PDA

View Full Version : We could easily be 0-2. But we're not.



RunYouOver
09-16-2007, 09:26 PM
There may be a lot to worry about after this game.

After all, we barely squeaked out a win against the lowly Bills in Week 1. Then we follow that up by blowing a 17-3 lead at home and stealing a win from the Raiders, of all teams.

Jay Cutler's played pretty well, but he's also made some mistakes.

Henry's played well, but the O-Line hasn't given him too much help.

The D-Line has been horrendous, allowing way too many rushing yards, and not doing a great job of tackling.

Special teams hasn't gotten any better from last year, and even with Champ Bailey (Who's been the only standout on Special Teams), we still can't tackle, we start off with awful field position, and opponents are starting off with much better position.

Some would argue that all that matters is the win total, but we haven't looked great.

Or have we?

Not including the Sunday night game or the Monday Night game, Denver has;

The #3 QB in passing yards, #1 RB in rushing yards, #4 WR in receiving yards.

Throw in the best corner in the league on one side, and one of the best on the other, and the fact that the Defense has only allowed 2 TDs in 2 games, 1 of which was a big pass play, and one of which was a big run play, and you're looking at an offense that's putting up plenty of yards, and a defense that is shutting the offense down.

What's missing is the points.

But you know what, that REALLY doesn't matter right now. The points will come. What's important is that we have the two wins.

Now, you could argue that while we have the wins, we should have won by more. I couldn't disagree more.

With an offense that's putting up the stats, I know that the points will come.

These two wins may be more important than you realize.

The main AFC Tiebreaker for the playoffs, when the two teams competing haven't met head-to-head, is AFC record. The Broncos are now 2-0 in AFC games. If the two teams competing are in the same division, it goes by division record, which we're now 1-0 in.

We're also 2-0, and with the Chargers losing today (Down 24-7), we're winning our division. We're one of only 5 AFC teams that haven't lost yet. And only the Broncos, Steelers, and Patriots will be 2-0 in AFC play.

These wins were big, whether they were by 3 points or 30. It may only be week 2, but it's never too early to think about the consequences of the games from the first two weeks, and a loss in either of these games would have been devastating.

That is all....I think I'll post this on Broncos Country, too.... :D :cool:

Medford Bronco
09-16-2007, 09:32 PM
These wins were big, whether they were by 3 points or 30. It may only be week 2, but it's never too early to think about the consequences of the games from the first two weeks, and a loss in either of these games would have been devastating.

That is all :D:cool:


Yes the Rams loss last year came back to bite us as if we beat them it would have meant the playoffs. Last year we definatley lost one if not both of these games.

Tned
09-16-2007, 09:34 PM
The team is playing pretty much as I expected. I posted a few weeks ago that I thought it would be around mid-season until the team, and especially the offense, gelled and starting playing well. After last week, I said maybe I was over conservative and maybe it would happen sooner. After this week, not sure.

We have a young QB making a lot of good plays, but also costly mistakes. Fortunately, he also has some good receivers that are bailing him out. I know there were at least two big completions (one to Walker and one to Marshall) that were thrown behind them while they were on the run and they had to twist around to catch it off their trailing shoulder. Great efforts by them. On the other side, Cutler has handled the pressure and stayed cool, back peddling and waiting for a receiver to free up (often dump off/screen type escape valves), with the exception of the lateral last week, and a couple other bad moves.

So, it is going to take some time, but I still think this team will be much better in the second half than the first, because they have the weapons on offense and defense, they just need some time for all the new pieces to fit together, and the young guys (offense and defense) need more experience.

Requiem / The Dagda
09-16-2007, 10:01 PM
The one thing that's the most frustrating is that we're putting up 400+ offense a game, but are averaging less than 20 points a game. We've had our struggles, but any team putting up that many yards should be putting around 30+ on the scoreboard a game.

Cutler, Walker and Henry are top five in their respective yardage categories - but we need to do a better job of finishing off drives. I thought that the Marshall pass interference call tonight was a little overboard, but still - the offense is getting yards like there is no tomorrow, yet cannot finish the job. Elam missing three field goals (I believe thus far) is troubling too. We can't leave those points off the board, they need to be on it.

Our pass defense is fantastic. Nobody is throwing on us. Besides the mishap (Bly/Lynch) in coverage on the touchdown to Porter, nothing is being gained on us. If anything, it's the short game. Our rushing defense this week was our big weakness, although it wasn't too bad against the Bills. It's really spotty. That's the disadvantage of having (in reality) on dimensional defense ends on the field, with an average interior defensive line. It'll come in time, (so I hope) but right now the Broncos defense outside tackling issues and today, run support is very solid.

What's not working can be improved upon. Cutler will settle down as the season progresses and I expect other things to be rolling along well in the near future.

You're right, we could have been 0-2, but the fact is we're not. All that matters is that we're 2-0 -- and that the mistakes we've been making get improved upon. It might take some time, but it'll get done. We have a lot of new starters on both sides of the ball, so growing pains and some growing time are going to occur. It's natural.

One negative I'll continue to harp on is our piss poor, inconsitent run blocking. Henry gets so many of his yards after contact, it just goes to show how valuable he is in that department. The right side of our line is an absolutely pathetic. It needs to be addressed.

SmithOverTO
09-16-2007, 10:11 PM
Sure the Broncos played lousy but give some credit to the Raiders...we didnt let this game nearly slip away, we nearly had it knocked out of our hands. Their defense was a swarm. Morrison was a beast behind the line, and Warren was a force in the middle. Their secondary was great too, and if they could tackle better they could have an top 3 defense.


And RYO's title says the whole story: We could be 0-2. But we're not.



Whats not to like?

DenBronx
09-16-2007, 10:12 PM
we should have kept quincy morgan...hixon is a joke. :geezer:

DenBronx
09-16-2007, 10:13 PM
give credit to shanny for the last second timeout.

BroncoWave
09-16-2007, 10:17 PM
we should have kept quincy morgan...hixon is a joke. :geezer:

explain to me how the hell he's supposed to go anywhere with our craptastic blocking on kick and punt returns. anyone we put back there at this point would get killed.

topscribe
09-16-2007, 10:29 PM
Well, here is the real positive side of it:

We played two pathetic games . . . and still won.

Now, does that tell y'all something about when we start playing well?

-----

omac
09-16-2007, 10:37 PM
Great post RunYouOver! :salute:

This team is still new and young and prone to inconsistencies, but this is also a team that can get the wins when the chips are down. :cheers:

shank
09-16-2007, 10:41 PM
we should have kept quincy morgan...hixon is a joke. :geezer:

this is ridiculous. it's obvious to a blind rock in a lightless hole with earplugs and ADD that our special teams is terrible. our coverage units are terrible, and our blocking is horrible. it's often the returners job to make the first guy miss on punts, and then let the blocking take over. hixon has consistently made the first guy miss, but has then had to deal with guys #2,3,4, and 5 coming at him right after. he didn't have a returnable punt today and none of janikowski's kick offs landed in front of the end line. hixon is not the problem, and has done better as an individual than any other option available to us.

our punt blocking is terrible, and hixon has a 24 yard average on kick returns, which is less than a yard under morgan's average from last year.

again, hixon isn't the problem.

broncosfanscott
09-16-2007, 10:52 PM
give credit to shanny for the last second timeout.

That was the call/play of the game. I would have loved to see Al Davis' face when the FG was missed.

RYO pretty much covered everything and his title says it all.

While we let the game slip out of our hands in the second half, our offense for the last two weeks have got the job done when it needs to by driving down the field and getting a score.

Cutler is playing well despite the mistakes that he has made and with some fine tuning he'll be just fine.

I am glad to see that Bly redeemed himself after getting burned on that TD. One pass was overthrown near the end of the game and when OAK tried it again Bly was there to pull it down to prevent the Raiders from ending the game.

A win is a win and while I am happy to be 2-0 instead of 0-2, I would like to see us get a lead against Jacksonville and hold it. Sixteen games like these will make me go nuts.

4th Qtr./OT game winning drives by Cutler: 2

omac
09-16-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, here is the real positive side of it:

We played two pathetic games . . . and still won.

Now, does that tell y'all something about when we start playing well?

-----

I wouldn't necessarily call them pathetic :D, but I agree with your points. This team will be even better as the season progresses.

One thing I like about this team ... their mettle has been tested twice in 2 games, and they've delivered both times. These are good things to keep in your pocket; they know they can win under pressure. I just hope they don't develop a mentality of playing uninspired, thinking they can turn it on any time, because that's dangerous.

Cincy just scored 45 points against the Browns ... and lost! We have a pretty good team indeed. :cheers:

DenBronx
09-16-2007, 11:02 PM
this is ridiculous. it's obvious to a blind rock in a lightless hole with earplugs and ADD that our special teams is terrible. our coverage units are terrible, and our blocking is horrible. it's often the returners job to make the first guy miss on punts, and then let the blocking take over. hixon has consistently made the first guy miss, but has then had to deal with guys #2,3,4, and 5 coming at him right after. he didn't have a returnable punt today and none of janikowski's kick offs landed in front of the end line. hixon is not the problem, and has done better as an individual than any other option available to us.

our punt blocking is terrible, and hixon has a 24 yard average on kick returns, which is less than a yard under morgan's average from last year.

again, hixon isn't the problem.



i never said hixon was the whole problem...our special teams blows. of course this does not include champ bailey. but back to hixon, im sorry but im sure everyone else in america didnt see him breaking people ankles like your talking about....he really does not impress me and you have to start running to get a block dont you? hixon looks like a deer froze by lights.

shank
09-16-2007, 11:07 PM
i never said hixon was the whole problem...our special teams blows. of course this does not include champ bailey. but back to hixon, im sorry but im sure everyone else in america didnt see him breaking people ankles like your talking about....he really does not impress me and you have to start running to get a block dont you? hixon looks like a deer froze by lights.

if you get the chance, rewatch the bills game, and pay attention to how he consistently got around the first guy. he has had NO blocking on punt returns and you saying that he's unimpressive is unfair to him. i WISH you would get your wish and that we would let Q look even more foolish as he fields punts in a 1 on 11 drill like hixon has been doing. hester couldn't look good with our blocking.

omac
09-16-2007, 11:09 PM
Also, a big thank you to New England. :welcome:

We're now the only unbeaten team in the AFC west! :beer:

Watchthemiddle
09-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Well, here is the real positive side of it:

We played two pathetic games . . . and still won.

Now, does that tell y'all something about when we start playing well?

-----

Its not even that we have played pathetic, we just haven't put it all together and got into the endzone as much as we have. Its so far the same ol same ol offense that is great between the 20's and then falls short.

We have the redzone personel between Marshall, Walker, and Graham. Those should be the go to guys down there but we just aren't getting it done.

Lonestar
09-16-2007, 11:34 PM
Its not even that we have played pathetic, we just haven't put it all together and got into the endzone as much as we have. Its so far the same ol same ol offense that is great between the 20's and then falls short.

We have the redzone personel between Marshall, Walker, and Graham. Those should be the go to guys down there but we just aren't getting it done.

Not so sure that this is correct in th Red zone you have to be able to run the ball , IF you can't do this and right now we can't. Because the defense now has a lot less field to defend they can keep the LB or safeties much closer to the LOS. We still do not have that OLINE that can flat blow the DL off the LOS. Not to mention the other 4-5 players that are now crowding up.

It is all won or lost in the trenches so far it is more loss than win.

One more thought last year the D was on the field so much that after 7-8 games they just flat wore down and when Ferguson got hurt it was ll over but the shouting. The same thin g just might apply to our featherweight finesse OLINE.

BTW where is scheffler? I have failed to notice him AT ALL the past two weeks.

omac
09-16-2007, 11:38 PM
Its not even that we have played pathetic, we just haven't put it all together and got into the endzone as much as we have. Its so far the same ol same ol offense that is great between the 20's and then falls short.

We have the redzone personel between Marshall, Walker, and Graham. Those should be the go to guys down there but we just aren't getting it done.

Same old offense? Hardly. We're winning the close games, and our offense has the potential to score a lot of points. In recent years, it was all about the running game, and good luck if we fell behind. This is a very good offensive unit, that has a lot of confidence, not only in the run game, but the pass too. We're just getting the kinks out.

shank
09-16-2007, 11:41 PM
the oline has looked bad so far, and i'm hopin that its due to rust and unfamiliarity. hopefully the rhythm will improve, and they will get back to their old ways (because henry with actual running lanes will be amazing).

i think sheffler must be recovering slow from his injury or something, because i don't think i've even seen him on the field. i don't see any way that he has taken enough of a step back to be overtaken by nate jackson without the injury being a big factor. i hope he gets healthy/whatever, because i miss the chemisty he and jay developed last year, (which would be awesome to go along with jay's great chemistry with javon and the brandons).

Watchthemiddle
09-17-2007, 12:07 AM
Same old offense? Hardly. We're winning the close games, and our offense has the potential to score a lot of points. In recent years, it was all about the running game, and good luck if we fell behind. This is a very good offensive unit, that has a lot of confidence, not only in the run game, but the pass too. We're just getting the kinks out.

I said its the same ol offense...the one that we have seen be GREAT in between the 20's and then stall in the redzone.

Uh oh, you said the P word.

Skywalker
09-17-2007, 12:25 AM
we should have kept quincy morgan...hixon is a joke. :geezer:

I think Hixon will be a good returner for us. He just needs help from everybody else...

Joel
09-17-2007, 12:28 AM
What's interesting is that to break a Divisional tie common opponents take precedence over Conference opponents (probably because the new schedules have every team in the same Division playing all but two of the same opponents) but for inter-Divisional tiebreaks it's the other way 'round. What continues to gall me is that in the case of a 3+ way Wild Card tie with multiple teams from the same Division the very first step is to eliminate all but one team from each Division. That may not sound like a big deal, but last year we had a hefty edge in Conference opponents over all the other wildcard teams (and the head to head against the Bungles) but, because KC had a better Division record and because their Conference record was awful, finishing even with KC meant the only way we went was if they were the #5 seed, almost impossible with their Conference record. In fact, had the Jets been eliminated I believe the Bungles would've been the #5, KC the #6 and Denver spectators, even though we had two more Conference wins against Cincy AND beat them in the regular season.

So just remember, there's multiple stages to the tiebreakers, and they apply in a different order for Divisional and non-Divisional teams. As of tonight SD is 1-0 against common opponents, so if we finish even overall and in the Division we have to beat Chicago on the road or hope the Bolts lose one more game than we do against Indy, Jax, Houston, Tennessee, GB, Detroit and/or Minnesota (if we're even at that point our win against the Bills and their loss against NE translated to a two game lead, provided we beat Pitt OR they lose to Baltimore).

omac
09-17-2007, 06:21 AM
I said its the same ol offense...the one that we have seen be GREAT in between the 20's and then stall in the redzone.

Uh oh, you said the P word.

I agree with you that the results from the redzone may be the same, but I really think that will change. The difference in the firepower and balance in this offense is obvious. We not only rush for a lot of yards, but pass for a lot of yards too. And this team knows how to come to from behind and win. This is a much better offense than last year already, and it will get better still. :beer:

RunYouOver
09-17-2007, 02:44 PM
What's interesting is that to break a Divisional tie common opponents take precedence over Conference opponents (probably because the new schedules have every team in the same Division playing all but two of the same opponents) but for inter-Divisional tiebreaks it's the other way 'round. What continues to gall me is that in the case of a 3+ way Wild Card tie with multiple teams from the same Division the very first step is to eliminate all but one team from each Division. That may not sound like a big deal, but last year we had a hefty edge in Conference opponents over all the other wildcard teams (and the head to head against the Bungles) but, because KC had a better Division record and because their Conference record was awful, finishing even with KC meant the only way we went was if they were the #5 seed, almost impossible with their Conference record. In fact, had the Jets been eliminated I believe the Bungles would've been the #5, KC the #6 and Denver spectators, even though we had two more Conference wins against Cincy AND beat them in the regular season.

So just remember, there's multiple stages to the tiebreakers, and they apply in a different order for Divisional and non-Divisional teams. As of tonight SD is 1-0 against common opponents, so if we finish even overall and in the Division we have to beat Chicago on the road or hope the Bolts lose one more game than we do against Indy, Jax, Houston, Tennessee, GB, Detroit and/or Minnesota (if we're even at that point our win against the Bills and their loss against NE translated to a two game lead, provided we beat Pitt OR they lose to Baltimore).

I'm not 100% on that.

They try to eliminate teams for the tiebreaker, but I'm not sure they would start with the division at that point. The first step, I'm pretty sure, is always head to head, or at least common opponents, if Denver had beaten Cincy, which it did, I think it would've been KC#5 and Den#6.

Anyway, that's the past...all we needed was to win, and we couldn't do that.

RunYouOver
09-17-2007, 02:51 PM
I'm not 100% on that.

They try to eliminate teams for the tiebreaker, but I'm not sure they would start with the division at that point. The first step, I'm pretty sure, is always head to head, or at least common opponents, if Denver had beaten Cincy, which it did, I think it would've been KC#5 and Den#6.

Anyway, that's the past...all we needed was to win, and we couldn't do that.

Actually, I think you're right after going over the tie-breaking procedures.

That's stupid....