HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You are such a reactionary it's hilarious. Bench Keenum! Pats are done! How about, it's September and this happens every year with this team.

Release Keenum. He's likely a one year wonder. An average QB who will likely hold us back with terrible decision making. Start Kelly, time to see what he can do.

Predicted Pats would go 10-6 or 11-5. They will repair first gear, but it will be a little wobbly.

Don't really care about your reactionary analysis regarding Keenum. You were woo'ed after watching an interview. That kind of says it all.

We've seen 43 games from Keenum prior to Denver. This isn't reactionary. Also, I loved that interview. It was clear he wanted to win and was thrilled to play in Denver, he goes to other Colorado sports games to support the city. I am still wooed by that, but it's time to step it up right now. Two complete dud games and one mediocre game. Not gonna cut it when your line is giving you plenty of times to make decisions. Get your shit together.

It was clear that he took the only real offer he had and cares about doing his job well. PR fluff does nothing for me.

Look, he's an average QB at best and I've always maintained that position. It's an upgrade from the past few years but was never going to move the needle. This team isn't winning shit. But your emotional swings about Keenum will be fun to follow.

I haven't had one emotional swing about Keenum. I love his spirit, but he is playing exactly how I expected. And no, he isn't an upgrade. The biggest upgrade has been the line protection, by far, and Siemian was still overall much better without an ounce of that benefit.

I am obviously going to root for him as long has he is the starter, but three games of exactly what I expected is not good, and my body is ready for Chad.

Siemian was the worst opening day starter this team has had in my entire life. He made watching the Broncos embarrassing. Keenum is a purgatory QB, but it's still a big upgrade.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You are such a reactionary it's hilarious. Bench Keenum! Pats are done! How about, it's September and this happens every year with this team.

Release Keenum. He's likely a one year wonder. An average QB who will likely hold us back with terrible decision making. Start Kelly, time to see what he can do.

Predicted Pats would go 10-6 or 11-5. They will repair first gear, but it will be a little wobbly.

Don't really care about your reactionary analysis regarding Keenum. You were woo'ed after watching an interview. That kind of says it all.

We've seen 43 games from Keenum prior to Denver. This isn't reactionary. Also, I loved that interview. It was clear he wanted to win and was thrilled to play in Denver, he goes to other Colorado sports games to support the city. I am still wooed by that, but it's time to step it up right now. Two complete dud games and one mediocre game. Not gonna cut it when your line is giving you plenty of times to make decisions. Get your shit together.

It was clear that he took the only real offer he had and cares about doing his job well. PR fluff does nothing for me.

Look, he's an average QB at best and I've always maintained that position. It's an upgrade from the past few years but was never going to move the needle. This team isn't winning shit. But your emotional swings about Keenum will be fun to follow.

I haven't had one emotional swing about Keenum. I love his spirit, but he is playing exactly how I expected. And no, he isn't an upgrade. The biggest upgrade has been the line protection, by far, and Siemian was still overall much better without an ounce of that benefit.

I am obviously going to root for him as long has he is the starter, but three games of exactly what I expected is not good, and my body is ready for Chad.

Siemian was the worst opening day starter this team has had in my entire life. He made watching the Broncos embarrassing. Keenum is a purgatory QB, but it's still a big upgrade.

You are clearly not on my level at evaluating talent, so this post is no surprise.

If you're ok with a purgatory QB over a sharp-looking up and comer rotting on the bench then that's on you. Ride the 8-8 train all the way to the 14th pick in the draft every year if ya like.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

That's not what "reactionary" means. Reactionary would have been if I'd suddenly anointed Tebow a franchise QB after bashing his NFL prospects for the past two years.

It's also not reactionary to support a decision that the coaches have already made on an 0-3 team that everyone knows is one of the worst teams in football and invested significant resources into a young QB.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

That's not what "reactionary" means. Reactionary would have been if I'd suddenly anointed Tebow a franchise QB after bashing his NFL prospects for the past two years.

It's also not reactionary to support a decision that the coaches have already made on an 0-3 team that everyone knows is one of the worst teams in football and invested significant resources into a young QB.

No, it was reactionary. The minute he stepped in you wanted no part of him. No matter what he did you stuck by your guns and wanted Tebow to burn in hellfire. Don't deny.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

That's not what "reactionary" means. Reactionary would have been if I'd suddenly anointed Tebow a franchise QB after bashing his NFL prospects for the past two years.

It's also not reactionary to support a decision that the coaches have already made on an 0-3 team that everyone knows is one of the worst teams in football and invested significant resources into a young QB.

No, it was reactionary. The minute he stepped in you wanted no part of him. No matter what he did you stuck by your guns and wanted Tebow to burn in hellfire. Don't deny.

Again, Jason, that wasn't reactionary. I mocked the idea of Tebow being an NFL QB from his college days and my position never wavered at any point. Just as my position has never wavered on Keenum.

"Sticking by your guns" is actually the opposite of being reactionary. Please try to understand words.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You are such a reactionary it's hilarious. Bench Keenum! Pats are done! How about, it's September and this happens every year with this team.

Release Keenum. He's likely a one year wonder. An average QB who will likely hold us back with terrible decision making. Start Kelly, time to see what he can do.

Predicted Pats would go 10-6 or 11-5. They will repair first gear, but it will be a little wobbly.

Don't really care about your reactionary analysis regarding Keenum. You were woo'ed after watching an interview. That kind of says it all.

We've seen 43 games from Keenum prior to Denver. This isn't reactionary. Also, I loved that interview. It was clear he wanted to win and was thrilled to play in Denver, he goes to other Colorado sports games to support the city. I am still wooed by that, but it's time to step it up right now. Two complete dud games and one mediocre game. Not gonna cut it when your line is giving you plenty of times to make decisions. Get your shit together.

It was clear that he took the only real offer he had and cares about doing his job well. PR fluff does nothing for me.

Look, he's an average QB at best and I've always maintained that position. It's an upgrade from the past few years but was never going to move the needle. This team isn't winning shit. But your emotional swings about Keenum will be fun to follow.

I haven't had one emotional swing about Keenum. I love his spirit, but he is playing exactly how I expected. And no, he isn't an upgrade. The biggest upgrade has been the line protection, by far, and Siemian was still overall much better without an ounce of that benefit.

I am obviously going to root for him as long has he is the starter, but three games of exactly what I expected is not good, and my body is ready for Chad.

Siemian was the worst opening day starter this team has had in my entire life. He made watching the Broncos embarrassing. Keenum is a purgatory QB, but it's still a big upgrade.

You are clearly not on my level at evaluating talent, so this post is no surprise.

If you're ok with a purgatory QB over a sharp-looking up and comer rotting on the bench than that's on you. Ride the 8-8 train all the way to the 14th pick in the draft every year if ya like.

Your calling card is bragging about backup QBs. Not much more needs to be said there.

You saw Chad Kelly play against 2nd and 3rd team guys in preseason games. They've built the 2018 team around Case Keenum, and he is the leader in the locker room. They are trying to compete to win now. That's why they picked an edge rusher over a QB with a top 5 pick. Vance Joseph is coaching for his job. Nothing about your position here is conducive to reality. It's typical impatient NFL fan stuff.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

That's not what "reactionary" means. Reactionary would have been if I'd suddenly anointed Tebow a franchise QB after bashing his NFL prospects for the past two years.

It's also not reactionary to support a decision that the coaches have already made on an 0-3 team that everyone knows is one of the worst teams in football and invested significant resources into a young QB.

No, it was reactionary. The minute he stepped in you wanted no part of him. No matter what he did you stuck by your guns and wanted Tebow to burn in hellfire. Don't deny.

Again, Jason, that wasn't reactionary. I mocked the idea of Tebow being an NFL QB from his college days and my position never wavered at any point. Just as my position has never wavered on Keenum.

"Sticking by your guns" is actually the opposite of being reactionary. Please try to understand words.

If you wanna play that game, mine wasn't reactionary with Keenum either, since this is exactly what I expected from him, but only decided to give him a chance because I am open to QBs improving. I guess the only difference here is I'm willing to give QBs a chance, instead of making up my mind about all of them while they play in the peewees.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You are such a reactionary it's hilarious. Bench Keenum! Pats are done! How about, it's September and this happens every year with this team.

Release Keenum. He's likely a one year wonder. An average QB who will likely hold us back with terrible decision making. Start Kelly, time to see what he can do.

Predicted Pats would go 10-6 or 11-5. They will repair first gear, but it will be a little wobbly.

Don't really care about your reactionary analysis regarding Keenum. You were woo'ed after watching an interview. That kind of says it all.

We've seen 43 games from Keenum prior to Denver. This isn't reactionary. Also, I loved that interview. It was clear he wanted to win and was thrilled to play in Denver, he goes to other Colorado sports games to support the city. I am still wooed by that, but it's time to step it up right now. Two complete dud games and one mediocre game. Not gonna cut it when your line is giving you plenty of times to make decisions. Get your shit together.

It was clear that he took the only real offer he had and cares about doing his job well. PR fluff does nothing for me.

Look, he's an average QB at best and I've always maintained that position. It's an upgrade from the past few years but was never going to move the needle. This team isn't winning shit. But your emotional swings about Keenum will be fun to follow.

I haven't had one emotional swing about Keenum. I love his spirit, but he is playing exactly how I expected. And no, he isn't an upgrade. The biggest upgrade has been the line protection, by far, and Siemian was still overall much better without an ounce of that benefit.

I am obviously going to root for him as long has he is the starter, but three games of exactly what I expected is not good, and my body is ready for Chad.

Siemian was the worst opening day starter this team has had in my entire life. He made watching the Broncos embarrassing. Keenum is a purgatory QB, but it's still a big upgrade.

You are clearly not on my level at evaluating talent, so this post is no surprise.

If you're ok with a purgatory QB over a sharp-looking up and comer rotting on the bench than that's on you. Ride the 8-8 train all the way to the 14th pick in the draft every year if ya like.

Your calling card is bragging about backup QBs. Not much more needs to be said there.

You saw Chad Kelly play against 2nd and 3rd team guys in preseason games. They've built the 2018 team around Case Keenum, and he is the leader in the locker room. They are trying to compete to win now. That's why they picked an edge rusher over a QB with a top 5 pick. Vance Joseph is coaching for his job. Nothing about your position here is conducive to reality. It's typical impatient NFL fan stuff.

Bragging about QBs who were backups and never looked at by anyone but me, and proved me right by becoming league starters. Much more impressive than anyone saying "Manning is great!" in year 8.

I don't give a fuck who Chad Kelly was playing against. Consistently hitting a pimple on a gnat's ass at 40 yards with a flick of the wrist is impressive. He has the intangibles. But it is comical to see you jump off the Kelly wagon when you were all about him before my praise. You are hell bent on going against everything I evaluate and now hellbent on going against every QB Elway has ever drafted.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You are such a reactionary it's hilarious. Bench Keenum! Pats are done! How about, it's September and this happens every year with this team.

Release Keenum. He's likely a one year wonder. An average QB who will likely hold us back with terrible decision making. Start Kelly, time to see what he can do.

Predicted Pats would go 10-6 or 11-5. They will repair first gear, but it will be a little wobbly.

Don't really care about your reactionary analysis regarding Keenum. You were woo'ed after watching an interview. That kind of says it all.

We've seen 43 games from Keenum prior to Denver. This isn't reactionary. Also, I loved that interview. It was clear he wanted to win and was thrilled to play in Denver, he goes to other Colorado sports games to support the city. I am still wooed by that, but it's time to step it up right now. Two complete dud games and one mediocre game. Not gonna cut it when your line is giving you plenty of times to make decisions. Get your shit together.

It was clear that he took the only real offer he had and cares about doing his job well. PR fluff does nothing for me.

Look, he's an average QB at best and I've always maintained that position. It's an upgrade from the past few years but was never going to move the needle. This team isn't winning shit. But your emotional swings about Keenum will be fun to follow.

I haven't had one emotional swing about Keenum. I love his spirit, but he is playing exactly how I expected. And no, he isn't an upgrade. The biggest upgrade has been the line protection, by far, and Siemian was still overall much better without an ounce of that benefit.

I am obviously going to root for him as long has he is the starter, but three games of exactly what I expected is not good, and my body is ready for Chad.

Siemian was the worst opening day starter this team has had in my entire life. He made watching the Broncos embarrassing. Keenum is a purgatory QB, but it's still a big upgrade.

You are clearly not on my level at evaluating talent, so this post is no surprise.

If you're ok with a purgatory QB over a sharp-looking up and comer rotting on the bench than that's on you. Ride the 8-8 train all the way to the 14th pick in the draft every year if ya like.

Your calling card is bragging about backup QBs. Not much more needs to be said there.

You saw Chad Kelly play against 2nd and 3rd team guys in preseason games. They've built the 2018 team around Case Keenum, and he is the leader in the locker room. They are trying to compete to win now. That's why they picked an edge rusher over a QB with a top 5 pick. Vance Joseph is coaching for his job. Nothing about your position here is conducive to reality. It's typical impatient NFL fan stuff.

Bragging about QBs who were backups and never looked at by anyone but me, and proved me right by becoming league starters. Much more impressive than anyone saying "Manning is great!" in year 8.

I don't give a fuck who Chad Kelly was playing against. Consistently hitting a pimple on a gnat's ass at 40 yards with a flick of the wrist is impressive. He has the intangibles. But it is comical to see you jump off the Kelly wagon when you were all about him before my praise. You are hell bent on going against everything I evaluate and now hellbent on every QB Elway has ever drafted.

Never looked at by anyone but you? LMAO! Yeah, the thousands and thousands of people who look at draft prospects had no idea who Foles was, nor the millions who watch college football. All you, bud. If Jameis didn't grope a chick, all three of your favs would be on the bench.

That's cool that you don't give a fuck who he was playing against, but a lot of backups light up preseason defenses so getting all giddy about a guy Denver took a flier on last year and have no real investment in to the extent where you're ready to punt the season in Week 3 while having a winning record, is hilarious.

And now you're whining about me disagreeing with you. Yikes. For the record, I can't say I've ever been on the "Kelly wagon". I was glad he beat out Paxton, who is one of the worst QBs I've ever seen. Thought he was worth the flier in last year's draft, to be sure. He would have been drafted a few rounds earlier if not for his horrendous character concerns in college, so good value where they got him and he seems to have matured. I''ve never really had any serious expectations for him though. But if you want to make it all about you, be my guest.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Why is it "time" to start Kelly? Why wasn't it time in Week 1? Why now instead of Week 10? What makes right now the time? That they lost one game they were always going to lose?

Because I don't see Keenum doing much for improving in game 4 and beyond. I don't care what the record is, Denver could've easily went 0-3 solely because of Keenum. Imagine McManus missed against Oakland and the defense collapsed for just one drive against Seattle. Your narrative about Keenum would be closer to mine based on just that little detail, and the NFL network would be down Keenum's throat for being 0-3.

Denver is 2-1.

Please understand that if you want to be a reactionary armchair GM, there are implications far beyond what you're considering. Benching Keenum entails changing the entire message of the season. Elway and the Broncos PR mafia spent the whole offseason positioning Keenum as a solution at the position and THE leader of the team. By benching him, you tell the whole team who bought into him and rallied behind the idea that they had a QB, that you're going to punt the season in the interest of "seeing what you have" with a project backup who has no experience. You're punting the entire season at 2-1. Might as well look to trade Harris and Miller now, as there's no sense wasting their primes when you're not even going to pretend that it's about competing this year.

Luckily, no team would be so stupid as to listen to the cries of the delusional and spoiled Broncos fanbase. You definitely aren't the only one but when you take everything into account it really is incredibly stupid.

You have no room to keep bringing up reactionary when you wanted no part of Tebow during that WIN streak. Your double standard is showing.

You bash reactionary while calling to see Rosen for Arizona. Your double standard is showing. Quadruple standard in one post.

That's not what "reactionary" means. Reactionary would have been if I'd suddenly anointed Tebow a franchise QB after bashing his NFL prospects for the past two years.

It's also not reactionary to support a decision that the coaches have already made on an 0-3 team that everyone knows is one of the worst teams in football and invested significant resources into a young QB.

No, it was reactionary. The minute he stepped in you wanted no part of him. No matter what he did you stuck by your guns and wanted Tebow to burn in hellfire. Don't deny.

Again, Jason, that wasn't reactionary. I mocked the idea of Tebow being an NFL QB from his college days and my position never wavered at any point. Just as my position has never wavered on Keenum.

"Sticking by your guns" is actually the opposite of being reactionary. Please try to understand words.

If you wanna play that game, mine wasn't reactionary with Keenum either, since this is exactly what I expected from him, but only decided to give him a chance because I am open to QBs improving. I guess the only difference here is I'm willing to give QBs a chance, instead of making up my mind about all of them while they play in the peewees.

Your excitement to throw him out the door after 3 games has only been matched by your excitement listening to a brief soundbite. It's reactionary behavior.

That's not the "only difference", there are really a lot of differences. For one, I'm not calling for a starter they've built the current team around (not the franchise going forward, but the 2018 team which they expect to compete for the playoffs) to be benched after three games when they have a winning record. That scenario would never make sense to me.

And since you wanted to bring up the Tebow thing, those situations are nothing alike. I said at the time starting Tebow was the right move and the only move because the team was terrible and they'd invested a 1st into Tebow's development. I never thought he'd be worth a shit, but I knew he had to play. I''m not going to apologize for not thinking he was a franchise QB after one of the most fluky win streaks in NFL history. It was fun, but he was never the answer. But see, the context of where a team is at plays into my judgements here, unlike you who wants to bench Keenum after three games following an offseason of building the team around him.

Headhunter wrote: Never looked at by anyone but you? LMAO! Yeah, the thousands and thousands of people who look at draft prospects had no idea who Foles was, nor the millions who watch college football. All you, bud. If Jameis didn't grope a chick, all three of your favs would be on the bench.

That's cool that you don't give a fuck who he was playing against, but a lot of backups light up preseason defenses so getting all giddy about a guy Denver took a flier on last year and have no real investment in to the extent where you're ready to punt the season in Week 3 while having a winning record, is hilarious.

And now you're whining about me disagreeing with you. Yikes. For the record, I can't say I've ever been on the "Kelly wagon". I was glad he beat out Paxton, who is one of the worst QBs I've ever seen. Thought he was worth the flier in last year's draft, to be sure. He would have been drafted a few rounds earlier if not for his horrendous character concerns in college, so good value where they got him and he seems to have matured. I''ve never really had any serious expectations for him though. But if you want to make it all about you, be my guest.

Apparently not, because when I'm the only one that makes a big deal about certain QBs, they shine.
Also, allegedly... and also... do you think they bench Fitzy for Jameis now? And also... I think pretty highly of Jameis as a QB.

Are you questioning my talent at evaluating QBs again?

Settle down, Beavis. I simply explained what impressed me about Chad Kelly during preseason (to which you completely ignored and went on a rant about scouts who look at QBs blahblah), and how funny it is that you seemed to jump off the wagon as soon as I got on. Chad Kelly is as likely as big of a douchebag as he is the future franchise QB for Denver... Which is 60% likely, barring a big free agent QB trade.

Headhunter wrote: Your excitement to throw him out the door after 3 games has only been matched by your excitement listening to a brief soundbite. It's reactionary behavior.

That's not the "only difference", there are really a lot of differences. And since you wanted to bring up the Tebow thing, those situations are nothing alike. I said at the time starting Tebow was the right move and the only move because the team was terrible and they'd invested a 1st into Tebow's development. I never thought he'd be worth a shit, but I knew he had to play. I''m not going to apologize for not thinking he was a franchise QB after one of the most fluky win streaks in NFL history. It was fun, but he was never the answer. But see, the context of where a team is at plays into my judgements here, unlike you who wants to bench Keenum after three games following an offseason of building the team around him.

I ain't feeling him. Shoot me. Again, if you want to hangout in 8-8 purgatory, that's on you. I'd rather give Chad Kelly the reps.

You said you'd rather have Tebow than Manning. Do you remember that? Also, the team isn't building around Keenum, they are building around Von Miller. He is the heart and soul of the defense and they have been trying to surround him with good players for years.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Never looked at by anyone but you? LMAO! Yeah, the thousands and thousands of people who look at draft prospects had no idea who Foles was, nor the millions who watch college football. All you, bud. If Jameis didn't grope a chick, all three of your favs would be on the bench.

That's cool that you don't give a fuck who he was playing against, but a lot of backups light up preseason defenses so getting all giddy about a guy Denver took a flier on last year and have no real investment in to the extent where you're ready to punt the season in Week 3 while having a winning record, is hilarious.

And now you're whining about me disagreeing with you. Yikes. For the record, I can't say I've ever been on the "Kelly wagon". I was glad he beat out Paxton, who is one of the worst QBs I've ever seen. Thought he was worth the flier in last year's draft, to be sure. He would have been drafted a few rounds earlier if not for his horrendous character concerns in college, so good value where they got him and he seems to have matured. I''ve never really had any serious expectations for him though. But if you want to make it all about you, be my guest.

Apparently not, because when I'm the only one that makes a big deal about certain QBs, they shine.
Also, allegedly... and also... do you think they bench Fitzy for Jameis now? And also... I think pretty highly of Jameis as a QB.

Are you questioning my talent at evaluating QBs again?

Settle down, Beavis. I simply explained what impressed me about Chad Kelly during preseason (to which you completely ignored and went on a rant about scouts who look at QBs blahblah), and how funny it is that you seemed to jump off the wagon as soon as I got on. Chad Kelly is as likely as big of a douchebag as he is the future franchise QB for Denver... Which is 60% likely, barring a big free agent QB trade.

"The only one". The only one in what context? Foles was a 3rd rounder. You didn't know jack about Siemian and Fitzpatrick until they'd played and all they've proven is they can stick around as backups.

Well, Jameis hasn't progressed much so as of now that's egg on both of our faces.

I don't question it. Questioning it would imply my position on it is unclear.

Again, what wagon did I jump off of? You're misremembering my position or making it up to serve your whining.

Headhunter wrote:"The only one". The only one in what context? Foles was a 3rd rounder. You didn't know jack about Siemian and Fitzpatrick until they'd played and all they've proven is they can stick around as backups.

Well, Jameis hasn't progressed much so as of now that's egg on both of our faces.

I don't question it. Questioning it would imply my position on it is unclear.

Again, what wagon did I jump off of? You're misremembering my position or making it up to serve your whining.

The only one talking about them. Nobody ever said Foles had the tools to be a great QB. Everybody was wondering how many combined run/pass yards Vick would get. I evaluated Siemian the same way I evaluated Foles. They are pretty close to the same QB, though I liken Trevor to be more similar to Kirk. Funny how they ended up on the same team, too. Everybody loved to dawg Fitzpatrick while ignoring the fact that he played on horrendous defenses that would give up 42 points and force him to throw into double coverage halfway into the 4th quarter when down by two scores. "Fitzy sucks! He is so unclutch!" There are levels to evaluating talent, most just aren't on mine. Sawwy.

I thought Jameis would've been the premier deep threat passer of his era, at this point. He can hit the deep throws, but not consistently. It's not looking as good as I thought.

Well, you get it wrong all the time, so it's only fair of me to assume that.

I could be recalling it a little differently, I don't know. But I certainly got the impression that you were on the "Swag Kelly Train".

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Your excitement to throw him out the door after 3 games has only been matched by your excitement listening to a brief soundbite. It's reactionary behavior.

That's not the "only difference", there are really a lot of differences. And since you wanted to bring up the Tebow thing, those situations are nothing alike. I said at the time starting Tebow was the right move and the only move because the team was terrible and they'd invested a 1st into Tebow's development. I never thought he'd be worth a shit, but I knew he had to play. I''m not going to apologize for not thinking he was a franchise QB after one of the most fluky win streaks in NFL history. It was fun, but he was never the answer. But see, the context of where a team is at plays into my judgements here, unlike you who wants to bench Keenum after three games following an offseason of building the team around him.

I ain't feeling him. Shoot me. Again, if you want to hangout in 8-8 purgatory, that's on you. I'd rather give Chad Kelly the reps.

You said you'd rather have Tebow than Manning. Do you remember that? Also, the team isn't building around Keenum, they are building around Von Miller. He is the heart and soul of the defense and they have been trying to surround him with good players for years.

Do you not understand that it doesn't matter what you or I want? Elway constructed this team to compete this year. Vance Joseph doesn't have a year to waste. They took a pass rusher who can contribute now over a QB because Elway thinks he can get this team to the playoffs. Their entire offseason strategy is built around the idea that Case Keenum could do that. So yeah, it would be pretty stupid in every way imaginable for them to reverse course after three games and throw away the philosophy that shaped their roster construction. Makes zero sense. And yeah, this team is built around Keenum, he is expected to be the leader of the team and that played a part in why he was the guy they wanted when they were priced out on Cousins. Von is their best player, but he's not a team leader (they tried that last year and the locker room was a mess; he's not that guy) and you don't "build around" a pass rusher. Their goal has not been surrounding him with good players, in fact they've mostly shed good players around him since the Super Bowl. Their goal has been to find a QB, and they've failed time and time again.

I do remember that. Given how you know I felt about Tebow, you should get that it was a tongue-in-cheek message more about how I didn't want Peyton than wanting to build around Tebow. And again, it was shaped by roster expectations. Didn't think the roster was up to snuff to go on some "win-now" binge and Peyton's recovery was not a guarantee either. Glad it worked out. Not sure what any of this has to do with our conversation?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:"The only one". The only one in what context? Foles was a 3rd rounder. You didn't know jack about Siemian and Fitzpatrick until they'd played and all they've proven is they can stick around as backups.

Well, Jameis hasn't progressed much so as of now that's egg on both of our faces.

I don't question it. Questioning it would imply my position on it is unclear.

Again, what wagon did I jump off of? You're misremembering my position or making it up to serve your whining.

The only one talking about them. Nobody ever said Foles had the tools to be a great QB. Everybody was wondering how many combined run/pass yards Vick would get. I evaluated Siemian the same way I evaluated Foles. They are pretty close to the same QB, though I liken Trevor to be more similar to Kirk. Funny how they ended up on the same team, too. Everybody loved to dawg Fitzpatrick while ignoring the fact that he played on horrendous defenses that would give up 42 points and force him to throw into double coverage halfway into the 4th quarter when down by two scores. "Fitzy sucks! He is so unclutch!" There are levels to evaluating talent, most just aren't on mine. Sawwy.

I thought Jameis would've been the premier deep threat passer of his era, at this point. He can hit the deep throws, but not consistently. It's not looking as good as I thought.

Well, you get it wrong all the time, so it's only fair of me to assume that.

I could be recalling it a little differently, I don't know. But I certainly got the impression that you were on the "Swag Kelly Train".

Only one of whom?

Thousands of people scout college players. Plenty of those people liked Foles. You sound so obnoxious and egotistical boasting about how you're the only person who was right. And the punchline is, he hasn't been who you thought he was. He's a backup quarterback. It all plays out like some parody of a know-it-all sports fan and it's hard to believe you can't see that. As far as Siemian goes, when did you start "evaluating" him?

Fitzpatrick pretty much throws horrible picks in any and all situations because that's just who he is, not sure why you're stuck on one in particular.

You're not recalling differently so much as you're just wrong altogether, in that case.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Your excitement to throw him out the door after 3 games has only been matched by your excitement listening to a brief soundbite. It's reactionary behavior.

That's not the "only difference", there are really a lot of differences. And since you wanted to bring up the Tebow thing, those situations are nothing alike. I said at the time starting Tebow was the right move and the only move because the team was terrible and they'd invested a 1st into Tebow's development. I never thought he'd be worth a shit, but I knew he had to play. I''m not going to apologize for not thinking he was a franchise QB after one of the most fluky win streaks in NFL history. It was fun, but he was never the answer. But see, the context of where a team is at plays into my judgements here, unlike you who wants to bench Keenum after three games following an offseason of building the team around him.

I ain't feeling him. Shoot me. Again, if you want to hangout in 8-8 purgatory, that's on you. I'd rather give Chad Kelly the reps.

You said you'd rather have Tebow than Manning. Do you remember that? Also, the team isn't building around Keenum, they are building around Von Miller. He is the heart and soul of the defense and they have been trying to surround him with good players for years.

Do you not understand that it doesn't matter what you or I want? Elway constructed this team to compete this year. Vance Joseph doesn't have a year to waste. They took a pass rusher who can contribute now over a QB because Elway thinks he can get this team to the playoffs. Their entire offseason strategy is built around the idea that Case Keenum could do that. So yeah, it would be pretty stupid in every way imaginable for them to reverse course after three games and throw away the philosophy that shaped their roster construction. Makes zero sense. And yeah, this team is built around Keenum, he is expected to be the leader of the team and that played a part in why he was the guy they wanted when they were priced out on Cousins. Von is their best player, but he's not a team leader (they tried that last year and the locker room was a mess; he's not that guy) and you don't "build around" a pass rusher. Their goal has not been surrounding him with good players, in fact they've mostly shed good players around him since the Super Bowl. Their goal has been to find a QB, and they've failed time and time again.

I do remember that. Given how you know I felt about Tebow, you should get that it was a tongue-in-cheek message more about how I didn't want Peyton than wanting to build around Tebow. And again, it was shaped by roster expectations. Didn't think the roster was up to snuff to go on some "win-now" binge and Peyton's recovery was not a guarantee either. Glad it worked out. Not sure what any of this has to do with our conversation?

Of course I understand that. I understand everything you wrote in that paragraph is true. I am coming from a place of what I (me) (Jason) wants. There is no way in hell they are benching Keenum any time soon, but I do not see this season ending any better with Keenum than I do with Chad Kelly. I think if they were to put Kelly in now, he would do better in his first 13 starts than Keenum would do in the rest of the season. That's just me. I could be wrong, but I am usually p. good at this tbh HMFkisssmiley.png

I actually forgot where I was gonna go with the Manning thing. SO YOU"RE OFF THE HOOK _{(you lucky pos)}

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Your excitement to throw him out the door after 3 games has only been matched by your excitement listening to a brief soundbite. It's reactionary behavior.

That's not the "only difference", there are really a lot of differences. And since you wanted to bring up the Tebow thing, those situations are nothing alike. I said at the time starting Tebow was the right move and the only move because the team was terrible and they'd invested a 1st into Tebow's development. I never thought he'd be worth a shit, but I knew he had to play. I''m not going to apologize for not thinking he was a franchise QB after one of the most fluky win streaks in NFL history. It was fun, but he was never the answer. But see, the context of where a team is at plays into my judgements here, unlike you who wants to bench Keenum after three games following an offseason of building the team around him.

I ain't feeling him. Shoot me. Again, if you want to hangout in 8-8 purgatory, that's on you. I'd rather give Chad Kelly the reps.

You said you'd rather have Tebow than Manning. Do you remember that? Also, the team isn't building around Keenum, they are building around Von Miller. He is the heart and soul of the defense and they have been trying to surround him with good players for years.

Do you not understand that it doesn't matter what you or I want? Elway constructed this team to compete this year. Vance Joseph doesn't have a year to waste. They took a pass rusher who can contribute now over a QB because Elway thinks he can get this team to the playoffs. Their entire offseason strategy is built around the idea that Case Keenum could do that. So yeah, it would be pretty stupid in every way imaginable for them to reverse course after three games and throw away the philosophy that shaped their roster construction. Makes zero sense. And yeah, this team is built around Keenum, he is expected to be the leader of the team and that played a part in why he was the guy they wanted when they were priced out on Cousins. Von is their best player, but he's not a team leader (they tried that last year and the locker room was a mess; he's not that guy) and you don't "build around" a pass rusher. Their goal has not been surrounding him with good players, in fact they've mostly shed good players around him since the Super Bowl. Their goal has been to find a QB, and they've failed time and time again.

I do remember that. Given how you know I felt about Tebow, you should get that it was a tongue-in-cheek message more about how I didn't want Peyton than wanting to build around Tebow. And again, it was shaped by roster expectations. Didn't think the roster was up to snuff to go on some "win-now" binge and Peyton's recovery was not a guarantee either. Glad it worked out. Not sure what any of this has to do with our conversation?

Of course I understand that. I understand everything you wrote in that paragraph is true. I am coming from a place of what I (me) (Jason) wants. There is no way in hell they are benching Keenum any time soon, but I do not see this season ending any better with Keenum than I do with Chad Kelly. I think if they were to put Kelly in now, he would do better in his first 13 starts than Keenum would do in the rest of the season. That's just me. I could be wrong, but I am usually p. good at this tbh HMFkisssmiley.png

I actually forgot where I was gonna go with the Manning thing. SO YOU"RE OFF THE HOOK _{(you lucky pos)}

Well, I don't know why you would do it, because the effect in the locker room would be disastrous. If you make that move, you better also be committed to a total rebuild which means maximizing the value on guys like Miller and Harris. You don't just plug guys into spots with no effect on everything happening with the team. Just because you think the season will play out a certain way doesn't mean you don't see an investment through, what was the point of spending months constructing a roster if you throw in the towel at 2-1?