PDA

View Full Version : why are the brncs 5-4?



brnc fan 14
11-13-2003, 10:35 PM
why do you think the broncos are 5 and 4? they were doing so good before...

broncos4ever
11-13-2003, 10:41 PM
When we had Jake we were 4 - 1. Since we lost Jake we have lost 4 games and won one. Seems pretty elementary to me.

mattos
11-13-2003, 10:44 PM
i don't know why exactly, but i got a real kick out of the "because shanny has a rat face" option. maybe b/c it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the poll. anyway it made me laugh.

brnc fan 14
11-13-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by mattos
i don't know why exactly, but i got a real kick out of the "because shanny has a rat face" option. maybe b/c it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the poll. anyway it made me laugh.

some stupid kc fan in the "talking smack" forum was talking about how "you donkey fans and your rat face coach should learn..." blah blah blah.

Fat Joe
11-13-2003, 11:18 PM
thats ok, KC wont have much to talk about when they lose to the BENGALS.

elwaymvp
11-14-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by broncos4ever
When we had Jake we were 4 - 1. Since we lost Jake we have lost 4 games and won one. Seems pretty elementary to me.

We actually lost 3 games and won one after jake went down (what you said would put us at 5-5), but I agree with your point.

broncos4ever
11-14-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by elwaymvp
We actually lost 3 games and won one after jake went down (what you said would put us at 5-5), but I agree with your point.

You know I looked at that twice or three times when I posted it. Even added it up because it looked wrong. I was not counting the game Jake was in that we lost. My mistake.

Thanks for argreeing with the point, I know that was correct.

NOLABroncofan
11-14-2003, 11:28 AM
I'd go with "none of the above" on this. I do think that key injuries had a lot to do with this, but there's also other factors. We lost games that should have been won ( ie... the KC game as well as the NE game ) due to bad play calling as well as some officiating help.

Every week I see the same thing in the articles. <insert Broncs player interviewed here> " We are better than our record suggests. We're just having a hard time coming together as a team and playing to our potential "

Normally I wouldn't be so negative, but I'm getting tired of hearing this. One: Get over it... it's your job to play to your potential; you get paid very well to do so. Two: You have numerous mini camps and training camp to "come together as a team", so stop yacking and get out there and play ball. Three: Here's a concept... play to have fun instead of stressing the W/L record. I truly think that teams who have "fun" play better than those worried about every game. Our two SB teams can attribute to this.

Nuff said...

2 Minute Warning
11-14-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by NOLABroncofan
I'd go with "none of the above" on this. I do think that key injuries had a lot to do with this, but there's also other factors. We lost games that should have been won ( ie... the KC game as well as the NE game ) due to bad play calling as well as some officiating help.

Every week I see the same thing in the articles. <insert Broncs player interviewed here> " We are better than our record suggests. We're just having a hard time coming together as a team and playing to our potential "

Normally I wouldn't be so negative, but I'm getting tired of hearing this. One: Get over it... it's your job to play to your potential; you get paid very well to do so. Two: You have numerous mini camps and training camp to "come together as a team", so stop yacking and get out there and play ball. Three: Here's a concept... play to have fun instead of stressing the W/L record. I truly think that teams who have "fun" play better than those worried about every game. Our two SB teams can attribute to this.

Nuff said...

You took the words right out of my mouth and said it better than I could, thanks

pikman
11-14-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by horseface
I'll bet we'll come up with something to say after we beat them though.

Win or lose i know you'll always have something to say.

spikerman
11-14-2003, 03:53 PM
Chiefs fans may believe that Mike has a rat face; I wonder what Vermeil's face looks like. I can't see through the constant flow of his tears to get a good enough look.

I have been reading on the board from the KC fans about how injuries are no excuse... yada yada yada. I wonder what ol' Vermeil's reaction would have been had they had the same amount of injuries the Broncos have had. Remember when he lost Green in St. Louis? With our injuries you would have to hospitalize the guy!

spikerman
11-14-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by horseface
last I checked...when he lost Green in St. Louis...he rolled up his sleeves...threw in his backup QB and won the Super Bowl. So I'd say Vermeil would tell you that injuries are mose definitely "an excuse"...but Vermeil doesn't use excuses...he plays the hand he's dealt.


True, however, I think almost any coach with that kind of talent can stand to lose one or two players and still be ok. Could Vermeil have stood to lose 7? Look, my point is not to make excuses, but a light hearted attempt to laugh at Vermeil's annoying habit of crying. Obviously the attempt failed and I apologize. You have to admit though, it gets old watching him mount his players on the sideline after a good play. ;)

ReasonableChief
11-14-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by spikerman
True, however, I think almost any coach with that kind of talent can stand to lose one or two players and still be ok. Could Vermeil have stood to lose 7? Look, my point is not to make excuses, but a light hearted attempt to laugh at Vermeil's annoying habit of crying. Obviously the attempt failed and I apologize. You have to admit though, it gets old watching him mount his players on the sideline after a good play. ;)

I know what you mean about the crying, etc. It was a lame act when he was doing it with St. Louis, but of course now it is endearing since it's my team.

Not to compare them personally, but it's kind of like the Romanowski thing: You love hiim if he's on your team, hate him if he's the opponent.

Personally, I kind of miss Romanowski playing. It was always fun to see a helmet come flying in late (usually not too late) on the pile.

spikerman
11-14-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by ReasonableChief
I know what you mean about the crying, etc. It was a lame act when he was doing it with St. Louis, but of course now it is endearing since it's my team.

Not to compare them personally, but it's kind of like the Romanowski thing: You love hiim if he's on your team, hate him if he's the opponent.

Personally, I kind of miss Romanowski playing. It was always fun to see a helmet come flying in late (usually not too late) on the pile.


hahahahaha.. I know what you mean. I can no longer stand to wear my Romanowski jersey. My wife never liked him. She always considered him a "bully". :fight: lol

Javalon
11-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by horseface
last I checked...when he lost Green in St. Louis...he rolled up his sleeves...threw in his backup QB and won the Super Bowl. So I'd say Vermeil would tell you that injuries are mose definitely "an excuse"...but Vermeil doesn't use excuses...he plays the hand he's dealt.

I don't remember Shanny using injuries as an excuse. When asked he says the standard stuff that most coaches say like "This is the NFL. Injuries happen. You just have to deal with it."

But whether the coaches or players admit it, injuries will take a toll. Especially if you have little or no depth at QB. :)

spikerman
11-14-2003, 08:26 PM
I seriously can't remember any year where one team has had this many injuries. I am not making excuses because you have to play the hand you're dealt. It sure seems like we are snake bitten.

A quick question for you Colorado residents. I keep hearing that we have lost alot of speed at linebacker. I'm sure that's true, but I could swear I read somewhere that in college Sykes ran a 4.5 - 40 or something like that. Is that true? If it is, that sounds like speed to me. Maybe not as fast as Mobley or Gold, but not too shabby.

jake meffley
11-15-2003, 10:45 AM
the main reason is of course the loss of plummer.
it is BY NO MEANS the only reason.

here's a bunch more.

1) not realizing before the season that beuerlein was better suited as a coach and signing an ADEQUATE backup prior to the season starting.

2) running three straight times up the middle inside the kc five. punting to dante hall when we had the ball at the fifty, and couldve just as easily kicked it out of bounds. he never shouldve had an opportunity, but when he did the refs shouldve AT LEAST made the call against chris cole since it was right in front of him

3) not realizing after a narrow victory at pittsburgh that beuerlein simply didnt have the skills, and allowing him to start the game at minnesota and play one of the worst halves of football ever by a bronco qb. overpursuing on the last play of the half and giving up a highlight reel touchdown. running up the middle on third AND TEN on the final drive.

4) relying on far too many long passes and timing passes against baltimore. not putting kanell in a situation to succeed, as they did against new england.

5) this is maybe the worst decision in my book, but punting on 4th and less than 3 from the new england 33. doing the same thing from the 35 the next series. abandoning the run on both drives once we got inside their 40. poor clock management. poor preparation on special teams. anderson, o'neal, and the rest of the free kick team being confused, which led to anderson letting the ball past him and inside the twenty.

6) an obvious and epidemic breakdown by coaches and players late in close games.

7) losing or having banged up at various times...
portis,anderson,droughns,mccaffrey,mobley,gold,spr agan,cole,salaam,kennedy,gardener, and others.

losing plummer was HUGE, but this is a talented team regardless that has had many other serious road blocks in a season that i firmly believe couldve been great. the good news? we control our own destiny for a wild card spot, and get our qb back this week. we have tune up games against san diego and chi. (and maybe oakland but it is the raiders superbowl and on the road) before entering the home stretch. all we need to do now is not have a letdown against an obviously inferior team. it starts tomorrow. thank God plummer is back, thank God we're still in the playoff hunt, and GO BRONCOS.

jake

Aardwolf
11-15-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by spikerman
I seriously can't remember any year where one team has had this many injuries. I am not making excuses because you have to play the hand you're dealt. It sure seems like we are snake bitten.

Actually, lots of teams suffer many more injuries than the 2003 Broncos every year, including this year.

New England has suffered about twice as much from injuries this season as the Broncos and they just keep winning.

Last year the Packers had about twice as many injuries as the Broncos have this year and it didn't slow them down until playoff time.

jake meffley
11-15-2003, 04:27 PM
i made it clear in my post that i think there are multiple reasons, but on the injury front its not necessarily the NUMBER of injuries, as much as the quality of player that is injured. i dont think anyone including new england would attempt to argue that their injuries have been as severe as ours from that standpoint

jake

broncos4ever
11-15-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Aardwolf
Actually, lots of teams suffer many more injuries than the 2003 Broncos every year, including this year.

New England has suffered about twice as much from injuries this season as the Broncos and they just keep winning.

Last year the Packers had about twice as many injuries as the Broncos have this year and it didn't slow them down until playoff time.

Again this is an old story and I thought we already talked about this in an old post...

Did New England or Packers have injuries to their first string quarterback or have their second string quarterback go out on IR. What is the most important position on the field??? Quarterback.

That's why with Jake Plummer down we are five and four without a doubt.

Aardwolf
11-17-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by broncos4ever
Again this is an old story and I thought we already talked about this in an old post...

Did New England or Packers have injuries to their first string quarterback or have their second string quarterback go out on IR. What is the most important position on the field??? Quarterback.

That's why with Jake Plummer down we are five and four without a doubt.

In a word, YES! Seems that you have a really short memory. New England just so happens to be one of two teams in the last several that won the Super Bowl with their back up quarterback. Numerous teams have done the very same thing over the years.

The Packers quarterback was also injured but he just kept playing anyway, just like he always does.

Aardwolf
11-17-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by jake meffley
i made it clear in my post that i think there are multiple reasons, but on the injury front its not necessarily the NUMBER of injuries, as much as the quality of player that is injured. i dont think anyone including new england would attempt to argue that their injuries have been as severe as ours from that standpoint

jake

Really? Then how do you explain the feature MNF did during the Broncos-Patriots Monday night game regarding injuries? The feature was all about how the Patriots were winning despite having the most injured players in the NFL and the Broncos were NOT one of the other 4 teams in the comparison.

FYI, the Patriots lost more than half of their defensive starters at one point, including several Pro Bowl quality guys. The problem is you are not looking at all at the situations of other teams. You are only looking at the Broncos from a homeristic perspective. Try looking at the whole NFL and you will see that the Broncos have only suffered an average amount (and quality) of injuries.

Javalon
11-17-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Aardwolf
In a word, YES! Seems that you have a really short memory. New England just so happens to be one of two teams in the last several that won the Super Bowl with their back up quarterback. Numerous teams have done the very same thing over the years.

The Broncos backup QB's were not sufficient to the task. Blame Shanny for having Beuerlein as his #2 QB but even most of the "experts" thought Beuerlein's experience made him the perfect choice. But they didn't take into account his aging arm and fragile finger.

The other teams you refer to generally had starter quality QB's just waiting to be discovered. (e.g. Brady outplays Bledsoe, Bulger outplays Warner) Denver did not.

And even with Krappy Kanell (sorry, but his mop-up play against San Diego irritated me) getting the start, the Broncos were in every game they played; they just didn't pull out the wins.

Shanny will hopefully learn his lesson and get better backup QB's next season. Most of the other backups have played pretty well.

spikerman
11-17-2003, 07:31 PM
My point was not the number of injuries. But if you want to go down that road, some teams may have more injuries than the Broncos, but I would be curious as to how many of those are season ending injuries like the Broncos. Aren't the Broncos up to eight on the IR? I may be wrong and haven't done the research, but I am curious.

Also, New England may have had some injuries here and there, but I don't believe they had any unit as affected as Denver. The first two QBs, starting WR, starting LT, 2 out of 3 starting LBs, and a WR playing cornerback. ;) Our (Denver's) problem is that on the offensive side of the ball they lost the one position they couldn't afford to (QB), and on the defense, the admitted heart and soul, the linebackers, have been decimated

elwaymvp
11-17-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by horseface
I'll bet we'll come up with something to say after we beat them though.

So what is it?

Oh, that's right! You DIDN'T beat them!!!

jake meffley
11-18-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Aardwolf
Really? Then how do you explain the feature MNF did during the Broncos-Patriots Monday night game regarding injuries? The feature was all about how the Patriots were winning despite having the most injured players in the NFL and the Broncos were NOT one of the other 4 teams in the comparison.

FYI, the Patriots lost more than half of their defensive starters at one point, including several Pro Bowl quality guys. The problem is you are not looking at all at the situations of other teams. You are only looking at the Broncos from a homeristic perspective. Try looking at the whole NFL and you will see that the Broncos have only suffered an average amount (and quality) of injuries.

youre certainly entitled to your opinion, but i think you are dead wrong. i feel that way even more after sunday's game. did new england win with their backup qb? yes, but lets see. brady or beuerlein/kanell/jackson. hmmm, that one takes alot of thought.....NOT.

look, i bleed orange and blue, but its zero fun in my book to analyze things while wearing orange tinted glasses. i ALWAYS attempt to view things from a realistic viewpoint, and i think its ludicrous to say that new england's injuries have been as much a factor as denver's. you must look at two things.

1) the quality of player injured, and the position he plays.
2) the quality of the replacement(s)

from this standpoint, denver has had injuries more severe than new england.

all that said, we needed to find a way to win anyway, and we didnt. there's no argument there. if anything, we found ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but that doesnt change the severity of the injuries.

jake

rascal
11-18-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Aardwolf
Actually, lots of teams suffer many more injuries than the 2003 Broncos every year, including this year.

New England has suffered about twice as much from injuries this season as the Broncos and they just keep winning.

Last year the Packers had about twice as many injuries as the Broncos have this year and it didn't slow them down until playoff time.

Has Aardwolf admitted his prior mistake of saying 3x as many injuries? He won't say it, but his change admits the error.

ReasonableChief
11-18-2003, 11:36 AM
Although this stat doesn't qualify the "quality" of player injured, before the Patriots-Cowboys game on Sunday, the announcers said that New England had used 40 or 42 starters this year.

I have no idea what the same stat would be for Denver, but just for comparison purposes, going into the Chiefs-Bengals game, the Chiefs had used 22 starters (i.e., no starter from opening day failed to start, although a couple of projected starters were missing when the season opened; still, the Chiefs have been relatively injury free).

Again, this isn't meant to qualify the quality of injured player (Obviously, losing a QB like Plummer or an LB like Gold is not the same as having a lesser player injured & out).

broncos4ever
11-18-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by rascal
Has Aardwolf admitted his prior mistake of saying 3x as many injuries? He won't say it, but his change admits the error.


If he does. It will be the first time in my recollection. He will have to at the end of the season if the Broncos do better than his predictions though.

Time will tell.

goodluv4Broncos
11-18-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by horseface
I'll bet we'll come up with something to say after we beat them though. Geezas Horse I guess that will be!!! How did they beat us some one shot the sherriff (meaning TG cause he dam sure isn't the sharpest pencil on the desk) Duh, dam used him in a fantasy game biggest mistake I ever made it was one of those last minute jobbers you have to do in a pinch I'll never ask a Chef to do a QB's job at least not that one n....eways. Look at me, Horsehead see all you got to do is say the QB was in fault he didn't perform up to his ability,em care to say why?ROFLMAO>look at me, that's the best reason I could come up with cause it's the truth. Now use it you'll look good saying it>NOT<

brnc fan 14
12-02-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by horseface
I'll bet we'll come up with something to say after we beat them though.

oh really, d*ck--i mean horseface
i couldve sworn you lost to them.

brnc fan 14
12-02-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by spikerman
Chiefs fans may believe that Mike has a rat face; I wonder what Vermeil's face looks like. I can't see through the constant flow of his tears to get a good enough look.

I have been reading on the board from the KC fans about how injuries are no excuse... yada yada yada. I wonder what ol' Vermeil's reaction would have been had they had the same amount of injuries the Broncos have had. Remember when he lost Green in St. Louis? With our injuries you would have to hospitalize the guy!

this is very true. i call him coach d*ck "face" vermeil

kickersarecool
12-02-2003, 10:50 AM
Yeah i think it was because plummer went down, but also because we lost two great linebackers. If they were fit i think we would be top defense in the nfl

palehorse
12-02-2003, 11:03 AM
Aardwolf makes a good point: It's not necessarily injuries that can bring a team down.

After watching the Pats play Indy this week, I think it is safe to say that leadership in the QB position determins the attitude of the team. Peyton second guessed himself, and they lost. Brady has the moniker of being the next comeback kid. The teams in this league who place a charismatic leader under center are the teams that are leading their teams to the playoffs. Same thing happended with Kitna vs. Green. Without Plummer (and losing Beuerlein, the confidence of the Broncos faded).

Let's just hope or QB carries more charisma this weekend...

broncos4ever
12-02-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by palehorse
Aardwolf makes a good point: It's not necessarily injuries that can bring a team down.

After watching the Pats play Indy this week, I think it is safe to say that leadership in the QB position determins the attitude of the team. Peyton second guessed himself, and they lost. Brady has the moniker of being the next comeback kid. The teams in this league who place a charismatic leader under center are the teams that are leading their teams to the playoffs. Same thing happended with Kitna vs. Green. Without Plummer (and losing Beuerlein, the confidence of the Broncos faded).

Let's just hope or QB carries more charisma this weekend...

Let's remember it was an "injury" to Plummer that put him out and put us on a losing streak. Whose knows what would have happened if Plummer was not "injured". The key point we were trying to make was the "quarterback" was the one that was injured and that was trouble for the Broncos.

LLChiefsFan
12-02-2003, 12:08 PM
There are a number of reasons the Broncos are 5-4;
1. Jake Plummer went down, this happens a lot in the NFL but if memory serves me right McNabb went down in the 10th game of the season last year his backup Detmer went down in week 11 and Philly made the playoffs with a third string QB (A.J. Feely, Feely and Detmer combined for a 5-1 run). St Louis went to a Super Bowl and won with a backup QB as did New England with Brady. Whoís fault is it that Denver didnít have a quality backup, and please donít say Beuerlein is quality decent but not one that I would want to rely on for a long period of time heís only had three good seasons out of 17 that was 93 with the Cardinals, 99 and 00 in Carolina. And, to start the season off with one backup is not the brightest thing around. Again whoís decision was that?
2. Mike Shanahan has a rat face, I donít know if it would be called a rats face but who better to know that then Bronco fans. I donít think his outward appearance has anything to do with his lack of success since Elway left. Think about folks, Elway left and Shanahan thought he was a god. I have read this board enough to know that you all do not believe that he is the coach he was when Denver had Elway and Davis in the backfield. Look at some of his bonehead calls this year that lost games for you. Against KC nomatter what you want to say they kicked to Hall and lost, not having a good backup (ok 3rd stringer) Minn, Balt, and NE. Not running Portis when you have the game in your pocket.
3. Bad calls seemed to be the battle cry for the Broncos. Suck it up look at Detroit they have had bad calls left and right for years now. Look at TB against Indy, yes they deserved to lose if you give up that many points at the end of the game but they are not blaming their season on bad calls, Seattle lost on bad calls to Baltimore but they deserved to for the same reason as TB did above. There are bad calls enough to go around. Trust me you guys have gotten your share through out the years.
4. The bottom line it took Denver 32 years to get the perfect combination of a passing game and a running game and until Shanahan realizes that he is not the reason the team won back to back super bowls you wont make it again.
5. Yes I know my team hasnít been there in many many years and we donít have the back to back but one thing our team does know how to do is regroup and rebuild that is why the Chiefs will always be near if not at the top for many years to come.

rascal
12-02-2003, 12:21 PM
1. Our number 1 and number 2 quarterbacks went down. I don't know why you posted this message since we aren't 5-4 anymore, just like how you are 9-0 anymore. We have had many discussions about the importance that the injury of Jake Plummer had on our record. The fact is, we are a better team with him in. And one screwup against the bears is not going to disprove that. If Greene had gone down the chiefs record would be different, just like the Broncos. So this argument is a load of crap.
2. This is a joke. Vermeil is a crybaby so chiefs will never win the SB is just as valid as an arguement.
3. Every coach gets criticized for "bad" calls when they lose. Yes there have been calls that leave some of us going "???" but he is still a good coach.
4. yes it took us 32 but we won two. You have had 30+ years to reclaim your former glory, HA, and you still don't have it. We have a good passing and running game, if we stay healthy and special teams comes together we will be dangerous.
5. If your team is so good at rebuilding and regrouping why haven't they won anything? And why do you think they keep on having to regroup and rebuild? Maybe because they were never that good.

Yes we are only 7-5, still a decent record, but with the injuries we have had we are allright. If we can stay healthy rest of the season and get into the playoffs, watch out, cause we are going to kick everyone's ass. Sure you guys are 11-1, but you haven't faced any adversity or had anything test your resolve. We have, and it has made us better. Because whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

LLChiefsFan
12-02-2003, 01:17 PM
Rascal, what is the topic? I didnít start it I just added something to it. Your boys started it, in fact brnc fan 14 started it I know its late but obviously others are continuing the thread or it wouldnít have been current when I chimed in.

1. Philly was with their third stringer and won. As far as Green going down we would have survived we may not have won as many games as we did but we would have survived because Vermeil knows that his strength is in Holmes and he would have ran him like Shanahan should have run Portis.
2. True, Vermeil get emotional and Shanahan covers things up for his players and lies about his team. (Anderson had been warned before on drugs and Shanahan knew this but told everyone they were surprised when it happened. He also told Plummer to lie about his injury during the SD game). Again FACT.
3. Good coach yes but not great and not a genius. He should stick to coaching and not try and be a front office geek. Here are a few of his front office mistakes.
1) Huge signing bonus & contract paid to Greise - stupid
2) Huge signing bonus & contract paid to Dale Carter - stupid
3) Huge signing bonus & contract paid to big Chester - stupid
4) Huge signing bonus & contract paid to Gardner - stupid
4. If my Aunt had b#### she would be my uncle. You tend to go back to that if we werent hurt. Like the Broncos have been the only team that had to ever deal with injuries.
5. Your right they havenít won anything in the past, and they may not win this year but you will never know because neither will the Broncos as long as Shanahan is still calling the shots.

Injuries again? If this or that again? Please get a new excuse because this one is lame. You got beat against Chicago Jake was there; He looked like crap against Cincy the first week of the season and should have lost (play them now and you would lose). Jakes a good QB donít get me wrong, but he is not great, he never has been and probably never will be. If he was then Shanahan wouldnít have taken the ball out of his hands this past week. Everyone has saw and knows it except for the folks wearing orange and blue colored glasses. Denver is one-dimensional at best. Could they win this week? Yes, because any given Sunday any team could win, even the Broncos.

Reply if you want but I won't because we have spent too much time on this post and its time to move on.

maxgun
12-02-2003, 01:54 PM
The Snake went Down



Originally posted by brnc fan 14
why do you think the broncos are 5 and 4? they were doing so good before...

rascal
12-02-2003, 03:32 PM
I replied because some of your reasons were stupid for the Broncos being 5-4. I don't even know why this thread continues or why you mentioned these reasons in the first place since they obviously aren't 5-4.

You say you would have won, but THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING since your team is lucky and has been injury free. I'm not being bias here, but how can you expect a team with as many injuries as the Broncos have not to struggle. Sure there are maybe of couple of teams that have done well with their 3rd string QB, but that is defintely not the norm. hell, you probably don't even know your 3rd string QB.

I have never heard anything about Shanny saying anything about Mike Anderson being suprised. Anderson was possibly not warned, like I have said before, they can enter stage one on thier own. The whole lying thing, again, it was a game decision and he wasn't punished SO WHO GIVES A *****.

I will not argue about Shanny making mistakes singing players, but we weren't discussing his GM skills we were talking about his coaching skills.

Did I say the Broncos were the only team with injuries. NOOOO. But trust me, if the Broncos get into the playoffs healthy, you will not want to play them. Especially the chiefs who predictably melt. The Broncos will win another SB before the Squaws...guaranteed. And Denver one-dimensional HA. If anything the chiefs are more one-dimensional than anybody. Cause without PH you guys are lost.

It was raining this past week so why not give it to Portis.

And injuries are not an excuse its fact. It (injuries) are why we were 5-4.

brnc fan 14
12-03-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by rascal
I replied because some of your reasons were stupid for the Broncos being 5-4. I don't even know why this thread continues or why you mentioned these reasons in the first place since they obviously aren't 5-4.

You say you would have won, but THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING since your team is lucky and has been injury free. I'm not being bias here, but how can you expect a team with as many injuries as the Broncos have not to struggle. Sure there are maybe of couple of teams that have done well with their 3rd string QB, but that is defintely not the norm. hell, you probably don't even know your 3rd string QB.

I have never heard anything about Shanny saying anything about Mike Anderson being suprised. Anderson was possibly not warned, like I have said before, they can enter stage one on thier own. The whole lying thing, again, it was a game decision and he wasn't punished SO WHO GIVES A *****.

I will not argue about Shanny making mistakes singing players, but we weren't discussing his GM skills we were talking about his coaching skills.

Did I say the Broncos were the only team with injuries. NOOOO. But trust me, if the Broncos get into the playoffs healthy, you will not want to play them. Especially the chiefs who predictably melt. The Broncos will win another SB before the Squaws...guaranteed. And Denver one-dimensional HA. If anything the chiefs are more one-dimensional than anybody. Cause without PH you guys are lost.

It was raining this past week so why not give it to Portis.

And injuries are not an excuse its fact. It (injuries) are why we were 5-4.

the reason i posted this thread, a LONG, LONG time ago (why it goes on i dont know) is because the broncos WERE 5-4 when i wrote this, and the reason i put "shanny has a rat face" as an option, like ive explained twenty times, is because some stupid kc fan said that to me in a different forum

rascal
12-03-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by brnc fan 14
the reason i posted this thread, a LONG, LONG time ago (why it goes on i dont know) is because the broncos WERE 5-4 when i wrote this, and the reason i put "shanny has a rat face" as an option, like ive explained twenty times, is because some stupid kc fan said that to me in a different forum

I was talking to LLchiefsfan on why he decided to give reason for being 5-4. I never said anything about why you included different options. I was simply refuting several of chiefsfan reasons.

I agree this thread seriously needs to die. I won't be responding to this thread in the future.