Is 2008 the new 1996?
by Zappa
on May 14, 2008 3:32 PM MDT
My very first post as a member of MHR just a week or two after I finally joined MHR after a couple of months of lurking around was about 2007 looking eerily similar to 1995.
I’ve often wondered if I was right in my assumptions and I have flip flopped a couple of times thanks to Guru’s highly persuasive arguments on the subject of where the Broncos are in the rebuilding process. I have finally come full circle. Last year WAS 1995 and this year is 1996, which means we should win the division with a 12-4 or 13-3 record and get upset in the playoffs. Which will set the stage for another Super Bowl run in 2009.
As surprised as I am to say this, I think we will win the Super Bowl employing our usual two-back system that Shanny has been employing ever since Clinton Portis left. HoosierTeacher and I have debated the issue greatly in the past, so it was hard to admit he is right. I still think that if we draft a stud running back that this offensive would be unstoppable. I just can’t shake the feeling that having a two-back system messes up an offenses rhythm during the game, while also making it harder to fool the defense because of the situational players you are bringing in is a dead give away most of the time.
Anyways, I wanted to share the good feeling I have that our team is going to gel all season long…playing beyond their ability for the regular season. Our inexperience will cost us in the playoffs, but that loss will ignite a Championship run.
One last prediction before I get out of here, the New England Patriot’s dynasty is D-E-A-D. I know many of you will disagree, but they will not return to the Super Bowl in this decade. The humiliation of blowing a perfect record in the Super Bowl, coupled with the Spy Gate fiasco, will bring this team to its knees. I am not saying they won’t be a threat in the playoffs, but their aura of invincibility has been shattered and teams will play them tough every game. I see them falling to 9-7 this year, 6-10 in a good division, but the AFC East is a joke.
1 recs |
29
comments
Read Related
EmailComments
I hope we will get to 13-3, but I see....
a record between 8-8 and 11-5. The new kids need to learn and improve.
fader nation is a conquered nation
by mdierk on May 14, 2008 3:43 PM MDT 0 recs
Great write up Zappa
We have a lot of room to grow and a lot of Growth needed. I dunno about 13-3 or some crazy top heavy number like that. I look a little closer to the recent years. New Qb so to speak. maybe last year was our 199 (6-10) and now we get back into that 10-6 11-5 range but this time when we show up to the AFC Game in a few years we ROCK THE HEARTS AND SOULS OF THE COUNRTY!
Until Terrell Davis makes it into the Hall of Fame, I refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a place other than the Ring of Fame at Mile High!
Davis to the Hall!
by Jon Tollerud on May 14, 2008 3:54 PM MDT 0 recs
Muchos gracious...
I’m just trying to keep the dream alive!! 13-3 baby! ;)
by Zappa on
May 14, 2008 4:01 PM MDT
up
0 recs
Why am I the only one who voted for a Super Bowl???
Don’t worry guys, its just a phase I go through every year. Worse yet is that point in training camp when the roster is getting whittled down and I think to myself, “Is this…could it be… Are we actually going to go undefeated this year????” It will pass…
MHR radio tonight, so I’m pumped up.
Hey as long as we are tossing out predictions: Jags win AFC south with games to spare, but IND makes playoff as a wildcard and gets back to the AFC championship. The rest is a secret.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by styg50 on May 14, 2008 5:29 PM MDT 0 recs
zappa
ive been agreeing with you on this since you stated it and im still agreeing with you….Maybe just maybe Ryan Torain was a diamond in the rough and along with then and selv young we can lead the league in rushing this year….maybe just maybe…
Brandon Marshall is a BEAST!!!!
by TommyTSlice on May 14, 2008 6:54 PM MDT 0 recs
My Thoughts.
I like the optimism, but I have a few notes of my own to add. I don’t think the Pats aren’t going down because of any sort of humiliation, but rather because the AFC is absolutely stacked and they’re getting old. I look at the Jags and Chargers, a pair of also-rans in the playoffs for some time now, to finally take the next step and move beyond the Pats and Colts this season. The Steelers still look awfully tough, too, so I’d say we’re in the Wild Card mix along with the Browns and a couple of other teams that could get up there if things break their way. In fact, I see us as a 10-6 team, bowing out of the postseason rather quietly, but that would set us up nicely for 2009 and shut up the critics for a good, long while.
Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!
by ejruiz on May 14, 2008 9:28 PM MDT 0 recs
I read back and saw how well you schooled me last year.
You did it once again today. I tend to be malicious towards other teams, so I say you are 100% correct in your reasoning why the Pats are going down. ;)
by Zappa on
May 14, 2008 9:42 PM MDT
up
0 recs
I agree ejruiz
We are 10-6 on the incline and SD is 11-5 on the decline.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. - Emerson
by firstfan on
May 14, 2008 9:48 PM MDT
up
0 recs
dead?
the (nearly) best team in the long history of the sport is now dead? 1 loss? easy, tiger. i would have to say they are the team to beat, no? in the league. the colts, too, didn’t they just win it all 2 years ago? still a force to be reckoned with, i would think. i am just as anxious to see these teams decline, and pave the way for…us! but it isn’t happening right away. the jags and chargers do look really good, and could each beat one of those teams in the playoffs, but both of them will make the playoffs. steelers, too. browns, no. i’m going to guess: pats, colts/ jags(w), steelers, chargers/ broncos(w). the jags could win the division with a little help, but they still can’t score enough. the colts and chargers remain the teams to beat in their respective divisions. i have a hard time thinking the pats and steelers don’t win their divisions, they’re both tough, loaded, and clearly the best team, in my opinion. i think our easy schedule gets us in, and our inexperience gets us out, quickly. 2009 looks like a more realistic year to take on the big dogs, and hopefully by then the younger broncos overtake the aging pats and colts. or, none of this may happen
by davecheffy on May 15, 2008 1:49 AM MDT 0 recs
NE has the
easiest schedule in the NFL… By far (!) = No less than 10 wins..
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on
May 15, 2008 11:58 AM MDT
up
0 recs
We too had the "easiest" schedule last season...except
those teams turned out to not be has big a chumps as we thought. Detroit anyone?
by Zappa on
May 15, 2008 12:04 PM MDT
up
0 recs
That was a strange game.
The Lions looked pretty good early and like world beaters against the Broncos. But then they fell apart. I think they could have took the Packers if they played them in the first 6 games.
by HBBeough on
May 16, 2008 5:32 PM MDT
up
0 recs
I see 10-6 or 11-5
There are lots of things to be optimistic about, from improved d-line (one year older, plus D-Rob) and linebacker play, to a nonexhausted Cutler starting his third year, to a second year under ST coach O’Brien with upgraded personnel, to improved depth and character and probably better team chemistry. My one real worry is Marshall. Despite all the assurances, I won’t feel confident that he’s overcome his injury till I see him playing at a high level. The o-line will be better but is a year or two away from clicking on all cylinders. If the d-line can force other teams to pass more, and put pressure on the QB when they do, Champ will bounce back big from his down year. Also, I think he and Bly will find Slowik’s defense more congenial than last year’s version. Safety will be adequate but is going to be a couple of years behind the other positions when Lynch retires. Hopefully Barrett will surprise but we’ll probably take a safety early next year and have to wait a year or two for him to develop. But overall it looks like the Broncos have bottomed out at 7-9 and are headed back up.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on May 15, 2008 2:25 AM MDT 0 recs
Roll with it Zappa...........
I too, am very optomistic for this year. I’d like to see 12-4 or 13-3, but I think a more realistic outlook is 10-6 or 11-5. However if the Broncos want to surprise me, I’d be more than happy to accept it. This year is going to be a fun one, it will be interesting to watch and see how many of the “ifs” pan out. But thats why they play the games isn’t it? To watch what happens? It wouldn’t be any fun if we already knew how it would shake out. GO BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Broncofan on May 15, 2008 8:51 AM MDT 0 recs
As long as the "IFs" are not named
Simeon Rice, Sam Adams, or 22 other names of various DT we used then I think we will be okay. ;)
by Zappa on
May 15, 2008 9:18 AM MDT
up
0 recs
I think we are looking at 9 or 10 wins.
We have an even chance of making the playoffs. 10 wins probably gets us in, 9 does not. (This may change depending on what else happens before the start of the reg season.
I think ‘09 and beyond we should be looking good for several years to come (consistent playoff appearences, with 1 to 3 SBs during the Cutler era).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on May 16, 2008 3:01 AM MDT 0 recs
I wonder what you would have predicted from the 1996 Broncos?
They were coming off an 8-8 year and their defense was atrocious. :) No one thoughts that team would go 13-3 and secure homefield advantage…then of course, no one thought they’d end up losing to the Jags in the first round either.
by Zappa on
May 16, 2008 7:22 AM MDT
up
0 recs
I was wrong on both counts back then. : )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 17, 2008 3:04 AM MDT
up
0 recs
O-line is key to this season.
I tend to agree more with the 10-6 to 11-5 crowd than the 13-3 folks, but hey, nobody saw Plummer and the Broncos going 13-3 and to the AFC Championship game a few years ago either! I do like the correllations that are being drawn between this team and the ‘96 team if for no other reason than it did mark the beginning of the biggest run of Broncos success in the history of the franchise. One big glaring difference though…We are unsettled at the OT positions and that is definitely cause for concern. If we can plug Harris and Pears in there (or Clady and Harris if I have my way) and get it done, then I am all for it, but until ww see these kids in action, we definitely have a big question mark hanging over the team going into this season. If they can perform, and the defense can return to its pre-Bates era form, then this team can compete with anyone and probably beat most anyone, including the much-hated Chargers and Peyton’s Colts. Without some solidity on our O-line though, we are not going anywhere near the Superbowl. Let’s also not forget that this is probably going to be Nalen’s final year which will leave us having to try and replace his rather large shoes at center which will mean further hardships on the offensive line. I still think we are heading back to the playoffs this season, and we have a lot of young talent on this team that is just starting to come into their own, but we also have some significant issues that must be addressed before a deep playoff run or Superbowl run can occur.
by GABronco on May 16, 2008 3:15 PM MDT 0 recs
Welcome to MHR!
And if you recall, 1996 our OL was a big question mark too. We had a bunch of new guys starting to meld together into what was to become the most dominate offensive line in the league. I think the biggest difference between now and 1996 is probably at the RB position. We’re deploying a two-back system instead of All-World, All-Universe, Terrell Davis. ;)
by Zappa on
May 16, 2008 3:38 PM MDT
up
0 recs
Thanks for the welcome!
I am not sure that the O-Line was nearly as big a question mark going into 1996 as it is today. We had a quality group of veterans at all positions with Nalen being the youngest in his second season as a starter. The core of that dominant offensive line was already in place in Nalen, Habib and Schlereth. Interestingly, the tackle positions were fluid throughout this entire period, though we did have Zimmerman for the 95-97 campaigns. We returned all 5 starters from the 95 campaign in 1996, and Diaz-Infante made his first appearance as a starter due to injuries. We had Zimmerman, Schlereth, Nalen, Habib and Thompson on the line. Not exactly a bad crew of guys, though Broderick Thompson’s days were numbered. The only substantial difference between the O-Line in 96 and the O-Line in 97 was the arrival of Tony Jones and his starts at the right tackle position (bye-bye Thompson!).
I do agree that we lack a tailback as talented as TD, but those don’t come around often, in spite of what the media would have us think. I do think Torain has some nice potential and could end up being a steal for us (if he can stay healthy, which oddly enough sounds like another talented Broncos runner we all knew and loved who got knocked for being dinged in college, though Torain’s college numbers are much better than TDs). In spite of the question marks about our line, I do think this Broncos roster is as deep and talented as I have seen in a long time. I am stoked and looking forward to a great season for the Orange and Blue.
by GABronco on
May 16, 2008 8:25 PM MDT
up
0 recs
Welcome GABronco
I think we’ll see Clady / Pears at OTs. I was all for Harris, but a few clues surfaced to make me think he isn’t the answer this year.
Here are some thoughts on the matter.
I’m guessing this may be the last year for Nalen and Hamilton both. Wiegmann can fill in at C if Nalen goes down, but will retire in the next couple of years, giving K-Lich the C role.
I think Harris is on the outs. Despite the good things we’ve heard about him in practices, he hasn’t played a game, while Pears continues to develop and show improvement.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 17, 2008 3:17 AM MDT
up
0 recs
That's disconcerting. Another wasted draft pick if this is the case.
We can’t afford for Harris to be a flop.
by Zappa on
May 17, 2008 12:08 PM MDT
up
0 recs
Well...
..the kid came in and suffered a serious injury before even getting the chance to play. If Denver keeps him, they are perhaps hoping that is still a value. Let’s see.
We can’t change the past, and neone knew he would get hurt. The importnat thing is that we look solid at OL, even if he never recovers into an NFL talent.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 17, 2008 9:21 PM MDT
up
0 recs
It might be, too
that Harris turns out to be a “flop” only because we have so many other good prospects. Is his back a more than temporary problem, or is the problem (for him) simply the level of competition? Drafting (and picking, as in FA) well at a position doesn’t mean all your picks will pan out, and if one out of four or five doesn’t it doesn’t really matter if it’s a relatively high or low draft choice. I’m still kind of puzzled about Harris’s status. Shanahan has said glowing things about him (perhaps, as you suggested elsewhere, as a smokescreen), yet he has no body of work for us to go on. So
I don’t know if he’s still being held back by injury or if we’re just enjoying an embarrassment of riches.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on
May 18, 2008 11:26 PM MDT
up
0 recs
It's possible that he...
...is a typical elite Denver OLman that takes a couple of years to develop. His back injury set him back a year of playing, but in practice he looks good. Maybe this means he is still going to make an impact, but in a couple of more years instead of next year. It’s hard to tell. At this point I’m not factoring him in since we seem to have moved on, but I haven’t completely ruled him out either. I doubt we see him this year.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 19, 2008 6:18 AM MDT
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
