what happend
semaj
happend to the broncos!!!!!
Biff
wrote:
>The broncos started out 6-0 and now they have lost 3 in a row what
>happend to the broncos!!!!!
uh, basically they showed up and those miracle guys that played the
first six games are gone. They're still lucky to have that record,
its just that they're losing the ones they should be winning after
winning the ones they should have lost.
--
biff [hr14...@sneakemail.com]
(put "blackcherry" in the subject line to get through)
_______ ____
| /----/ (____)
c (.).) |Budw|
( (_)) (_)(__)
\ . | | (__)
\___/ | (__)
----
Words of Wisdom for Saturday, October 17, 2009...
Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful,
beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful
sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak,
and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his
feet. And also, you're drunk.
Fred Waiss, Sr.
"Biff" <hr14...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:p1ngg5h9rdqhriehi...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:03 -0800 (PST), semaj <sema...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The broncos started out 6-0 and now they have lost 3 in a row what
>>happend to the broncos!!!!!
>
> uh, basically they showed up and those miracle guys that played the
> first six games are gone. They're still lucky to have that record,
> its just that they're losing the ones they should be winning after
> winning the ones they should have lost.
Actually, I'm going to disagree with some of that. I don't agree that
they should have won against Pittsburgh, and probably not against the Ravens.
They certainly should have won against Washington, but how many teams are going
to win a close game in the second half with their backup QB?
OTOH, the smoke and mirrors that worked in the first 6 games have given
way to reality.
Biff
<wa...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>"Biff" <hr14...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:p1ngg5h9rdqhriehi...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:03 -0800 (PST), semaj <sema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The broncos started out 6-0 and now they have lost 3 in a row what
>>>happend to the broncos!!!!!
>>
>> uh, basically they showed up and those miracle guys that played the
>> first six games are gone. They're still lucky to have that record,
>> its just that they're losing the ones they should be winning after
>> winning the ones they should have lost.
>
> Actually, I'm going to disagree with some of that. I don't agree that
>they should have won against Pittsburgh, and probably not against the Ravens.
>They certainly should have won against Washington, but how many teams are going
>to win a close game in the second half with their backup QB?
> OTOH, the smoke and mirrors that worked in the first 6 games have given
>way to reality.
hmmm, since you're disagreeing with a general statement, I never said
they should have beaten Pitt, I guess I'd better elaborate.
Cin, thought it would be a win, but in retrospect coulda/shoulda lost
that one.
Cle, should have won
Oak, should have won
Ok, stay with me now, here's where things get dicey...
Dal, should have lost, but looking at Dal, not unrealistic to have
pulled it off.
NE, should have lost
SD, should have lost
Bal, probably should have won, but could go either way
Pit, should have lost
Was, should have won. (sheesh, with their best player on the bench no
less)
SD, should have lost
NYG, should lose
KC, should win
Ind, should lose
Oak, should win but could lose
Phi, should lose
KC, should win
hey, I've got us at 8-8. not bad.
RickyBobby
"semaj" <sema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e7af796-7276-4921...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> The broncos started out 6-0 and now they have lost 3 in a row what
> happend to the broncos!!!!!
Kyle no talent rag arm Orton happened.
Adam Smith
> Actually, I'm going to disagree with some of that. I don't agree that
> they should have won against Pittsburgh, and probably not against the Ravens.
> They certainly should have won against Washington, but how many teams are going
> to win a close game in the second half with their backup QB?
> OTOH, the smoke and mirrors that worked in the first 6 games have given
> way to reality.
The teams the Broncos beat earlier are doing better than the teams
that have beaten them lately, though. If we ignore the Chargers due
to the split, the teams the Broncos beat have a combined 25-14 record
(0.641) in non-Broncos games, while the teams the Broncos have lost to
have a combined 11-16 record (0.407) in non-Broncos games.
This isn't a perfect way to look at things of course, because you've
got individual matchup issues between different teams and things like
that. And it's pretty clear that the Chargers, for example, really
are playing better football now than they were a month ago. But
looking at the whole picture, it's kind of hard to say that the
opponents have really gotten tougher.
Cleatarrior
>
>> hey, I've got us at 8-8. not bad.
>
>
> No offense, no defense, no special teams....sorta tough to win in that
> condition.
>
> Thank you MickeyD...you really can't coach.
>
>
Hang on, Nolan gets some grief there too, what happened to the D and
Elvis???
Biff
wrote:
>Biff <hr14...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:6s3kg592rrjo1599b...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> hey, I've got us at 8-8. not bad.
>
>8-8 would be very lucky...
>
>No offense, no defense, no special teams....sorta tough to win in that
>condition.
>
>Thank you MickeyD...you really can't coach.
I was certainly expecting a losing season too. and if coach jr can
get them to 8-8 its probably something good on his part.
Adam Smith
>
> Hang on, Nolan gets some grief there too, what happened to the D and
> Elvis???
I think mainly they're getting worn down due to the lack of offensive
production and spending too much time on the field.
Baltimore
ToP: 33:37
Fourth quarter points: 14 (out of 30)
Pittsburgh
ToP: 33:03
Fourth quarter points: 14 (out of 28)
Washington
ToP: 35:43
Fourth quarter points: 13 (out of 27)
San Diego
ToP: 37:52
Fourth quarter points: 12 (out of 32)
The Chargers had the game well in hand by halftime, but the other
three opponents scored close to half of their total points in the
fourth quarter. Washington in particular didn't get the lead until
there were 3 minutes left in the game, even though the Broncos didn't
score at all in the second half.
Cleatarrior
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Clark <c...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Biff <hr14...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>> news:6s3kg592rrjo1599b...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>> hey, I've got us at 8-8. not bad.
>> 8-8 would be very lucky...
>>
>> No offense, no defense, no special teams....sorta tough to win in that
>> condition.
>>
>> Thank you MickeyD...you really can't coach.
>
> I was certainly expecting a losing season too. and if coach jr can
> get them to 8-8 its probably something good on his part.
I don't think 9-7 is out reach either, with some changes.
Sheffler?
Graham?
Hillis?
Offense?
Oh and that D....
Cleatarrior
I like the stat for sure.
I'm not completely sold that it accounts for the turnovers or the sloppy
play in its entirety.
TV frustrates me, wtf was Bailey doing on Gates anyway on the left side?
They just don't look to be in the same sets any more to me.
Adam Smith
>
> I like the stat for sure.
>
> I'm not completely sold that it accounts for the turnovers or the sloppy
> play in its entirety.
>
> TV frustrates me, wtf was Bailey doing on Gates anyway on the left side?
>
> They just don't look to be in the same sets any more to me.
Turnovers aren't the defense's fault either.
I'm not saying that the defense would still be giving up <10 points
per game if the offense would just step up. I think McDaniels'
offense is suffering because everyone's caught up to his little
surprises and clever wrinkles, and I expect the same is probably true
of Nolan's defense.
But better offense would definitely have won the Washington game, and
I think would have made the Steelers game winnable and give us a long
shot against the Ravens.
Cleatarrior
Probably yes, but with Orton's arm and the safeties playing up, unlikely.
What's missing here, and you noted it in another post, if a consistent
role for the FB, and also , as I've mentioned, credible TE-H-back play.
We're squandering roster talent with a boxed in offense.
But for sure our D is way out of synch and that draft reach for Alphonso
Smith looks like just that - a reach.
Adam Smith
> What's missing here, and you noted it in another post, if a consistent
> role for the FB, and also , as I've mentioned, credible TE-H-back play.
It's not that I think we need a FB per se, just that if you have a
guy like Hillis on the roster it seems like a shame not to get some
use out of him. As a coach you have to install a system you're
comfortable with and know how to run, but the best coaches find ways
to adapt their systems to fit their best players.
Cleatarrior
Which is what Mike did so well, and McD hasn't managed.
Why it it we only ever see Sheffler running sideline routes?
last year he was open a lot deep across the middle.
Biff
wrote:
>> But better offense would definitely have won the Washington game, and
>> I think would have made the Steelers game winnable and give us a long
>> shot against the Ravens.
>
>Probably yes, but with Orton's arm and the safeties playing up, unlikely.
kinda like montana, eh? mr dink and dunk himself? not that you can
compare him and orton, but he didn't air it out much either.
Cleatarrior
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:43:41 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> But better offense would definitely have won the Washington game, and
>>> I think would have made the Steelers game winnable and give us a long
>>> shot against the Ravens.
>> Probably yes, but with Orton's arm and the safeties playing up, unlikely.
>
> kinda like montana, eh? mr dink and dunk himself? not that you can
> compare him and orton, but he didn't air it out much either.
When he had to he did, Dwight Clark - "the catch" and a lot of sweet
Taylor and Rice post routes.
to welker @cumshot.com 4th and 2 BAHAHAHA
"Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
news:hef1mj$pk8$4...@news.datemas.de...
Elvis died in 1977, Thank you very much. Huh
Howard Brazee
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Adam Smith
> Which is what Mike did so well, and McD hasn't managed.
>
> Why it it we only ever see Sheffler running sideline routes?
>
> last year he was open a lot deep across the middle.
This link is (hopefully) all the TEs in the league in 2008 sorted by
average yards per catch:
If you ignore all the guys with 1-2 catches, Scheffler leads the list
at 16.1 yards per catch. That makes him relatively unique as a deep-
ball threat from the TE position.
For 2009, he's fallen to 12.0 yards per catch, putting him pretty much
in the middle of the pack among TEs:
He's got 27 catches in 11 games this year, which projects out to about
the same as the 40 catches he had in the entire 2008 season, so he's
getting the same amount of action, just not the same yardage. So
yeah, basically what you said. I don't think it's really McD misusing
Scheffler per se as much as it is that Scheffler is better suited to
more of a deep-ball passing game a la Shanahan/Cutler.
Shanahan came back to the Broncos as a disciple of the '49ers West
Coast Offense, but he adapted it to fit Elway, who wasn't a strong
short-pass QB. Perhaps McD would have tried to do something similar
if Cutler had still been in Denver, although obviously that wasn't his
first choice.
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 24, 5:52 pm, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>
>> Which is what Mike did so well, and McD hasn't managed.
>>
>> Why it it we only ever see Sheffler running sideline routes?
>>
>> last year he was open a lot deep across the middle.
>
> This link is (hopefully) all the TEs in the league in 2008 sorted by
> average yards per catch:
>
> http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=true&seasonType=REG&statisticPositionCategory=TIGHT_END&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RECEIVING_AVERAGE_YARDS&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=1&d-447263-p=1
>
> If you ignore all the guys with 1-2 catches, Scheffler leads the list
> at 16.1 yards per catch. That makes him relatively unique as a deep-
> ball threat from the TE position.
>
> For 2009, he's fallen to 12.0 yards per catch, putting him pretty much
> in the middle of the pack among TEs:
>
> http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&statisticPositionCategory=TIGHT_END&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RECEIVING_AVERAGE_YARDS&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=1&d-447263-p=1
>
> He's got 27 catches in 11 games this year, which projects out to about
> the same as the 40 catches he had in the entire 2008 season, so he's
> getting the same amount of action, just not the same yardage. So
> yeah, basically what you said. I don't think it's really McD misusing
> Scheffler per se as much as it is that Scheffler is better suited to
> more of a deep-ball passing game a la Shanahan/Cutler.
Spot-on.
> Shanahan came back to the Broncos as a disciple of the '49ers West
> Coast Offense, but he adapted it to fit Elway, who wasn't a strong
> short-pass QB. Perhaps McD would have tried to do something similar
> if Cutler had still been in Denver, although obviously that wasn't his
> first choice.
Great background stats, note where former Bronco Billy Miller is this
year with NO - a career year and games left to go.
I was surprised to see Dallas Clark and Antonio Gates as far down the
list as they are.
Same for Todd Heap, given Flacco's big arm.
And obviously Greg Olsen isn't benefiting much from Cutler's arm.