So do I. Given a choice between wild inconsistency and that doofus with the enormous head, I went with the doofus.
NFL 2015
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
So do I. Given a choice between wild inconsistency and that doofus with the enormous head, I went with the doofus.
Caledvwlch
New member
Guy, he never had a rocket, but he's always been underestimated. He's a timing passer with enough on the ball to move it downfield. A guy whose arm is gone literally couldn't make the throw I noticed the other day and one the commentator, seeing, remarked, "That's the end of speculating about Peyton's arm" or something to that effect.
More than his heyday, but that's true of anyone. Look, either he can make the out or he can't, either he can make the opposite sideline across his body throw or he can't. And he still can. He's not Rodgers, but then he never was. You're a Bronco fan. I'm a Colts guy. I've watched him his entire career. Decline? Anyone at his age is, but at this point in his he's still better than more than half the starters in the league and if you moved him back to his old offense no one would be talking about him as worriedly. But he's in a new one that asks him to do different things and takes him out of his comfort zone. That impacts any qb. It will improve.
He didn't drop off last year. He got hurt and tried to play through it. For someone with an average nfl arm, not being able to use legs is a death sentence and hence the floaters and the disaster. He pushed a few through but couldn't keep a consistent zip. And that was that.
Thomas and (once I looked at the numbers and beyond the one deep catch) Sanders just had bad days. They mostly won't. There's one new speedster I can't remember who just didn't know how to read the defense enough to move his route and he lost them a couple of real opportunities, but on the whole it was simply a down day for an offense that is still figuring itself out and likely will continue to for a few more weeks.
But again, if the running game continues to show signs, there's reason for Broncos fans to be very happy about the playoff picture in front of it.
A lot to learn and change. I thought it would take half the regular season just to work the kinks out, but it's gone a little slower than I hoped. Thank you D.
Green Bay had to fight, at home to beat San Diego. And they're coming to Denver. You can win that game and I'd have you a 1 pt favorite going in. Going back to Indy? You should be a conservative 3 pt favorite as it sits. New England has to come to you and it's five tune up weeks away. Right now I'd have that a Pats and a td, and the Bengals come to you late, but right now I'd have you a 2 pt favorite over them. That's a tough stretch, but luckily it isn't actually a stretch, with a number of games between them that are winnable and opportunities to keep growing the offense.
Again, only New England holds a decided edge and that game is far enough away to negate it by the time you get there. Tough games, but no reason to be pessimistic.
Radically? If you went there now it's 7. Go there unchanged by playoffs and it's likely double that. But New England isn't going to play much better than they are right now and by any reasonable estimation your guys aren't playing up to their talent on offense yet.
Be of good cheer.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Yeah, I remember that remark and immediately I thought, geez, you're being nice. That throw to Sanders was a good nice spiral with some zip to it, but we see that ball only a couple times a game now. And we see too many just off target. They've been trying the long ball to Sanders all year, this is the first time they hooked up.
His rating says he's not better than half. But I'd still take him over the bottom half. How much of this is due to the new offense? I don't know. The thinking was they needed a running game to go the distance, like Elway did. However all the offseason moves and big salaries went everywhere but the O line. That didn't help. The new offense had him under center. They dropped that in the 3rd week and the passing game did improve.
Thomas needs to start having good days with that huge new contract he signed. Sanders is always sharp, I suppose partly due to Thomas getting the defenses best corner though. The running game showed a little spark this week, but against one of the worst running defenses.
Well, you'd like to play your best football in December and January. So, lets see.
I'm actually a pretty optimistic person, except with sports, hmmmm.
Radically means having the offense scoring more than 24 a game. With this defense that ought to be enough. (I'd also like to see Thomas with more TDs than Aquib Talib) So by radical I mean slight improvement. :cheers:
I wasn't thinking about the downfield play for arm strength. The across the body/field throw was a better indicator. He can still make all the NFL throws.
That's a system problem or an integration problem. His coach has said as much. I'd take him over all but three or four, but I'd put him in the shotgun and let him run the offense he wants. It's kind of simple. He isn't weaker or less intelligent than last year and before the injury, in the old offense, he was lighting people up.
There we're on the same page, though they must have seen something and, again, the running game didn't look bad...of course, Cleveland isn't very good against the run.
I think they should let him run the old offense with this new improved defense, but they're determined to run different sets. So be it. That can work too and maybe it will be a better fit by playoffs and better in the cold climes. It's a gamble to be sure.
Yeah. Thomas was inexcusably bad and that hurt Sanders, who went 4 on 11 targets.
Reason to have hope.
:chuckle: Well, it's been a while in Denver.
Oh, then radical shouldn't be hard to manage.
:cheers:
Speaking of radical...
| Colts' Genius Play | |
8-6 Stayed with the pick on a hunch I should have followed with New Orleans. Much needed in this bloodbath of a week. I'll take it. :smack:
From Yahoo Sports:
"If another quarterback had seven touchdowns, 10 interceptions, a paltry 6.4 yards per attempt (that's tied for 34th in the NFL among all players with at least 35 pass attempts), a 72.5 rating (dead last among NFL starting quarterbacks) and three pick-sixes, it would be a foregone conclusion that we'd be discussing a quarterback change."
"If another quarterback had seven touchdowns, 10 interceptions, a paltry 6.4 yards per attempt (that's tied for 34th in the NFL among all players with at least 35 pass attempts), a 72.5 rating (dead last among NFL starting quarterbacks) and three pick-sixes, it would be a foregone conclusion that we'd be discussing a quarterback change."
Well, if someone who writes for Yahoo sports thinks we should overlook all but the most recent data and pretend that data is singularly reflective of the quarterback play and not any other factors, then sure, that's a real astute observation. [/sarcastic rebuttal of appeal to ill-considered authority]
Went about as well as your Giants pick.
But on the plus side, I'm really going to enjoy it if my old guy beats your old guy in the playoffs.
Well, if someone who writes for Yahoo sports thinks we should overlook all but the most recent data and pretend that data is singularly reflective of the quarterback play and not any other factors, then sure, that's a real astute observation. [/sarcastic rebuttal of appeal to ill-considered authority]
Went about as well as your Giants pick.
But on the plus side, I'm really going to enjoy it if my old guy beats your old guy in the playoffs.
TH, I get you being a fan and all but this is kind of ridiculous. He's not himself anymore and is simply not playing well. When it comes to Peyton, you're a zealot. At this rate it's not cute or noble or loyal; it's frankly getting weird. 'Nuff said.
If you honestly think he comes into snowy Foxborough and succeeds, you're...optimistic.
I agree that finding an anonymous writer turning out copy who examines the numbers without context and suggesting that's a reasonable approach is being ridiculous.
There are reasons for anyone who likes either the Broncos or Peyton to be concerned, from the way the offense is and isn't running to the age and injury concerns that come with having him under center and sacked this often. I'm all for objective dissection, but not for whatever that was, when what it clearly wasn't is reasonable.
Any quarterback with Peyton's history would be treated differently in the same circumstances than would someone playing the position in a vacuum and/or without his established credentials. And they should be. Because history matters and because there are mitigating factors here for anyone to understand, unless they have a different agenda...either to move conversation and copy or because its in their own best interest for the truth to be something unfortunate for the Broncos.
Here's all we know. Peyton is old for a quarterback. And he's long past his physical prime. No one would argue that. But until he was injured last year he was putting up numbers that were astonishing at any age. This year, under a new system, playing out of his usual scheme, he isn't. Some of that is on him. Some of it is on his support, which has been spotty, from line play to dropped balls. But I think most of it goes to the scheme. Why? Because I've seen him make throws this year that testify to his arm being strong enough and I have no reason to think he's lost his capacity to understand defenses.
He's under center instead of living out of the shotgun. Huge mistake for a qb who isn't that mobile. Result? He's being sacked at a record rate for Peyton, which in turn is going to wear him down faster if they don't fix it.
You sound like the right wingers who want to label me a liberal because I give serious push back to right wing extremism. I'm not a liberal and I'm not a zealot. I simply have pushed back hard on Peyton.
When he came out of college there was serious debate over whether he or Leaf would be the better choice, with Peyton called the most ready but with the least upside, a so-so arm and a relatively limited mobility. How'd that work out? I said at the time that people were allowing his lack of championship wins and contention drive a mistaken perception of his talent and potential.
I'm feeling pretty good about that assessment. And I wasn't exactly a Vols fan.
It's always telling to me, the instruments people use in defense of or attacking a notion. When they can't manage it without personalizing it I know two things: first, they have an emotional stake in the proposition or outcome and second, that the stake drives their thinking and not the other way around. What's weird here is your willingness to couch it that way. But then you're a Pats fan. I expect a little cheating.
I don't know that he'll have to. I don't know that he can. It's too early in the season. At this point there's reason to hope if you're a fan of him or the Broncos. I think your guys have peaked too early and I don't know of anyone who would seriously contend the Broncos are playing at the top of their form or near it.
The rest is schedule and seeing.
Two things:
You said the Pats peaked too early last year, if memory serves. In fact you kind of kept on saying that.
Two, I am close to through to ever discussing Peyton frigging Manning with you again. You act and sound...bizarre. Weird. Frankly, it creeps me out a little. I am not kidding. If you want to sneer at my golden boy quarterback, go right ahead. I'll take him and his rings over the aw-shucks fella with the pedigree any day of the week.
It is what it is.
Soooooooooo, just gonna step away from that subject, for now. Sorry, but when #18 comes up, something real funny comes over you. Can't do it anymore, pal.
You said the Pats peaked too early last year, if memory serves. In fact you kind of kept on saying that.
Two, I am close to through to ever discussing Peyton frigging Manning with you again. You act and sound...bizarre. Weird. Frankly, it creeps me out a little. I am not kidding. If you want to sneer at my golden boy quarterback, go right ahead. I'll take him and his rings over the aw-shucks fella with the pedigree any day of the week.
It is what it is.
Soooooooooo, just gonna step away from that subject, for now. Sorry, but when #18 comes up, something real funny comes over you. Can't do it anymore, pal.
He did the same thing with me over Johnny Manziel.
I think TH works for the SEC. In fact he may really be SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey :chuckle:
Anyone who posts something negative about an SEC quarterback gets TH's full wrath.
You'll have to quote me. I don't recall it.
Each year I run numbers on teams. The ones that contend late end up in a 30 range and almost always get there within the last few weeks of the season ending, sometimes later. They rarely find that form by mid season and sustain it, though now and then they can dip and return, provided. That can happen with teams on historic runs. I think it happened when the Pats went one game away from a perfect run, but I'd have to check and see. On the whole I'm comfortable with my observations and speculations given I have a pretty good track record when it comes to calling games and SB champs.
So you keep saying. Like I said in my last, your personalizing it is the only weird thing going on here. I think I understand it. We're talking about two of the greatest to play the game and who are linked in the discussion/debate about greatness. On some level, given the disparate success in the big game, that has to irritate any New England fan. I mean, on some level, were I in your shoes, I'd be wondering how many rings does my guy have to win to not be part of a debate on this?
Now I happen to think Montana was better than either, though I never rooted for him, but a lot of people will put both of them in the conversation the way they once did Montana and Marino, or Elway.
So you said a couple of times already. But you're only making one of us look bad by continuing that drumbeat. I can live with it. Suit yourself. I'm not responding in kind.
You'll literally never quote me doing that. But you will find me calling him a terrific qb and one of the best I've ever seen. And you'll also find me fairly complimentary of both your coach and your owner.
Winning is the only thing? A lot of people will agree with you. I don't think most would find slighting the popular perception of Manning as self effacing and likable or knocking him for coming from a respected and talented family, within the confines of the NFL and outside of it, is necessarily the way to go. But then I don't think calling me weird or creepy for being as set in my objection as I am is the way to go either.
To each his own.
And yet I haven't spent any time attacking you or even your favorite player in defending one of mine from emotional and factually deficient nonsense.
So maybe your stepping away is good for at least one of us. :e4e:
Thanks. That contextualizes your support nicely. For those interested, Tet recently called Manziel a drunken abuser of women without any material support. I'll link it in a minute.
I don't like Johnny football. But I like unreasonable character assassination and innuendo paraded as fact even less. I don't have to like you or agree with you to disagree with anyone treating you unfairly.
Well I sure do. Your NFL 2014 thread. Dig it up if you like; "they peaked early" became your mantra around week ten, or something. I find it hard to believe this completely slipped your mind.
And yet with this analysis "They peaked early" just completely dropped from your mind? As you insist, pal.:chuckle:
Sorry, but it is what it is. There's a zealot's earnestness to you whenever you discuss Peyton. I can enjoy that to a point but after a while--and I don't care who or what the subject is--it can get both disconcerting and exasperating. I'd feel the same way dealing with a guy who can't shut up about Brady or can't find any fault in him. Seriously.
Well that discussion's simmered somewhat since he got ring number four, at least around here. Should he win a fifth, I for one consider the subject completely closed. He might not have to, though, the way he's still playing.
Uh, that's because I'm not giving you reason to.:chuckle:
Oh, my bad. The "cheating" jibe just smears the whole organization, not him personally.
Maybe I should have just said "lighten up" and let it go at that. Who knows. This response of yours just proves my point.
Quote me. Literally. I'm not saying I didn't say it, I'm saying if you're going to establish a thing, quote me doing it.
Like if I'm going to say I've been positive in my estimation of Brady at his position I'd give you:
Now that's harsh.
I'm not trusting your perception of it as an ongoing mantra. I'm not even entirely sure I said it early. It's possible. But I'd like to see it and then look to see if it happened how I approached it, at what week and if I, as you suggest, kept saying it. If they hit the number early I can see my noting it, but the rest is thinner. And so my request.
I think its just your Brady bit and your emotionalism as a Pats fan. I don't have that level of investment, probably because we don't even have a team in my state, let alone one near me that I'd root for or identify with. It seems to notch things a bit for fans.
Which would be a more compelling point to my mind if most of my discourse on Peyton wasn't responsive. But it is and always has been. I get the same garbage about defending liberals around here. And I do, because so much of what's said around here is attacking liberals and much of that irrationally. I don't have to be one to find that objectionable or to raise objection.
Absent injury, I can see him playing into his forties comfortably, if they let him. I don't think the discussion is over outside of New England and the Pats fan base though. I suspect it never will be. Who knows?
lain: Well, that's consistent. Oh, I think he's a cheater. I know his coach is. So was Pete Rose. Still a great player.
This is just getting ridiculous. You...you do know that, right?:noid:
I remember you saying it more than once. Don't know what else to tell ya.
It's your old thread. Dig it up yourself (if you can; the search functionality here leaves something to be desired).
I'm a big fan, yes, but I don't think I'm the one over-emotionalizing here. I made the mistake of pointing out Peyton's not himself and that observers who are paid to write this stuff for a living have noted recently that his decline is obvious, noticeable, and would put anyone else in his position on a very warm seat. You're consistently incapable or unwilling of ever putting much blame on #18's shoulders. That's an endearing trait for a fan--to a point. But sooner or later the writing's on the wall.
Stay classy.:yawn:
"I'm in fear for my life." - Colleen Crowley (Johnny Manziel's girlfriend) on the dashcam video.
Didn't learn anything from the last time then. Here it is:
That's irresponsible. He wasn't drunk, to begin addressing it. The only marks on her were consistent with his claim to having grabbed her when she attempted to exit a still moving vehicle. The only drunk on the scene was the young woman, whose narrative changed, whose speech was slurred and who used profanity and invoked the "my dad's a lawyer" routine to the point where the officer warned her that she was in danger of a drunk and disorderly charge.
She thereafter alleged that Johnny pushed her head into the window and struck her more than once. There were no marks to corroborate the story. The only injury was an abrasion on her wrist consistent with Manziel's story of attempting to restrain her.
So he grabs her wrist and she has an abrasion but we're to believe he hit her a few times and pushed her head into a window without leaving any discernible marks?
lain: She then told the officer she didn't feel threatened and that she wasn't interested in charges. Added: and when offered the chance to be driven elsewhere or call someone she declined and said that she was okay with leaving with him.I practiced under the VAWA banner for the better part of a decade. I have zero tolerance for domestic abuse, but about as much for people who attempt to use the allegation of it for some other means.
- Status