Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 424
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    wy USA
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by gerontion View Post
    The decision was neither bizarre nor radical. We were losing a critical game. We have a legend as a backup who is finally reasonably healthy. A spark was needed, and Manning delivered. Nothing shady at all either by Kubiak or the rest of the team. What, you think they hate Osweiler, or something?
    Seemed they had a short leash and more of a hidden motive for Manninf despite what had been reported to the media right up to the start of the game. Likely can't play etc everyone thinking no way he likely plays unless drastic...etc etc. so yes I do say they had it out for Brock somewhat and really were looking for any reason for Manning to be out there. Least that's how it seemed there was a report that Phillip Rivers was even surprised Manning just didn't start the game. Really I don't know why not since clearly that's who they wanted to play, not Brock. That's what I'm getting at.
    Last edited by Lange; 01-03-2016 at 08:39 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2,606
    The biggest problem Brock had tonight is he wasn't reading the defense and seeing the blitz and it was working for San Diego. Put Manning in and he immediately recognized the blitz and called a play that exploited the blitz, plus the team picked it up with his presence. Brock is young and he can take the pounding, but he really hasn't played much football (one year in college and that's it) and he lacks experience period. To feel sorry for the guy is silly, he got to start 7 games and get some experience for his future and he is still a valuable member of the team as they move forward. I refuse to feel sorry for anyone who has the opportunity to have a career in the NFL and make millions of dollars in the future.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,218
    I think they planned to bring Manning back this week, maybe as long ago as his dinner with Elway. And I think Brock is on the inside of the loop that knew about this plan.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Lange View Post
    Seemed they had a short leash and more of a hidden motive for Manninf despite what had been reported to the media right up to the start of the game. Likely can't play etc everyone thinking no way he likely plays unless drastic...etc etc. so yes I do say they had it out for Brock somewhat and really were looking for any reason for Manning to be out there. Least that's how it seemed there was a report that Phillip Rivers was even surprised Manning just didn't start the game. Really I don't know why not since clearly that's who they wanted to play, not Brock. That's what I'm getting at.
    Actually, most of the recent reports were that the Broncos were moving forward with Brock as the starter and that Manning was done. Brock was a better fit and was hand picked by Elway. The notion that he isn't the one both Kubiak and Elway wanted is wrong, imo.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2,606
    Whats with all the "they had it out for Brock today?" How about we win the game we get home field advantage, loose we drop all the way to 5th? Things weren't looking great after half time, lots of yards, but only 7 points and no leadership, lots of turnovers. I don't imagine Elway was too happy with what he was seeing. When you have a chance to snag home field you do whatever you have to do to snag it and a bye as well. I don't think this decision was against Brock Osweiler, it was simply about winning the game period.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,510
    Did the team REALLY need that much of a spark by putting Manning in? I mean just knowing the fact we win we have the 1 seed should be enough to have that "spark" throughout the game.

    Defense played great (except for busted coverage one play) but offense needed that "spark" is crazy to me.

    If that's the mentality of the team we'll go 1 and done again.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by LynchMobster View Post
    I think they planned to bring Manning back this week, maybe as long ago as his dinner with Elway. And I think Brock is on the inside of the loop that knew about this plan.
    I don't know. If the Broncos hadn't made such hideous mistakes in the game, we probably would have blown out the Chargers. Oz was certainly playing well enough himself to win. Why take him out if the team is winning?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    9,006
    This really had nothing to do with Brock. Osweiler leads NFL in first half completion percentage. He showed enough to justify sticking with him...
    Unfortunately for BO... PM is behind him. Kubiak just feels PM's mind and experience is more valuable... That's it. Not an indictment on Brock...

    The skill players dropping balls and fumbling... OL can't pass block... PM's pre snap read and his decision making under duress was what Kubiak opted for. We needed a spark and PM delivered.

    Good news is we could easily turn to BO in the playoffs if we need a spark... PM looked good making throws... He looked healthy... For my money, I go down swinging with the HOF... But have no issues turning to BO if PM can't move the ball or turns it over.

    I realize tho an argument cAn be made for either QB... And neither is wrong... If we lose, the decision will be second guessed regardless... But... To me... I sleep better failing with PM than I would failing with BO.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    8,352
    Quote Originally Posted by fraguela09 View Post
    This really had nothing to do with Brock. Osweiler leads NFL in first half completion percentage. He showed enough to justify sticking with him...
    Unfortunately for BO... PM is behind him. Kubiak just feels PM's mind and experience is more valuable... That's it. Not an indictment on Brock...

    The skill players dropping balls and fumbling... OL can't pass block... PM's pre snap read and his decision making under duress was what Kubiak opted for. We needed a spark and PM delivered.

    Good news is we could easily turn to BO in the playoffs if we need a spark... PM looked good making throws... He looked healthy... For my money, I go down swinging with the HOF... But have no issues turning to BO if PM can't move the ball or turns it over.

    I realize tho an argument cAn be made for either QB... And neither is wrong... If we lose, the decision will be second guessed regardless... But... To me... I sleep better failing with PM than I would failing with BO.
    '

    Wow, you pretty much covered everything I wanted to say. Nice!

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2,606
    The truth is Brock was putting up yards but not points. Peyton read the defense, called the play and it put points on the board, not flashy but successful. The team stepped it up with Manning on the field and that's natural, he's a field general and has been for a long time. No indictment on Brock, Kubiak just needed a closer and that's what he got.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,725
    I try not to be a conspiracy theorist.

    However, after spending a couple of hours absorbing the game and what happened, I have come to the conclusion that something happened during the week that somehow caused Kubiak to sour on Osweiler. There was literally one - ONE - play I could turn to and say "yeah, that was on Osweiler", and that was the blindside sack/fumble. Otherwise I thought he was playing a really good - even great - first half.

    I thought it was strange having Manning be the backup, because you're running two different types of offenses between Osweiler and Manning. Also, you put added, unnecessary pressure on Osweiler by having Manning on the sideline, basically preparing for something to go wrong. Then you had the halftime report in which Kubiak pretty much put all the issues we were having on offense at Osweiler's feet, even though anyone with any sense of the game knew Osweiler was far from the issue and in fact was a bright spot, and added that Osweiler was playing for his job. Then on our first possession, on two running plays, CJ Anderson fumbles after what would have been a great run, and Osweiler gets yanked. On top of that, you had Manning going not to Kubiak or Dennison, but to Greg Knapp after each drive, and I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Knapp was calling the plays for Manning.

    It just doesn't add up for me. I may be wrong, but it certainly seems that there was something transpiring behind the scenes this week that clearly no one expected.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by trc1962 View Post
    Whats with all the "they had it out for Brock today?" How about we win the game we get home field advantage, loose we drop all the way to 5th? Things weren't looking great after half time, lots of yards, but only 7 points and no leadership, lots of turnovers. I don't imagine Elway was too happy with what he was seeing. When you have a chance to snag home field you do whatever you have to do to snag it and a bye as well. I don't think this decision was against Brock Osweiler, it was simply about winning the game period.
    Because of all the nonsense that went into the change of QB. Like the comments Kubes made coming out of the half regarding Schofield's poor play. Only to then switch out to Polumbus when Manning came in. And the move to heavy packages to help Polumbus out. Which consiquently also helped pick up the running game. Issues that even the commentators pointed out.

    It's great that the playoffs run through Denver. But I think if they wanted to roll with PM in the playoffs, there were better ways to do it.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo0730 View Post
    I try not to be a conspiracy theorist.

    However, after spending a couple of hours absorbing the game and what happened, I have come to the conclusion that something happened during the week that somehow caused Kubiak to sour on Osweiler. There was literally one - ONE - play I could turn to and say "yeah, that was on Osweiler", and that was the blindside sack/fumble. Otherwise I thought he was playing a really good - even great - first half.

    I thought it was strange having Manning be the backup, because you're running two different types of offenses between Osweiler and Manning. Also, you put added, unnecessary pressure on Osweiler by having Manning on the sideline, basically preparing for something to go wrong. Then you had the halftime report in which Kubiak pretty much put all the issues we were having on offense at Osweiler's feet, even though anyone with any sense of the game knew Osweiler was far from the issue and in fact was a bright spot, and added that Osweiler was playing for his job. Then on our first possession, on two running plays, CJ Anderson fumbles after what would have been a great run, and Osweiler gets yanked. On top of that, you had Manning going not to Kubiak or Dennison, but to Greg Knapp after each drive, and I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Knapp was calling the plays for Manning.

    It just doesn't add up for me. I may be wrong, but it certainly seems that there was something transpiring behind the scenes this week that clearly no one expected.
    Too many people, commentators included, saw the exact same things transpire for it to be brushed off as just a "conspiracy". I call it like I see it and it was bogus.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,725
    Quote Originally Posted by flosstein View Post
    Too many people, commentators included, saw the exact same things transpire for it to be brushed off as just a "conspiracy". I call it like I see it and it was bogus.
    The halftime comments REALLY caught me off guard, because I don't see how you could really put what was happening all on Osweiler's feet. Even the sack/fumble that I think was partially Osweiler's fault, is also on the fault of Kubiak and Dennison.

    The more you think about it, the more it was clear Kubiak was not happy with Osweiler, and I just can't see how that could involve what was happening on the field in the first half. Something happened, and hopefully Schefter or someone else can dig into it over the next few days.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,218
    Quote Originally Posted by gerontion View Post
    I don't know. If the Broncos hadn't made such hideous mistakes in the game, we probably would have blown out the Chargers. Oz was certainly playing well enough himself to win. Why take him out if the team is winning?
    Well then you have another pretext for sitting him, just as Manning was sat and Brock came in a couple of years ago vs. the Raiders. Something feels contrived about this, like they were looking for any excuse to get Manning back in the saddle, and that's really been the agenda since he went out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •