Denver Broncos Pregame Thread

[J. Kapp 11]

Case in point ...

Leading up to the Dallas game, Colin Cowherd says, "The Vikings are fool's gold."

Vikings beat the Cowboys, Cowherd says, "I've been saying all year ... Minnesota has the most talented roster in the NFL. They can go far."

Amazing how the talking heads jump on whatever bandwagon seems the most comfy.

I don’t know that the two statements are mutually exclusive.

On defense you have Barr (1st), Kendricks (2nd), Rhodes (1st), Wayne’s (1st), Alexander (2nd), Hughes (1st), and Smith (1st). Hunter was a 3rd rounder and Linval was a big FA pickup. On offense you have a $84M QB, Diggs, Thielen, Cook, Mattison, Rudolph, and Smith. The line also has two 1st round picks (Reiff and Bradbury) and a 2nd in O’Neil.

So on paper they likely are one of the more talented rosters. Which I think then begs the question, why hasn’t there been more success? I take the fools gold comment to mean the performance and execution hasn’t lived up to the roster talent. On paper, this is a team that should contend. Not a team that gets eliminated from playoff contention, at home, against a team playing with nothing to gain. Or a team that gets absolutely embarrassed in the NFCC game when they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to play in the SB at home.

Maybe this year will be different. But right now this is a wildcard team, which still fits the narrative. The Vikings were really hyped by the media coming into last year. I don’t really see the comments as a lack of respect, I think it’s more a case of this team has a penchant for big letdowns. Until that stops, fans and talking heads alike are always going to be skeptical.

I guess you actually had to hear the take. I didn't describe it very well.

Cowherd went from totally dismissive to singing their praises, as if he always has sung their praises. But he hasn't. Not even in 2017, when the people on his show were telling him the Vikings were poised for a deep run.

It's the same issue I take on this board. It's EASY to follow the history of the Vikings and predict they'll choke. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's easy. It's a lot harder to make the argument that they might break the trend.

However, I agree that until they overcome their penchant for losing in the biggest games, that take will always be easy. I have a lot more respect for people like Greg Cosell of NFL Films, who told Cowherd that the Vikings might be the best team in the NFC, despite their three losses. Maybe that's because it's what I want to hear, I don't know. But that's a lot tougher argument to make than to say they'll falter.

[CharVike]

We have a good team there is no doubt about that. What gets under my skin is we should have beat that Chief squad. They had nothing at QB. A top level team beats them. Getting down 21-0 to Green Bay really put us in a bind. It's almost impossible at that point. The only story we are to the media is to rip us for signing Cousins. Now that we are winning it's getting harder to do that. Even after we beat Dallas as road dogs the talk was all about how great Dak is. Some fans are like that to. The guy lost a home favorite game. Could have stretch there division lead. If we get beat Sunday they will be right back with the terrible Cousins signing stuff.

Trying to catch the logic of your posts is like trying to put shoes on a chicken.

Again, your failure to acknowledge good quarterback play is absolutely baffling.

You blast Dak Prescott for throwing for 397 yards in a loss. Yet Matt Moore threw for 275 and WON and he's "nothing." Just ... wow. You know, it's actually possible for a quarterback to play well against us.

Dak lost as a home favorite and you think that was a great performance because his stats were through the roof. He didn't win. That's the stat I care about. Maybe that's flawed logic and the win or lose means nothing. Matt Moore is nothing. Yes he won. Our defense didn't shut him down. He did win. I know QBs can play good against us. I seen Nick Foles tear us a new one in the champ game. IMO Nick Foles isn't that great of a QB. Others might think he's one of the best of all time. I seen Rodgers play well against us. I think he's a good QB. Other might say he sucks. Someone posted an experts graph and Cousins is much better than Rodgers based on that. I don't buy that logic. Maybe you do.
In the NFL, the quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Maybe that is flawed logic for both but that is what's used. Dak played great but got the lose. It wasn't good enough. Why is that baffling.

[StumpHunter]

Trying to catch the logic of your posts is like trying to put shoes on a chicken.

Again, your failure to acknowledge good quarterback play is absolutely baffling.

You blast Dak Prescott for throwing for 397 yards in a loss. Yet Matt Moore threw for 275 and WON and he's "nothing." Just ... wow. You know, it's actually possible for a quarterback to play well against us.

Dak lost as a home favorite and you think that was a great performance because his stats were through the roof. He didn't win. That's the stat I care about. Maybe that's flawed logic and the win or lose means nothing. Matt Moore is nothing. Yes he won. Our defense didn't shut him down. He did win. I know QBs can play good against us. I seen Nick Foles tear us a new one in the champ game. IMO Nick Foles isn't that great of a QB. Others might think he's one of the best of all time. I seen Rodgers play well against us. I think he's a good QB. Other might say he sucks. Someone posted an experts graph and Cousins is much better than Rodgers based on that. I don't buy that logic. Maybe you do.
In the NFL, the quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Maybe that is flawed logic for both but that is what's used. Dak played great but got the lose. It wasn't good enough. Why is that baffling.

He played great up until his team needed him to step up, and he didn't, which is a big reason his team lost. Questionable play calling also played a role, his defense allowing like 7 straight runs all the way into the end zone on the Vikings last TD drive, played a role, but the QB faltering on his last best chance to go ahead of the Vikings was ultimately the deciding factor in the game.

However, as I pointed out on the previous page, that is the exception to Dak's career, not the norm.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Trying to catch the logic of your posts is like trying to put shoes on a chicken.

Again, your failure to acknowledge good quarterback play is absolutely baffling.

You blast Dak Prescott for throwing for 397 yards in a loss. Yet Matt Moore threw for 275 and WON and he's "nothing." Just ... wow. You know, it's actually possible for a quarterback to play well against us.

Dak lost as a home favorite and you think that was a great performance because his stats were through the roof. He didn't win. That's the stat I care about. Maybe that's flawed logic and the win or lose means nothing. Matt Moore is nothing. Yes he won. Our defense didn't shut him down. He did win. I know QBs can play good against us. I seen Nick Foles tear us a new one in the champ game. IMO Nick Foles isn't that great of a QB. Others might think he's one of the best of all time. I seen Rodgers play well against us. I think he's a good QB. Other might say he sucks. Someone posted an experts graph and Cousins is much better than Rodgers based on that. I don't buy that logic. Maybe you do.
In the NFL, the quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Maybe that is flawed logic for both but that is what's used. Dak played great but got the lose. It wasn't good enough. Why is that baffling.

No...Dak didn't lose as a home favorite. The Cowboys lost as a home favorite. Never saw the QB credited with Wins & Losses in their stats. And if they were, it would be just as stupid as a pitcher being credited with them as baseball does. It's obvious to me that whoever was the first one to think it was a good idea to have a Wins & Losses stat associated with any single position, knows nothing about TEAM sports. You win as a team...you lose as a team.

[Svt40]

Trying to catch the logic of your posts is like trying to put shoes on a chicken.

Well I no longer need to read this thread anymore. That made my day!

[J. Kapp 11]

Trying to catch the logic of your posts is like trying to put shoes on a chicken.

Again, your failure to acknowledge good quarterback play is absolutely baffling.

You blast Dak Prescott for throwing for 397 yards in a loss. Yet Matt Moore threw for 275 and WON and he's "nothing." Just ... wow. You know, it's actually possible for a quarterback to play well against us.

Dak lost as a home favorite and you think that was a great performance because his stats were through the roof. He didn't win. That's the stat I care about. Maybe that's flawed logic and the win or lose means nothing. Matt Moore is nothing. Yes he won. Our defense didn't shut him down. He did win. I know QBs can play good against us. I seen Nick Foles tear us a new one in the champ game. IMO Nick Foles isn't that great of a QB. Others might think he's one of the best of all time. I seen Rodgers play well against us. I think he's a good QB. Other might say he sucks. Someone posted an experts graph and Cousins is much better than Rodgers based on that. I don't buy that logic. Maybe you do.
In the NFL, the quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Maybe that is flawed logic for both but that is what's used. Dak played great but got the lose. It wasn't good enough. Why is that baffling.

Why can't you understand the simple thing I'm saying?

A quarterback can play well in defeat -- even play a great game. It's happened thousands of times in the history of the NFL.

A loss doesn't make a QB bad. Dan Marino is in the Hall of Fame, for crying out loud. Never won a Super Bowl. But by your logic, he was a bad quarterback. A loser. A nobody. Apparently Philip Rivers is a bad QB. Same with Matthew Stafford. Hell, Peyton Manning lost to the Patriots 12 times in 17 games. What a failure.

I'm also tired of you assigning views to me that I've never stated. Where did Aaron Rodgers enter into this conversation? Who in their right mind would think Aaron Rodgers is a bad quarterback? He may be a horse's a$$, but he can play. I never said he couldn't. I never said Cousins is better than Rodgers. I never once mentioned the name of Nick Foles. I never said any of the nonsense you've posted. I only said that Dak Prescott, in this one game, played exceptionally well in defeat. I never even said he was a good quarterback. Only that he played really well in THIS GAME. Yes, his team lost. But he played fantastic football in defeat. Every single level-headed analyst, fan, hobo, and pet rabbit has said the same thing. It's not a hot take. Yet you seem thoroughly incapable of understanding an incredibly simple premise that most 4-year-olds can comprehend.

I'm done with this conversation. Your incoherent babbling makes me want to kick a puppy.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Your incoherent babbling makes me want to kick a puppy.

Please dont!

[S197]

I don’t know that the two statements are mutually exclusive.

On defense you have Barr (1st), Kendricks (2nd), Rhodes (1st), Wayne’s (1st), Alexander (2nd), Hughes (1st), and Smith (1st). Hunter was a 3rd rounder and Linval was a big FA pickup. On offense you have a $84M QB, Diggs, Thielen, Cook, Mattison, Rudolph, and Smith. The line also has two 1st round picks (Reiff and Bradbury) and a 2nd in O’Neil.

So on paper they likely are one of the more talented rosters. Which I think then begs the question, why hasn’t there been more success? I take the fools gold comment to mean the performance and execution hasn’t lived up to the roster talent. On paper, this is a team that should contend. Not a team that gets eliminated from playoff contention, at home, against a team playing with nothing to gain. Or a team that gets absolutely embarrassed in the NFCC game when they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to play in the SB at home.

Maybe this year will be different. But right now this is a wildcard team, which still fits the narrative. The Vikings were really hyped by the media coming into last year. I don’t really see the comments as a lack of respect, I think it’s more a case of this team has a penchant for big letdowns. Until that stops, fans and talking heads alike are always going to be skeptical.

I guess you actually had to hear the take. I didn't describe it very well.

Cowherd went from totally dismissive to singing their praises, as if he always has sung their praises. But he hasn't. Not even in 2017, when the people on his show were telling him the Vikings were poised for a deep run.

It's the same issue I take on this board. It's EASY to follow the history of the Vikings and predict they'll choke. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's easy. It's a lot harder to make the argument that they might break the trend.

However, I agree that until they overcome their penchant for losing in the biggest games, that take will always be easy. I have a lot more respect for people like Greg Cosell of NFL Films, who told Cowherd that the Vikings might be the best team in the NFC, despite their three losses. Maybe that's because it's what I want to hear, I don't know. But that's a lot tougher argument to make than to say they'll falter.

I can definitely see Cowherd talking out both sides of his mouth. He's like Jim Cramer, you do hot takes and recommend 50 stocks then come back and take credit for the 5 that worked out. Conveniently forgetting the rest.

As a general commentary, I agree it's much easier to be the eternal pessimist. For some fans it's likely a defense mechanism at this point. Myself included. But I'm glad you are mostly optimistic about the team and enjoying the ride. I can't quite get there, but I respect it.

[CharVike]

Dak lost as a home favorite and you think that was a great performance because his stats were through the roof. He didn't win. That's the stat I care about. Maybe that's flawed logic and the win or lose means nothing. Matt Moore is nothing. Yes he won. Our defense didn't shut him down. He did win. I know QBs can play good against us. I seen Nick Foles tear us a new one in the champ game. IMO Nick Foles isn't that great of a QB. Others might think he's one of the best of all time. I seen Rodgers play well against us. I think he's a good QB. Other might say he sucks. Someone posted an experts graph and Cousins is much better than Rodgers based on that. I don't buy that logic. Maybe you do.
In the NFL, the quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Maybe that is flawed logic for both but that is what's used. Dak played great but got the lose. It wasn't good enough. Why is that baffling.

No...Dak didn't lose as a home favorite. The Cowboys lost as a home favorite. Never saw the QB credited with Wins & Losses in their stats. And if they were, it would be just as stupid as a pitcher being credited with them as baseball does. It's obvious to me that whoever was the first one to think it was a good idea to have a Wins & Losses stat associated with any single position, knows nothing about TEAM sports. You win as a team...you lose as a team.

Yes it was a team loss. Everyone realizes that. But a team is made up of players with different skill set levels. Those levels are measured by stats typically. Skill can also involve other things like knowledge ect.... Kirk is labeled a loser because he hasn't done well in certain situations. Was it all his fault? Who knows. But a QB gets the W or the L. Just the way it was setup. Just as a pitcher gets credit for the W or the L. It's been that way for a long time. It might not be fair because the team needs to score for the W to happen. Brady is judge as a X time Super Bowl winner. It was more than just Brady. Others contributed also. For this topic Dak torn our D a new one. He made Zim look like a joke D guy. We all know that. But he didn't get the most important stat and that to me is the W.

[VikingLord]

As a general commentary, I agree it's much easier to be the eternal pessimist. For some fans it's likely a defense mechanism at this point. Myself included. But I'm glad you are mostly optimistic about the team and enjoying the ride. I can't quite get there, but I respect it.

The strange part of this with the Vikings is that they have given us magical moments too and plenty of them. Improbable catches to win games like the Stefon Diggs walkoff TD to beat the Saints and many others. So there is reason for optimism.

But I'm like you when it comes to the ultimate game and the ultimate goal of that game, which is to be pessimistic about their chances. To me, it almost seems like the more elementary the thing they need to do is, the more of an almost given it is, that is the time and the thing they will blow.

Despite that, I'm going to root for this team until I die and regardless of the outcome of each season, be it good or bad. In a strange way, this gives me comfort, because while I hope for a Superbowl each year, I don't expect one, and if they do manage to win it, it will be all that much sweeter.

[Dames]

Plenty of injuries for this game.

Already ruled out:
Thielen
Linval
Kline
Harris

Questionable:
Sendejo

That's 4 starters out. Let hope some guys step up again.

Doctson was just activated. I'll be watching to see if he has an impact at all.

The bye looks to be coming at just the right time next week.

[StumpHunter]

Plenty of injuries for this game.

Already ruled out:
Thielen
Linval
Kline
Harris

Questionable:
Sendejo

That's 4 starters out. Let hope some guys step up again.

Doctson was just activated. I'll be watching to see if he has an impact at all.

The bye looks to be coming at just the right time next week.

Not that Epps is necessarily a great option, but the guy made our roster for a reason and he is actually healthy this week. In hindsight it was not a great move to cut him.

[J. Kapp 11]

I guess you actually had to hear the take. I didn't describe it very well.

Cowherd went from totally dismissive to singing their praises, as if he always has sung their praises. But he hasn't. Not even in 2017, when the people on his show were telling him the Vikings were poised for a deep run.

It's the same issue I take on this board. It's EASY to follow the history of the Vikings and predict they'll choke. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's easy. It's a lot harder to make the argument that they might break the trend.

However, I agree that until they overcome their penchant for losing in the biggest games, that take will always be easy. I have a lot more respect for people like Greg Cosell of NFL Films, who told Cowherd that the Vikings might be the best team in the NFC, despite their three losses. Maybe that's because it's what I want to hear, I don't know. But that's a lot tougher argument to make than to say they'll falter.

I can definitely see Cowherd talking out both sides of his mouth. He's like Jim Cramer, you do hot takes and recommend 50 stocks then come back and take credit for the 5 that worked out. Conveniently forgetting the rest.

As a general commentary, I agree it's much easier to be the eternal pessimist. For some fans it's likely a defense mechanism at this point. Myself included. But I'm glad you are mostly optimistic about the team and enjoying the ride. I can't quite get there, but I respect it.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

And let me say, I understand how it can be difficult to trust this team, no matter how good any particular season might go. I really do. I probably need to be a little more careful about what I say. Everybody has the right to their own beliefs.

I'm just looking forward to the day when we can put it all behind us and celebrate a Super Bowl victory.

[VikingLord]

Not that Epps is necessarily a great option, but the guy made our roster for a reason and he is actually healthy this week. In hindsight it was not a great move to cut him.

IIRC, there was a lot of head scratching going on with the Epps pick as most pre-draft analysts had him rated as not likely to be drafted. I figured Spielman had some insider info on him and took him based on that, and while he did make the roster, if he were really a better option, I doubt they would have made a move for Sendejo.

My guess is Epps will remain available and could easily be brought back if Spielman and Zimmer think that is their best move.

[StumpHunter]

Not that Epps is necessarily a great option, but the guy made our roster for a reason and he is actually healthy this week. In hindsight it was not a great move to cut him.

IIRC, there was a lot of head scratching going on with the Epps pick as most pre-draft analysts had him rated as not likely to be drafted. I figured Spielman had some insider info on him and took him based on that, and while he did make the roster, if he were really a better option, I doubt they would have made a move for Sendejo.

My guess is Epps will remain available and could easily be brought back if Spielman and Zimmer think that is their best move.

Eagles signed him immediately after we cut him.