PDA

View Full Version : Was the '05 defense great?



Tned
07-30-2008, 07:17 AM
I got involved in the 'discussion' over on the Mane following the recent article about Jake that was posted there and here.

I made the point that Jake and the Broncos offense at that time ('03-'05) were probably a near perfect fit. That few would, or should, argue that Jay isn't a more physically talented QB with far more potential, but that at the same time nobody that is objective can really maintain the claim the Broncos won in spite of Jake, especially when you look at the jump in winning percentage when Jake took over at QB (3rd most wins in the league from '02-'05) and the plunge when Jay took over.

During that discussion, which was more detailed, including pointing out that most people seem to fall either in the "Jake sucks" or "Jake's great" category, rather than where the reality lies, which is that Jake and the Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense were a great fit for each other and the Broncos won a bunch of games as a result, but that ultimately Shanny clearly felt that the fitness/misdirection offense wasn't good enough to beat the elite teams, so has been moving in a new direction. I pointed out that while the Broncos defense in '07 was horrible, the offense was also very bad, considering they had something like 7 games with 15 points or less and several games with no TDs, and that the '05 defense benefited from the Broncos offense jumping out to early leads and Kubiak/Shanny often starting to run out the clock in the late 2nd quarter or early 3rd quarter (something that often backfired, by the way, as teams sometimes got back in the game), but most important the opposing offenses abandoned the run early, because of the early scores the offense was getting.

Anyway, that's a bit ancillary to why I am creating this post. In response, it was pointed out to me that the '05 offense was indeed 'great', and as proof, I was told that the '05 Broncos defense were ranked 3rd, while the '07 Broncos defense was ranked 27th.

So, this is my analysis and response to that statement of 'proof' about the Broncos '05 defense being great, which I thought some here might find interesting.

This is more about the '05 defense, more than it is about good Jake/bad Jake, and how the combination of two 1,000 yard rushers, one 1,000 yard receiver and a 3,000 yard passer GREATLY helped a 'decent' defense look better than they really were, especially when it comes to key stats, such as points allowed.

Here it is:

==============

As I have tried to explain, you can't simply look at a stat here or a stat there, and use that as 'proof'.

First, you are using points given up, which is the stat in which the 2005 defense was ranked 3rd, but they were 15th (middle of the pack in yards given up). So, why was a middle of the pack defense 3rd best in points given up? That's the question you should be looking to answer, as well as honestly answering whether or not anyone would call a defense 15th in yards given up 'great'.

Ok, so let's look at why the team was mediocre in yards given up, but 3rd best in points allowed. I've already explained it, but we will dig in a little further.

As stated earlier, the offense was jumping out to early, first half (typically first quarter) leads, and forcing other teams into more one dimensional gameplans, as they gave up on the run to try and play catch up.

The Broncos offense in '05 was 7th in 1st downs per game, 7th in points scored per game and 5th in total yards. Unlike the defense, the offense was pretty consistent, right? But wait, the yards, points and first downs are only part of the story. The Broncos led the league in time of possession, meaning the '05 Broncs offense held on to the ball more minutes per game than any other team in the league (32:40).

Let's look a little closer. The 'great' '05 defense was 17th in the league in giving up 1st downs per game. So, the defense that had the benefit of the best TOP (time of possession), meaning they spent the least time on the field, was in the bottom half of the league in terms of first downs given up.

Break it down a little further. The 'great' '05 offense was 29th in passing defense, and 18th in yards given up per play (pass and rush).

Now, if we look at the one stat they were 'great' at, it was points. If you factor all the points per game to a common number of minutes on the field, meaning factor all defenses up or down to 30 minutes (a constant number of minutes on the field), then the Broncos fall to 10th in points allowed (since they benefited from spending the fewest minutes on the field per game at only 27:25).

How about 1st downs given up? When the 'great' '05 defense has their stats levelized with the rest of the NFL, then they fall to 29th in the league in first downs given up per 30 minutes on the field.

So, you cannot ignore the benefit that the defense received by the offense leading the league in time of possession, as well as the offense jumping out to early leads and forcing the opposing offenses into abandoning the running game.

The Broncos defense in '05 only faced 21.5 rushes per game, which was WAY below the league average. The next closest team faced 23.9 rushes per game, and 28 of the 31 other teams saw at least 25 rushes a game. The league average was 28 rushes a game.

I think it probably goes without saying the benefit a defense gains from knowing that early in the first half the opposing offense will be abandoning the running game. Clearly, the team can both blitz with more freedom, as well as drop more guys in coverage.

So, sorry for the long-winded post and for those unfamiliar with the maximum verbosity that is Tned, but this was the long way of backing up what I stated earlier. The '05 defense was by no means great, and hugely benefited by the offense jumping out to early leads.

kmonty
07-30-2008, 07:35 AM
I look at the ole handy eyeball test. The 2005 Denver Broncos defense was blitz-happy (John Lynch co-lead the team in sacks with 4, I believe, that's just from memory though so could be wrong)... but against the run, they were phenomenal. We had the best 4-3 linebacker group in the league, complimented by a great secondary and a run stout defensive line.

Of course, all the stats you mentioned regarding the offense helped, but you can't attribute time of possession to the offense alone. The fact that the Broncos were getting into early leads forced opponents to become pass happy, which results in more incompletes, and more clock stoppages.

I know I would take the 2005 defense over anything we've put on that side of the field since. If only the defense had showed up in the AFCCG...

Tned
07-30-2008, 07:58 AM
I look at the ole handy eyeball test. The 2005 Denver Broncos defense was blitz-happy (John Lynch co-lead the team in sacks with 4, I believe, that's just from memory though so could be wrong)... but against the run, they were phenomenal. We had the best 4-3 linebacker group in the league, complimented by a great secondary and a run stout defensive line.

Of course, all the stats you mentioned regarding the offense helped, but you can't attribute time of possession to the offense alone. The fact that the Broncos were getting into early leads forced opponents to become pass happy, which results in more incompletes, and more clock stoppages.

I know I would take the 2005 defense over anything we've put on that side of the field since. If only the defense had showed up in the AFCCG...

Was the team phenominal against the run? Again, the offense jumped out to early leads and the opponents abandoned the run. As indicated above, we saw 23% fewer rushes than the average team, so our total yards rushing per game was great and second only to SD, with both teams giving up around 85 yards per game.

However, when your defense is seeing the fewest rushes per game, by a 'large' margin, can you honestly use yards per game? No, so we can look at yards per rush given up. The best team in the league in total rushing yards per game, SD, also had a great yards per rush avg of 3.5, second only to Pitts 3.4 avg. HOwever, the Broncos gave up 4 yards per rush, once again putting them middle of the pack at tied with 4 clubs for 15th.

Was the team solid against the run? Sure, it was. Was it great against the run? Clearly not. The team benefited by not seeing by far the fewest rushed in the league, which allowed them to appear great and be talked about as having a great rush defense, because the talking heads on TV focused on the impressive 85 yards per game rushing, rather than the 4 yards per play average, or the fact that the Broncos' opponents gave up the run early when the Broncos offense jumped out to a lead.

As to whether I would rather have the '05 or '07 D, then I think it is a no brainer to say '05, but we don't really know what the '08 defense will bring, because clearly the one year and out Bates had a negative effect on the Defense.

In addition, the '07 defense wasn't helped by a mediocre offense that was 22nd in time of posssession and 21st in scoring. However, I think few would argue that the biggest problem with the '07 defense was Bates trying to shoehorn a system into a defensive squad not capable of succeeding in his system.

Regardless of the '07 results, I still mantain that the '05 defense is not considered one of the 'great' defenses in NFL anals, and that the fact that the Broncos were the third team in NFL history to have two 900+yard rushers, a 1,000-yard receiver and a 3,000-yard passer and led the league in time of possession, combined with the defense both being on the field less than any other D in the league and seeing by FAR the fewest rushes in the league, made them look better than they actually were.

Dreadnought
07-30-2008, 08:33 AM
Regardless of the '07 results, I still mantain that the '05 defense is not considered one of the 'great' defenses in NFL anals, and that the fact that the Broncos were the third team in NFL history to have two 900+yard rushers, a 1,000-yard receiver and a 3,000-yard passer and led the league in time of possession, combined with the defense both being on the field less than any other D in the league and seeing by FAR the fewest rushes in the league, made them look better than they actually were.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I will always maintain that the 05 squad's success was one of the finest smoke and mirrors coaching jobs ever. I am pretty down on Jake, but you are right in that what we did with him 03 - 05 was masterful; a classic case of making Lemonade when you are given lemons. Eventually the League was going to wise up to the fact that Jake didn't actually have a whole lot of tools, and so a different direction was going to be needed, i.e. Cutler.

Back to the main point, the 05 Defense was pretty competent and not much more IMO. We had zero pass rush apart from heavy blitzing, and the Pass D was shaky as you pointed out - God only knows how badly and often it would have gotten roasted without Champ Bailey allowing us to help out the other corner spot pretty regularly. The 4 YPC rush average is barely acceptable, though to give them credit some of those yards came cheap against a defense holding a big lead.

EastCoastBronco
07-30-2008, 08:37 AM
Didn't that defence have some kind of a record going for longest streak not having a touchdown scored against it...or something like that?

Dreadnought
07-30-2008, 08:51 AM
Didn't that defence have some kind of a record going for longest streak not having a touchdown scored against it...or something like that?

You're thinking of the 06 defense throught he first half dozen games or so.

EastCoastBronco
07-30-2008, 09:02 AM
You're thinking of the 06 defense throught he first half dozen games or so.

So I was...DOH!

That was quite a streak though...if I do say so myself...;-)

Thanks Dread.

Shazam!
07-30-2008, 09:16 AM
(Not a shot at Cutler, I love him and believe he will be great but...)

Shanahan sabotaged Jake Plummer and set him up for failure, despite his shortcomings.

A Mastermind indeed.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 09:17 AM
(Not a shot at Cutler, I love him and believe he will be great but...)

Shanahan sabotaged Jake Plummer and set him up for failure, despite his shortcomings.

A Mastermind indeed.

No! And you were doing so well.

Dreadnought
07-30-2008, 09:19 AM
(Not a shot at Cutler, I love him and believe he will be great but...)

Shanahan sabotaged Jake Plummer and set him up for failure, despite his shortcomings.

A Mastermind indeed.

I had Brown hair in 03, and grey in 06. Coincidence? :D

Seriously, you should weigh in on one of our many Jake threads then. Much blood has been spilt over this question already, but its never too late for more!

Shazam!
07-30-2008, 09:20 AM
I'm not a Plummer fan, and I knew if Denver was to make the jump they'd need a better QB with better tools.

But the way it went down was terrible and it caused a divide in the locker room in 2006.

Don't mistake me Mr. Stue, I'm happy he's gone and was never thrilled when he signed in Denver. Just the way it happened couldn't have been worse.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 09:20 AM
I had Brown hair in 03, and grey in 06. Coincidence? :D

Seriously, you should weigh in on one of our many Jake threads then. Much blood has been spilt over this question already, but its never too late for more!

The Jake Situation is always a good time waster.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 09:22 AM
I'm not a Plummer fan, and I knew if Denver was to make the jump they'd need a better QB with better tools.

But the way it went down was terrible and it caused a divide in the locker room in 2006.

Don't mistake me Mr. Stue, I'm happy he's gone and was never thrilled when he signed in Denver. Just the way it happened couldn't have been worse.

I don't think Jake was pulled because of Jake specifically. I think Shanny knew his defense was mush, and he figured Cutler would give him the same average performance Jake was giving him.

Which, comparing their stats, was pretty much true. Sad that a rookie outplayed a 10 year vet, really.

Dreadnought
07-30-2008, 09:23 AM
The Jake Situation is always a good time waster.

Shazam! should meet Tubby. They will become very close

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 09:24 AM
Shazam! should meet Tubby. They will become very close

I asked Tubby why he hates Cutler the other day on email, and I have not heard from him since.

Shazam!
07-30-2008, 09:36 AM
I don't think Jake was pulled because of Jake specifically. I think Shanny knew his defense was mush, and he figured Cutler would give him the same average performance Jake was giving him.

Which, comparing their stats, was pretty much true. Sad that a rookie outplayed a 10 year vet, really.

I agree wholeheartedly. I was thrilled when Denver traded up for a QB. I (like many others) was not happy with Plummer's mistake-prone and one dimensional play.

There should have been an open competition in 2007 for the QB position. But trading up for a QB showed Jake that Shanahan had no confidence in him anyway.

Again, sabotage.

I was never a big Plummer fan, and was never happy with him from the day he arrived. I cringed every time he dropped back and threw up my hands more times than I can count. Denver clearly needed an upgrade at QB. I love Cut and his potential. It's just the WAY it went down (Plummer's benching) IMO was wrong. It caused a rift in the locker room and the fans.

Also, his hair was an embarassment!

Is Jake even relevent anymore? idk why I am even talking about him? We have a young exciting promising strong armed 3rd year QB just emerging.

GO CUTLER.

Retired_Member_001
07-30-2008, 09:42 AM
Is Jake even relevent anymore?idk why I am even talking about him? We have a young exciting promising strong armed 3rd year QB just emerging.

GO CUTLER.

Because, naturally, we are going to talk about the past. Whenever the past comes up, Plummer fans will take everything the wrong way. Even if we aren't talking about Plummer, they will think we are talking about Plummer and go off ranting and defending him.

Poster: "So, how about TD's 2,000 rush season?"
Plummer Fan: "Are you implying Plummer can't rush for 2,000 yards?"

lex
07-30-2008, 10:12 AM
I got involved in the 'discussion' over on the Mane following the recent article about Jake that was posted there and here.

I made the point that Jake and the Broncos offense at that time ('03-'05) were probably a near perfect fit. That few would, or should, argue that Jay isn't a more physically talented QB with far more potential, but that at the same time nobody that is objective can really maintain the claim the Broncos won in spite of Jake, especially when you look at the jump in winning percentage when Jake took over at QB (3rd most wins in the league from '02-'05) and the plunge when Jay took over.

During that discussion, which was more detailed, including pointing out that most people seem to fall either in the "Jake sucks" or "Jake's great" category, rather than where the reality lies, which is that Jake and the Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense were a great fit for each other and the Broncos won a bunch of games as a result, but that ultimately Shanny clearly felt that the fitness/misdirection offense wasn't good enough to beat the elite teams, so has been moving in a new direction. I pointed out that while the Broncos defense in '07 was horrible, the offense was also very bad, considering they had something like 7 games with 15 points or less and several games with no TDs, and that the '05 defense benefited from the Broncos offense jumping out to early leads and Kubiak/Shanny often starting to run out the clock in the late 2nd quarter or early 3rd quarter (something that often backfired, by the way, as teams sometimes got back in the game), but most important the opposing offenses abandoned the run early, because of the early scores the offense was getting.

Anyway, that's a bit ancillary to why I am creating this post. In response, it was pointed out to me that the '05 offense was indeed 'great', and as proof, I was told that the '05 Broncos defense were ranked 3rd, while the '07 Broncos defense was ranked 27th.

So, this is my analysis and response to that statement of 'proof' about the Broncos '05 defense being great, which I thought some here might find interesting.

This is more about the '05 defense, more than it is about good Jake/bad Jake, and how the combination of two 1,000 yard rushers, one 1,000 yard receiver and a 3,000 yard passer GREATLY helped a 'decent' defense look better than they really were, especially when it comes to key stats, such as points allowed.

Here it is:

==============

As I have tried to explain, you can't simply look at a stat here or a stat there, and use that as 'proof'.

First, you are using points given up, which is the stat in which the 2005 defense was ranked 3rd, but they were 15th (middle of the pack in yards given up). So, why was a middle of the pack defense 3rd best in points given up? That's the question you should be looking to answer, as well as honestly answering whether or not anyone would call a defense 15th in yards given up 'great'.

Ok, so let's look at why the team was mediocre in yards given up, but 3rd best in points allowed. I've already explained it, but we will dig in a little further.

As stated earlier, the offense was jumping out to early, first half (typically first quarter) leads, and forcing other teams into more one dimensional gameplans, as they gave up on the run to try and play catch up.

The Broncos offense in '05 was 7th in 1st downs per game, 7th in points scored per game and 5th in total yards. Unlike the defense, the offense was pretty consistent, right? But wait, the yards, points and first downs are only part of the story. The Broncos led the league in time of possession, meaning the '05 Broncs offense held on to the ball more minutes per game than any other team in the league (32:40).

Let's look a little closer. The 'great' '05 defense was 17th in the league in giving up 1st downs per game. So, the defense that had the benefit of the best TOP (time of possession), meaning they spent the least time on the field, was in the bottom half of the league in terms of first downs given up.

Break it down a little further. The 'great' '05 offense was 29th in passing defense, and 18th in yards given up per play (pass and rush).

Now, if we look at the one stat they were 'great' at, it was points. If you factor all the points per game to a common number of minutes on the field, meaning factor all defenses up or down to 30 minutes (a constant number of minutes on the field), then the Broncos fall to 10th in points allowed (since they benefited from spending the fewest minutes on the field per game at only 27:25).

How about 1st downs given up? When the 'great' '05 defense has their stats levelized with the rest of the NFL, then they fall to 29th in the league in first downs given up per 30 minutes on the field.

So, you cannot ignore the benefit that the defense received by the offense leading the league in time of possession, as well as the offense jumping out to early leads and forcing the opposing offenses into abandoning the running game.

The Broncos defense in '05 only faced 21.5 rushes per game, which was WAY below the league average. The next closest team faced 23.9 rushes per game, and 28 of the 31 other teams saw at least 25 rushes a game. The league average was 28 rushes a game.

I think it probably goes without saying the benefit a defense gains from knowing that early in the first half the opposing offense will be abandoning the running game. Clearly, the team can both blitz with more freedom, as well as drop more guys in coverage.

So, sorry for the long-winded post and for those unfamiliar with the maximum verbosity that is Tned, but this was the long way of backing up what I stated earlier. The '05 defense was by no means great, and hugely benefited by the offense jumping out to early leads.

Its a little of both in that Jake had some strengths but also some glaring flaws. And the fact that Denver was able to work around, hide, whatever you want to call it, to the point that they became one dimensional is amazing and a real credit to the Denver coaches that they were able to make it work. When you think about it the basics of an offense typically have the QB throwing from the pocket. We made ourselves one dimensional (in being overreliant on the rollout) because of Jakes limitations and made it work for a long time. Eventually, we couldnt do it with smoke and mirrors any longer. Its no coincidence that before Jake was benched, our running game was really coming up short but once Jay entered the lineup, the running game opened up. One of the reasons for that is because, since Jay could throw from the pocket, it opened up more of the field and because the defense had to defend the entired field, the running game opened up. Basically, our coaches did a good job of accentuating what Plummer did well while hiding his weaknesses. Ultimately, his limitations however put a ceiling on where we could go and the realization of this led to inserting Cutler when they did.

The defense was solid. It was our typical MO. There were some teams that we were able to jump on early which made it easier for the defense, in turn. I will say this though about our defense: I remember the defense getting to Brady in the regular season game and the refs started putting the whistles in their pockets as NEs OLine resorted to holding. I remember a few times where our DL would break through then get tractor beamed back by someone grabbing his arm. Sadly, it was pretty obvious.

underrated29
07-30-2008, 10:34 AM
i AGREE tned


and thats one of the reasons I would have rather drafted Jonathan Stewart than clady. Yes, I like clady and love him here and he will be a stud for sure.

But having a back like stewie that will control the clock, that will pick up those 3rd and shorts and will punch it in the endzone for the td. That would really help our offense and do exactley what we did in the years you were just talking about and in the super bowl years.

Both years (superbowl and 13-3) we had a badass runner who would grind out the tough yards and be able to punch it in the endzone. We also had killer TOP (time of possesion for the rookies here). Majority of that imo comes from a solid RB.

With one of those we can get by with an average/above average defense as the offense will score the points and dictate how much time the other team will have to score theres (not enough time).


Thats why i am so high on our team now. I think the defense (if it can stop the run) will be sooooo much better than the '05 defense. And the offense is almost- its just missing out on a runner like i described. Torain might be the guy, or maybe not and we draft a chirs well type player. But imo we are one Solid RB who will get the tough yards and tough tds away from dominance.


Sorry i kinda drifted off topic a lil there. Yes the '05 defense was great! Because it was. If it was on a team like the lions then no the defense would have been par/sub par.

BroncoFanatic
07-30-2008, 11:04 AM
Great defense? I'd say no. The Achilles heal was the lack of pass rush, ultimately our downfall that season. I liked Jake, but I agree his skill set limited what we could do for offensive scheme.

Spider
07-30-2008, 11:41 AM
I got involved in the 'discussion' over on the Mane following the recent article about Jake that was posted there and here.

I made the point that Jake and the Broncos offense at that time ('03-'05) were probably a near perfect fit. That few would, or should, argue that Jay isn't a more physically talented QB with far more potential, but that at the same time nobody that is objective can really maintain the claim the Broncos won in spite of Jake, especially when you look at the jump in winning percentage when Jake took over at QB (3rd most wins in the league from '02-'05) and the plunge when Jay took over.

During that discussion, which was more detailed, including pointing out that most people seem to fall either in the "Jake sucks" or "Jake's great" category, rather than where the reality lies, which is that Jake and the Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense were a great fit for each other and the Broncos won a bunch of games as a result, but that ultimately Shanny clearly felt that the fitness/misdirection offense wasn't good enough to beat the elite teams, so has been moving in a new direction. I pointed out that while the Broncos defense in '07 was horrible, the offense was also very bad, considering they had something like 7 games with 15 points or less and several games with no TDs, and that the '05 defense benefited from the Broncos offense jumping out to early leads and Kubiak/Shanny often starting to run out the clock in the late 2nd quarter or early 3rd quarter (something that often backfired, by the way, as teams sometimes got back in the game), but most important the opposing offenses abandoned the run early, because of the early scores the offense was getting.

Anyway, that's a bit ancillary to why I am creating this post. In response, it was pointed out to me that the '05 offense was indeed 'great', and as proof, I was told that the '05 Broncos defense were ranked 3rd, while the '07 Broncos defense was ranked 27th.

So, this is my analysis and response to that statement of 'proof' about the Broncos '05 defense being great, which I thought some here might find interesting.

This is more about the '05 defense, more than it is about good Jake/bad Jake, and how the combination of two 1,000 yard rushers, one 1,000 yard receiver and a 3,000 yard passer GREATLY helped a 'decent' defense look better than they really were, especially when it comes to key stats, such as points allowed.

Here it is:

==============

As I have tried to explain, you can't simply look at a stat here or a stat there, and use that as 'proof'.

First, you are using points given up, which is the stat in which the 2005 defense was ranked 3rd, but they were 15th (middle of the pack in yards given up). So, why was a middle of the pack defense 3rd best in points given up? That's the question you should be looking to answer, as well as honestly answering whether or not anyone would call a defense 15th in yards given up 'great'.

Ok, so let's look at why the team was mediocre in yards given up, but 3rd best in points allowed. I've already explained it, but we will dig in a little further.

As stated earlier, the offense was jumping out to early, first half (typically first quarter) leads, and forcing other teams into more one dimensional gameplans, as they gave up on the run to try and play catch up.

The Broncos offense in '05 was 7th in 1st downs per game, 7th in points scored per game and 5th in total yards. Unlike the defense, the offense was pretty consistent, right? But wait, the yards, points and first downs are only part of the story. The Broncos led the league in time of possession, meaning the '05 Broncs offense held on to the ball more minutes per game than any other team in the league (32:40).

Let's look a little closer. The 'great' '05 defense was 17th in the league in giving up 1st downs per game. So, the defense that had the benefit of the best TOP (time of possession), meaning they spent the least time on the field, was in the bottom half of the league in terms of first downs given up.

Break it down a little further. The 'great' '05 offense was 29th in passing defense, and 18th in yards given up per play (pass and rush).

Now, if we look at the one stat they were 'great' at, it was points. If you factor all the points per game to a common number of minutes on the field, meaning factor all defenses up or down to 30 minutes (a constant number of minutes on the field), then the Broncos fall to 10th in points allowed (since they benefited from spending the fewest minutes on the field per game at only 27:25).

How about 1st downs given up? When the 'great' '05 defense has their stats levelized with the rest of the NFL, then they fall to 29th in the league in first downs given up per 30 minutes on the field.

So, you cannot ignore the benefit that the defense received by the offense leading the league in time of possession, as well as the offense jumping out to early leads and forcing the opposing offenses into abandoning the running game.

The Broncos defense in '05 only faced 21.5 rushes per game, which was WAY below the league average. The next closest team faced 23.9 rushes per game, and 28 of the 31 other teams saw at least 25 rushes a game. The league average was 28 rushes a game.

I think it probably goes without saying the benefit a defense gains from knowing that early in the first half the opposing offense will be abandoning the running game. Clearly, the team can both blitz with more freedom, as well as drop more guys in coverage.

So, sorry for the long-winded post and for those unfamiliar with the maximum verbosity that is Tned, but this was the long way of backing up what I stated earlier. The '05 defense was by no means great, and hugely benefited by the offense jumping out to early leads.
:lol: yeah not much love for jake there ...... but the 05 defense wasnt great , but they was good enough .....Jake was our handicap :D

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Great defense? I'd say no. The Achilles heal was the lack of pass rush, ultimately our downfall that season. I liked Jake, but I agree his skill set limited what we could do for offensive scheme.


Good post
Let me add the offense of the s/b years evolved because he did not have John anymore went more to WCO team with greasy mainly because he was smart and had no real zip on the arm..

when Jake came in I remember hearing mikey say he had a stronger arm than they thought.. so things opened up somewhat.. We all know that greasy and ashley would have been even bigger disaster than with Jake.

Now I liked Jake brought a wining ability to the team and with him at the helm and mikey using smoke and mirrors they won alot of games getting them to the AFCCG in 2005.

Then it was apparent that PIT figured out how to beat DEN and Mikey.. They laid the blue prints out for everyone to see. We had to change but just getting a strong armed guy was not the answer we needed to upgrade the OLINE and that started somewhat with Holland coming inboard..

Now getting back to the question was the 2005 defense great? I think they were the product of a smoke and mirrors offense that got them the lead and for the most part altered the game plan of many of the teams we played..

For all of you that believe being a top five defensive team in either against the run or pass.. means your a great team without factoring in the offense and how they preformed are fooling yourselves..

For the most part if you have great Numbers against the run then you need to look at your passing stats.. in this case 29th that means they opposing teams found it easier to pass on you and had no need to run the ball..

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&statisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2005&seasonType=REG



They were worst at the number attempts allowed per game at 38.3
tied to 13th for TD's allowed
number 6 at picks (Champ had 40% of them..)
number 8 at 1st downs

2nd in rushing yards allowed
29th in total passing yards.
Equals
15th total yards

Sorry but unless there is some semblance of parity both being top ten then it matter not IMO..

This Defense was lucky to have a good offense on the field or it too would have been exposed. Regardless of the defense coordiantor was fired the following year when the defense collasped much like the offense did..

We have finally gotten some keepers in the draft over the past couple of years.. unlike what we had prior to the 2006 draft...

Inkana7
07-30-2008, 11:51 AM
The 05 Team was a typical good Shanahan team. An efficient, running-based offense that shot out to early leads making the Defense's job easier. That was our key to success from 1996-1998, and that's what made us a good team from 2000-2005.

lex
07-30-2008, 12:07 PM
Good post
Let me add the offense of the s/b years evolved because he did not have John anymore went more to WCO team with greasy mainly because he was smart and had no real zip on the arm..

when Jake came in I remember hearing mikey say he had a stronger arm than they thought.. so things opened up somewhat.. We all know that greasy and ashley would have been even bigger disaster than with Jake.

Now I liked Jake brought a wining ability to the team and with him at the helm and mikey using smoke and mirrors they won alot of games getting them to the AFCCG in 2005.

Then it was apparent that PIT figured out how to beat DEN and Mikey.. They laid the blue prints out for everyone to see. We had to change but just getting a strong armed guy was not the answer we needed to upgrade the OLINE and that started somewhat with Holland coming inboard..

Now getting back to the question was the 2005 defense great? I think they were the product of a smoke and mirrors offense that got them the lead and for the most part altered the game plan of many of the teams we played..

For all of you that believe being a top five defensive team in either against the run or pass.. means your a great team without factoring in the offense and how they preformed are fooling yourselves..

For the most part if you have great Numbers against the run then you need to look at your passing stats.. in this case 29th that means they opposing teams found it easier to pass on you and had no need to run the ball..

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&statisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2005&seasonType=REG



They were worst at the number attempts allowed per game at 38.3
tied to 13th for TD's allowed
number 6 at picks (Champ had 40% of them..)
number 8 at 1st downs

2nd in rushing yards allowed
29th in total passing yards.
Equals
15th total yards

Sorry but unless there is some semblance of parity both being top ten then it matter not IMO..

This Defense was lucky to have a good offense on the field or it too would have been exposed. Regardless of the defense coordiantor was fired the following year when the defense collasped much like the offense did..

We have finally gotten some keepers in the draft over the past couple of years.. unlike what we had prior to the 2006 draft...

Yeah, there were different moving pieces. While our running game was competent, it was well short of the running game we knew in the SB years and that was something else that was put on display in the Pittsburgh game. And it should also be pointed out that we succeeded with the blitz quite a lot this year. Our scheming on offense allowed that. The blitzing was a major reason for beating NE and it was also a big part of our undoing in the Pitt game...plus the fact that we kept doing the same thing even knowing Pitt had an answer for it. The Pitt game pointed to Jakes shortcomings, a drop off in our running game, that we were overly reliant on the blitz, and that Coyer struggled making in game adjustments.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 12:43 PM
Yeah, there were different moving pieces. While our running game was competent, it was well short of the running game we knew in the SB years and that was something else that was put on display in the Pittsburgh game. And it should also be pointed out that we succeeded with the blitz quite a lot this year. Our scheming on offense allowed that. The blitzing was a major reason for beating NE and it was also a big part of our undoing in the Pitt game...plus the fact that we kept doing the same thing even knowing Pitt had an answer for it. The Pitt game pointed to Jakes shortcomings, a drop off in our running game, that we were overly reliant on the blitz, and that Coyer struggled making in game adjustments.

smoke and mirrors died that day with that game.. Mc JAW had his team prepared to whoop up on us. that was the second embarrassing ass kicking mikey has gotten at a home playoff game from a wild card team..

NO one wants to admit that the lack of talent from almost top to bottom on this team. was what lead tot its undoing.

how many starters are still on that team.. for that matter how many players on the team are still around..

Then add in the number of coaches. Anyone want to admit now we have been rebuilding?

Hell they even cut Andrew Mason.. that is how bad it has gotten..

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-30-2008, 12:54 PM
No but it was highly effective untill the playoffs.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 01:00 PM
No but it was highly effective untill the playoffs.

at stopping the run and giving up passing yardage it was ranked in the middle of the pack in total yardage..

that my friend IS NOT begin effective let alone HIGHLY effective..

They almost lost a few games with coyers bend but don't break crap..

games we should have won handily but mikey went int prevent mode early.. instead of being aggressive on offense..

you need to look at it other than just 13-3

lex
07-30-2008, 01:03 PM
smoke and mirrors died that day with that game.. Mc JAW had his team prepared to whoop up on us. that was the second embarrassing ass kicking mikey has gotten at a home playoff game from a wild card team..

NO one wants to admit that the lack of talent from almost top to bottom on this team. was what lead tot its undoing.

how many starters are still on that team.. for that matter how many players on the team are still around..

Then add in the number of coaches. Anyone want to admit now we have been rebuilding?

Hell they even cut Andrew Mason.. that is how bad it has gotten..

We were talented enough to go 13-3, but I agree with you. How well we did that year was a tribute to our coaches and not so much our GM. Its also worth pointing out that Pittsburgh, for the last several years, has been one of the more successful teams at acquiring and utilizing talent.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-30-2008, 01:04 PM
at stopping the run and giving up passing yardage it was ranked in the middle of the pack in total yardage..

that my friend IS NOT begin effective let alone HIGHLY effective..

They almost lost a few games with coyers bend but don't break crap..

games we should have won handily but mikey went int prevent mode early.. instead of being aggressive on offense..

you need to look at it other than just 13-3

Points is the only thing that matters. We was top 5 in that for a long time. So it was highly effective. Does not matter how many yards a team has. You cant win the games with yards...

lex
07-30-2008, 01:07 PM
at stopping the run and giving up passing yardage it was ranked in the middle of the pack in total yardage..

that my friend IS NOT begin effective let alone HIGHLY effective..

They almost lost a few games with coyers bend but don't break crap..

games we should have won handily but mikey went int prevent mode early.. instead of being aggressive on offense..

you need to look at it other than just 13-3

Quite honestly, I think Mike made the proper choice here. If theres a way to let the other team back in the games quickly, its with a foolish/costly turnover. With Plummer at QB such things were always entirely possible. In fact, we had a very measured approach in the win vs New England in the earlier playoff game and I think thats partly why we won.

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:18 PM
Blasphemy!!!!

Jake is God. That is all.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 01:25 PM
Did the 2005 team have a great defense?

I dunno. Ask the Steelers. :coffee:

-----

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
07-30-2008, 01:31 PM
Did the 2005 team have a great defense?

I dunno. Ask the Steelers. :coffee:

-----

Unfortunately the 2005 season does not consist of one game. But it wasnt a great defense. It was a good effective defense untill that game.

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:31 PM
Did the 2005 team have a great defense?

I dunno. Ask the Steelers. :coffee:

-----

Or the Patriots. :coffee:

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 01:33 PM
Did the 2005 team have a great defense?

I dunno. Ask the Steelers. :coffee:

-----

In the AFC Championship, Plummer and the Broncos were defeated 34-17 by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with Plummer the cause of 4 Denver turnovers.

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:35 PM
In the AFC Championship, Plummer and the Broncos were defeated 34-17 by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with Plummer the cause of 4 Denver turnovers.


Well, it was according to most Plummer defenders, "poor blocking". Nevermind that he repeated this feat the first game of the 2006 season vs the mighty Rams defense as well. Nevermind that Jake has almost as many INT's as he does TD's in his total career. Did the defense have their share to blame in that game? Oh yea. But 4 turnovers gives ANY defense NO SHOT at winning. Just ask the Patriots.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 01:38 PM
I better go get a cup of coffee. This is going to be a nice thread I feel.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 01:40 PM
In the AFC Championship, Plummer and the Broncos were defeated 34-17 by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with Plummer the cause of 4 Denver turnovers.

Yup, absolutely right. Jake played awfully poor defense that day . . .

-----

Dean
07-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Meanwhile- back on topic which, by the way, is not Jake.

Tned answered the thread with his initial post. Other teams could pass at almost at will. When this is coupled with little time of possession and nearly all teams being behind, they did not run the ball very often. '05 was just a little better than a run of the mill defense other than stopping the opposition from scoring.

Since stopping the other team from scoring is the main objective of a defense doesn't that mean that our '05 defense was superior? IMO no. I thought then and still feel now that we were very lucky. Look at how many of the team's take aways occurred in the red zone.

I realize that many people have the pragmatic philosophy that if something works that in and of itself is proof of its value. I don't see that as a valid line of reasoning.

Dreadnought
07-30-2008, 01:42 PM
I better go get a cup of coffee. This is going to be a nice thread I feel.

Agreed - enough Plummer references is like a red flag to a Bull with me. I still see left handed interceptions in my dreams :laugh:

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:43 PM
Meanwhile- back on topic which, by the way, is not Jake.

Tned answered the thread with his initial post. Other teams could pass at almost at will. When this is coupled with little time of possession and nearly all teams being behind, they did not run the ball very often. '05 was just a little better than a run of the mill defense other than stopping the opposition from scoring.

Since stopping the other team from scoring is the main objective of a defense doesn't that mean that our '05 defense was superior? IMO no. I thought then and still feel now that we were very lucky. Look at how many of the team's take aways occurred in the red zone.

I realize that many people have the pragmatic philosophy that if something works that in and of itself is proof of its value. I don't see that as a valid line of reasoning.


You can say that about any defense that is ranked high. Just as you have to take the ranking with a grain of salt you also cant just throw it out the window either. :rolleyes:

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 01:43 PM
Yup, absolutely right. Jake played awfully poor defense that day . . .

-----

Newsflash: Turnovers equal points.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 01:43 PM
Unfortunately the 2005 season does not consist of one game. But it wasnt a great defense. It was a good effective defense untill that game.

I saw much the same thing with the Steelers of the '70s. When an offense
can keep the defense off the field, the defense looks so much better . . .

-----

topscribe
07-30-2008, 01:44 PM
Newsflash: Turnovers equal points.

That's what I'm saying: It would have been handy, had the defense acquired a few more of those, wouldn't it?

-----

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:45 PM
That's what I'm saying: It would have been handy, had the defense acquired a few more of those, wouldn't it?

-----

Or if we would have had a lot less. One of the biggest reasons Jake was so successful that year was his ability to take care of the ball.

Northman
07-30-2008, 01:55 PM
Alright, so this is about that defense even though when you as a offense turn it over creates problems with your own defense. However, being ranked 3rd is not just something that gets handed to you. For instance, we jumped out to big leads during the year and allowed teams to get back in them. Does this mean the defense sucked or that the defensive playcalling in the second half sucked? You make that determination on your own.

But, i had this type of discussion regarding the defense we had in our 2 Super Bowl wins. I made the statement that our defense then really wasnt that great but more "opportunistic". Our defensive success had more then to do with Grob's blitz schemes than it did with the actual talent on the field. Sure, we had some talented players but it was the blitzing that created havoc on the opposing side (especially in the 2 big games). And when i pointed that out the answer that i got was that Denver was ranked high so that meant they were very damn good.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. Yes, there is a corelation between an offense averaging 30 points a game and keeping your defense rested. Absolutely, this was our biggest problem in 2006 as our defense was playing fabulous but offensively we were offensive. But, schemes or not you cannot discredit the defense just because they had a bad game here and there. Not too mention some teams just have an edge and one of those teams is Indy vs us.

Whatever offense they run it totally exploits us. Now obviously, we have far more defensive issues than we did in 05. The only thing ive ever said regarding Plummer vs that defense is that Plummer was the weaker link. He was ADEQUATE but not that great. And yes, the rest of the team was by far more important in those wins than Jake.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 02:02 PM
pretty good post there.. You almost had it..

But it was not a GREAT defense .. merely average when you factor in the pass and Run defense.. While it is not YARDS that count it is Yards that get them the POINTS. Unless they get the ball on your twenty each time you have to stop the yards before you can even think about stopping them form scoring on you..

When You 15th in yards allowed and on the MOON with YPC on the run then not IT WAS NOT great Defense..

In-com-plete
07-30-2008, 02:03 PM
:lol: yeah not much love for jake there ...... but the 05 defense wasnt great , but they was good enough .....Jake was our handicap :D

Watch that AFCCG against the Steelers. You tell me why we lost that game. Our D allowed the Steelers to convert on like 8 of their first 9 third downs.

That wasn't good enough.

Requiem / The Dagda
07-30-2008, 02:04 PM
I'd say Jake's piss poor play had to do a lot with the loss. That's just my guess.

Spider
07-30-2008, 02:05 PM
I have arrived in Bizzaro world , Jake plummer was a good QB when he was on , but he played like shit when he wasnt ...... unfortunately we got more of the bad plummer in Big games then the good plummer ..... Plummer would choke , no arguing that

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:06 PM
Jake's thread is here (http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17579).

-----

Spider
07-30-2008, 02:09 PM
Jake's thread is here (http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17579).

-----

Fine but you cant talk about our defense without including his play ...... Like that left handed pass :D

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:16 PM
Fine but you cant talk about our defense without including his play ...... Like that left handed pass :D

Jake was here for 3½ years. That's 52 regular season games that he actually
played in. And all some people can seem to talk about is one play.

I don't get it. :confused:

But I don't know why we cannot talk about the defense without talking about
Jake. Far as I know, he never played defense even for one play. Ever.

Was the 2005 defense "great," or was it not? How would Jake factor into that?

-----

Spider
07-30-2008, 02:21 PM
Jake was here for 3½ years. That's 52 regular season games that he actually
played in. And all some people can seem to talk about is one play.

I don't get it. :confused:

But I don't know why we cannot talk about the defense without talking about
Jake. Far as I know, he never played defense even for one play. Ever.

Was the 2005 defense "great," or was it not? How would Jake factor into that?

-----
Hey dont get me wrong i liked Jake , he was far better then Griese ,Jake brought excitement back to our offense ...........But Jakes play put our defense in some real bad spots ......

Northman
07-30-2008, 02:22 PM
Jake was here for 3½ years. That's 52 regular season games that he actually
played in. And all some people can seem to talk about is one play.

I don't get it. :confused:



-----

Dude, you have to admit. That was pretty damn funny. (although not at the time)

Requiem / The Dagda
07-30-2008, 02:25 PM
Dude, you have to admit. That was pretty damn funny. (although not at the time)

More like a tragedy. I'd expect somebody in prep football to make a mistake like that, not a veteran of ten years (or whatever) in the NFL to toss a ball with his non-dominant hand. It's actually really embarrassing.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:26 PM
Hey dont get me wrong i liked Jake , he was far better then Griese ,Jake brought excitement back to our offense ...........But Jakes play put our defense in some real bad spots ......

I guess, then, the other 10 players forgot to run out onto the field? :coffee:


Nonetheless, we're talking about 2005. Until the Pittsburgh game, Jake's play
was superb that year. I watched them all year, and I noticed the Jake-bashers
on the board were left with little to say.

Whatever the defense gave up that year was on the defense.

-----

Northman
07-30-2008, 02:28 PM
More like a tragedy. I'd expect somebody in prep football to make a mistake like that, not a veteran of ten years (or whatever) in the NFL to toss a ball with his non-dominant hand. It's actually really embarrassing.


Exactly. I had to laugh my ass off when Jay did it in the Seattle game in 06' and people were like "See! Jay did it too so lay off Jake!". :lol:

Huge difference between a rookie and 10 year vet.

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Dude, you have to admit. That was pretty damn funny. (although not at the time)

If Jake were to be the only QB that tossed the ball with his none throwing hand then it is a real breaker but all of our QB's have done it at one time or another..

Had he not made the toss the chance of him being a safety was there..

Had he not been trying to make something happen and mailed it in then they would have bitched about that.

The fact is we have some die hard haters that regardless had Jake played and won there superbowls in a row would have hated him..

Never going to be able to fix that..

My personal theory was he either cost them ton of money betting while in college or PHX or it was their sister that Jake jilted just before getting married in HNL a long time ago..

I suspect is it was the later.. because there is NO SANE reason to hate the guy that much..

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:33 PM
More like a tragedy. I'd expect somebody in prep football to make a mistake like that, not a veteran of ten years (or whatever) in the NFL to toss a ball with his non-dominant hand. It's actually really embarrassing.

Not to me. What's the difference between a right-handed interception and a
left-handed interception? Jake was trying to make something happen for us.
It backfired. So what?

Shit happens. Why don't we ever hear from one of his TD passes from you guys?

Now, about the DEFENSE . . .

-----

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Exactly. I had to laugh my ass off when Jay did it in the Seattle game in 06' and people were like "See! Jay did it too so lay off Jake!". :lol:

Huge difference between a rookie and 10 year vet.

I watched live and in person Greasey flipping the ball over his head in Miami. **EDIT** abysmal.

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 02:35 PM
Jake was here for 3½ years. That's 52 regular season games that he actually
played in. And all some people can seem to talk about is one play.

I don't get it. :confused:

But I don't know why we cannot talk about the defense without talking about
Jake. Far as I know, he never played defense even for one play. Ever.

Was the 2005 defense "great," or was it not? How would Jake factor into that?

-----
If they seem to talk about just one play, it's because he did the same thing, many times. Different games, but the same mistakes. The left-handed one was just too classic. He thought for a second he was Brett Favre.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 02:36 PM
Dream, don't you love the ol' "Snake was trying to make something happen" excuse? Well, he certainly did.

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 02:36 PM
I watched live and in person Greasey flipping the ball over his head in Miami. Effing abysmal.

OMG, LMAO, you could almost hear Griese Scream, as he turned to see the defenders in his face. That play, to me, really defined Brian Griese.

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 02:38 PM
OMG, LMAO, you could almost hear Griese Scream, as he turned to see the defenders in his face. Tha tplay, to me, really defined Brian Griese.

We were all hoodwinked by him after he played with a broken shoulder and a horse shot into the muscle. What was not to like about him coming back in pain to beat the Raiders?

I wish Jake showed some of that courage.

HolyDiver
07-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Dream, don't you love the ol' "Snake was trying to make something happen" excuse? Well, he certainly did.

Jake won games he should have won and lost games where we had the lead. Too inconsistent.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm closing this down for a few minutes.

When I open it back up, we can talk some defense, okay?

-----

Tned
07-30-2008, 02:42 PM
Agreed wholeheartedly. I will always maintain that the 05 squad's success was one of the finest smoke and mirrors coaching jobs ever. I am pretty down on Jake, but you are right in that what we did with him 03 - 05 was masterful; a classic case of making Lemonade when you are given lemons. Eventually the League was going to wise up to the fact that Jake didn't actually have a whole lot of tools, and so a different direction was going to be needed, i.e. Cutler.

Back to the main point, the 05 Defense was pretty competent and not much more IMO. We had zero pass rush apart from heavy blitzing, and the Pass D was shaky as you pointed out - God only knows how badly and often it would have gotten roasted without Champ Bailey allowing us to help out the other corner spot pretty regularly. The 4 YPC rush average is barely acceptable, though to give them credit some of those yards came cheap against a defense holding a big lead.

I'm not a proponent of the smoke and mirrors moniker, because it is often thrown around as a means to describe some tricks that were done to overcome Jake's deficiancies.

In reality, what Shanahan ran before and during Jake's tenure was a misdirection offense. It was an offense where a relatively small number of plays were run from a great many different formations, which included formation shifts, such as TE to FB, or FB to TE, or TE to WR, etc.

This misdirection offense was used all the way back to the Elway years, with the cutback runs, the stretch plays with the linemen cutting the DL's, and then trying to rip off big plays on the backside of the play.

The offense mutated when Griese took over, with less of a vertical game, fewer rollouts than elway, and more short passes and slants, but the basices remained the same.

Then, with Plummer, they reintroduced the rollouts, but even more so than with Elway, added back some of the vertical game, but not as much as with Elway (for obvious reasons), but again the basics were the same.

The goal was to get the defense overpursuing, take the DL's to the ground if possible, but at least stretch them out, and then gash them on the back side of the play with a cut back run, screen or other short pass to the back side, or bootleg.

It wasn't smoke and mirrors, as much as it was an offensive philosiphy of if deception (formations) and misdirections (defensive over-pursuit and big plays on the back side, after the defense was over purusing).



I don't think Jake was pulled because of Jake specifically. I think Shanny knew his defense was mush, and he figured Cutler would give him the same average performance Jake was giving him.

Which, comparing their stats, was pretty much true. Sad that a rookie outplayed a 10 year vet, really.

Jake played horrible in '06, no doubt about it. I think there were many factors, not the least of which was Dinger changing the Broncos from a misdirection, cutback/bootleg heavy offense, to a more traditional drop back passing offense (it started play one of game one of '06, so was not the popularized 'the defenses had a blueprint to stop the rollout' garbage.

On the other side, the running game was so, so. In the early games, they were horrible in the first half, but then one of the Bells (or both) would rip off a big run or two in the second half that made the overall game stats 'look' ok.

The defense while playing great early on, did so by living on the edge. They gave up huge chunks of yards between the 20's, but then stopped the offense in the red zone, but quite often (like in the St. Louis game) were the beneficiary of blunders by the other team, such as multiple false starts, personal fouls, etc. that pushed them back out of the red zone and the team resorted to a field goal.

By the 10th game, it was clear that on both sides of the ball, this team was not championship caliber, so rather than starting Cutler on the short week (Thursday game), he concluded he might as well start getting Cutler reps, since he was the future.


Its a little of both in that Jake had some strengths but also some glaring flaws. And the fact that Denver was able to work around, hide, whatever you want to call it, to the point that they became one dimensional is amazing and a real credit to the Denver coaches that they were able to make it work. When you think about it the basics of an offense typically have the QB throwing from the pocket. We made ourselves one dimensional (in being overreliant on the rollout) because of Jakes limitations and made it work for a long time. Eventually, we couldnt do it with smoke and mirrors any longer.

It is ironic that you use the term "one dimensional", because that is a one dimensional analysis of the Denver offense of that time period. Shanny's offenses have never been 'typical' offenses, from the ZBS, to the cut blocking, to the heavy reliance on varied formations, but relatively few plays run from those formations, bootlegs (a stable of the Elway era), etc.

His offense was always about misdirection, but it varied slightly between Elway, Griese and Plummer, based on the QB's strengths and weaknesses, but the core was always the same, because his offensive lines were NOT CAPABLE of performing in a traditional, pocket passing / smash mouth running scheme.


:lol: yeah not much love for jake there ...... but the 05 defense wasnt great , but they was good enough .....Jake was our handicap :D

Yea, I guess that is why the Broncos were only the third team in NFL history to have two 900 yard backs, one 1,000 yard receiver and one 3,000 yard passer.

Were you watching Broncos football in '05? Just asking, cause you appeared to be watching a different team.


Good post
Let me add the offense of the s/b years evolved because he did not have John anymore went more to WCO team with greasy mainly because he was smart and had no real zip on the arm..

when Jake came in I remember hearing mikey say he had a stronger arm than they thought.. so things opened up somewhat.. We all know that greasy and ashley would have been even bigger disaster than with Jake.

Now I liked Jake brought a wining ability to the team and with him at the helm and mikey using smoke and mirrors they won alot of games getting them to the AFCCG in 2005.

Then it was apparent that PIT figured out how to beat DEN and Mikey.. They laid the blue prints out for everyone to see. We had to change but just getting a strong armed guy was not the answer we needed to upgrade the OLINE and that started somewhat with Holland coming inboard..


We will never know if PIT gave the league a blueprint to beat Denver, because Denver never again ran the same offense. Dinger was brought in, who changed the offense, and was fired after two years of ineptitude.

You could just as easily say PIT gave everyone a blueprint to beat Indy, but the problem with that is that PIT had a defense that was peaking at playoff time and was dominant. They shut down every part of the Denver offens, but probably 27-29 of the other 31 teams in the league would not have the defensive talent to shutdown Denver in the same way.

Also, as has been widely discussed, it was a team failure. The defense was thoroughly shredded by Big Ben.


Yeah, there were different moving pieces. While our running game was competent, it was well short of the running game we knew in the SB years and that was something else that was put on display in the Pittsburgh game. And it should also be pointed out that we succeeded with the blitz quite a lot this year. Our scheming on offense allowed that. The blitzing was a major reason for beating NE and it was also a big part of our undoing in the Pitt game...plus the fact that we kept doing the same thing even knowing Pitt had an answer for it. The Pitt game pointed to Jakes shortcomings, a drop off in our running game, that we were overly reliant on the blitz, and that Coyer struggled making in game adjustments.

Two good points here.

The offensive production enabled the defense to both play with a lead in most games, and early in most games, which enabled them to blitz freely, because teams were abandoning the run (due to playing from behind) on a regular basis.

Does anyone really think that a 'great' defense would need to rush 9, yes 9, of their 11 players against Donovan McNabb? Even with that, they only managed to sack him twice. Not too many teams will resort to a 9 man zero blitz as their only means to get to the QB, but the early leads the Broncos offense were producing and teams giving up the run (and in fairness, the Eagles didn't run much that year) allowed that agressive play.

The game plan, or lack there of, in the Pitt game was mind boggling. Our defense was being shredded and no real adjustments were made. Our run game was non-existant, but they kept calling pocket, play action (non bootlegs), without ever adjusting, dropping into shotgun, or making any adjustments.

I couldn't believe the lack of adjustments on both sides of the ball.


Points is the only thing that matters. We was top 5 in that for a long time. So it was highly effective. Does not matter how many yards a team has. You cant win the games with yards...

Yes, points are the only thing that matters, BUT you cannot measure a defense by points alone, because there are other factors, such as starting field position, time on the field, whether the other teams are running or passing or balanced, etc.

Points are all that matters for wins and losses, but no in determining whether a defense is 'great' or actually simply aided by other factors.

Northman
07-30-2008, 02:47 PM
If Jake were to be the only QB that tossed the ball with his none throwing hand then it is a real breaker but all of our QB's have done it at one time or another..

Had he not made the toss the chance of him being a safety was there..

Had he not been trying to make something happen and mailed it in then they would have bitched about that.

The fact is we have some die hard haters that regardless had Jake played and won there superbowls in a row would have hated him..

Never going to be able to fix that..

My personal theory was he either cost them ton of money betting while in college or PHX or it was their sister that Jake jilted just before getting married in HNL a long time ago..

I suspect is it was the later.. because there is NO SANE reason to hate the guy that much..


I totally disagree with you. I think there is a very small amount of people who actually HATE Jake Plummer. I think most of the disagreement about Jake from guys such as myself and quite a few others is that he wasnt as good as some have made him out to be. It just seems like when it comes to discussions about Jake you either have to be a hater or a lover. There seems that there cannot be a middle ground for either side on this issue and the fact that neither side is willing to understand that is disappointing. Am i happy that Jake is happy? Hell yea. But it doesnt change my stance on how i viewed him as a professional Qb in the NFL. Sure, he got us some wins and into the playoffs. But so did Griese and it doesnt stop people from tearing him down all the time either.

topscribe
07-30-2008, 02:51 PM
We've been "Jaked" to death.

This will stay closed a little longer.

Think defense.

-----

topscribe
07-30-2008, 03:00 PM
Thread is open.

-----

BeefStew25
07-30-2008, 03:20 PM
On topic, people.

Retired_Member_001
07-30-2008, 04:10 PM
Calm this thing down or else I'm going to release phsycotic looking Shanahan on you:

http://www.volterraproducts.net/images/celebphotos/CoachMikeShanahanDenverBroncos1.jpg

Northman
07-30-2008, 04:13 PM
Kollette says back on topic.


http://sports.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/kollette1.JPG

Den21vsBal19
07-30-2008, 04:55 PM
Jake won games he should have won and lost games where we had the lead. Too inconsistent.

Hasn't that got to be at least partially down to the defense? :confused:

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Hasn't that got to be at least partially down to the defense? :confused:


one would think if the HC is going conservative in the play calling that it is time for the Defense to play better..

But then again that is the logical thing to think..

But it is easier to blame one guy..

topscribe
07-30-2008, 07:34 PM
one would think if the HC is going conservative in the play calling that it is time for the Defense to play better..

But then again that is the logical thing to think..

But it is easier to blame one guy..

I'll tell you what, I believe with a truly decent pass rush . . . not blitzing, but
a real pass rush . . . that would have been a truly great defense, and we may
have then been talking about our Super Bowl win.

----

Lonestar
07-30-2008, 08:03 PM
I'll tell you what, I believe with a truly decent pass rush . . . not blitzing, but
a real pass rush . . . that would have been a truly great defense, and we may
have then been talking about our Super Bowl win.

----

you will not get any arguement from me.. but then to have a great pass rush you have to have great talent can't rely on cast offs and low round draft choices to generate it..

Now we have some potential to have real players doing the job not rent a DE's. But I think it will be late this year before they all get it together and 2009 should be special ..


Everyone forgets how bad our drafts were for 4-5 years.. and before that they were not like the past 3 years, combined 1995-1999....

I'm glad the decade of the FA seems to be dead..

HighPlainsBronc
07-30-2008, 09:48 PM
.

There should have been an open competition in 2007 for the QB position. But trading up for a QB showed Jake that Shanahan had no confidence in him anyway.

Again, sabotage.



I have sort of a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg??" type question.

The lack of confidence that you say that Shanny showed with Jake makes me ask, "Why would Shanny feel that way"? Was it because Jake earned it, or was it because Shanny just wanted a better QB?

To me this is the root of the Jake vs Jay wars that we have had. I've pondered this and think that Jake earned this lack of confidence but then again I could be wrong. Maybe Shanny was just looking for a better QB.

Then again, maybe both sides are equally true! :rolleyes:

lex
07-30-2008, 10:01 PM
Jake was here for 3½ years. That's 52 regular season games that he actually
played in. And all some people can seem to talk about is one play.

I don't get it. :confused:

But I don't know why we cannot talk about the defense without talking about
Jake. Far as I know, he never played defense even for one play. Ever.

Was the 2005 defense "great," or was it not? How would Jake factor into that?

-----

The original post has a lot about Jake. A discussion of Jake was interwoven into an analysis of the defense. Why is it a problem to discuss both when the initial post did?

topscribe
07-30-2008, 10:03 PM
The original post has a lot about Jake. A discussion of Jake was interwoven into an analysis of the defense. Why is it a problem to discuss both when the initial post did?

Because I do not want it to sink into another Jake vs. Jay war, as always
seems to happen when Jake is brought up.

I will close this damned thread down first.

-----

Scarface
07-30-2008, 11:14 PM
Hmmmm was the '05 defense great? Lets see. Did anyone fear them? Nope. There's your answer.

omac
07-31-2008, 12:50 AM
Okay, how about this approach ... actually checking out how the games really went, based on play by play data from nfl.com? These are long-s posts, so apologies for that in advance .....

Game 1: Denver 10 x Miami 34

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28531&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG1

Offense could not get anything going. The defense actually held up pretty well up to halfway through the 3rd quarter. The offense was forced to play from behind at 0-3, 0-6, 3-13, 3-20, 10-20, 10-27, and the final play was a fumble TD 10-34.

Defense definitely kept Denver in the game, at least for 2 and a half quarters, but the offense could not contribute much or keep the defense off the field. Champ had a fumble recovery and an interception before bowing out in the 3rd quarter with a shoulder injury, but the offense gave away 2 interceptions and 1 fumble.

The offense did not make the defense look good, nor did they force their opponents to play from behind to force a passing offense.

Game 2: Denver 20 x SD 17

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28552&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG2

The Broncos ate up half the 1st quarter with their initial possesion before turning the ball over on a fumble to the Chargers. The defense made a stand, and Denver was able to get a FG on their ensuing possesion.

Offense wasn't able to do much, then SD scores 2 consecutive TDs.

Luckily, Champ gets an INT for a TD.

Offense scores only 1 TD, but loses a fumble and has an interception during the game.

3-0, 3-7, 3-14, 10-14, 17-14, 17-17, 20-17

Again, the offense did not make the defense look good, nor did they force their opponents to play from behind enough to force a passing offense.

Game 3: Denver 30 x KC 10

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28570&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG3

In the 1st quarter, the defense stopped the Chiefs on their first 2 possesions and forced a turnover on their 3rd possesion, then stopped them again in their 4th possesion. None of these stops or turnovers were forced by trying to come back from a big score, as initially, it was 0-0, then 3-0, then 10-0, and only after the turnover did it become 17-0.

In the 2nd quarter, the Chiefs continued to mix up the runs with the passes, not playing desperately yet, and the Broncos defense still stopped them again. The defense stopped the Chiefs in almost every possesion, allowing only 1 TD, and it was only in the 4th quarter when the Chiefs started getting desperate and pass happy.

So here, although the offense played well, the defense played equally well too. So, no, the offense did not make the defense look good. Some of the Bronco scores, in fact, came pretty quickly.

Game 4: Denver 20 x Jacksonville 7

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28572&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG4

1st quarter, Denver's defense stops Jacksonville on 4 straight possesions, while Denver's offense fails to score.

2nd quarter, offense scores 2 TDs, but even after only the 1st TD, Jacksonville gets pass happy in their offense with Leftwich. Denver defense makes 2 stops, holding Jacksonville scoreless.

3rd quarter, offense fails to score, and Jacksonville scores a TD. Defense was able to make 1 stop out of the 2 possesions.

4th quarter, defense stops Jacksonville on 3 possesions.

Defense played well throughout the game.

omac
07-31-2008, 12:51 AM
Game 5: Denver 21 x Washington 19

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28596&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG5

Close seesaw battle, with neither team pulling far away from the other.

On 12 Washington possesions, the defense recovered a fumble (that allowed Denver to score in great field position), allowed 2 TDs and 2 FGs, stopping them 8 times from scoring.

I'd say the defense did pretty good, considering the number of times the Redskins had possesion of the ball. This again had nothing to do with the offense making the defense look good.

Game 6: Denver 28 x NE 20

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28609&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG6

1st Quarter, defense stops NE 2 out of 3 times, allowing only a FG.

2nd Quarter, defense stops NE 4 straight times, while offense scores 3 TDs in 4 possesions.

3rd Quarter, defense holds NE to one FG, while offense scores another TD.

4th Quarter, defense is scorched for 2 TDs, but they make their 3rd try count as they stop NE's offense. Offense burns the clock.

Defense played real good for most of the game until the 4th quarter, while the offense played excellent until before the 4th quarter. Still, limiting a team to 2 TDs and a FG is not bad defense.

Game 7: Denver 23 x NYG 24

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28624&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG7

Defense plays pretty well for 3 quarters, only giving up 1 TD and 1 FG, but in the 4th quarter, they allow the Giants to score 2 TDs, erasing the 13 point cushion they had. This was a meltdown in the defense, but it was also aided by a miss from Elam at 49 yards which would've put the game out of reach.

Game 8: Denver 49 x Philadelphia 21

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28637&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG8

1st quarter, defense stops Philadelphia 4 straight times, while the offense scores twice, one of which possesion started at the 50 yard line.

2nd quarter, defense allows Philly 1 TD in 3 possesions, but one of their stops was a take-away interception that led to great field possition at the 48 yard line, which accounted for 1 of the offenses 2 scores.

3rd quarter, defense stops Philly twice, but allows 2 scores, one of which was a 91 yard bomb from McNabb to Owens. Denver offense does not score in 4 possesions.

4th quarter, defense starts the 4th quarter with an interception in the endzone and the offense scores on this possesion. Defense makes another stop, offense scores again. In the next possesion, Philly gets desperate and loses possesion on downs, going for it on 4th and 3. Offense starts at the Philly 44 yard line and scores.

Although the offense was playing really well in this game, quite a few of their scoring opportunities came from the defense getting interceptions or stops and giving the offense the ball at around the 50 yard line. They only gave up 21 points during the game, and one of it was on one spectacular 91 yard play.

Here, the offense was great, but the defense looked excellent on their own. It was only in the 4th quarter when Philadelphia started getting desperate. Also, it was only in Denver's 1st and last possesion where the offense used up close to 5 minutes per drive; they've had a lot of drives that lasted a minute and a half, as well as 3 and a half minutes, so Philly's offense did have their opportunities, clock-wise.

omac
07-31-2008, 12:52 AM
Game 9: Denver 31 x Oakland 17

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28664&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG10

1st quarter, defense stops Oakland 3 times, one of which was an interception; offense fails to score. Quarter ends with a great punt return, giving the Denver offense great field position at the Oakland 30 yard line.

2nd quarter, offense immediately scores. Defense stops Oakland on their 2 possesions, while offense scores 2 FGs.

So far, the offense hasn't looked dominating, and their only TD was an opportunistic one from great field position because of a great punt return. All 3 of the offense's scores had excellent starting field position. Score is only 13-0.

3rd quarter, defense starts the quarter with a sack, and later compounded with an Oakland penalty, they stop Oakland. Offense scores on ensuing possesion, and now Oakland is forced to be pass happy. Defense gets another interception, giving the offense the ball at their 48 yard line, and offense manages to get a FG.

In the 4th quarter, in Oakland's 5 possesions, the defense allows 2 TDs and a FG, but they also scored an interception run back for a Denver TD. The offense was stopped by Oakland 3 times, 2 of which were fumble turnovers that led to Oakland scores.

Although the offense played good, they collapsed in the 4th quarter, giving up 2 costly turnovers for scores. The defense played consistently well throughout the game, but gave away 2 critical TDs in the 4th. Still, they were able to make a big play interception TD for Denver.

The offense and defense both played equally well. The offense really put the pressure on Oakland only by the 3rd quarter, and actually helped Oakland in the 4th, penalizing their defense by giving Oakland the ball twice. So you can't really say the offense made the defense look good; they both had their good and bad moments.

Game 10: Denver 27 x NYJ 0

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=28681&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2005&week=REG11

1st quarter, defense stops NYJ, then offense dominates time of possesion, leading to a TD.

After being down by only 1 TD, 7-0, the Jets become desperate and pass happy throughout the game.

2nd quarter, defense stops NYJ, then offense again dominates time of possesion, this time culminating in a FG. A kickoff fumble recovery gives the offense the ball at the NYJ 18 yard line, and offense scores a TD. Defense recovers a fumble at the Jets 33 yard line, but offense fails to score. Down 17-0,

3rd quarter, offense fails to score on 3 possesions, giving one of them away via a fumble turnover. Defense stops Jets 3x, 2 of which via interceptions.

4th quarter, offense starts with a FG, then defense causes a sack-fumble, giving the offense the ball at the Denver 40 yard line, and the offense scores a TD. Defense stops Jets again.

This was a combination of the offense playing good, grinding time of possesion football, defense doing their job and making plays, and the Jets panicking way, way, way too early. Just a mismatch all the way.

omac
07-31-2008, 12:57 AM
I'm gonna stop there. I'd say that's enough proof to show that Denver's defense didn't only look better because of their offense. They were actually pretty solid, specially when it counted the most. In several instances, it was the defense that made plays and gave the offense great opportunities to score.

The offense, however, was also very solid. And looking back, our special teams with Darrent made quite a few plays too. We had some good field position to help the offense start off well.

That was a very balanced, solid team all around, but though the offense was clicking, the defense could definitely hold their own. They didn't need for the offense to make them look good, and their opponents weren't always playing from behind a big margin to force desperation. The defense played really good.

So, no, the offense did not make the defense look better than they were. That defense was pretty solid ... up until they met with the Steelers, that is, hehehe. :D

Northman
07-31-2008, 12:59 AM
Well done Omac, i totally agree.

topscribe
07-31-2008, 01:12 AM
I'm gonna stop there. I'd say that's enough proof to show that Denver's defense didn't only look better because of their offense. They were actually pretty solid, specially when it counted the most. In several instances, it was the defense that made plays and gave the offense great opportunities to score.

The offense, however, was also very solid. And looking back, our special teams with Darrent made quite a few plays too. We had some good field position to help the offense start off well.

That was a very balanced, solid team all around, but though the offense was clicking, the defense could definitely hold their own. They didn't need for the offense to make them look good, and their opponents weren't always playing from behind a big margin to force desperation. The defense played really good.

So, no, the offense did not make the defense look better than they were. That defense was pretty solid ... up until they met with the Steelers, that is, hehehe. :D

No question they were solid. I responded earlier to a claim the were "great."
To me, "great" is the Steelers of the '70s, the Bears of 1985, the Bucs of
the early '00s, and, yes, the Broncos of the '70s.

But a "great" defense is not going to be taken apart like the Steelers did to
them in 2005. That's my only beef.

They were probably only one great pass rusher away from being "great," IMO.

-----

omac
07-31-2008, 01:18 AM
Well done Omac, i totally agree.

Thanks, man! Though the weakness in our traditional defense could get exploited by teams like the Colts and the Steelers, they were still pretty solid, definitely enough to give the offense a chance to win against most teams.

I think they were mostly underated by Bronco fans themselves. Heck, today, we look at a team like the Vikings and say they have a great defense, but they also have their weaknesses in pass defense, finishing close to last in the league.

I think, though, after the change in defense last season and the horrendous results thereof, we could better appreciate the traditional Broncos defense, even with their shortcomings. They at least were solid enough to give our offense a chance to win games, and they did, as our records show. :cheers:

omac
07-31-2008, 01:23 AM
No question they were solid. I responded earlier to a claim the were "great."
To me, "great" is the Steelers of the '70s, the Bears of 1985, the Bucs of
the early '00s, and, yes, the Broncos of the '70s.

But a "great" defense is not going to be taken apart like the Steelers did to
them in 2005. That's my only beef.

They were probably only one great pass rusher away from being "great," IMO.

-----

I agree, I don't consider them great either. The Broncos under Shanny have always been an offensive team first; no way can their defense compare to some of the excellent Baltimore or Chicago teams in recent years, let alone the great ones of before. But they were solid enough, and that's all I'm hoping for this coming season. :cheers:

I also agree (in hindsight) that they might've just needed some pass rushing talent, instead of a change in scheme. Now, imagine if we had that same experienced defense, but with a seasoned Moss, Crowder, and Dumerville. :shocked:

topscribe
07-31-2008, 01:32 AM
I agree, I don't consider them great either. The Broncos under Shanny have always been an offensive team first; no way can their defense compare to some of the excellent Baltimore or Chicago teams in recent years, let alone the great ones of before. But they were solid enough, and that's all I'm hoping for this coming season. :cheers:

I also agree (in hindsight) that they might've just needed some pass rushing talent, instead of a change in scheme. Now, imagine if we had that same experienced defense, but with a seasoned Moss, Crowder, and Dumerville. :shocked:

Yes, and don't forget the arrival of Robertson and the maturation of Thomas
and (apparently) Peterson. Then we have the veterans Ekuban and
Engelberger.

I'll tell you, ol' buddy, with D.J. and Boss behind them, then Champ and
Bly behind them, it's beginning to look kinda scary.

It would be nice to be right about them, wouldn't it?

-----

omac
07-31-2008, 01:44 AM
Yes, and don't forget the arrival of Robertson and the maturation of Thomas
and (apparently) Peterson. Then we have the veterans Ekuban and
Engelberger.

I'll tell you, ol' buddy, with D.J. and Boss behind them, then Champ and
Bly behind them, it's beginning to look kinda scary.

It would be nice to be right about them, wouldn't it?

-----

Definitely. I'm pretty much sold on Thomas and Robertson. I have a lot of confidence in DJ, and I believe the worst Boss can be is decent if not really good. I'm hoping Niko plays to what we hope he can be.

This could again be a very solid defense. :cheers:

Dreadnought
07-31-2008, 08:35 AM
I'm not a proponent of the smoke and mirrors moniker, because it is often thrown around as a means to describe some tricks that were done to overcome Jake's deficiancies.

In reality, what Shanahan ran before and during Jake's tenure was a misdirection offense. It was an offense where a relatively small number of plays were run from a great many different formations, which included formation shifts, such as TE to FB, or FB to TE, or TE to WR, etc.

This misdirection offense was used all the way back to the Elway years, with the cutback runs, the stretch plays with the linemen cutting the DL's, and then trying to rip off big plays on the backside of the play.

The offense mutated when Griese took over, with less of a vertical game, fewer rollouts than elway, and more short passes and slants, but the basices remained the same.

Then, with Plummer, they reintroduced the rollouts, but even more so than with Elway, added back some of the vertical game, but not as much as with Elway (for obvious reasons), but again the basics were the same.

The goal was to get the defense overpursuing, take the DL's to the ground if possible, but at least stretch them out, and then gash them on the back side of the play with a cut back run, screen or other short pass to the back side, or bootleg.

It wasn't smoke and mirrors, as much as it was an offensive philosiphy of if deception (formations) and misdirections (defensive over-pursuit and big plays on the back side, after the defense was over purusing).

It wasn't merely a matter of Jake's limitations though, Tned. We had a nearly superb ground game that year, put together from an excellent ZBS and misdirection, and executed by Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson, and even Ron Dayne against Dallas. None of those guys are going to Canton. As far as a receiving corps, we had Rod Smith in his last really great year, TE's that were passable at best, and Ashley Lelie, maybe the ultimate one trick Pony WR. We had nothing like a top tier 3rd WR, either. From all of that the coaching staff managed to game plan and scheme us into a very solid offensive performance through most of that season. This is what I meant by "smoke and mirrors." Shanahan and Kubiak's system was used brilliantly to utilize the talent available, exploit some unique strengths, and to cover up some pretty serious personnel shortcomings.

Looking back, it is still hard for me to believe that they were a 13-3 club, but thats what the record says.

Lonestar
07-31-2008, 11:28 AM
It wasn't merely a matter of Jake's limitations though, Tned. We had a nearly superb ground game that year, put together from an excellent ZBS and misdirection, and executed by Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson, and even Ron Dayne against Dallas. None of those guys are going to Canton. As far as a receiving corps, we had Rod Smith in his last really great year, TE's that were passable at best, and Ashley Lelie, maybe the ultimate one trick Pony WR. We had nothing like a top tier 3rd WR, either. From all of that the coaching staff managed to game plan and scheme us into a very solid offensive performance through most of that season. This is what I meant by "smoke and mirrors." Shanahan and Kubiak's system was used brilliantly to utilize the talent available, exploit some unique strengths, and to cover up some pretty serious personnel shortcomings.

Looking back, it is still hard for me to believe that they were a 13-3 club, but thats what the record says.


TO fall as fast as we did after that season says to me that it was band aids and the such.. Once Kubes left we nose dived because his replacement was hell bent to damn the torpedo's full speed ahead opening up the offense with out regard to whether we had the right personnel to do so..

Much like the Bates issue I have to wonder why? Did they think they could will the players to be something they were not? Either did not have the skill set or physical ability to do it.. what was the common denominator here?

Oh I forgot Ted was the "GM"..........