Horse Tracks 4/1/08

by mdierk on Apr 1, 2008 7:20 AM MDT in Horse Tracks Comment 10 comments

Here's an April Fool's edition of Horse Tracks. Enjoy!

Be ready for more changes as teams adjust their budgets. See here

Mike Kils has an interesting mailbag session. See here

The Rocky Mountain News also brings up the financial tightrope that the Broncos are walking on. See here

Matt Prater will not be alone this training camp. He will see competition. See here

Here's the story that never seems to die. We are still trying to get Robertson. See here

AFC West

The conquered fader nation has signed the greatest center of all time....John Wade! Who? See here

Surely this has to be a joke...the Missouri Indians have signed Lin Elliot! If you don't remember, he was the kicker that missed FG's in the playoff loss to Indy in the 1995 playoffs. I remember that Chef team as being lucky and a fluke. Chef fans still hate this guy! See here

I know this one is a joke! The Chefs are renaming Arrowhead. It will be called Elway Steakhouse stadium. LOL. See here

NFL News

Looks like the only owner that had any sense during the CBA was Ralph Wilson. See here

Have a good day!

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Trading Up

If any of these teams are interested in trading down to KC at the #19 spot...let's make a deal. We have our eyes on a couple players who we didn't want to take at #5 but who we'd love to take 10-14.

And the home of the...CHIEFS!!!

by jonnyr44 on Apr 1, 2008 7:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

The two-tail back arguement in

Klis' mailbag makes me want to scream. How many titles have the Broncos won utilizing the two-back system!?

I'll believe in the two tail back system IN DENVER, when Denver wins a Super Bowl while using a two back system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the CB agreement that is destroying the NFL. I don't particularly like the arrogance of Gene Upshaw's quote, "I just don't want the owners to believe that somehow there is a Santa Claus. We're getting 60 percent of the revenues when it's all said and done, and we're not giving any of it back. . . . I think they have to learn to survive on their 40 percent."

What do you expect from a former Raider? I hope the owner's stand up to the NFLPA and force the players to "strike". Let them. At this point, as a fan, the Union needs to go back to 50%. A 50/50 deal is perfectly FAIR. Greed will only make the NFL less profitable. The NFLPA will end up destroying the leagues popularity and end up with FAR LESS money then they could have gotten.

Morons. Bring on the strike!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMarcus Russell, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!

by Tim Lynch on Apr 1, 2008 9:58 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

agree/disagree

I really advocate the 2 back system more and more as time goes on. I like it much more so for ZB teams.

For one, I like the idea of extending the years a HB can play because he shared playing time.

Denver has also proved that you can have two runners in a season go over 1000 yards.

I also like the change up between a bruising HB who softens up the DL, then the speed demon who sweeps in for the big gains.

But hey, if we can't agree on that then we at least agree that the NFLPA is arrogant and not terribly helpful this round. I sure don't want a strike, but I don't feel for the NFLPA either.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Apr 1, 2008 2:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess my angst against the two-back system

goes all the way back to the mid 1980's when the Cleveland Browns deployed a two headed beast. I believe they even had one seasno when both their guys topped 1000 yards rushing. However, the Browns were consistently good...they were never able to get "over the hump" with a two back system and win or even get to a Championship. The same story is unfolding in Denver. We're consistently good(not last year), but we have yet to get over that hump and get to a Championship.

I prefer a TD type back who has both power and a little speed. We don't need a big bruiser and also a speed demon, we need a player who has a combination of both. Those types of runners are the best to have in the ZB system. First, they are in the game all the time and get most of the plays and therefore have a strong command of the playbook. Secondly, a coach can call any play he wants without giving the defense a heads up on what to expect in a run play. A two back system tends to give an advantage to the defense by telling them what kind of running attack will be coming their way. Lastly, I just don't see how wear and tear on a RB is more when not using a two back system. Any RB can get injured on any given play, look at Henry. He was in a two back system but that didn't stop him from getting hurt. Barry Sanders didn't need to worry about a two back system. Emmit Smith? Marshall Faulk? E. James? LaDanian Tomlinson?

I think we, as Bronco fans, tend to like the two back system more because of the fate of TD in our system. TD was an individual and he got hurt and never was the same. We can't let that one experience ruin any belief that we may have that a single franchise back isn't worth the risk in our system. TD gave us two Super Bowl Championships. Enough said. :)

OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMarcus Russell, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!

by Tim Lynch on Apr 1, 2008 4:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

A good point about TD

But the Cleveland comparison doesn't really work. IIRC, Byner and Mack were on the field together (same with Roger Craig and Wendell Tyler for the 49ers). It was not a platoon like we are talking about here.

by MattR on Apr 1, 2008 4:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if TD might have lasted longer...

...in a RB by committee approach?

I also tend to think that the shelf life of a RB has declined more and more in recent years, but I might be wrong on that.

TD was a good combination of both types of backs, by why not have two RBs that are each good combinations (if not a bruiser and a streaker)?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Apr 1, 2008 6:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Think TD

would have lasted longer in any system had the injury not happened. We did have a complimentary back at one point in Vaughn Hebron and had we lined them up I think that would have been good. I had actually at one time envisioned playing with TD when I was in HS, he would have been a 12 year vet by that time but hey I was young and hopeful

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 7:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Lord

I have always wondered how ESPN gets their sources, now I see they source themselves. Two tailback is always scary for anyone to deal with. If sd had kept the Burner than thres no doubt that hydra would have been hard to vanquish. I agree with Zapp on the 50/50 greed never leads to anything good (i.e. Rome wants more of the world, leave the city alone, gauls sack it, paris wants helen, the trojan war the lsit goes on). Greed will destory the NFL and the Fan base for it as well. As for Elway's Steakhouse naming in KC, that would fit since we OWNED the indians last year.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 10:56 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs