I haven't seen anybody (maybe I missed it in another thread somewhere) mention the fact that Denver kept their second-string QB in the game until the fourth quarter. Each time they trotted Van Pelt out there during the third quarter, I kept thinking, "Geez...am I really SEEING this?!" Had we kept Banks in the game that long, we would have scored more points, and the Broncos wouldn't have done as well as they did. To me, it was very obvious that the Texans were using this game primarily as a way to experiment different schemes and to really evaluate individual performances.....while it looked as though the Broncos were primarily trying to win the game. I'm not saying that the Broncos didn't use the game to try out different schemes and evaluate players....but it sure seemed like keeping your second-string QB in for 3/4 of the game and just pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, was an attempt to ensure a win first and foremost. If they need the confidence THAT bad, then that's pretty sad. If I am not mistaken, they also had Ron Dayne in the game the whole time (he broke a long run towards the end of the game). So, there's another example to support my theory. Anyway, it just makes me mad when I see comments about how "boring the game was," and how "nobody should pay money to see that," such as what someone reported McLame of the Chronic say about last night's game. 1. No season-ending injuries. 2. Good first-team execution on both sides of the ball. 3. We scored two TDs. What else can someone expect for a flippin' pre-season game that doesn't count for anything? Don't drink the McLame kool-aid. This was by far the best first-game pre-season game we've had, IMO.