PDA

View Full Version : Mile High Magic and The Kardiac Kids



Broncos Mtnman
09-17-2007, 01:12 AM
Being a season ticket holder for 14 years, I have witnessed many times when the opposing team attempted something that many would call routine, only to have something "magical" happen in favor of the Broncos, ultimately allowing us to win a game we could have, and some times should have, lost.

Last season, it was a muffed snap on a routine extra point attempt by the Bengals. This season, it's a field goal attempt hitting the uprights in overtime, just moments after the Raiders had nailed it in an attempt nullified by a last second time out called by the Broncos.

When you add Mile High Magic to a group of players who simply work their butts off to find a way to win, you have the recipe for an exciting game with enough twists and turns to give any cardiologists pause.

For the second week in a row, the Broncos won the game with a walk-off field goal by Jason Elam. For the second week in a row, the Broncos outplayed their opponent in nearly every offensive catagory. For the second week in a row, the Broncos won a game they could have easily lost.

The defense played lights out against the Raiders passing game, but continued to show a weakness against the run. This is something that will take some time to fix in the new system that Coach Bates brings to the team. However, as was evidenced by three INTs (one each by Bly and Bailey along with a tip drill INT by rookie lineman Thomas), the passing defense is looking good.

I think the running defense will improve, but part of the nature of a "two-gap" system (which Bates brings us in a modified form) means that if you miss a gap, you give up yards. I don't know how many Bronco fans will remember this, but Greg Robinson played a two-gap defense during our Super Bowl years. His defenses would give up big plays from time-to-time, but those defenses would get turnovers and would perform well against the pass.

Some call this type of defense a "bend but don't break" approach. I prefer to call it an "aggressive" approach. Sometimes you get burned when you're aggressive, but many times it brings you the turnovers that can be the difference maker in a game.

An example of what I mean came in the Dre Bly INT at the end of regulation. The Broncos were in an all-out blitz, leaving Bly and Bailey one-on-one against the WRs. With this aggressive attack, McKown had a nano second to make his decision. The pass was decent, but with slightly less time to make the throw, he's off target enough to allow Bly the opportunity to make the play.

I also think the offense is really starting to gell, and as was evidenced by his team mates in the locker room after the game, Jay Cutler is the undisputed leader of an offense that is showing signs of being one of the best in the NFL. He was once again very efficient and our running game was strong, providing performances that should have made this game a blowout.

As I will do each week, here's my "Four Downs" list of the positives and negatives to take from this game.

Most Glaring Weaknesses

1st - The afore mentioned defense against the run. As the players get more comfortable with Bates' new scheme, I think you will see this improve. However, I don't think we should be surprised to see them give up big plays from time-to-time.

2nd - Dropped passes. As good as our passing offense was (Marshall needed just 18 more yards to give us two 100 yard receivers in one game), it could have been even better if not for key dropped passes. Selvin Young dropped not one, but two passes that Cutler put right on the money. Those two plays alone would have added another 60 yards in passing, while also being potential TD plays.

3rd - Untimely penalties. We only had 6 penalties for 34 yards, but we had big plays called back for holding and offensive pass interference, the latter causing a TD to be called back. Shanny doesn't like penalties, so I'm sure this will improve, but these were part of the reason we didn't score more points.

4th - Red Zone and Goal-to-go efficiency. We were 2/5 in the Red Zone with TDs. We would score 3 FGs in the other three. One of those was the OT FG, so we can factor that one out, but we need to see more TDs when we get in the Red Zone. Worse that that is our Goal-to-go efficiency. When you have
1st and goal, you have to score TDs. We were only 2 of 4 in that catagory, scoring FGs on the other 2.

The Good Things

1st - The overall offense. We had 441 net yards in this game, and could have had more if not for the previously mentioned dropped passes. We came just a few dropped passes short of having a second consecutive game with a 100 yard receiver, 100 yard rusher and a 300 yard passer. We are very close to having an extremely dominating offense.

2nd - The pass defense. Last week, we held Losman to less than 100 yards passing. This week, we held McCown to 33 net passing yards. had 3 INTs and 3 sacks. McCown had a passer rating of 23.17. I don't know if the Bills and the Raiders are the best proof of this, but ANY defense that holds a QB to under 100 yards passing, in a league that favors the passing game, is doing something right.

3rd - Special Teams. Last week this was one of the most glaring weaknesses. While Elam did miss a long FG, he came through when it counted in OT. Big Leg Todd was effective in his kickoffs (providing numerous touchbacks) and his punts kept the Raiders deep in their own territory. One of his punts gave the Raiders the ball on the 1 yard line. He was clearly better this week.

4th - Shanny gets mention again. His play-calling was aggressive this week, but the play of the game was the time out he called when the Raiders were attempting to kick a FG in OT to win the game. The timing of his TO call required Janikowski to make a 50+ yard field goal not once, but twice. This call saved the game, and Shanny deserves credit for using the "ice" TO to the best advantage.

In conclusion, things looked better than last week, but there is still room for improvement. And when you think about it, that's actually very good news. If you can start your season 2-0, even when you play less-than-perfect football and have room to improve, it bodes well for the future.

Hey folks, with the Chargers meltdown in NE, we're in first place and the only undefeated team in the AFC West.

Bring on the Jags!!

-BMM

omac
09-17-2007, 01:44 AM
Very, very nice article, man, hitting all the right points. Nice job! :salute:

We've given up a lot of rushing yardage, but this defense, like this team, takes chances and will get burned sometimes, but will also make plays to win. Despite the current inconsistencies with this team, I believe we can beat any team on any given day. The danger is that we can also lose to teams we're far better than, so I hope we become more consistent sooner than later. :cheers:

Requiem / The Dagda
09-17-2007, 09:54 AM
Above and beyond almost any aspect on our team is the poor run blocking by our offensive line. I'd agree that all the other ones are major concerns, but I don't understand how the poor run blocking (especially by Pears and Holland) can be left off the list. On more than three occasions, Holland just gave up on his blocking. Travis Henry may be leading the league in rushing, but to attribute that to the offensive line play this far would be a farce. (You didn't, but some might.)

This poor offensive line play (run wise) is one of the reasons why we're having trouble inside the red zone. You're absolutely right. When we're near the goal, we should be able to punch it in from five yards away on three downs. It's absolutely pathetic that we cannot do that.

Overall, good article. Having this explosive of an offense is nice, but leaving points off the board really hurt. There have been nine from missed field goals, and a few turnovers have cost us as well. With the kind of offensive power we have, we should be putting 30+ on the board and not under 20.

Good work BMM.

Retired_Member_001
09-17-2007, 11:07 AM
Above and beyond almost any aspect on our team is the poor run blocking by our offensive line. I'd agree that all the other ones are major concerns, but I don't understand how the poor run blocking (especially by Pears and Holland) can be left off the list. On more than three occasions, Holland just gave up on his blocking. Travis Henry may be leading the league in rushing, but to attribute that to the offensive line play this far would be a farce. (You didn't, but some might.)

This poor offensive line play (run wise) is one of the reasons why we're having trouble inside the red zone. You're absolutely right. When we're near the goal, we should be able to punch it in from five yards away on three downs. It's absolutely pathetic that we cannot do that.

Overall, good article. Having this explosive of an offense is nice, but leaving points off the board really hurt. There have been nine from missed field goals, and a few turnovers have cost us as well. With the kind of offensive power we have, we should be putting 30+ on the board and not under 20.

Good work BMM.

Brilliant article BMM.

I completely agree with Dream though, I have been one of the real doubters of the offensive line but I have been more worried about the pass blocking, the run blocking being terrible is something else for a Denver Broncos offense. Montrae Holland's blocking is disgusting, he should go back to New Orleans.

topscribe
09-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Above and beyond almost any aspect on our team is the poor run blocking by our offensive line. I'd agree that all the other ones are major concerns, but I don't understand how the poor run blocking (especially by Pears and Holland) can be left off the list. On more than three occasions, Holland just gave up on his blocking. Travis Henry may be leading the league in rushing, but to attribute that to the offensive line play this far would be a farce. (You didn't, but some might.)

This poor offensive line play (run wise) is one of the reasons why we're having trouble inside the red zone. You're absolutely right. When we're near the goal, we should be able to punch it in from five yards away on three downs. It's absolutely pathetic that we cannot do that.

Overall, good article. Having this explosive of an offense is nice, but leaving points off the board really hurt. There have been nine from missed field goals, and a few turnovers have cost us as well. With the kind of offensive power we have, we should be putting 30+ on the board and not under 20.

Good work BMM.
I'm in a hurry for Kuper to improve in his pass blocking. From what I heard,
mostly through Kaylor and SoCal, Kuper is far superior to Holland in run
blocking. It was in pass blocking where he was whiffing, which is not all
that surprising considering this is the first year Kuper has really been put
into that position. It's a matter of experience. But when he does finally
"get" it, much of our run blocking dilemma on the right side will be solved.

IMHO.
BTW, good article, Mtnman. :beer:

-----

broncosfanscott
09-17-2007, 06:59 PM
The Good Things

1st - The overall offense. We had 441 net yards in this game, and could have had more if not for the previously mentioned dropped passes. We came just a few dropped passes short of having a second consecutive game with a 100 yard receiver, 100 yard rusher and a 300 yard passer. We are very close to having an extremely dominating offense. -BMM


Believe me I can't wait for everything to click here and eventually it will......hopefully it will against the Jaguars.

Very good post and you covered everything well.

TheWookieeBronco, nice sig! :D

ThunderGirl
09-21-2007, 10:47 AM
That was a great article BMM!

lex
09-22-2007, 02:05 AM
I was at the game this past Sunday with my brother. It was my first game in the new stadium. Though I would have preferred a walkover, I kind of liked the fact that I was there to witness mile high magic first hand in my first game at the new stadium.

Cleveland Rocks
09-25-2007, 08:41 AM
and just what do the Browns have to do with this?

oh and FYI, for those who say that my post is off-topic.

Kardiac Kids = Brian Sipe's Browns

the phrase is the Browns. Just as the "Orange Crush" is Denver.

Crush05
09-25-2007, 09:36 AM
Man you are good!!! High Five!!!!:beer:



Being a season ticket holder for 14 years, I have witnessed many times when the opposing team attempted something that many would call routine, only to have something "magical" happen in favor of the Broncos, ultimately allowing us to win a game we could have, and some times should have, lost.

Last season, it was a muffed snap on a routine extra point attempt by the Bengals. This season, it's a field goal attempt hitting the uprights in overtime, just moments after the Raiders had nailed it in an attempt nullified by a last second time out called by the Broncos.

When you add Mile High Magic to a group of players who simply work their butts off to find a way to win, you have the recipe for an exciting game with enough twists and turns to give any cardiologists pause.

For the second week in a row, the Broncos won the game with a walk-off field goal by Jason Elam. For the second week in a row, the Broncos outplayed their opponent in nearly every offensive catagory. For the second week in a row, the Broncos won a game they could have easily lost.

The defense played lights out against the Raiders passing game, but continued to show a weakness against the run. This is something that will take some time to fix in the new system that Coach Bates brings to the team. However, as was evidenced by three INTs (one each by Bly and Bailey along with a tip drill INT by rookie lineman Thomas), the passing defense is looking good.

I think the running defense will improve, but part of the nature of a "two-gap" system (which Bates brings us in a modified form) means that if you miss a gap, you give up yards. I don't know how many Bronco fans will remember this, but Greg Robinson played a two-gap defense during our Super Bowl years. His defenses would give up big plays from time-to-time, but those defenses would get turnovers and would perform well against the pass.

Some call this type of defense a "bend but don't break" approach. I prefer to call it an "aggressive" approach. Sometimes you get burned when you're aggressive, but many times it brings you the turnovers that can be the difference maker in a game.

An example of what I mean came in the Dre Bly INT at the end of regulation. The Broncos were in an all-out blitz, leaving Bly and Bailey one-on-one against the WRs. With this aggressive attack, McKown had a nano second to make his decision. The pass was decent, but with slightly less time to make the throw, he's off target enough to allow Bly the opportunity to make the play.

I also think the offense is really starting to gell, and as was evidenced by his team mates in the locker room after the game, Jay Cutler is the undisputed leader of an offense that is showing signs of being one of the best in the NFL. He was once again very efficient and our running game was strong, providing performances that should have made this game a blowout.

As I will do each week, here's my "Four Downs" list of the positives and negatives to take from this game.

Most Glaring Weaknesses

1st - The afore mentioned defense against the run. As the players get more comfortable with Bates' new scheme, I think you will see this improve. However, I don't think we should be surprised to see them give up big plays from time-to-time.

2nd - Dropped passes. As good as our passing offense was (Marshall needed just 18 more yards to give us two 100 yard receivers in one game), it could have been even better if not for key dropped passes. Selvin Young dropped not one, but two passes that Cutler put right on the money. Those two plays alone would have added another 60 yards in passing, while also being potential TD plays.

3rd - Untimely penalties. We only had 6 penalties for 34 yards, but we had big plays called back for holding and offensive pass interference, the latter causing a TD to be called back. Shanny doesn't like penalties, so I'm sure this will improve, but these were part of the reason we didn't score more points.

4th - Red Zone and Goal-to-go efficiency. We were 2/5 in the Red Zone with TDs. We would score 3 FGs in the other three. One of those was the OT FG, so we can factor that one out, but we need to see more TDs when we get in the Red Zone. Worse that that is our Goal-to-go efficiency. When you have
1st and goal, you have to score TDs. We were only 2 of 4 in that catagory, scoring FGs on the other 2.

The Good Things

1st - The overall offense. We had 441 net yards in this game, and could have had more if not for the previously mentioned dropped passes. We came just a few dropped passes short of having a second consecutive game with a 100 yard receiver, 100 yard rusher and a 300 yard passer. We are very close to having an extremely dominating offense.

2nd - The pass defense. Last week, we held Losman to less than 100 yards passing. This week, we held McCown to 33 net passing yards. had 3 INTs and 3 sacks. McCown had a passer rating of 23.17. I don't know if the Bills and the Raiders are the best proof of this, but ANY defense that holds a QB to under 100 yards passing, in a league that favors the passing game, is doing something right.

3rd - Special Teams. Last week this was one of the most glaring weaknesses. While Elam did miss a long FG, he came through when it counted in OT. Big Leg Todd was effective in his kickoffs (providing numerous touchbacks) and his punts kept the Raiders deep in their own territory. One of his punts gave the Raiders the ball on the 1 yard line. He was clearly better this week.

4th - Shanny gets mention again. His play-calling was aggressive this week, but the play of the game was the time out he called when the Raiders were attempting to kick a FG in OT to win the game. The timing of his TO call required Janikowski to make a 50+ yard field goal not once, but twice. This call saved the game, and Shanny deserves credit for using the "ice" TO to the best advantage.

In conclusion, things looked better than last week, but there is still room for improvement. And when you think about it, that's actually very good news. If you can start your season 2-0, even when you play less-than-perfect football and have room to improve, it bodes well for the future.

Hey folks, with the Chargers meltdown in NE, we're in first place and the only undefeated team in the AFC West.

Bring on the Jags!!

-BMM

topscribe
09-25-2007, 10:32 AM
and just what do the Browns have to do with this?

oh and FYI, for those who say that my post is off-topic.

Kardiac Kids = Brian Sipe's Browns

the phrase is the Browns. Just as the "Orange Crush" is Denver.

Well, in that case, I think it was a very good analogy by Mtnman.

-----

Cleveland Rocks
09-25-2007, 08:17 PM
Well, in that case, I think it was a very good analogy by Mtnman.

-----

The Kardiac Kids are the Cleveland Browns. Denver is not the Kardiac Kids. Don't be gettin allusions now. Two completely seperate teams.

lex
09-25-2007, 09:40 PM
The Kardiac Kids are the Cleveland Browns. Denver is not the Kardiac Kids. Don't be gettin allusions now. Two completely seperate teams.

No, weve so thoroughly conquered the Cleveland Browns over the years that we can have anything of theirs that we want.

Cleveland Rocks
09-25-2007, 10:12 PM
No, weve so thoroughly conquered the Cleveland Browns over the years that we can have anything of theirs that we want.

No reason to talk trash, lex.

Kardiac Kids are the Cleveland Browns.
Monsters of the Midway are the Chicago Bears.
The Orange Crush is Denver.

There is no way or no how in which the Broncos are the Kardiac Kids. That is the Browns. The Browns are the Kardiac Kids. Not Denver. The Orange Crush is Denver. The Kardiac Kids are the Browns and that phrase is trademarked by the Browns. It is the Browns.

Sponsored Links