Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warren cashes in

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jarious17
    This says 42 tackles, 3 sacks:

    http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=188
    Thanks Jarious17, some people cannot see their nose in spite of their face....
    Go Broncos!!! - Hosea 10:12

    Comment


    • #77
      sorry fellas, but i've got to agree with dawgfan here, the official NFL website should be considered the most reliable source for NFL statistics. . . they have no bias and no reason for inaccuracy. . .
      Officially Objectified by the GPA

      rest in peace, darrent williams and damien nash-- you will be missed!!

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Dawgfan
        18 tackles and 2 sacks is well? What do you consider bad then?
        Let's see even if we go with this quote... The NFL site that he mentioned says:


        2005 Denver Broncos 16 19 14.0 5 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 3

        So that would be still 19 tackles and 3 sacks and 3 pass defenses...


        Though it is hard to believe that there are other stats that tell this differently...
        Go Broncos!!! - Hosea 10:12

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by broncos4ever
          Let's see even if we go with this quote... The NFL site that he mentioned says:


          2005 Denver Broncos 16 19 14.0 5 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 3

          So that would be still 19 tackles and 3 sacks and 3 pass defenses...


          Though it is hard to believe that there are other stats that tell this differently...
          I was off by one tackle and one sack and that was from memory. So shoot me. The question still stands. A player has 19 tackles, 3 sacks, and 3 pass defenses - if you consider that 'playing well' what do you consider 'playing badly' ?
          The Browns are gone; I'm not a fan of the Impostors

          The real Browns are in Baltimore, see?

          Comment


          • #80
            i 've heard on other posts we could have possibly saved money. look on "how much cap space do we have now?" for the reson for this. whter this person is right or not, i'm not sure. what he said confused me. Thread is under General Discussion.

            Comment


            • #81
              wait i thought we were about 15 million or so under the cap before we signed warren?? so just cuz we signed him how are we done with FA?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Broncoballa2684
                wait i thought we were about 15 million or so under the cap before we signed warren?? so just cuz we signed him how are we done with FA?
                __________________________________________________ _______________________________________

                We aren't..

                Comment


                • #83
                  we have idiots for managment.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by darrentwilliams
                    we have idiots for managment.
                    then why are we contenders every single year?
                    Officially Objectified by the GPA

                    rest in peace, darrent williams and damien nash-- you will be missed!!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Prolly

                      Originally posted by darrentwilliams
                      we have idiots for managment.
                      __________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

                      Best record in the NFL for the last 10 years.

                      They gotta be doin somethin right.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Broncoballa2684
                        wait i thought we were about 15 million or so under the cap before we signed warren?? so just cuz we signed him how are we done with FA?
                        where did you hear this? Im pretty sure were only about 11 million under. Remember, the cap was raised by 7.5 million, not by 10 million like alot of people thought.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Warren is worth the money. IF he plays like he did last year consistently. I have a feeling he wont, but I hope he proves me wrong. He was hands down the best D lineman we had last year and if we get a good pass rushing DE, we will have addressed our team's biggest problems.

                          Please Gerrard, don't get lazy now that you have the money.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Honestly, the team that got duped was the Ravens. 5 years, 25 million for Pryce? Hmm, I doubt he'll survive next offseason.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by watchthemiddle
                              So, can someone answer how we are going to keep players like Warren and Champ on the team in a couple of years with all this heavy back loading going on???

                              Or is it when the players reach these backloaded contracts we part ways?
                              See Alexander.
                              See Isaac Bruce.
                              See Kampmann.

                              Or, you restructure, thusly pushing everything back even further.
                              But that can bite you in the buttocks later on

                              Capology is in a world of it's own. Only the teams know how to work it (sorry mug) and excel at it.

                              It just leaves us with something to argue about until the season starts......
                              "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
                              tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
                              men."

                              -- Samuel Adams

                              sigpicJacks RULE!!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Dawgfan
                                That's a complete waste. Expect Warren to improve his tackles. He's gonna go up in his tackles to about 30 I'd say and his sack number will stay the same. Typical Warren!
                                Well, since he had 42 last year, he's already ahead of you......
                                "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
                                tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
                                men."

                                -- Samuel Adams

                                sigpicJacks RULE!!!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X