Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 424
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    229
    Kub said the team needed some leadership. The team was looking for someone to change the momentum. Manning provided that. Not sure if you could see in on the TV but Manning looked pretty darn good, he looked faster getting the ball out than Osweiler. On one pass to Sanders the ball was on its way well before Sanders even broke on the out. I never saw that with Osweiler. Plus he was able to create defensive penalties with his hard count.
    Last edited by Playsmart; 01-03-2016 at 09:31 PM. Reason: sppelling

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by The Experience View Post
    '

    Wow, you pretty much covered everything I wanted to say. Nice!
    I have no doubt they would look to get PN back in as soo. As an opportunity afforded itself. Then again, we had a thread in a report that said BO was the guy moving forward regardless... Both can't be true, no?

    What if we stuck with Brock and we lost?

    What if the majority of the team was telling coach (off the record) they felt PM gave them the best chance to win... What if Elway made the call?

    We really don't know what the best option is... Brock could have the highest ceiling... But he could easily get overwhelmed and put us in a big hole. PM could be another 1 and done...

    I think it all boils down to 1 fact: if BO flops you kick yourself for eternity wondering what PM might have accomplished with this defense and a healthy running game. If PM flops... It hurts but it is not second guessed as
    Much as the alternative.

    PM has 1 rule: no interceptions.

    Brock threw ball too hard to a close WR that led to 1 INT. and he didn't sense pressure that forces 3 more turnovers. He got a bad deal bc Sanders and Anderson coughed it up... But BO needs to be ready bc we should go back to him if Pm struggles.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    766
    Hmm, can't comment on souring on Os during the week, but it does make sense to me the Broncos wanted to see Manning play today. I'm sure they would have preferred it to be a blowout and let Manning play a quarter and a half or so to see how he looked throwing the ball. We may need both QBs in the playoffs and after such a long layoff, it only makes sense they wanted to see what they've got to work with. The timing after the fumble - well, I'd interpret that as a boiling over point after a sloppy first half. Wanted to play Manning anyway and needed to change the dynamic of the game.

    I would not be surprised if we see some of both QBs in two weeks.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Battle Creek MI
    Posts
    5
    Or we could have turned the ball over another 3 time and be a 5th seed wild card next week. This is the Denver Broncos and the won as a team, end of story for the moment anyway.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    6,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Playsmart View Post
    Kub said the team needed some leadership. The team was looking for someone to change the momentum. Manning provided that. Not sure if you could see in on the TV but Manning looked pretty darn good, he looked faster getting the ball out than Osweiler. On one pass to Sanders the ball was on its way well before Sanders even broke on the out. I never saw that with Osweiler. Plus he was able to create defensive penalties with his hard count.
    That's Bos taurus turds. That "spark" came because of the changes they finally made to provide support for the OL. You telling me that CJ and ES's fumbles were because of "lack of leadership"? Come on....

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by gerontion View Post
    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.

    This. It's absurd to think there is any kind of agenda to get manning in the game. A week or two back kubiak said manning is the starter when healthy. Manning gets healthy and what happens? Brock is still starting. no one is crying about the raw deal manning got dealt. And did he complain? Nope. HoFer that sat on the bench as a backup and didn't say anything about it until called upon to play...and then went out and led the team to 20 points in a half of play.

    And you guys are pissing and moaning about Brock getting a raw deal and in the next breath claim to only want whoever is going to help the Broncos win the most.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    229
    No, but when a team feels like things are going south. They need someone who can lead them and bring back the faith. Manning provided that today.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by fraguela09 View Post
    I have no doubt they would look to get PN back in as soo. As an opportunity afforded itself. Then again, we had a thread in a report that said BO was the guy moving forward regardless... Both can't be true, no?

    What if we stuck with Brock and we lost?

    What if the majority of the team was telling coach (off the record) they felt PM gave them the best chance to win... What if Elway made the call?

    We really don't know what the best option is... Brock could have the highest ceiling... But he could easily get overwhelmed and put us in a big hole. PM could be another 1 and done...

    I think it all boils down to 1 fact: if BO flops you kick yourself for eternity wondering what PM might have accomplished with this defense and a healthy running game. If PM flops... It hurts but it is not second guessed as
    Much as the alternative.

    PM has 1 rule: no interceptions.

    Brock threw ball too hard to a close WR that led to 1 INT. and he didn't sense pressure that forces 3 more turnovers. He got a bad deal bc Sanders and Anderson coughed it up... But BO needs to be ready bc we should go back to him if Pm struggles.

    This is what I keep asking myself as well. As a coach or gm, could I live with myself if I fail to win a SB with this team with manning sitting on the bench? Probably not. With Brock? Yeah.


    Manning still gives the Broncos the best shot of winning,

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Madison,WI
    Posts
    18,339
    Got to give the coaches credit. For as much flack as they were getting (much deserved at times) for not making in game adjustments, calling #18 totally changed the execution of the offense. It clicked..

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,787
    Broncos have their field general back. The haters don't want to admit they he actually looked fresh and healthy for the first time all year. Hopefully this turns into the Cinderella story we are all hoping for

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    117
    Manning had 69 yards. Glad we won but....come on 69 yards? Im not buying into that. Are you all?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Posts
    360
    I'm just glad Kubiak finally made an adjustment, regardless of if it was Brocks fault or not (obviously wasn't), something needed to change. I have no doubt that if Manning remains the starter and he or the offense as a whole struggles at all, Brock will be back in. It sucks having a qb controversy, but it's nice having 2 qbs that have both shown they can be effective as opposed to having a controversy with 2 crappy qbs (ask Houston).

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by fraguela09 View Post
    ....
    Brock threw ball too hard to a close WR that led to 1 INT. and he didn't sense pressure that forces 3 more turnovers. He got a bad deal bc Sanders and Anderson coughed it up... But BO needs to be ready bc we should go back to him if Pm struggles.
    I wish people would quit repeating what that that blowhard announcer said. It doesnt even make sense. It hit the receiver in the hands. Catch the ball.

    If he throws to soft or slower it gives the defenders a better shot at an INT.

    I understand having touch on the ball when you throw goal line fades or lob the ball between the LB and the secondary but going across the middle not so much.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,283
    Quote Originally Posted by fraguela09 View Post
    I have no doubt they would look to get PN back in as soo. As an opportunity afforded itself. Then again, we had a thread in a report that said BO was the guy moving forward regardless... Both can't be true, no?

    What if we stuck with Brock and we lost?

    What if the majority of the team was telling coach (off the record) they felt PM gave them the best chance to win... What if Elway made the call?

    We really don't know what the best option is... Brock could have the highest ceiling... But he could easily get overwhelmed and put us in a big hole. PM could be another 1 and done...

    I think it all boils down to 1 fact: if BO flops you kick yourself for eternity wondering what PM might have accomplished with this defense and a healthy running game. If PM flops... It hurts but it is not second guessed as
    Much as the alternative.

    PM has 1 rule: no interceptions.

    Brock threw ball too hard to a close WR that led to 1 INT. and he didn't sense pressure that forces 3 more turnovers. He got a bad deal bc Sanders and Anderson coughed it up... But BO needs to be ready bc we should go back to him if Pm struggles.
    It's this flip flopping that will kill us. We can't continue to do that. Manning is our guy. And given the post season history, I'm concerned. Even more concerning is how our team played before and after Manning. Manning didn't do a whole lot IMO, but all the sudden our team became alert and decided to focus. To me, that says our offensive players are not very mentally strong.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,283
    Quote Originally Posted by rkymntskier View Post
    I'm just glad Kubiak finally made an adjustment, regardless of if it was Brocks fault or not (obviously wasn't), something needed to change. I have no doubt that if Manning remains the starter and he or the offense as a whole struggles at all, Brock will be back in. It sucks having a qb controversy, but it's nice having 2 qbs that have both shown they can be effective as opposed to having a controversy with 2 crappy qbs (ask Houston).
    You've heard the quote, if you have 2 QBs, you have none.

Posting Permissions

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