Bly: Fox's Fumble Recovery For TD 'Blind Luck'

[Lonestar]

By Matthew J. Buettner, cbs4denver.com
DENVER (CBS4) ― After throwing for 357 yards and two touchdowns to lead the Denver Broncos to a 34-17 victory over the New York Jets, Jay Cutler needed a break. So once again he had Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall fill in for him on his CBS4 show Qwest Jay Cutler Live! The guest this week was cornerback Dre' Bly, who had an interception against Brett Favre.

Of course the main discussion on the show was the Broncos roller coaster season. They've lost to teams at the bottom of the league like the Kansas City Chiefs and the Oakland Raiders. Yet they've won three games in a row on the road, including the latest victory against the first place Jets, who were coming off a win over the previously undefeated Tennessee Titans.

"This year has been a little up and down for us. We prove we can play good ball when we just put four quarters together and play consistent," Marshall said.

After the Raiders loss, Marshall described the team as immature. This week he had an explanation for his comment.

"Across the board we are fairly young. When I said that, sometimes we just don't know how to handle success," he said. "With experience, we'll get better at that … coming off a big win, hopefully we can take this momentum into this weekend."

Rain was a big factor in the Jets game and the Broncos handled it well. Cutler made some great throws and the receivers came down with some incredible catches, including Eddie Royal's 59-yard touchdown pass. Royal made an incredible catch, then had the presence of mind to stay inbounds and sprint for the score.

"We've got a quarterback that can spin (the football) in any environment. Jay Cutler has a strong arm and he throws a tight spiral, so whether it's rain, sleet or snow, our game plan is going to stay the same."

Marshall tackled the topic of being a better team on the road as of late.

"It just shows you the character we've got in our locker room. When our backs are against the wall and we're feeling a little adversity, we play hard and we play a little better."

Once again the Broncos seemed to win by spreading the ball around. Just like in Atlanta, the tight ends played a huge role in the win. Tony Scheffler led the team with seven receptions and Daniel Graham was right behind him with six.

Marshall says it's no coincidence.

"Tony and I talked about it during the week. We're always at our best when we spread the ball out. That's what some people don't understand, we can't be selfish. If I have seven catches, Eddie has seven catches, Tony has seven catches … it's a successful day for the Denver Broncos."

Twelve games into the season, the Broncos have seven rookies starting, the entire linebacking corps is out, they are down to their fifth-string running back, and yet they hold a three-game lead in the AFC West.

Two-time Pro Bowler Bly said he thinks it's crazy.

"If you let anybody else say it, they'd say we are playing with guys off the street," Bly said. "With Champ going down, D.J. (Williams), Nate (Jackson); we've had guys step up and play big and the coaches have done a great job making sure guys are prepared."

Bly said he tells the rookies to make sure they take advantage of their opportunity to fill in.

"They've made the most of their opportunity. That's the reason why we're where we are today, because of the way those guys have stepped up," Bly said.

Marshall praised Bly for being an important part in holding together the injury-rattled defense.

"That's what Dre' brings to our locker room … he's been to two Super Bowls, so where we are trying to go, he's been there," Marshall said. "With guys like him, Champ and Ekuban in the locker room, we can't go wrong."

Forced turnovers were key in the win over the Jets. Even though Bly said Vernon Fox's 23-yard fumble recovery for a touchdown the first quarter was "blind luck," he said the coaches have been preaching about winning the turnover battle.

"When we are even or winning the turnover battle, we are winning football games," Bly said. "The games that we lost, we haven't forced any on defense."

Bly was the cornerback burned by Brett Favre and wide receiver Greg Jennings when the Green Bay Packers beat the Broncos on a long bomb on the first play of overtime last year on Monday night. This year, Bly got his revenge on Favre with his second-quarter interception on a long pass.

"I came up and showed that I was going to be in bump-and-run and right before he snapped the ball I bailed out and I just read him. He saw that we had a middle safety and he picked my side, sort of like he did that Monday night last year. I was just on top of it. I was able to make a play."

Bly said that Monday night play was in the past, but he was reminded of it by a fan during training camp.

"Brett you know, he' a Hall of Famer, he's had his days. But I've also had a lot of good days against Brett myself."

Kansas City comes to Invesco Field at Mile High Sunday. Kickoff is at 2:05 p.m. The Chiefs are coming off a 30-13 win over the Raiders in Oakland. The Broncos would like a little payback after losing 33-19 to the Chiefs in Kansas City in Week 4.


http://cbs4denver.com/broncos/bly.marshall.fox.2.878273.html

[topscribe]

Well, that's one thing of which Shanny has reminded us several times. It takes
a little luck. I've seen the ball bounce the wrong way so many times, it's good
to see some serendipity once in a while . . .

-----

[claymore]

Well, that's one thing of which Shanny has reminded us several times. It takes
a little luck. I've seen the ball bounce the wrong way so many times, it's good
to see some serendipity once in a while . . .

-----

To be honest I was kinda pissed it was a fumble, I mean it helped us, But how in the hell wasnt that the jets ball?

[topscribe]

To be honest I was kinda pissed it was a fumble, I mean it helped us, But how in the hell wasnt that the jets ball?

From replays, it just looked to me that the Jets player never really had
complete control of the ball. But it was so close that it would have been right
to some and wrong to others either way.

But the Jets made up for it with their second TD run, where the ball carrier's
arm had to hit the ground. I ran the replay time and again, and I don't believe
there was any way it did not hit the ground. But the refs were probably right
in not overturning the call because it has to be conclusive, and there was no
angle that could make it so.

-----

[LordTrychon]

Well, it's hard to say that it really falls under the 'forced' turnovers category. Couldn't tell from the views we saw though at how well the ball was attacked when the Jets player was on the ground.

Fox did a good job of scooping it up and taking advantage though.

[claymore]

From replays, it just looked to me that the Jets player never really had
complete control of the ball. But it was so close that it would have been right
to some and wrong to others either way.

But the Jets made up for it with their second TD run, where the ball carrier's
arm had to hit the ground. I ran the replay time and again, and I don't believe
there was any way it did not hit the ground. But the refs were probably right
in not overturning the call because it has to be conclusive, and there was no
angle that could make it so.

-----

Or the BS holding call bringing Hillis TD back.

[LRtagger]

"If you let anybody else say it, they'd say we are playing with guys off the street," Bly said. "With Champ going down, D.J. (Williams), Nate (Jackson); we've had guys step up and play big and the coaches have done a great job making sure guys are prepared."]


I think he meant Webster, not Jackson :lol::lol::lol:

[haroldthebarrel]

seven rookies and a playoff team!!!

-11 in turnovers and we still are in the playoff hunt. Even if the division is weak.
I always say a turnover equals 3 points and that is minus 33 points.

I don't think people around the football world realizes how special that is.
We will get better each year.

[Lonestar]

To be honest I was kinda pissed it was a fumble, I mean it helped us, But how in the hell wasn't that the jets ball?

I could not believe the call either, Since he was already on the ground, how could we poke the ball out without touching him first.. unbelievable call IMHO..

[topscribe]

I could not believe the call either, Since he was already on the ground, how could we poke the ball out without touching him first.. unbelievable call IMHO..

It was not a call. It was a non-call. And a correct one. After reviewing it
several times, I could not determine whether the player actually had control
of the ball. If he did not have control, then touching him is not an issue. If,
after reviewing the play, this could not be determined, then I don't know how
the officials could be expected to make the "right" call. So they did the right
thing: nothing. That is what a good ref does when making a call would be
from guesswork. It was inconclusive all the way.

-----

[Zweems56]

It was not a call. It was a non-call. And a correct one. After reviewing it
several times, I could not determine whether the player actually had control
of the ball. If he did not have control, then touching him is not an issue. If,
after reviewing the play, this could not be determined, then I don't know how
the officials could be expected to make the "right" call. So they did the right
thing: nothing. That is what a good ref does when making a call would be
from guesswork. It was inconclusive all the way.

-----

Not that I care or anything, but i'm pretty sure that NY tried to challenge, and the ref stated that the ruling of a fumble was not able to be challenged, so the game continued without.

[topscribe]

Not that I care or anything, but i'm pretty sure that NY tried to challenge, and the ref stated that the ruling of a fumble was not able to be challenged, so the game continued without.

That is correct. I was talking about its being replayed time and again on TV
and my own replaying it several times. That is what I meant by review.

-----

[Lonestar]

I could not believe the call either, Since he was already on the ground, how could we poke the ball out without touching him first.. unbelievable NON call IMHO..


It was not a call. It was a non-call. And a correct one. After reviewing it
several times, I could not determine whether the player actually had control
of the ball. If he did not have control, then touching him is not an issue. If,
after reviewing the play, this could not be determined, then I don't know how
the officials could be expected to make the "right" call. So they did the right
thing: nothing. That is what a good ref does when making a call would be
from guesswork. It was inconclusive all the way.

-----

OK correct to TOPSCRIBE accuracy.

I still do not believe he was not touched while being on the ground..and whether he had total control of the ball or not I saw a an arm from one of our players poking at the ball while he was on the ground.. How that arm did not touch him is beyond my comprehension..

[underrated29]

seriously, all bias aside, i agree with top.

I dont think cothery ever had full possesion. The ball is flopping around under him, even though it looks like it.

Remember royals kick return he dropped, picked it up, dropped it and then jumped on it....But then the ball squirted out again, and he had to jump on it again to finally secure possesion.

I think the same thing happened. No matter if we touched him the ball or his crotch-ery first, he didnt seem to have total control.

[topscribe]

OK correct to TOPSCRIBE accuracy.

I still do not believe he was not touched while being on the ground..and whether he had total control of the ball or not I saw a an arm from one of our players poking at the ball while he was on the ground.. How that arm did not touch him is beyond my comprehension..

JR, if the player did not have control of the ball, it doesn't matter whether or
not he was touched. Until control of the ball could be determined, that is a
moot issue.

-----

[Zweems56]

That is correct. I was talking about its being replayed time and again on TV
and my own replaying it several times. That is what I meant by review.

-----

Misread you based on your use of the word inconclusive in your earlier post =P

[honz]

I could not believe the call either, Since he was already on the ground, how could we poke the ball out without touching him first.. unbelievable call IMHO..
I think the officials thoght that he didn't have control of the ball when he was touched since the ball squirted out almost simultaneously with when Doom (I think it was Doom) stuck his arm in there. It's a call that could have gone either way...although, I still don't understand why it wasn't reviewable.

Edit: I guess I was a little slow on the ball. Top pretty much covered it.

[NightTrainLayne]

I think the officials thoght that he didn't have control of the ball when he was touched since the ball squirted out almost simultaneously with when Doom (I think it was Doom) stuck his arm in there. It's a call that could have gone either way...although, I still don't understand why it wasn't reviewable.

Edit: I guess I was a little slow on the ball. Top pretty much covered it.

I think that recovery is not reviewable. I.E. Had they ruled that he recovered it, it wouldn't be reviewable either, because presumably the whistle would have blown on the recovery.

[NightTrainLayne]

I think that recovery is not reviewable. I.E. Had they ruled that he recovered it, it wouldn't be reviewable either, because presumably the whistle would have blown on the recovery.

Although, as I think about that, that's not exactly right. .. if no-one was touching him at the time the whistle wouldn't blow. But all the same, I don't think recovery is something reviewable either way.

[BroncoWave]

Or the BS holding call bringing Hillis TD back.

That was the right call. Weigmann had his jersey and was pulling him.

[LawDog]

That was the right call. Weigmann had his jersey and was pulling him.

Casey's hands were inside, that is usually the deciding factor. Jerseys are grabbed on every, yes every, play from scrimmage. Casey had moved to his left, rotated and had position when Hillis ran by. It was "technically" holding just like driving 26 mph in a 25 mph zone is "technically" speeding. Ticky tack call that 98 times out of 100 is never called.

[haroldthebarrel]

If anybody whines about holding they should take the effort to watch a whole game and focus solely on Dumervil. I have seen linemen grab his facemask and not being called.

As the poster above said. Holding happens on every play. Walther Jones holds, even so Ware had two sacks on him I believe.
Clady holds. Everybody holds. The thing that makes it a problem is how differently (read arbitrary) umpires throw the flag.

[Lonestar]

If anybody whines about holding they should take the effort to watch a whole game and focus solely on Dumervil. I have seen linemen grab his facemask and not being called.

As the poster above said. Holding happens on every play. Walther Jones holds, even so Ware had two sacks on him I believe.
Clady holds. Everybody holds. The thing that makes it a problem is how differently (read arbitrary) umpires throw the flag.

used to play OG and if the hands were not taped to the point of not being able to get the Jersey in your hands there was indeed a hold on every play..

The only way it was not was a mistake.. Tried pine tar one game but got flagged alot when it was left on the Defenders jerseys.. Cleans my hands at half time.. the pine tar was still on the jersey so he was an easy game in the second half..

MY HS coach had been a OT for the broncos before his knees went.. So got the right coaching on HOW TO..

[topscribe]

used to play OG and if the hands were not taped to the point of not being able to get the Jersey in your hands there was indeed a hold on every play..

The only way it was not was a mistake.. Tried pine tar one game but got flagged alot when it was left on the Defenders jerseys.. Cleans my hands at half time.. the pine tar was still on the jersey so he was an easy game in the second half..

MY HS coach had been a OT for the broncos before his knees went.. So got the right coaching on HOW TO..

It is a little different now, though. If the hands are inside the shoulders, a
little grabbing is usually allowed. I think the problem was that the refs weren't
used to seeing Jenkins blocked so effectively, so they assumed holding
somewhat. Wiegmann did have hold of the jersey, but it was in the chest
area, as I remember. I don't think it would have been called with a lesser
nose tackle.

-----

[bengaaaaals1688]

It is a little different now, though. If the hands are inside the shoulders, a
little grabbing is usually allowed. I think the problem was that the refs weren't
used to seeing Jenkins blocked so effectively, so they assumed holding
somewhat. Wiegmann did have hold of the jersey, but it was in the chest
area, as I remember. I don't think it would have been called with a lesser
nose tackle.

-----

It also depends on the way in which it happens. Obviously I didn't see the play, but if Wiegmann had been holding the jersey and Jenkins had pushed through somewhere forcing Wiegmann to extend his arms past himself, or to turn Jenkins where he wouldn't be able to, they will still call holding. The easiest holding is when the hands are on the outside, but there are many instances in which a ref will call it if the hands are on the inside depending on the movements of each player.

[topscribe]

It also depends on the way in which it happens. Obviously I didn't see the play, but if Wiegmann had been holding the jersey and Jenkins had pushed through somewhere forcing Wiegmann to extend his arms past himself, or to turn Jenkins where he wouldn't be able to, they will still call holding. The easiest holding is when the hands are on the outside, but there are many instances in which a ref will call it if the hands are on the inside depending on the movements of each player.

Well, you've introduced a new slant, and I would have to go back and review
the play again before I could comment further, which I'm not going to do at
this point because I'm tired and short on time. Maybe someone else would be
interested in doing that.

-----

[Superchop 7]

Well, you've introduced a new slant, and I would have to go back and review
the play again before I could comment further, which I'm not going to do at
this point because I'm tired and short on time. Maybe someone else would be
interested in doing that.

-----

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

He took it too far.......bottom line.....I would have thrown it too.

Used a pulling motion to keep him out of the play.

[LordTrychon]

It also depends on the way in which it happens. Obviously I didn't see the play, but if Wiegmann had been holding the jersey and Jenkins had pushed through somewhere forcing Wiegmann to extend his arms past himself, or to turn Jenkins where he wouldn't be able to, they will still call holding. The easiest holding is when the hands are on the outside, but there are many instances in which a ref will call it if the hands are on the inside depending on the movements of each player.

As I remember it, He had his hands on him when Jenkins made a failed lunge at Hillis. This pulled Wiegmann's hands about 6 inches or maybe a slight bit more to his left while he still had a grip.

I thought it was ticky tacky but technically correct.

[fcspikeit]

Well, you've introduced a new slant, and I would have to go back and review
the play again before I could comment further, which I'm not going to do at
this point because I'm tired and short on time. Maybe someone else would be
interested in doing that.

-----

Here is the thing, it was a good call, he had a hand full of jersey. The problem is, they do that every play! It's exactly like the super bowl Pitt won. You can't say the refs made bad calls because they didn't, but they sure as hell were only calling it one way.

I believe they say it's a legal hold as long as it's in the framework of the body. So technically the penalty shouldn't be called holding, it should be called illegal holding.

From what I seen, he grabbed and pulled Jenkins to his body, Jenkins tried to slide right to get away, he broke the framework of Wiegmann body just before he reliesed him. It was very close, but by the rule I believe it could have been called holding.

On the Jets possession before that call, when they got the long kick return, Lowry was held worse then that. The guy had him inside the framework of his body, lowry turned to run after the returner turning the block. Then it was clearly outside the body. Yet there was no call. Doom was held multiple times, yet they never called it.

The crap thing about it being legal as long as it's inside the framework of the body is, How do you call it when they have a hold and the defender is trying to run away from the blocker? It's one thing when their trying to go through the blocker. But it should always be called when their trying to run away.

Another thing, Marshall was held so many times, yet they never called one. Seriously, I could cover Marshall if they let me hold his Jersey all the way through the rout. They simply have to do something about taking PI calls out of the refs discretion.

It used to be the defender had a right to make a play on the ball, to catch it. Now it seems as long as they are looking back at the ball, they can run through the receiver even if their only trying to knock it down. on the other hand, I seen one defender get called for face guarding because he swiped at the ball, just because he wasn't looking back. Also, if the receiver can only get one hand up to catch the ball because the defender has a hold of the other one, that should be interference. Even if the receiver moves his hand up into the defenders. He has a right to deflect the ball, not keep the receiver from being able to catch it. It is contacting the receiver before the ball gets there, how could it not be?


I know the rules will never be perfect, no matter what. But IMO, the least you can leave up to the refs discretion the better off it would be. They can decide a game because they call everything on one team and not the other. Just like Pitt's super bowl. The head official on NFLN said, as the rules read, the calls made against the Hawks were good calls. Where the question comes in, is why were the same calls not being called against Pitt? The only thing you can say is they weren't being seen, we have to trust the officials when they say they didn't see them..

The rules are pretty wide open, if they want they can and will find a way to call something and it be the right call. The way it is set up, they don't have to make bad calls, Instead they can decide a game by missing calls.

[bengaaaaals1688]

As I remember it, He had his hands on him when Jenkins made a failed lunge at Hillis. This pulled Wiegmann's hands about 6 inches or maybe a slight bit more to his left while he still had a grip.

I thought it was ticky tacky but technically correct.

It probably was a little ticky tack, but that is a hold by the definition of it. It all depends on what the ref sees and when, which is one part of why they don't call a hold on every play. They all know it happens every play, but if it isn't a blatant hold that they can see quickly, it probably won't be called, even if it is blatant to us sitting at home.