he's anyone that you want handling the ball.

Neither of those two guys I would definitely start over Plummer, but I would bring in someone who would be given an opportunity to compete for the job and who would be a viable option if he goes on a 1 TD - 11 INT run like he had going this year or whatever it was.

I mean, if I am the coach, do I want a viable option in case he goes in the tank again? Or do I want to force myself to keep running him out there and run myself out of a job? I know what I would do.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 10:12 AM
I didn't say without hesitation. I was talking about bringing in someone to be the #2 other than Kanell. From what I saw of him in a preseason game and what you read over at the Mange it doesn't sound like he's anyone that you want handling the ball.

Neither of those two guys I would definitely start over Plummer, but I would bring in someone who would be given an opportunity to compete for the job and who would be a viable option if he goes on a 1 TD - 11 INT run like he had going this year or whatever it was.

I mean, if I am the coach, do I want a viable option in case he goes in the tank again? Or do I want to force myself to keep running him out there and run myself out of a job? I know what I would do.

I agree 100%... Denver hasn't had a decent backup QB in ages. (enter joke about not having a decent starter in 6 years here)

They have Plummer, what you would call a more "mobile" type of QB and the backups run like they have cement shoes. Not smart in my mind.

MGRS13
01-12-2005, 12:43 PM
Eh, that's more wishful thinking on your part than reality. They have a lot of great talent, just haven't put it all together.

I'm not suggesting they would have beaten Indy, but had Walls and Middlebrooks been available... they would have had more options in the secondary. Relying on Alexander to cover Wayne was murder, considering he was a relatively untested rookie.
Your defense was good this year but it wasn't one of the Best ever. You guys were alot farther away then one player. Even if Alexander wasn't out there your secondary still would have been torched. I mean you're not saying you lost that game only because of Alexander are you? My wishful thinking is that you guys keep plummer, and it looks like I get that one.

Mile High Mania
01-12-2005, 12:47 PM
Your defense was good this year but it wasn't one of the Best ever. You guys were alot farther away then one player. Even if Alexander wasn't out there your secondary still would have been torched. I mean you're not saying you lost that game only because of Alexander are you? My wishful thinking is that you guys keep plummer, and it looks like I get that one.

I never claimed it to be near the "best ever". And, by commenting on the Dline as a group, the other corner and depth... I implied they were more than 1 player away. I'd like to see 2 new starters on the Dline, minimum.

As for Alexander... no, he was not the reason they lost. Lack of a pass rush... missing Pryce... Alexander, there were several reasons why the defense faltered.

Nightfyre
01-12-2005, 02:38 PM
See: Matt Hasselback