PDA

View Full Version : Broncos On Brink Of Colossal Collapse



Lonestar
12-24-2008, 12:20 PM
Arnie Stapleton, AP Sports Writer
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP) ―

A dismal December has the Denver Broncos on the brink of a colossal collapse. Not since division play began in 1967 has a team held a three-game lead with three weeks to go and failed to make the playoffs.

The Broncos (8-7) have led the woeful AFC West by themselves for four months, but they will miss the postseason party altogether with a loss Sunday night at San Diego, which began the month 4-8.

Now it's the Broncos who are reeling and the Chargers rolling -- and they're still a tad ticked off by referee Ed Hochuli's blown call that negated a fumble and cost them a win in Denver in Week 2.

A win Sunday -- Hochuli won't be there -- and the Broncos would become just the fifth team in NFL history to have sole possession of first place in their division after every game in a season. The Tennessee Titans also accomplished the feat when they clinched the AFC South three weeks ago.

These bumbling Broncos are nothing like those terrific Titans.

A better bet is Denver will miss the playoffs for a third straight year for the first time since 1982.

Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing for this bruised and battered bunch that saw its sixth and seventh tailbacks placed on injured reserve this week.

Imagine, say, Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts visiting Invesco Field, where the Broncos have lost to three non-playoff teams this season -- four, if Miami fails to clinch a spot.

Would getting pummeled in the playoffs really be a step in the right direction for Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall, third-year stars and first-time Pro Bowl selections who have never felt an ounce of postseason pressure?

Of course anything can happen on any given Sunday, yada yada yada. As coach Mike Shanahan is fond of saying, you want to play your best football in December so that once you get to the playoffs you can actually do something.

What about the cold weather? The Broncos can't hang their helmets on that, either, not after losing to Buffalo on Sunday in the second-coldest game in franchise history. Shanahan's strategic gaffe reversed momentum and may ultimately cost his team its first playoff appearance since 2005.

The Broncos will head into their most important game in years with a starting running back who has just 163 yards and no touchdowns on 36 carries this season. Tatum Bell was hawking cell phones and wireless plans at a kiosk at the Aurora Mall last month, figuring he'd seen his last days inside an NFL locker room after being caught on security cameras taking his replacement's bags with him when he was waived by the Detroit Lions.

The Broncos' broken backfield gave him a second chance and an opportunity to put his 9-to-5 job on hold.

His backups -- or maybe one of them will leapfrog him in keeping with the season-long theme of throwing new faces into the starting lineup -- are Alex Haynes, who was cut by the Broncos last month, and Cory Boyd, cut by Denver last week. Haynes has three career carries, Boyd none.

"America's Most Dangerous Jobs" has nothing on the Broncos' backfield, which has lost P.J. Pope (hamstring), Selvin Young (back), Ryan Torain (knee), Michael Pittman (spine), Anthony Alridge (leg), Peyton Hillis (hamstring) and Andre Hall (hand) for the season.

Despite giving new meaning to the term "empty backfield," the Broncos pin their hopes on offense, where Cutler has had a breakout season. Cutler has set franchise records with 351 completions for 4,120 yards, a testament to the great protection he's received from a line led by rookie left tackle Ryan Clady.

Marshall is about to become the second wide receiver in franchise history with back-to-back 100-catch seasons, and rookie Eddie Royal is on the cusp of joining Marshall as a 1,000-yard receiver. Cover them and tight ends Tony Scheffler and Daniel Graham can have big games.

That's about where the good news ends for Denver.

The Broncos have more than a dozen players on injured reserve and missed captains D.J. Williams for five weeks and Champ Bailey for seven. Both remain hobbled.

They've started six different free safeties, six different linebackers and six different tailbacks.

Injuries can't explain away everything. There's been some strategic blunders, too.

Two weeks ago, the Broncos trailed by seven in the waning seconds of the first half at Carolina. Instead of taking a knee, Shanahan called for a run and Young fumbled. The Panthers kicked a short field goal and then steamrolled Denver in the second half.

A bigger gaffe came Sunday with the Broncos leading 13-3 with 2 minutes left in the first half against Buffalo. Shanahan decided to go for a 54-yard field goal instead of pinning the Bills deep with a punt. Kicker Matt Prater's limit going north in the pregame warmups was 52 yards.

The kick came up 2 yards shy of the crossbar.

Buffalo capitalized on the miscalculation and the short field for a touchdown just before halftime, then scored the first four times it had the ball in the second half in upsetting the crestfallen Broncos 30-23.

"Obviously, it didn't turn out to be the right decision," Shanahan said.

Neither was the Broncos' resolution to have Prater try a series of squibs and pooches on kickoffs that continually backfired when the Bills kept getting great field position: their average start was their 38. The Broncos never adjusted their approach or their coverage.

"He didn't have one of his best games kicking off," Shanahan said.

And Shanahan and his staff didn't have one of their best days coaching.

The Broncos lost to the Bills despite outgaining them 532 yards to 275.

"I feel like if you hold a team under 300 yards, they shouldn't get 30 points," Bailey said. "So, obviously, the hidden yardage is in the kicking game. We've got to pick it up."

Not just on special teams, where the Broncos miss Jason Elam (two misses this year to Prater's nine). But on defense, which has been dismal all season with no pass rush to speak of, and offense, where they're too predictable and can't capitalize in the red zone.

While owner Pat Bowlen has basically anointed Shanahan coach for life, the fan base is getting restless. The Broncos have won just one playoff game since John Elway hung up his cleats after winning two Super Bowls in the late 1990s.

Shanahan decided to blow up the team and rebuild following a loss to Pittsburgh in the 2005 AFC championship. He handed the ball to Cutler with five games to go in the 2006 season and the playoffs still a possibility. They fell short that year, losing at home to San Francisco when a win would have clinched a playoff berth. That night, cornerback Darrent Williams was slain in a drive-by shooting, a tragedy that hung over the team all last season, when the Broncos went 7-9.

Burned by the likes of Todd Sauerbrun and Travis Henry, the Broncos made a concerted effort to go after high-character players in the offseason. Their work paid off with a dozen rookies -- eight draft picks and four free agents -- who have stepped in and played significant roles, some by merit, others by necessity.

That bodes well for the future, but maybe not so much for this weekend.

Bruised and battered, the Broncos cling to hope.

"We can still win the AFC West," Shanahan said.

This time, though, Hochuli won't be around to save them from themselves.

http://cbs4denver.com/broncos/broncos.chargers.collapse.2.894032.html

NightTrainLayne
12-24-2008, 12:45 PM
"I feel like if you hold a team under 300 yards, they shouldn't get 30 points," Bailey said. "So, obviously, the hidden yardage is in the kicking game. We've got to pick it up."

Wow. That's probably as close as you'll ever get to seeing Champ call someone out in the press.

Northman
12-24-2008, 01:00 PM
Wow. That's probably as close as you'll ever get to seeing Champ call someone out in the press.


Maybe he and company should think about forcing more 3 and outs. :lol:

Medford Bronco
12-24-2008, 01:16 PM
Maybe he and company should think about forcing more 3 and outs. :lol:

How about a pick 6 to help us as we need it :beer::salute:

Fan in Exile
12-24-2008, 01:29 PM
Wow this is a bad article. I just can't believe what some editors let pass these days.

How does he know how many losses the injuries account for? If you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that as the Bronco's running game has gone so has the team.

I would hardly call this team bumbling with all the injuries they've had. Some of the Defense sure, but not the team. He seems to have also bought into the whole loss in the play-offs destroys a team idea, there isn't any proof of that. Has anyone even seen it happen besides in people's fantasies about 2005?

Everybody was sure that we drafted Cutler because Shanny got a chance to coach Peyton in the Pro-bowl that year and realized what he was missing. Now all of a sudden it's the brutal play-off loss causing him to blow up the team.

It's just one theory after another, the only common denominator is that they all give people something to worry about.

I don't want the team taking a knee to end a half, they should try. The problem there wasn't strategy it was fumbling.

Somebody should also force this guy to read TMQ, punting when you're that deep in the other guys territory doesn't pay off. So I have no problem with field goal attempt. At least they're trying.

As far as the complaints about special teams he should read the other piece by Legwold, (I can't believe I'm saying this) which was really good about what the injuries have meant to that unit.

topscribe
12-24-2008, 01:45 PM
I am amazed that people still believe Hochuli caused San Diego's loss in the
last game. That the dolts believe it gives me hope for this game. It goes with
the adage, "A winner produces. He doesn't make excuses."

As I have pointed out many times, the dolts caused their own loss. Instead of
whining and moaning about a blown call, in which they were about to be
given an undeserved victory, anyway (they had nothing to do with Cutler's
dropping the ball while Graham waited, wide open, in the end zone for a two-
yard pass), they could have cinched up their loins and stopped the Broncos in
one of the two next plays. The dolts should be mad at themselves for their
blowing it, not the ref.

The fact is, win or lose this Sunday, the Broncos have shown far more heart
than San Diego this year. Despite nearly half their original team being
unavailable this year because of injury, the Broncos have refused to make one
excuse for anything.

There is no collapse. There are third- and fourth-stringers (and in the case
of RB, seventh- and eighth-stringers) fighting their hearts out every week.
They've lost some games. What the hell would anyone expect?

-----

omac
12-24-2008, 01:52 PM
Wow this is a bad article. I just can't believe what some editors let pass these days.

How does he know how many losses the injuries account for? If you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that as the Bronco's running game has gone so has the team.

I would hardly call this team bumbling with all the injuries they've had. Some of the Defense sure, but not the team. He seems to have also bought into the whole loss in the play-offs destroys a team idea, there isn't any proof of that. Has anyone even seen it happen besides in people's fantasies about 2005?

Everybody was sure that we drafted Cutler because Shanny got a chance to coach Peyton in the Pro-bowl that year and realized what he was missing. Now all of a sudden it's the brutal play-off loss causing him to blow up the team.

It's just one theory after another, the only common denominator is that they all give people something to worry about.

I don't want the team taking a knee to end a half, they should try. The problem there wasn't strategy it was fumbling.

Somebody should also force this guy to read TMQ, punting when you're that deep in the other guys territory doesn't pay off. So I have no problem with field goal attempt. At least they're trying.

As far as the complaints about special teams he should read the other piece by Legwold, (I can't believe I'm saying this) which was really good about what the injuries have meant to that unit.

I agree with most of your points.

While watching the Panthers game, though, I didn't like it that Denver called a timeout to keep more time in the clock so they could try to score before half-time. At the back of my mind, I was thinking "no good can come of this ... then came the fumble lost. :D

I seem to remember in one of the games where we were 3rd and really long (maybe 20 yards?); I was thinking, too risky to pass this far when the defense will be back waiting for the pass. I wanted the Broncos to take the safer rush play (maybe a draw or something), and just get some yards safely, then punt. The call was a pass play, and it was intercepted. The defense was waiting for it.

I understand keeping the drive alive, but sometimes, you have to manage your risks. Bates like to gamble a lot; when it works, we score tons ... when it doesn't, it looks terrible.

Fan in Exile
12-24-2008, 02:00 PM
I agree with most of your points.

While watching the Panthers game, though, I didn't like it that Denver called a timeout to keep more time in the clock so they could try to score before half-time. At the back of my mind, I was thinking "no good can come of this ... then came the fumble lost. :D

I seem to remember in one of the games where we were 3rd and really long (maybe 20 yards?); I was thinking, too risky to pass this far when the defense will be back waiting for the pass. I wanted the Broncos to take the safer rush play (maybe a draw or something), and just get some yards safely, then punt. The call was a pass play, and it was intercepted. The defense was waiting for it.

I understand keeping the drive alive, but sometimes, you have to manage your risks. Bates like to gamble a lot; when it works, we score tons ... when it doesn't, it looks terrible.

I understand what you mean about managing your risks, but I really think especially when you're playing a really good team like the Panthers that you've got to go for it.

I would guess that the coaches wanted a score going in to half time so that we could have some momentum when we cam out, which I totally agree with.

Does anyone know if Young was hurt at that point? I don't know when during the game he got hurt.

omac
12-24-2008, 02:41 PM
I understand what you mean about managing your risks, but I really think especially when you're playing a really good team like the Panthers that you've got to go for it.

I would guess that the coaches wanted a score going in to half time so that we could have some momentum when we cam out, which I totally agree with.

Does anyone know if Young was hurt at that point? I don't know when during the game he got hurt.

I don't know about when that injury happened, but from what I've read, Young has been playing through his former injury for quite a few games. He hasn't come back in full health yet, so though he looked bad running, his injury couldn't have helped.

jlarsiii
12-24-2008, 05:11 PM
I agree with most of your points.

While watching the Panthers game, though, I didn't like it that Denver called a timeout to keep more time in the clock so they could try to score before half-time. At the back of my mind, I was thinking "no good can come of this ... then came the fumble lost. :D

I seem to remember in one of the games where we were 3rd and really long (maybe 20 yards?); I was thinking, too risky to pass this far when the defense will be back waiting for the pass. I wanted the Broncos to take the safer rush play (maybe a draw or something), and just get some yards safely, then punt. The call was a pass play, and it was intercepted. The defense was waiting for it.

I understand keeping the drive alive, but sometimes, you have to manage your risks. Bates like to gamble a lot; when it works, we score tons ... when it doesn't, it looks terrible.

I would not put that entirely on Bates. We have a young QB who has a lot of confidence in his arm strength which tends to get him in trouble from time to time. There have been numerous instances where Cutler threw into coverage and got picked when the checkdown guy was wide open. That is one area I hope to see some improvement in.

topscribe
12-24-2008, 05:14 PM
I would not put that entirely on Bates. We have a young QB who has a lot of confidence in his arm strength which tends to get him in trouble from time to time. There have been numerous instances where Cutler threw into coverage and got picked when the checkdown guy was wide open. That is one area I hope to see some improvement in.

Well, it would seem to me that if Cutler wants to get the ball to Marshall, then
he needs to go to the checkdown guy more. If he does that enough, then the
defense will have to pay more attention to the checkdown guy, which will
open Marshall up. Maybe Cutler needs to realize that a bit more?

-----

SmilinAssasSin27
12-24-2008, 05:22 PM
I dunno about colossal collapse. It'd be one thing if we were talented and healthy, but we aren't. The D is terrible and we can't keep players on the field. Some say choke, I say came back to earth and got hit by the injury bug.

omac
12-25-2008, 03:46 AM
I would not put that entirely on Bates. We have a young QB who has a lot of confidence in his arm strength which tends to get him in trouble from time to time. There have been numerous instances where Cutler threw into coverage and got picked when the checkdown guy was wide open. That is one area I hope to see some improvement in.

True. I'd still have rather we went with a rush play in this particular instance. Bates just doesn't have much confidence in the rushing offense, nor the defense.

In the next game, if we're at a 3rd and 20 situation, calling for a pass play is like asking for an INT ... except for if it works, and then I'll be shouting "great call!" :D

Poet
12-25-2008, 04:55 AM
One could call it a collapse because of the large lead I suppose.

However, when you look at who is playing, it is understood.

I could go with either one.

I will say this; if the Broncos give up a two touchdown lead in the fourth quarter and hand it to the Chargers, then it will be in my opinion a collapse.

God I hope you guys win.

Nature Boy
12-25-2008, 05:22 AM
Wow. That's probably as close as you'll ever get to seeing Champ call someone out in the press.


Maybe he and company should think about forcing more 3 and outs. :lol:


How about a pick 6 to help us as we need it :beer::salute:


How about Champ tell his brother Boss Bailey to get his butt in there and stop the freaking opposing running game.

tomjonesrocks
12-25-2008, 05:56 AM
I am amazed that people still believe Hochuli caused San Diego's loss in the
last game. That the dolts believe it gives me hope for this game. It goes with
the adage, "A winner produces. He doesn't make excuses."

As I have pointed out many times, the dolts caused their own loss. Instead of
whining and moaning about a blown call, in which they were about to be
given an undeserved victory, anyway (they had nothing to do with Cutler's
dropping the ball while Graham waited, wide open, in the end zone for a two-
yard pass), they could have cinched up their loins and stopped the Broncos in
one of the two next plays. The dolts should be mad at themselves for their
blowing it, not the ref.


Here here! As someone who lives in San Diego and has to listen to the fans here non-stop--this is all just SO true and couldn't agree more.

There's some stupidity in this article though.

"A bigger gaffe came Sunday with the Broncos leading 13-3 with 2 minutes left in the first half against Buffalo. Shanahan decided to go for a 54-yard field goal instead of pinning the Bills deep with a punt. Kicker Matt Prater's limit going north in the pregame warmups was 52 yards. The kick came up 2 yards shy of the crossbar."

Then:

"Buffalo capitalized on the miscalculation and the short field for a touchdown just before halftime, then scored the first four times it had the ball in the second half (snip)."
"Obviously, it didn't turn out to be the right decision," Shanahan said.

What? Which of these two events seems more significant? The two-yard miscalculation by Shanahan on the FG or the four consecutive scores?

Fan in Exile
12-25-2008, 09:26 AM
Bronco's first half record 4-4 Second Half 4-3
Dolts first half record 3-5 Second Half 4-3

Do you see where I'm going with this? The Bronco's aren't collapsing. We haven't gotten worse over the second half of the season. We're still the same excellent passing game, injured running game that we've been all season. It's just that the Chargers have a better second half record than they did in the first half. They've caught up to where we are, we didn't fall back to where they are.

Could it have been different if Hillis hadn't gotten injured and we could be talking about our second half surge? I think so. But he did so we are still the same team.

I bring this up so that I won't have to hear all those people complaining about how we always collapse every year. We start strong and finish badly. It's just not true, our second half of the season record is exactly the same as our first half of the season record.

To the guy who is thinking of saying, "all I know is that we had a three game lead and now we are tied," or some such nonsense, if that's all you know, then please don't reply.

The team that lost to the Bills at home is the same team that lost to KC at, I'm just hoping that they're also the team that beat the Falcons on the road.

topscribe
12-25-2008, 11:29 AM
How about Champ tell his brother Boss Bailey to get his butt in there and stop the freaking opposing running game.

The last I looked, Boss was on Injured Reserve . . .

-----

Nature Boy
12-25-2008, 02:32 PM
The last I looked, Boss was on Injured Reserve . . .

-----

No shiet there Sherlocke, can you spell sarcasm?

SmilinAssasSin27
12-25-2008, 03:27 PM
No shiet there Sherlocke, can you spell sarcasm?

Can you spell "Sherlock?"

Nature Boy
12-25-2008, 05:26 PM
Can you spell "Sherlock?"


Ah, you see... that was spelled in French. :D