Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 15

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

Highlighted text is textbook IRONY. I shouldn't tell you what to do, but you'll tell me what I really mean?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

It would be irony if it were the same thing... but you already explained that they're different an not the same... one is telling someone to do something, the other one isn't.

How dare I ask you to look.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

That the thing, you didn't ask... you ordered and wanted a report back.

If you're referring to Elvis Dumervil being cut you have left out a HUGE part of the story...a paperwork error caused his release. They didn't want to have to release him.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Oh so now the details are important to the end result when backing your guy Elway... but when talking about Thompson it's just results that matter and details of all the injuries which he had no control over don't matter?

If they didn't want to release him (which I believe) then why did they release him? Because they would of been in cap trouble if they didn't... which is who's fault? Can NFL teams control how they manage the cap? YES... so isn't that partly the Broncos fault? Yet you want to make excuses for that, yet you won't take excuse for players getting injured on the field... and teams have no control over that.

So based on that logic, excuses are acceptable for things they can control but not acceptable for things they can't control? That doesn't mean logical sense... then again many people have said common sense is dead, so many.

Our approach is non-aggressive toward winning it all and all about long term stability in having a chance.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I agree with that some what... but there is a big problem with that... how many teams have went aggressively all in and won nothing? Just because you get aggressive trying to win it all doesn't mean you will... just look at Rex Ryan early years as head coach with the Jets, he went all in, they didn't get and have had NO CHANCE of winning it the last couple of years.

So there are two main approaches... long term stability, trying to give the team a chance to win it every season, or the more aggressive style of giving yourself a better chance for a few year and then not even having a shot at winning it for even more years after that... but I still see that as style more than substance because either way there are going to be a number of years that you don't win it.

I favor and all out assault at WINNING IT ALL. Denver is doing that this year despite you not realizing it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I realize it, and if they don't get it then they might be in trouble... and might have to rebuild and not have a shot at winning it for even more season than Manning has played for them...

Soon our long term stability model will go by the wayside when Aaron is done. You will regret, as a fan, that your GM didn't go for it more with the greatest of all time while we had him. You'll see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

That's assuming I would feel like they could of won more if they went into the all out aggressiveness style...

But I remember the Sherman years when he did go out in an aggressive mode trying to help win another one before Favre retired and that got them zero Super Bowl wins and cost them as they didn't have a chance to win the Super Bowl in Favre's later years with the Packers until 2007...

Getting more aggressive doesn't mean you win more... it might help your chances some, but it will also mean there are years you have no chance... it didn't help Sherman or Rex Ryan win one... and many many other are the same way.

I think most of the teams that have won the Super Bowl are ones that went with the less aggressive long term stability method... most of those that go with the short term aggressive burn out with out getting a Super Bowl ring.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#142

I would like to ask pretty please with sugar on top that you read these two links...

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/denver-broncos-forced-to-cut-elvis-dumervil-paperwork-delay-031513

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9059247/elvis-dumervil-fires-agent-marty-magid-nflpa-reportedly-investigate-incident

The disconnect comes in often when someone tells me something they believe that has no basis in reality but that is the perception they have without looking into things at all. If I've looked into or know it offhand and you don't but you make just as strong proclamations how do you think that is going to end up?

You are incorrect about what happened with Elvis and incorrect with what happened this offseason in Denver and Green Bay...they are not similar. If you want to debate I ask that you at least have an understanding of the things going on around the myopic view you have of just a simple result. Yes, the Broncos released Elvis. You conclude they wanted to do it because they did. That is not how it went down at all. If you want to argue without knowledge that makes it awfully tough to go forward. If I ask you to look into it you'll tell me you're not my "bitch". You aren't...you are also not informed, though.

EDIT: As to the irony thing that you "set me straight" on... I see it like this...You can tell me something, but I can't tell you. That is...IRONY. I don't care that one of the vehicles is a Ford and one's a Chevy... it's that you think it's wrong for me to tell you something (without asking), but in that same post you told me something (without asking)...without asking was your criterion for going off.

BTW...What aggressive things did Mike Sherman do trying to win one for Brett? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You made a statement in your argument. What makes you say this?

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

#143

The disconnect comes in often when someone tells me something they believe that has no basis in reality but that is the perception they have without looking into things at all.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

So if someone doesn't agree with you they have no basis in reality?

I do look into things and I know what I'm talking about... the Broncos had cap space to sign their rookies draft picks... until they made an another aggressive play and signed Wes Welker.... once they signed him, they no longer had cap space to sign their rookies, so the Broncos needed to make cap space somewhere, they decided to make it by cutting Dumervil salary... but had to get the Dumervil to sign the paperwork and get it into the NFL by the deadline.

Based on your own article... they were forced to cut Dumervil... why were they forced to do that? ... Because they needed more cap space to sign the rookie draft picks... so the Broncos aggressive play on Wes Welker back fired when shit happened (just like shit happens when the Packers get injured and you won't let that go as an excuse so I'm not letting this go as an excuse) and the Broncos aggressiveness backfired... if they didn't sign Welker they wouldn't of need Dumervil to take a pay cut and they wouldn't of been forced into cutting him.

Since you like articles so much... and disbelieve anyone who doesn't agree with you...

The Broncos were only about $50,000 below the cap as of Friday morning, their dead money was offset by the subtraction of Dumervil's $12 million salary. So the Broncos now have a little more than $8 million in cap room after Dumervil's release.

denverpost wrote:

They needed cap space to sign rookies... they wasted it with the signing of Welker... and were betting on getting it back one way and lost that bet and had to get it back another. That is what happened. There are excuses to why that lose the bet but either way... they took a gamble and lost.

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

10 years ago

#144

Originally Posted by: beast

I can't believe you bothered. It is a complete waste of energy.

Arguing with him is like pushing on a rope. He won't push back, he will double back, revisit disproven arguments, use supposition as fact, cite opinion as evidence, etc, etc... ad nauseum ad infinitim.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#145

Originally Posted by: beast

beast....please. If you're being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago. The Broncos had RESTRUCTURED Elvis to KEEP him...not RELEASE him You make it sound as though it was the Broncos goal to release him and he had to go to do other things they wanted to do. You used his release as some kind of wash to what Denver added..."they added "x" but subtracted "y"... all to try and wrongfully say Denver isn't aggressive and going for it. You completely tried to obfuscate the reality of the situation...the Broncos not only wanted to but fully intended to and THOUGHT they had retained Dumervil but his agent screwed it all up and Elvis ultimately fired his agent. Your liberty and license with the reality of the situation is dizzying.

So, a pretty simple question... Did the Broncos wish to cut Dumervil? YES or NO? Please.

Explain to me why Denver restructured Elvis and Elvis was on board with it. Both parties intended for him to be a Bronco. What was the reason he wasn't a Bronco? Paperwork snafu? OR They just wanted cap space and didn't intend on retaining Elvis for Welker? Which one? Please, answer.

It's unreal the lengths some will go to remain wrong knowing they're wrong. You aren't saving face you're just digging a deeper hole. Here are your own words: oh yeah Elway also signed a 3rd WR in Wes Welker and cut his 2nd best pass rusher for him.---- That is a total hatchet job to the reality of what transpired. You stated Elway ditched Dumervil so he could sign Welker. That is nowhere near what happened. So, after not knowing the situation at all and getting called on it... you go out and then finally research it and come back and start talking about ROOKIES needing to be signed and no cap to do it???? Where was this in your original contention that Dumervil was jettisoned for Welker? How do you continue to dig deeper holes? You didn't know the situation at all. You made an erroneous statement to try and win an argument. I have to say something at that point because it's pretty hard debating with people who make things up when I know the reality of the situation.

If someone doesn't agree with me on issues of FACTS IE: Dumervil wasn't released because the Broncos or Dumervil wanted rather they just cut him so they could bring in Welker....yes, there is no basis in reality. Opinions are fine and it's fun when they're different but you're trying to rewrite history with your presented "facts" from this situation.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#146

I can't believe you bothered. It is complete waste of energy.

Arguing with him is like pushing on a rope. He won't push back, he will double back, revisit disproven arguments, use supposition as fact, cite opinion as evidence, etc, etc... ad nauseum ad infinitim.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

7

Insults from the guy who took his ball and went home when asked directly... Is Jarrett Boykin Alshon Jeffery's equal. Still, no answer...but insults aplenty.

In your case, and the reason you're taking this tack is you used some stats from a site like PFF to try and justify Boykin was as good as Alshon. When I did the EXACT SAME THING showing Andrew Luck was really a better running QB than RGIII or CK7 and Donald Brown was a much better RB than Adrian Peterson you had the audacity to question my debate style saying it lacked integrity???? I then asked you to settle it... Is Jarrett Boykin Alshon Jeffery's equal... crickets, then insults and now more insults.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

#147

beast....please. If you're being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

WTF? So now you're saying I'm lying? ... the facts are right that... the Broncos took an aggressive gamble and lost... simple as that... and I'm a lying?

First off that's bad logic, second off, using that same logic reversed on you, it means if you were being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago.... which shows why it's bad logic because you're being honest correct?

You're applying one set of logic to me, and another set of logic to yourself.

The Broncos did not want to cut the DE... they just aggressively took a chance which is a gamble... and simply put they lost the gamble. You talked about wanting to be more aggressive... that was more aggressive and it back fired on them.

If you're going to be more aggressive, then you have to take more chances, and if you're taking more chances all of the might not be smart ones...

And for the record I am being honest...

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#148

Originally Posted by: beast

You're well over half way to China, now. Am I saying you're lying? I'm saying you had NO CLUE what happened with Elvis Dumervil. I'm still not certain that you do. Your digging hole deeper characterization in this response really makes me wonder. Denver got aggressive and it backfired? What? It was a PAPERWORK ERROR by Dumervil's agent that caused this...not aggression or lack thereof. It was a very rare event that should not have happened that caused Dumervil to be released. There was no intention on either party's side of Elvis not playing for Denver. It was a terrible accident. You've turned something that is black and white and simple to comprehend and turned it into some mystical failed tactic of aggression? No. No. No. No.

You see, had you understood the Dumervil fiasco from the beginning you wouldn't have posted he was cut to bring in Welker...you wouldn't have moved on to he was cut because they needed space for rookies.... and then you wouldn't have moved onto, finally, I hope... that he was released due to a failed act of aggression. You've had 3 cracks to understand what happened and you swung and missed each time. You are officially struck out. Please, put the bat in the rack and sit down and watch the game.

I'm now pouring on the sarcasm because I know exactly what you're about and what you're trying to do and I don't like it anymore than you don't like the result of it. Man, I dislike being pushed into typing things like this but if you would only admit you didn't know what you were talking about instead of continuing the charade that you did none of this gets to where we are at now.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

#149

Forget it... I think I could say the sky is normally looks blue and you're find some way to disagree...

Though it's pretty simple... all the articles say the Broncos were "forced"... they wouldn't of been forced if they just handled their business well before the deadline like most teams do... and if they wouldn't have signed Welker they could of kept working with Dumerville after the deadline... but screw trying to explain the cap to you because you don't seem like you care. You seem to just like arguing... and not letting excuses be used unless it's for your guys...

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#150

Forget it... I think I could say the sky is normally looks blue and you're find some way to disagree...

Though it's pretty simple... all the articles say the Broncos were forced... if they wouldn't have signed Welker they wouldn't of been in a position to be forced... could of kept Dumville though the cap deadline and kept trying to get him to reduce his deal. It's pretty simple, but somebody trying to make it hard...

Originally Posted by: beast

You're the one trying to change the sky's color...not me. I understood exactly what happened with Dumervil. You didn't and still don't.

Now, you're back to your original contention? What happened to the draft pick angle? The aggression angle? Full circle.

A REAL man can admit his errors. You however will cling tooth and nail to being wrong all the while trying to justify you aren't knowing deep down that you are.

Enjoy China! You're there!

Chew on this: denver-broncos-forced-to-cut-elvis-dumervil-paperwork-delay

What? The headline is WRONG! It should read...Broncos cut Dumervil because they signed Welker?

or... Broncos cut Dumervil, Need Space for Rookies

or... Broncos cut Dumervil in Failed Act of Aggression

PAPERWORK ISSUE caused his release, man! [palm]

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (25m) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (2h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (12h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (12h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (12h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (16h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (16h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (16h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (18h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (18h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (18h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (18h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (18h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (18h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (18h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (18h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (19h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (20h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (20h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (20h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (20h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (20h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (21h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (21h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (21h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (22h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (22h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (22h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS