PDA

View Full Version : The Offense is the KEY to our rushing Defense...



Watchthemiddle
10-01-2007, 02:57 PM
So far this season all the games have been close. Thus allowing teams to stay in the game and continue to rush the ball. Yesterday was close when we started kicking instead of scoring TD's. What would have happened if during the Raiders game had we gone up 21-3 at the half instead of 17-3? Do you really think the Raiders would have stayed with their running game in the second half?

To many times this year we see the offense move up and down the field at will only to stall when in TD range.

We saw it again yesterday and again we saw Jason Elam too many times for FG's instead of extra points.

We have seen it all year. Our offense does not have the ability put teams away and put them away early. This is hurting our rushing defense.

Think about the day when before the other team had a chance to blink we would be up 21-0. Where has that gone? Yesterday we had the chance to go up 21-7 instead with one drive the Colts where up 14-13.

Is it playcalling? Is it execution? I believe its both. The play calling seems to get boring inside the 20's. Are we limiting the playbook down deep? On execution, we can't continue to overthrow wide open WR's and throw into double coverage when others are wide open. We have far too many weapons on offense to not be scoring more points when given the chance and putting teams away.

omac
10-01-2007, 03:13 PM
I disagree. This is all the defense's fault; well, defense and special teams.

When a team is in scoring possition, they try their best to score a touchdown first, but coming away with a field goal is still a win. That's why in the Superbowl (or was it the playoffs), when the Colts scored a field goal and there was a penalty on the defense that would've given the Colts first down, Dungy waived the penalty as he wanted to make sure he'd have the 3 points his team earned.

The worst thing that could happen, momentum-wise, is for a team to be in scoring possition and not come away with a score. Field goals are big; not as big as touchdowns, but big.

And any team with a capable enough defense should be able to put pressure on opponents even with small leads. The problem is the defense couldn't even limit the Colts to field goals.

The offense did fine, good enough to compete with any team, if the defense and special teams showed up.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-01-2007, 03:32 PM
Saying the offense needs to pick up the pace and score points because our rushing defense is ranked 31st in the NFL is like telling a kid who has leprosy to pick up a quadriplegic because without help: he's going nowhere.

No, not at all.

silkamilkamonico
10-01-2007, 03:37 PM
I also, completely disagree.

Much like the start of last year, when the offense needed to help the defense out...the defense needs to step up, and start helping the offense out.

topscribe
10-01-2007, 03:39 PM
Yes, but the idea is, Dream, if we can't stop them from scoring points, then
we're going to have to score more points. Only under one of two conditions do
we win:

1. If they score less points than we do.

2. If we score more points than they do.

Sounds ridiculous, I know . . . as if they are both the same. They are not in
this context. The principle is, if our offense is anemic, then we had better
have a dominant defense. If we can't stop the run, then we had better be
scoring a bunch of points . . . not gaining a lot of yards, but scoring a lot of
points.

-----

Reidman
10-01-2007, 03:40 PM
I think we need to put Champ at wide receiver.....:ahhhhh:

Obviously I'm j/k but why should the offense be expected to perform any better than they already are just because our defense gets beat like a red-headed stepchild (no offense to red-headed step children here)

silkamilkamonico
10-01-2007, 03:41 PM
Yes, but the idea is, Dream, if we can't stop them from scoring points, then
we're going to have to score more points. Only under one of two conditions do
we win:

1. If they score less points than we do.

2. If we score more points than they do.

Sounds ridiculous, I know . . . as if they are both the same. They are not in
this context. The principle is, if our offense is anemic, then we had better
have a dominant defense. If we can't stop the run, then we had better be
scoring a bunch of points . . . not gaining a lot of yards, but scoring a lot of
points.

-----


I do agree with ya my man, but I don't see the offense suddenly curing their problems of not scoring more points. Scoring 15-25 points a game seems to be the norm for this team.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-01-2007, 03:42 PM
I'd rather make the defense step up and improve because that's better for the whole team than putting more weight on the shoulders of an offense who is having it's fair share of problems as well. If everyone is going to complain about the defense, and then go and say the offense has to do more to outscore opponents, that's ridiculous.

The job of any defense is to keep the other team from scoring on you.

The goal of an offense is to score points, not score more points based on the fact your defense sucks to make up for their ineptitude on the field.

Can the offense do better than 20 points a game? Sure, and they need to improve - but they don't need to score 40 points because our defense is giving up 30 just to compensate.

topscribe
10-01-2007, 03:53 PM
I'd rather make the defense step up and improve

I agree 100%.

But it isn't happening. That's the point. :noidea:

-----

Medford Bronco
10-01-2007, 04:19 PM
I agree 100%.

But it isn't happening. That's the point. :noidea:

-----

and with our personel on the d line, dont hold your breath:ahhhhh:

heck the Browncos were better at stopping the run.

I miss Gerard Warren :sad:

Requiem / The Dagda
10-01-2007, 04:21 PM
People could stop with the Gerard Warren, "Oh he'd be so key!" right now talk. The guy is a weak-minded, septic tank of human waste. The guy didn't want to play in this defense, so why would you want him here right now?

Medford Bronco
10-01-2007, 04:23 PM
People could stop with the Gerard Warren, "Oh he'd be so key!" right now talk. The guy is a weak-minded, septic tank of human waste. The guy didn't want to play in this defense, so why would you want him here right now?

sorry coach :ahhhhh:

At least he wouldnt get pushed all over the place like our great unit is now:rolleyes: 181 yards per game, yikes. We aint going to be USc with that defense now, if it does not improve

we suck now and its only going to get worse next week with a wounded Charger team that might rush for 250 against this pathetic excuse for a front 7.

Sorry I am not impressed with this team at all. We are so lucky to be 2-2 it aint even funny. I love this team but do not see things through orange colored glasses.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-01-2007, 04:29 PM
Nobody is impressed with our defense, but missing Gerard Warren or him being here wouldn't even solve the problem. Self-admittedly learning the system at a slower rate, and is on record stating he is not a fan of the responsibility tackles are given in this defense. Could he do better than what's out there? Probably, but he's not the be all, end all solution to our problems.

I'd probably be the last person anyone would need to refer to as wearing "orange colored glasses" considering I've taken a butt beating from many posters regarding my position on the team and players, who coincidentally, for whatever reason are no longer on this club.

I think I "get it" and understand that this defensive front seven needs some drastic changes.

topscribe
10-01-2007, 04:40 PM
People could stop with the Gerard Warren, "Oh he'd be so key!" right now talk. The guy is a weak-minded, septic tank of human waste. The guy didn't want to play in this defense, so why would you want him here right now?

I have soured on Warren, myself, as you know. So I don't consider him "key."
But I also know he would not have been pancaked as Gordon was several
times in the Jacksonville game. I really believe we would have a better run
defense in there than we do with the kiddie corps we have now.

He definitely was not our ultimate answer at the position, but I believe our
timing in jettisoning him just stunk. :mad:

-----

BigBroncLove
10-01-2007, 04:42 PM
Nobody is impressed with our defense, but missing Gerard Warren or him being here wouldn't even solve the problem. Self-admittedly learning the system at a slower rate, and is on record stating he is not a fan of the responsibility tackles are given in this defense. Could he do better than what's out there? Probably, but he's not the be all, end all solution to our problems.

I'd probably be the last person anyone would need to refer to as wearing "orange colored glasses" considering I've taken a butt beating from many posters regarding my position on the team and players, who coincidentally, for whatever reason are no longer on this club.

I think I "get it" and understand that this defensive front seven needs some drastic changes.


:rolleyes: Wow, jump the gun. I don;t think anyone who talked about Warren said he would be the answer to all our problems. It was stated he is an obvious upgrade over the personell we have out there now. A DT we had on this team that fits into Bates idea of a big bodied DT. Warren and Adams beats Adams and every other DT we have on the line right now. It's a matter of putting your best personel out there, and we gave up on Warren pretty early IMO. Just like you enjoy looking back at poor draft chocies on occassion, we are all entitled to look back at what we precieve to be poor trade choices, an area that Shanahan has usually excelled at.

If you look at Warrens level of play at Oakland thus far, he is quite obviously playing with a lot mroe authority then any of our NT's at this point.

Medford Bronco
10-01-2007, 04:45 PM
:rolleyes: Wow, jump the gun. I don;t think anyone who talked about Warren said he would be the answer to all our problems. It was stated he is an obvious upgrade over the personell we have out there now. A DT we had on this team that fits into Bates idea of a big bodied DT. Warren and Adams beats Adams and every other DT we have on the line right now. It's a matter of putting your best personel out there, and we gave up on Warren pretty early IMO. Just like you enjoy looking back at poor draft chocies on occassion, we are all entitled to look back at what we precieve to be poor trade choices, an area that Shanahan has usually excelled at.

If you look at Warrens level of play at Oakland thus far, he is quite obviously playing with a lot mroe authority then any of our NT's at this point.

Great post :beer: could not agree with you more than that.

I hope Shany/Bates bring a safety up to cheat this week or LT will go for 200 guaranteed.

I fear LT a lot more than I fear Rivers, who is inconsistent IMO

BigBroncLove
10-01-2007, 04:53 PM
Great post :beer: could not agree with you more than that.

I hope Shany/Bates bring a safety up to cheat this week or LT will go for 200 guaranteed.

I fear LT a lot more than I fear Rivers, who is inconsistent IMO

I agree. I think this is a game where the WR core allows us to take some big chances on the secondary. We might get burned once or twice, but this is a weak WR core. Stacking the box is definately an option this week in compared to last. I think it also allows Denver to be more creative with their blitz packages, and we all know Rivers won't be nearly as good on his pre-snap reads as Payton was. Pressure seems to be the big thing Rivers is having a hard time dealing with, and by putting eight in the box, it also gives us more options on how the Broncos will choose to blitz and cover Gates.

I personally think this is the type of game to take more chances on blitzing and stacking the box then every other team we have faced. Seeign how creative Bates, Shanny, and company were with their personel choices through the first half of the game on defense, I am hoping that will translate into keeping Rivers on his toes this week with some really unique looks to rattle him with pressure. Lynch will be a big key in this game. His tackling will be needed, and truthfully Foxworth looked pretty poor to me out there against the Colts....

Skinny
10-01-2007, 05:05 PM
So far this season all the games have been close. Thus allowing teams to stay in the game and continue to rush the ball. Yesterday was close when we started kicking instead of scoring TD's. What would have happened if during the Raiders game had we gone up 21-3 at the half instead of 17-3? Do you really think the Raiders would have stayed with their running game in the second half?

To many times this year we see the offense move up and down the field at will only to stall when in TD range.

We saw it again yesterday and again we saw Jason Elam too many times for FG's instead of extra points.

We have seen it all year. Our offense does not have the ability put teams away and put them away early. This is hurting our rushing defense.

Think about the day when before the other team had a chance to blink we would be up 21-0. Where has that gone? Yesterday we had the chance to go up 21-7 instead with one drive the Colts where up 14-13.

Is it playcalling? Is it execution? I believe its both. The play calling seems to get boring inside the 20's. Are we limiting the playbook down deep? On execution, we can't continue to overthrow wide open WR's and throw into double coverage when others are wide open. We have far too many weapons on offense to not be scoring more points when given the chance and putting teams away.I hope that it's not for too many more games because the key (Henry) to the offense, is getting dinged up fast and frequent.

Hopefully Mike Bells or Sapp's role gets bigger here soon. For Henrys health and longevity anyways.

Honestly, i hold my breathe when Young carries the ball.

Watchthemiddle
10-01-2007, 05:06 PM
Well I see some of you got my point and some didn't. Thats fine.

My point is this..and let me reiterate it...

If the offense would score more points..( TD's instead of FG's ) ...put the other teams in a BIGGER hole to begin with ..our weak rushing defense wouldn't get so beat up trying to defend the run against teams that are still either winning the game, close in the game, or catching up in the game.

We have got to have one of the most electric WR's in football.. ( my adoptee ) and to me could be one of the best in the redzone if used effectively and had the ball in his hands.

If teams want to double team him ..like they did yesterday ...then that means others are open and they need to be found. If he wants to be open on an out pattern, don't over throw him. Utilize and execute the weapons we have.

Like I said...maybe its playcalling. Cutler was asked at the end of the game yesterday if the redzone woes were from the play calling and his response was..."your asking the wrong man". Are we 'dumbing' down the redzone calls? Or is it execution? Are the calls the same, its just the players are failing to properly execute them? I will say it again, I believe its both.

BigBroncLove
10-01-2007, 05:18 PM
Well I see some of you got my point and some didn't. Thats fine.

My point is this..and let me reiterate it...

If the offense would score more points..( TD's instead of FG's ) ...put the other teams in a BIGGER hole to begin with ..our weak rushing defense wouldn't get so beat up trying to defend the run against teams that are still either winning the game, close in the game, or catching up in the game.

We have got to have one of the most electric WR's in football.. ( my adoptee ) and to me could be one of the best in the redzone if used effectively and had the ball in his hands.

If teams want to double team him ..like they did yesterday ...then that means others are open and they need to be found. If he wants to be open on an out pattern, don't over throw him. Utilize and execute the weapons we have.

Like I said...maybe its playcalling. Cutler was asked at the end of the game yesterday if the redzone woes were from the play calling and his response was..."your asking the wrong man". Are we 'dumbing' down the redzone calls? Or is it execution? Are the calls the same, its just the players are failing to properly execute them? I will say it again, I believe its both.

Nice post WTM. I can't say agree 100% but it was well put together. IMO, yes that would be one way to start to cure some of our problems on Denvers run D, but I also don't think, with the Broncos rushing woes as evident as they are, that other teams will choose to abandon the run, even if the Broncos grab a two TD lead.

Unless they are in the fourth quarter and Denver has a big lead, opposing teams still pound the ball into the Denver D. Why? because you know it will work. You also wear down the D even mroe by pounding the ball for a big strike when you want to look for it (CB's get tired to :D, even cham pand bly ). Unless the Broncos are up by a bunch in the fourth quarter, I don't think opposing offenses will go to the pass as much as you think they will. They will take advantage of weaknesses, and the Broncos run D is obviously the weakest cog in the Denver machine. The Run D will have to pick up the game by itself early on. Unless they can stop opposing offenses at least a few times, teams will only be playing "catch up" to one TD since they will be scoring behind every TD we put on the boards.

The Bronco Run D is going to have to give the offense a chance to create a lead that will force teams to re-evaluate their gameplan and play catch up.

Lonestar
10-01-2007, 07:21 PM
:rolleyes: Wow, jump the gun. I don;t think anyone who talked about Warren said he would be the answer to all our problems. It was stated he is an obvious upgrade over the personell we have out there now. A DT we had on this team that fits into Bates idea of a big bodied DT. Warren and Adams beats Adams and every other DT we have on the line right now. It's a matter of putting your best personel out there, and we gave up on Warren pretty early IMO. Just like you enjoy looking back at poor draft chocies on occassion, we are all entitled to look back at what we precieve to be poor trade choices, an area that Shanahan has usually excelled at.

If you look at Warrens level of play at Oakland thus far, he is quite obviously playing with a lot mroe authority then any of our NT's at this point.

BINGO we have a winner here..

omac
10-03-2007, 05:30 PM
Nice post WTM. I can't say agree 100% but it was well put together. IMO, yes that would be one way to start to cure some of our problems on Denvers run D, but I also don't think, with the Broncos rushing woes as evident as they are, that other teams will choose to abandon the run, even if the Broncos grab a two TD lead.

Unless they are in the fourth quarter and Denver has a big lead, opposing teams still pound the ball into the Denver D. Why? because you know it will work. You also wear down the D even mroe by pounding the ball for a big strike when you want to look for it (CB's get tired to :D, even cham pand bly ). Unless the Broncos are up by a bunch in the fourth quarter, I don't think opposing offenses will go to the pass as much as you think they will. They will take advantage of weaknesses, and the Broncos run D is obviously the weakest cog in the Denver machine. The Run D will have to pick up the game by itself early on. Unless they can stop opposing offenses at least a few times, teams will only be playing "catch up" to one TD since they will be scoring behind every TD we put on the boards.

The Bronco Run D is going to have to give the offense a chance to create a lead that will force teams to re-evaluate their gameplan and play catch up.

I agree with BigBroncLove. Why pass and risk interceptions or incomplete passes when you can rush for big yardage with a high success rate, even if you're behind in the game?

Also, in order to come up with a big lead, the defense has to make stops. Otherwise, it would just be a shootout.

The reality is that the way the defense is playing, it's putting a ridiculous amount of pressure on the offense to be more perfect than most NFL teams' offenses are capable of being.

Joel
10-04-2007, 03:52 AM
I disagree. This is all the defense's fault; well, defense and special teams.

When a team is in scoring possition, they try their best to score a touchdown first, but coming away with a field goal is still a win. That's why in the Superbowl (or was it the playoffs), when the Colts scored a field goal and there was a penalty on the defense that would've given the Colts first down, Dungy waived the penalty as he wanted to make sure he'd have the 3 points his team earned.

The worst thing that could happen, momentum-wise, is for a team to be in scoring possition and not come away with a score. Field goals are big; not as big as touchdowns, but big.

And any team with a capable enough defense should be able to put pressure on opponents even with small leads. The problem is the defense couldn't even limit the Colts to field goals.

The offense did fine, good enough to compete with any team, if the defense and special teams showed up.
I agree with your agreement. Don't tell me it's the offenses fault we blew a two TD lead on the Raiders and had to squeak it out at the end, or the offenses fault we were up 10-0 on the road against Indy before losing big. Did the D EVER make a stop in the second half? We've got the Leagues leading rusher, and considering all the new (and young) faces on offense, I'm quite happy with a team I only expect to get better when they have the ball. I mean, when you consider how much teams have been running on us (the TOP numbers are humiliating) the offense has been quite productive. But it's hard to score when you don't have the ball, and if anyone ought to know that it's us.

The Indy game was textbook, as I feared it would be: We couldn't stop Addai OR his backup all day, and finally resorted to stacking the line to hold him check (which still wasn't too effective). And when you stack the line to stuff the run against a team like Indy they'll start lobbing TDs into your undermanned secondary, which is exactly what they did. Until we can stop the run, until we have more than an aging huffing Sam Adams to anchor the middle of our line I don't see any way to avoid a lot more of the same. Other teams see it, too; how many of Indys runs were straight up the gut? End of last year I was worried about our depth at LB and lack of decent DTs; the only thing that's changed is Wilson's retired (though D.J. has stepped up some) and Warren was cut, so instead of Gordon and Burton playing ONE DOWN (between them) last year they STARTED the season! The results speak for themselves. The real question is why we thought last years #4 DT and a guy from the practice squad were starters this year....

Joel
10-04-2007, 03:59 AM
I agree with BigBroncLove. Why pass and risk interceptions or incomplete passes when you can rush for big yardage with a high success rate, even if you're behind in the game?

Also, in order to come up with a big lead, the defense has to make stops. Otherwise, it would just be a shootout.

The reality is that the way the defense is playing, it's putting a ridiculous amount of pressure on the offense to be more perfect than most NFL teams' offenses are capable of being.
That's precisely the problem. Yes, if you can open up a big lead it neutralizes their running game, but there's two pieces to that puzzle: An effective offense AND defense. Without the former you end up like the Bears, 3-0 on SD until they find a clue and paste you; without the latter you end up like the playoff game between KC and Indy (or our game with them last year) where whoever has the ball last wins. In neither case do you ever see a monstrous lead that makes the other guys offense one dimensional; when did we stop running against Indy? Answer: When we kicked the tying FG following Mike Bells THIRD 50 yard run of the game, then kicked off to Indy so they could win with a FG. It also doesn't hurt if your defense can start your drive off with a punt to your 40 (like Indy did on one of their second possession of the second half last year, which, along with our Int at our 12 on the previous one, turned 14-6 to 14-20 and were the game, IMHO.... ) Do that and a lot of those FGs on drives that peter out ten yards short of the goal line are TDs (not all of them, 'cos yards are tough in the red zone whether you get there in 1 play or 100, but a lot). If the offense was punting a lot, or had a lot of TOs (like last year) I could see your argument, but when the offense is scoring consistently, opening leads only to see them evaporate because the D falls apart on every drive, I think the problem lies elsewhere.