View Full Version : Try re-watching the Jaguars game .....
You'll all see our rush defense isn't as bad is it first seems.
Jacksonville was NOT the one-dimensional offense they usually are. They mixed in a bunch of passes with their runs, and a lot of misdirection. They had some pretty well called plays, and there's a reason David Gerrard was chosen over Byron Leftwich. He made a lot of scrambling, Vince Young-type plays that most QBs in the league aren't capable of doing (mental note: Tennessee might be much tougher than we think).
Denver's defense didn't play great, but there were usually only a few mistakes that caused us big on key plays, and mostly by Nate Webster (often misreading, overcommitting and missing bad) and Nick Ferguson (usually the poor tackling variety, even being carried by Jones-Drew about 5 yards). To Ferguson's credit, he did step up in the much later part of the game.
It wasn't that we weren't able to stop Jacksonville's rush; it's that they mixed up their plays pretty well, that we were often caught offguard when they passed. This is usually what Denver does to their opponents, but this time, Jacksonville did it to us.
Also, we didn't play bad on offense either, but there was a key turnover and a key drop (but not much of a drop) on a perfect pass with tight coverage.
Defensively and offensively, the game usually comes down to whether a team makes the big plays or the mistakes in the key moments. In our first 2 wins of the season, we made the big plays; in the last game, we made the mistakes, and couldn't come up with the big plays, but they were there to be had.
My advice is, don't let emotion cloud your judgement; painful as it is, re-watch the game and you'll see that Jacksonville's offense isn't as one dimensional as people think, Denver's rush defense isn't as bad as fans perceive, and despite a great effort by Jacksonville, this game was very winnable, as I'm pretty sure most of the games in our schedule are.
DenBronx
09-26-2007, 01:02 AM
maybe our defense was basing there offense like they had ran year after year. this would lead to mis communication on the field and bad play calling. then pride settles in and bates probably said something really coyerish during halftime like, "no we have a game plan and were gonna stick by it".
never underestimate a team and never never never base your game plan on a past game. it seemed like the broncos came in with their three of a kind not thinking the jags might have a full house.
You'll all see our rush defense isn't as bad is it first seems.
Jacksonville was NOT the one-dimensional offense they usually are. They mixed in a bunch of passes with their runs, and a lot of misdirection. They had some pretty well called plays, and there's a reason David Gerrard was chosen over Byron Leftwich. He made a lot of scrambling, Vince Young-type plays that most QBs in the league aren't capable of doing (mental note: Tennessee might be much tougher than we think).
Denver's defense didn't play great, but there were usually only a few mistakes that caused us big on key plays, and mostly by Nate Webster (often misreading, overcommitting and missing bad) and Nick Ferguson (usually the poor tackling variety, even being carried by Jones-Drew about 5 yards). To Ferguson's credit, he did step up in the much later part of the game.
It wasn't that we weren't able to stop Jacksonville's rush; it's that they mixed up their plays pretty well, that we were often caught offguard when they passed. This is usually what Denver does to their opponents, but this time, Jacksonville did it to us.
Also, we didn't play bad on offense either, but there was a key turnover and a key drop (but not much of a drop) on a perfect pass with tight coverage.
Defensively and offensively, the game usually comes down to whether a team makes the big plays or the mistakes in the key moments. In our first 2 wins of the season, we made the big plays; in the last game, we made the mistakes, and couldn't come up with the big plays, but they were there to be had.
My advice is, don't let emotion cloud your judgement; painful as it is, re-watch the game and you'll see that Jacksonville's offense isn't as one dimensional as people think, Denver's rush defense isn't as bad as fans perceive, and despite a great effort by Jacksonville, this game was very winnable, as I'm pretty sure most of the games in our schedule are.
OK, this is a quality post. I commend you for taking the time and enduring the agony of watching this game again. But did you also happen to notice Gordon getting shoved around with tremendous regularity? I agree on Webster. Our LBs leave something to be desired across the board.
DenBronx
09-26-2007, 01:05 AM
OK, this is a quality post. I commend you for taking the time and enduring the agony of watching this game again. But did you also happen to notice Gordon getting shoved around with tremendous regularity? I agree on Webster. Our LBs leave something to be desired across the board.
i thought gordon got a sack?
dogfish
09-26-2007, 01:06 AM
i am going to watch it again, although i'm really NOT looking forward to it. . .
i thought gordon got a sack?
Maybe he had a loose change sack. But Im more concerned about him getting manhandled in the running game. Perhaps you havent noticed that A LOT of the other teams' big running plays are over Gordon (and sometimes Burton).
dogfish
09-26-2007, 01:08 AM
i thought gordon got a sack?
nfl.com doesn't show it and i don't remember it. . . but even if he had, it doesn't stop the fact that he was getting blown off the ball on a pretty regular basis, just as he has all year. . .
They had more rushing yards than passing; I don't think their success was due to catching us looking for runs when they threw. We need a NT and about two more starting quality LBs, which is pretty much what I thought going into the season.
maybe our defense was basing there offense like they had ran year after year. this would lead to mis communication on the field and bad play calling. then pride settles in and bates probably said something really coyerish during halftime like, "no we have a game plan and were gonna stick by it".
never underestimate a team and never never never base your game plan on a past game. it seemed like the broncos came in with their three of a kind not thinking the jags might have a full house.
I agree, man, they were completely caught offguard by this more flexible offense. It's funny, in the Yahoo league, their experts give advice, and one of it was after Jacksonville's game against Tennessee. Jacksonville also passed much more against them than is the norm for them, and the expert's advice was, don't expect Jacksonville to come out passing as much as they did in this game. Guess what Mr. Yahoo Expert, Jacksonville is passing more often now with a more capable quarterback.
OK, this is a quality post. I commend you for taking the time and enduring the agony of watching this game again. But did you also happen to notice Gordon getting shoved around with tremendous regularity? I agree on Webster. Our LBs leave something to be desired across the board.
Hey thanks, man. I'll have to rewatch it again, but I don't doubt you, as our line hasn't historically been that great. One key factor, though, was Lynch not playing most of the game; that hurt us big.
They had more rushing yards than passing; I don't think their success was due to catching us looking for runs when they threw. We need a NT and about two more starting quality LBs, which is pretty much what I thought going into the season.
And thats a bad place to be. What sucks is that we're pinning our hopes on Amon Gordon. A fifth round DT from Stanford. Maybe its wrong of me to say this but DT is a desire position and I dont generally want DTs from schools like Stanford. I want guys who actually need to be good...guys who dont have Stanford coursework to fall back on. Just as a general rule. Its probably wrong to say that and there might be some exceptions but as a general rule, DTs from upper crust non football factory schools = bad.
Hey thanks, man. I'll have to rewatch it again, but I don't doubt you, as our line hasn't historically been that great. One key factor, though, was Lynch not playing most of the game; that hurt us big.
Yeah, if you dont mind that would be great. Please kind of pay attention to how Thomas handles blockers vs Gordon and Burton. What I think youll see from Sam Adams is that he can stand up and occupy his blocker but he cant peal off to make a play...and then theres no LB to fill. But Im really interested in your Thomas-Gordon-Burton comparison because Id like to know why Thomas isnt starting. During the preseason Thomas was already better at fighting through double teams and beating his guy in one on ones whereas Gordon was just shoved around. Id just like to know if its the same and if others are seeing what I am. BTW, I know this from DVRing all the preseason games and watching practically every play twice.
They had more rushing yards than passing; I don't think their success was due to catching us looking for runs when they threw. We need a NT and about two more starting quality LBs, which is pretty much what I thought going into the season.
They completed a bunch of key, drive-continuing 1st down passes or passes that gave them 2nd or 3rd and short. Some of the key rushes from Gerrard also came from scrambling from broken pass plays. They did a Denver on Denver, grrr .... :D
Our corner plays held up, but they weren't attacking our corners much anyway. Nate Webster and Nick Ferguson were often is possitons to make plays, but they usually didn't.
Yeah, if you dont mind that would be great. Please kind of pay attention to how Thomas handles blockers vs Gordon and Burton. What I think youll see from Sam Adams is that he can stand up and occupy his blocker but he cant peal off to make a play...and then theres no LB to fill. But Im really interested in your Thomas-Gordon-Burton comparison because Id like to know why Thomas isnt starting. During the preseason Thomas was already better at fighting through double teams and beating his guy in one on ones whereas Gordon was just shoved around. Id just like to know if its the same and if others are seeing what I am. BTW, I know this from DVRing all the preseason games and watching practically every play twice.
Ok man, I'll do that, but I can't right now though as I'm about to leave. I'll try and do that later; I'm hoping that Marcus Thomas will be a bright spot on DT. :cheers:
And thats a bad place to be. What sucks is that we're pinning our hopes on Amon Gordon. A fifth round DT from Stanford. Maybe its wrong of me to say this but DT is a desire position and I dont generally want DTs from schools like Stanford. I want guys who actually need to be good...guys who dont have Stanford coursework to fall back on. Just as a general rule. Its probably wrong to say that and there might be some exceptions but as a general rule, DTs from upper crust non football factory schools = bad.
LOL, Nerdy Jocks Suck! :D
Okay, I'm definitely no expert on the intricacies of the defense, nor the defensive tackle plays, nor what is the norm, nor what Bates expects ... and now, enough of the disclaimers. :D
Just finished going through the 1st quarter of play, focussing primarily on the 2 defensive tackles.
First of all, Jacksonville is always able to get 3-on-2 or 2-on-1 matchups with our defensive tackles. Despite that, the tackles are able to hold their ground, or even go forward. The only time Gordon couldn't penetrate much was when he'd have 2 guys on him. McKinley COMMANDED 2 players on him, as even double teamed, he was able to push them back. When they left him 1-on-1, he got a sack. They've later resorted to double-teaming him, with one of them cut-blocking him (at least I think it was him), and that was pretty effective.
The success the Jaguars had at running the ball were NOT on smash-mouth rushes at all, in fact Denver did a pretty good job against it on short yardage; they weren't able to stop the 4th and inches, but that's really tough to stop anyway. They still did get a good enough pile on it.
So, as I was saying, in the 1st quarter, the defensive tackles usually were against 2-on-1's or 3-on-2's, yet they still were moving the offense back towards the quarterback. The success the Jaguars had in moving the ball had to do with misdirection plays and cutbacks (sound familiar). As the swarm moves towards Denver's right, the Jaguars' rb cut towards Denver's left, and it's up to the others to make plays, as the line is all the way at the right. Another example is the bootleg to Denver's right, then the Jaguars qb rolling to the Denver's left and making a short pass; again, the line is all the way to the right, and it's up to the other defenders to try to make open field tackles.
Basically in the 1st quarter, the Jaguars blocked well as a team, and forced a lot of 2-on-1 or 3-on-2 matchups for the defensive tackles. Still, they didn't just plow through them .... it was the misdirection plays that worked pretty well.
On the Jags 1st touchdown in the 2nd quarter, the Broncos actually didn't allow them to gain any significant yardage rushing. On the touchdown pass itself, the Broncos got pretty good penetration, as Gerrard was flushed out of the pocket and facing 2 unblocked defenders running towards him. Despite having 12 men on the field, there was a blown coverage, so that a Jaguars receiver was free. I think it had a little to do with one of the Broncos bumping an official in front of the endzone; that might've distracted him or slown him down. Or maybe not. Either way, that was not the defensive tackles' fault ... that was very creative playmaking by Gerrard.
And here's an intermission .... getting a bit tired, so I'll continue another time.
Ahh ... I got rid of the picture of the Bronco cheerleader; I didn't stop to think kids might be viewing this. Sorry.
i am going to watch it again, although i'm really NOT looking forward to it. . .
I'm going to watch it again sometime in the next couple days, but I will likely just go the NFLST Shortcuts route so it is quicker and less painful to relive.
Okay, I'm definitely no expert on the intricacies of the defense, nor the defensive tackle plays, nor what is the norm, nor what Bates expects ... and now, enough of the disclaimers. :D
Just finished going through the 1st quarter of play, focussing primarily on the 2 defensive tackles.
First of all, Jacksonville is always able to get 3-on-2 or 2-on-1 matchups with our defensive tackles. Despite that, the tackles are able to hold their ground, or even go forward. The only time Gordon couldn't penetrate much was when he'd have 2 guys on him. McKinley COMMANDED 2 players on him, as even double teamed, he was able to push them back. When they left him 1-on-1, he got a sack. They've later resorted to double-teaming him, with one of them cut-blocking him (at least I think it was him), and that was pretty effective.
The success the Jaguars had at running the ball were NOT on smash-mouth rushes at all, in fact Denver did a pretty good job against it on short yardage; they weren't able to stop the 4th and inches, but that's really tough to stop anyway. They still did get a good enough pile on it.
So, as I was saying, in the 1st quarter, the defensive tackles usually were against 2-on-1's or 3-on-2's, yet they still were moving the offense back towards the quarterback. The success the Jaguars had in moving the ball had to do with misdirection plays and cutbacks (sound familiar). As the swarm moves towards Denver's right, the Jaguars' rb cut towards Denver's left, and it's up to the others to make plays, as the line is all the way at the right. Another example is the bootleg to Denver's right, then the Jaguars qb rolling to the Denver's left and making a short pass; again, the line is all the way to the right, and it's up to the other defenders to try to make open field tackles.
Basically in the 1st quarter, the Jaguars blocked well as a team, and forced a lot of 2-on-1 or 3-on-2 matchups for the defensive tackles. Still, they didn't just plow through them .... it was the misdirection plays that worked pretty well.
Wow thats great stuff. Thanks for doing that. There are a couple of things. A DT really needs to at least hold his ground on double teams. This creates clutter and should theoretically free up a linebacker to make the play. If he is pushed too far back while being double team, then there is clutter for the linebackers to fight through. This is why Ive been saying DT is a desire position. So matter of degree is important here. The more he is able to hold his ground and therefore occupy two blockers as well as create clutter, the easier it is for the linebackers. But from you I get the impression that a lot of it is at the feet of the linebackers not filling because thats what should be happening when DTs are double teamed. Plus, discipline is a huge fundamental of playing linebacker (and DLine for that matter). In Florida, the concept of "staying home" is drilled into kids at the pop warner level. So this is bad.
Also, do you get the impression that the DEs being edge rushers creates the need to have more physical LBs who can fight through blocks and/or tackle better?
topscribe
09-26-2007, 10:21 AM
Wow thats great stuff. Thanks for doing that. There are a couple of things. A DT really needs to at least hold his ground on double teams. This creates clutter and should theoretically free up a linebacker to make the play. If he is pushed too far back while being double team, then there is clutter for the linebackers to fight through. This is why Ive been saying DT is a desire position. So matter of degree is important here. The more he is able to hold his ground and therefore occupy two blockers as well as create clutter, the easier it is for the linebackers. But from you I get the impression that a lot of it is at the feet of the linebackers not filling because thats what should be happening when DTs are double teamed. Plus, discipline is a huge fundamental of playing linebacker (and DLine for that matter). In Florida, the concept of "staying home" is drilled into kids at the pop warner level. So this is bad.
Also, do you get the impression that the DEs being edge rushers creates the need to have more physical LBs who can fight through blocks and/or tackle better?
I believe you are right about the "desire" part involving the DTs. I have seen
in more than one place where they are thought to be too small, and that
we need bigger ones. However, Gordon is listed on the Broncos website at
312, Burton 325, and Thomas 315 . . . not exactly flyweights. In fact, the
Broncos' DTs are about the same size as the Jags' "behemoths," as I've
seen them called.
Regarding the LBs, I believe it all revolves around Williams and Webster
getting orientated. Webster is principally a MLB getting used to SLB, and
Williams a natural WLB adapting to and learning MLB. Gold is experienced
knows what he is doing, although I agree with some that he has not done
an exceptional job at tackling and has trouble at times shedding blocks. But
once the learning curve flattens out (and it is showing signs of such) and
the unit jells, we will see an improvement there.
IMHO.
-----
Retired_Member_001
09-26-2007, 10:58 AM
Regarding the LBs, I believe it all revolves around Williams and Webster
getting orientated. Webster is principally a MLB getting used to SLB, and
Williams a natural WLB adapting to and learning MLB. Gold is experienced
knows what he is doing, although I agree with some that he has not done
an exceptional job at tackling and has trouble at times shedding blocks. But
once the learning curve flattens out (and it is showing signs of such) and
the unit jells, we will see an improvement there.
IMHO.
-----
Good post Top.
Ian Gold's tackling is improving. His performance against Buffalo was a joke, he was over aggressive, he just kept flinging himself at the ball carrier. Against Oakland though, Ian Gold had 9-10 tackles ( the stat changes from website to website) and against the Jags Ian Gold had 8-9 tackles. Those are good numbers. That is a very positive note.
D.J. Williams is also putting up good tackling numbers. He has more tackles than Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher (both Pro Bowl MIKE's), he is still improving aswell and is not still 100% familiar with the MIKE position. He will only get better.
As for Webster he is also doing a good job, I expect Nate Webster or Ian Gold or both to be replaced next season but Webster is doing alright.
The linebackers are improving, even though it will be an issue next off-season, I think Ian Gold and D.J. Williams will do a good job.
Wow thats great stuff. Thanks for doing that. There are a couple of things. A DT really needs to at least hold his ground on double teams. This creates clutter and should theoretically free up a linebacker to make the play. If he is pushed too far back while being double team, then there is clutter for the linebackers to fight through. This is why Ive been saying DT is a desire position. So matter of degree is important here. The more he is able to hold his ground and therefore occupy two blockers as well as create clutter, the easier it is for the linebackers. But from you I get the impression that a lot of it is at the feet of the linebackers not filling because thats what should be happening when DTs are double teamed. Plus, discipline is a huge fundamental of playing linebacker (and DLine for that matter). In Florida, the concept of "staying home" is drilled into kids at the pop warner level. So this is bad.
Also, do you get the impression that the DEs being edge rushers creates the need to have more physical LBs who can fight through blocks and/or tackle better?
Thanks man. And thanks for the info on defensive tackles too, much appreciated. :beer:
Based on the 1st quarter, I think our defensive tackles did okay. I think it's more what you said, the linebackers (and the safeties) need to step up, but like topscribe said, they are adjusting to new possitions.
I think that when the opponent rushes through our line, we just need to be able to make solid tackles for limited gains. With the aggressive nature of this group, they seem to be very susceptible to misdirection plays while trying to go for the big play. I think they either need to slow down their bodies a bit, or speed up their minds; sometimes, it doesn't seem to match up. :D
Retired_Member_001
09-26-2007, 11:07 AM
I think that when the opponent rushes through our line, we just need to be able to make solid tackles for limited gains. With the aggressive nature of this group, they seem to be very susceptible to misdirection plays while trying to go for the big play. I think they either need to slow down their bodies a bit, or speed up their minds; sometimes, it doesn't seem to match up. :D
Yes, another good point.
Getting 10 tackles in a game is nice but when all tackles are made after the opposing running back has just broken a 60 yard run on you, the niceness (is that even a word?) of those 10 tackles turns bitter.
Yes, another good point.
Getting 10 tackles in a game is nice but when all tackles are made after the opposing running back has just broken a 60 yard run on you, the niceness (is that even a word?) of those 10 tackles turns bitter.
Yep, not nice at all. :laugh: I used to underestimate Lynch, because though he made solid tackles, it was after the opponents gained a few yards. Now I appreciate more how good he is at preventing the big plays. :viking:
TXBRONC
09-26-2007, 11:18 AM
You'll all see our rush defense isn't as bad is it first seems.
Jacksonville was NOT the one-dimensional offense they usually are. They mixed in a bunch of passes with their runs, and a lot of misdirection. They had some pretty well called plays, and there's a reason David Gerrard was chosen over Byron Leftwich. He made a lot of scrambling, Vince Young-type plays that most QBs in the league aren't capable of doing (mental note: Tennessee might be much tougher than we think).
Denver's defense didn't play great, but there were usually only a few mistakes that caused us big on key plays, and mostly by Nate Webster (often misreading, overcommitting and missing bad) and Nick Ferguson (usually the poor tackling variety, even being carried by Jones-Drew about 5 yards). To Ferguson's credit, he did step up in the much later part of the game.
It wasn't that we weren't able to stop Jacksonville's rush; it's that they mixed up their plays pretty well, that we were often caught offguard when they passed. This is usually what Denver does to their opponents, but this time, Jacksonville did it to us.
Also, we didn't play bad on offense either, but there was a key turnover and a key drop (but not much of a drop) on a perfect pass with tight coverage.
Defensively and offensively, the game usually comes down to whether a team makes the big plays or the mistakes in the key moments. In our first 2 wins of the season, we made the big plays; in the last game, we made the mistakes, and couldn't come up with the big plays, but they were there to be had.
My advice is, don't let emotion cloud your judgement; painful as it is, re-watch the game and you'll see that Jacksonville's offense isn't as one dimensional as people think, Denver's rush defense isn't as bad as fans perceive, and despite a great effort by Jacksonville, this game was very winnable, as I'm pretty sure most of the games in our schedule are.
I don't think I can right now, but I remembered that the pass rush was good. It did lead to a turnover which is encouraging.
TXBRONC
09-26-2007, 11:19 AM
I'm going to watch it again sometime in the next couple days, but I will likely just go the NFLST Shortcuts route so it is quicker and less painful to relive.
Take it like a man Tned and watch the whole thing. :laugh:
I don't think I can right now, but I remembered that the pass rush was good. It did lead to a turnover which is encouraging.
I know what you mean, man. What helps me in watching it is focussing on specific plays, instead of the totality of the game. It also helps to give the opponent unbiased credit for the facets of their game that they have improved, knowing that the team that beat us isn't as bad as we thought they were.
Take it like a man Tned and watch the whole thing. :laugh:
LOL, not sure I will have time to do that, but if I do, I will because I like the extra replays (alternate angles) which you don't get with the shortcuts.
Not too mention its more like ripping the bandaid off quick :D
TXBRONC
09-26-2007, 07:36 PM
LOL, not sure I will have time to do that, but if I do, I will because I like the extra replays (alternate angles) which you don't get with the shortcuts.
Not too mention its more like ripping the band aid off quick :D
Either that or a hairy guy getting a bikini wax. :eek:
That is a mental picture that I could have lived without. :ahhhhh:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.